School voucher support and demographics

[Meadmaker]

In the early discussion in this thread a lot of attention has been focused on the impact of school vouchers on the quality of the schools. That's understandable, and I certainly have opinions on that subject, but that isn't what I was emphasizing in this thread, nor is it my primary reason for supporting vouchers. My support stems from the impact on neighborhoods.

If you live in the City of Detroit and your kid attends public school, your child will be attending a school where drugs and violence are rampant. His classmates will, with few exceptions, be low achievers. Therefore, when your child turns four years old, you will go house shopping in the suburbs unless you can afford private school. I've seen it again and again, and I've done it myself. Thios leaves people who either can't solve their own problems, or don't care to. That won't result in a decent neighborhood. To improve the neighborhood, you have to keep families in it.

It wouldn't matter if you hired a private tutor for every child, gave them all spiffy laptops, and had desks made of gold. The schools would still be awful, because everyone who could afford to leave, did.

I have three main contentions.

1. The public school system in America contributes to the economic and racial segregation that is a feature of American cities.

2. School vouchers would help reduce that segregation.

3. There is no more effective way to address the problem.

What does everyone else think?

 

[Tricky]

If you live in the City of Detroit and your kid attends public school, your child will be attending a school where drugs and violence are rampant. His classmates will, with few exceptions, be low achievers. Therefore, when your child turns four years old, you will go house shopping in the suburbs unless you can afford private school. I've seen it again and again, and I've done it myself. Thios leaves people who either can't solve their own problems, or don't care to. That won't result in a decent neighborhood. To improve the neighborhood, you have to keep families in it.

It wouldn't matter if you hired a private tutor for every child, gave them all spiffy laptops, and had desks made of gold. The schools would still be awful, because everyone who could afford to leave, did.

I have three main contentions.

1. The public school system in America contributes to the economic and racial segregation that is a feature of American cities.

2. School vouchers would help reduce that segregation.

3. There is no more effective way to address the problem.

What does everyone else think?

1. Disagree. The public school system in America is the result of economic and racial segregation, not the cause.

2. Disagree. For vouchers to be effective, it would have to move all of the kids from "bad neighborhoods" into better schools or else it would be unfair to those left behind. In order to do this, you would have to force private schools to accept kids they didn't want. You would simply be moving the public school problem into the private schools.

3. Disagree. If you are going to enforce mixing of ethnic and economic classes in schools, you might as well do it in public schools. If not, you wind up with parallel systems which will be much more difficult to monitor and require twice the bureaucracy.

 

[Tricky]

Well, it depends on what is done with the 'extra' money.

If, out of the $10,000 available for education, only $7,500 gets transfered to the new or private school, then that remaining $2,500 could be reinvested back into the 'poorer' school the student was originally supposed to go to. That increases the per-capita funding of students at poorer school (which can only help). Of course, I'm not sure if that's going to encourage schools to get rid of students (so they can get the remaining funding), but the idea has some merit... the parents who want a private education can afford it, middle income people may be able to afford private schools where they couldn't before, and any parents who still could not afford or did not wish to use private schools has their kid going to a school with more resources than they'd otherwise have.

If education were a fungible commodity, that might make some sense, but it is not as if the school board saves a ton of money for every student it doesn't have to educate. Unless you are going to close a lot of schools (which can lead to other problems) you still have to rent buildings, pay teachers for each subject, provide heat and electricity etc.

Also I'm very unclear on the economics of what you propose. If you take a student out of public school and put him in private school, you are still removing (in your example) $7,500 from the public school system. I'm also unclear as to who receives these vouchers. Is it need based? If you make it universal, you are simply reimbursing rich people part of the cost of sending their kids to private school, which I strongly oppose.

I also see no solution in any of the voucher programs that deals with problem kids. Public schools have to take them. Unless you force private schools to take them as well, then you wind up with a concentration of almost nothing but problem kids in private schools. If you're going to do that, you might as well just save a step, put up razor wire and turn them into prisons because you're just making an underculture of undesirables in our public schools.

Yeah, that last bit is somewhat over the top, I admit, but it is an extreme extrapolation of a genuine problem with vouchers.

 

[rtalman]

I also see no solution in any of the voucher programs that deals with problem kids. Public schools have to take them.

I don't know about the school system in Texas, but here in my school district "problem" kids are removed from the standard middle schools and high schools and placed in alternative schools. The public school system has to educate them, but the mainstream schools do not have to take them.

 

[Tricky]

I don't know about the school system in Texas, but here in my school district "problem" kids are removed from the standard middle schools and high schools and placed in alternative schools. The public school system has to educate them, but the mainstream schools do not have to take them.

Do you mean "reform schools"?

By problem kids, I mean dicipline problems, not necessarily learning disabled. From what I've heard of reform schools, they are little more than training grounds for criminals. I admit, the problem of what to do with such children is one that no school system has been able to solve, but most of the private schools do not even make an attempt.

 

[rtalman]

Do you mean "reform schools"?

By problem kids, I mean dicipline problems, not necessarily learning disabled. From what I've heard of reform schools, they are little more than training grounds for criminals. I admit, the problem of what to do with such children is one that no school system has been able to solve, but most of the private schools do not even make an attempt.

In my day it was called the "continuation" school. Now they call it the "alternative learning" school. I was threatened with placement at continuation more than once for habitual truancy when I was in middle school. It is not nearly what is conjured up when you think of reform schools. Think more along the lines of a Voc-Tech school, with more emphasis on getting the students educated enough to hold a decent job, and less on traditional curricula.

Naturally, there are a lot of hard cases there, but it is not like something out of that Sean Penn movie Bad Boys.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If this thread is only about segregation, I hardly see how private schooling will change anything.

Statistically, the lower socio-economic status students will perform lower than those of higher socio-economic status. The better students will get into the top private schools, while the lower performing students will be left to the lower schools.

If you talk about actual school improvement, vouchers suck.

Statistically, once you control for socio-economic factors, private schools perform the same as public schools.

The people who support vouchers are upper-class a-holes who want to privatize everything. They don't give a damn about education.

See, I can make blanket statements too .

 

[Meadmaker]

1. Disagree. The public school system in America is the result of economic and racial segregation, not the cause.

When my friends left the city of Detroit rather than send their kids to school there, we could argue whether they were causing problems or fleeing from them. Either way, if they had stayed, there would be less segregation, but they didn't, and that isn't going to stop, no matter how much money is spent on an attempt to improve the schools.

2. Disagree. For vouchers to be effective, it would have to move all of the kids from "bad neighborhoods" into better schools or else it would be unfair to those left behind.

I think something can be effective, but "unfair". Besides, if they are "left behind", they are left behind by choice.

In order to do this, you would have to force private schools to accept kids they didn't want. You would simply be moving the public school problem into the private schools.

That's the way it is done in Milwaukee, and that didn't happen there. A voucher school in Milwaukee (the largest and longest running voucher program in America) can't pick and choose their kids, and all the schools got better in Milwaukee when vouchers were put it.

The largest voucher system is in Sweden. I don't know whether they are allowed to pick and choose among students there.

3. Disagree. If you are going to enforce mixing of ethnic and economic classes in schools, you might as well do it in public schools. If not, you wind up with parallel systems which will be much more difficult to monitor and require twice the bureaucracy.

"Enforce"? I think "enable" is a better term. Today, there is segregation because poor people can't afford my house in my neighborhood. They can afford the same house in their neighborhood. With vouchers, they would be able to send their kid to a school of their choice in their neighborhood, if one existed, or in my neighborhood, if not. They still couldn't afford my house just yet, but over time there would be less incentive for people to live in my neighborhood instead of theirs, which would tend to lower property values in my neighborhood, and raise them in theirs.

 

[Meadmaker]

If this thread is only about segregation, I hardly see how private schooling will change anything.

The people who left the city of Detroit when their kids turned four did so because they didn't want their kids in the bad schools there. With vouchers, some of them would have stayed, making the neighborhood less segregated.

If you talk about actual school improvement, vouchers suck.

Statistically, once you control for socio-economic factors, private schools perform the same as public schools.

Let me summarize the statistics I've read.

Pro-voucher side: After vouchers went in, we measured the kids' performance. The public schools got better, but they didn't catch up to the private schools, which also improved.

Anti-voucher side: If you control for the proper variables the schools performed equally.

Even if you accept the statistical adjustments made by the anti-voucher side, there's still some explaining to do, isn't there?

 

[Tricky]

When my friends left the city of Detroit rather than send their kids to school there, we could argue whether they were causing problems or fleeing from them. Either way, if they had stayed, there would be less segregation, but they didn't, and that isn't going to stop, no matter how much money is spent on an attempt to improve the schools.

It seems you agree that the segregation of Detroit is not due to the schools, at least, not in the whole.

I think something can be effective, but "unfair". Besides, if they are "left behind", they are left behind by choice.

Sometimes it is by parental choice. Kids pay the price for having lazy parents. With public schools, this is less of a problem.

That's the way it is done in Milwaukee, and that didn't happen there. A voucher school in Milwaukee (the largest and longest running voucher program in America) can't pick and choose their kids, and all the schools got better in Milwaukee when vouchers were put it.

There is a great deal of controversy as to how effective the Milwaukee voucher program has been. One thing is certain though. It is not just vouchers. There was a bit of a cash input as well.

the experiences of the nearly 14,000 students now served by choice schools at a cost this year to taxpayers of $83 million.

If you spend more, you get better schools. This is not big news.

This is especially disturbing though:

The amount of taxpayer money going to pay for religious education in Milwaukee has no parallel in the last century of American life. About 70% of the students in the program attend religious schools.
***
If any single factor distinguishes the families and parents at the choice schools from those in MPS, it is religion. Students in the choice program pray together in class. They read the Bible, the Qur'an or the Torah. They attend Mass. Most schools report that even students from families outside of their faith accept - and seek out - religion as part of education.

This amounts to government subsidization of religion. I don't mind paying for taxes for education. I don't want to pay for religious indoctrination.

"Enforce"? I think "enable" is a better term. Today, there is segregation because poor people can't afford my house in my neighborhood. They can afford the same house in their neighborhood. With vouchers, they would be able to send their kid to a school of their choice in their neighborhood, if one existed, or in my neighborhood, if not. They still couldn't afford my house just yet, but over time there would be less incentive for people to live in my neighborhood instead of theirs, which would tend to lower property values in my neighborhood, and raise them in theirs.

I don't see that this has anything to do with vouchers. If you give people money, they are able to move up socioeconomically. It matters little if you subsidize their education or their food. Actually, it does matter some. With vouchers, only families with children benefit from this influx of money into the family budget.

I give Milwaukee kudos for their willingness to plow so much money into education. I wish my state would do that. I would prefer a system that is more equitable. But living in Texas, that is simply not gonna happen. They hate taxes here. What I want is an example of a voucher program that works but costs the same as public education.

 

[Admiral]

Honest question to opponents of vouchers- do you believe we would have a better restaurant system if areas were sliced up into districts, and each one had a state-run food court that got the same amount of money whether or not people ate there, and therefore didn't care whether they had good quality at all?

 

[Tricky]

Honest question to opponents of vouchers- do you believe we would have a better restaurant system if areas were sliced up into districts, and each one had a state-run food court that got the same amount of money whether or not people ate there, and therefore didn't care whether they had good quality at all?

No.

Of course, that has nothing to do with public schools. If you think they don't care if they have good quality, you are maligining some of the most dedicated people in the world.

 

[Beth]

I for one don't want my tax dollars supporting Scientologist or Mormon fundamentalists schools.

I don't even want them supporting Catholic schools. I want a well defined curriculum with specific standards for teachers and for student advancement. I also want no religious dogma of any kind. In short, just like public schools.

I oppose school vouchers because I do not think that my taxes should be used to support religious schooling.

And I completely agree with the concerns about tax dollars going to religiously-based schools. That should not be permitted.

I understand that a lot of people on this forum do not like the idea of their tax dollars going to support religious education. My take on it is that my tax dollars are going to support education period. As long as the school is providing a good education and meeting all curriculum requirements, I don't think whether they add in religion is any of my business, as long as the parents of the children are aware of the religious aspects of the education they provide and have other options available to them if they don't like the religious aspects of it.

I see objections to tax dollars funding education at religious schools as being akin to objections to tax dollars funding medical care at religious hospitals. It is not the concern of those paying for the services (i.e. taxpayers) if such institutions provide religious services in addition to the medical or educational services taxpayers are funding.

I do understand and agree that there is a legimate concern in regards to taxing people and then spending the money to educate children in a way that people find morally objectionable. However, I place the same weight on atheists objections to religious training that I do to with the objections that young earth creationist believers have to their tax-dollars funding classes in evolution. The only way I can see to resolve such legimate concerns is to cease all public funding of education. I don't think that will improve our educational system and the reason I support vouchers is because I believe it has potential to improve our educational system.

 

[Meadmaker]

It seems you agree that the segregation of Detroit is not due to the schools, at least, not in the whole.

Not in the whole, but it can never end, or even get better, with the school system the way it is. People with four year old children who can afford to leave will keep leaving as long as the only choice they have is to go to public schools. They are leaving. They are leaving because of the schools. They aren't going to stop leaving unless there is an alternative.

Sometimes it is by parental choice. Kids pay the price for having lazy parents. With public schools, this is less of a problem.

I fully agree with the first two sentences, but that last one earns a .

It seems like you think equality is better than inequality, even if that means everything is equally bad. I would prefer to give the not so lazy ones an opportunity to change their situations, even if that's "unfair" to the ones "left behind". Moreover, if you have no choice, it's an incentive to not be lazy in the first place. If parents choose the school to which their youngsters go, they will feel more invested in that school.

There is a great deal of controversy as to how effective the Milwaukee voucher program has been. One thing is certain though. It is not just vouchers. There was a bit of a cash input as well.

14,000 students. 83 million dollars. That's less than 6,000 bucks per student. That's less than a typical public school cost.

This is especially disturbing though:
This amounts to government subsidization of religion. I don't mind paying for taxes for education. I don't want to pay for religious indoctrination.

And that's the crux of the matter. (Pun intended) Who cares whether or not they are reading better? They are reading the Bible!!!!!

For my money, I don't care what they read as long as they read, but I understand this is a big issue for some. For me, I wouldn't care if religious schools were excluded. They were in Milwaukee when the program started, but a judge decided that was unconstitutional. Of course, this blatant judicial activism was oddly not met by storms of protest from the right wing.

I don't see that this has anything to do with vouchers. If you give people money, they are able to move up socioeconomically.

The parents don't get the money. The way vouchers affect the economic conditions is that I currently pay a premium for my house based on its location. The primary benefit of that location is that my kid doesn't have to attend school with the riff-raff. If I could live in my old neighborhood, but still send my kid to a school that I liked, I wouldn't be willing to pay 100,000 dollars more for my house. This would lower demand in my neighborhood, and raise it in the old neighborhood, without transferring any money to anyone.

With vouchers, only families with children benefit from this influx of money into the family budget.

Again, there is no influx of money. Now, public schools are free. With vouchers, public schools would be free and private schools would be free or cheaper, depending on how the rules are written. (In Sweden, a voucher school is not allowed to charge any amount above the cost of the voucher. I can't recall how Milwaukee does it. I believe they are allowed to charge parents.)

What I want is an example of a voucher program that works but costs the same as public education.

From your figures, Milwaukee is about the same. Cleveland is cheaper. Sweden is exactly equal, by law. I don't know of any other voucher programs currently operating.

 

[Tricky]

The way I read that article, the voucher was an $83 million additional input, not money that was taken out of school taxes. So it wasn't $6000 per student, it was an extra $6000 per student.

I could be wrong and will admit it if given evidence.

 

[Meadmaker]

The way I read that article, the voucher was an $83 million additional input, not money that was taken out of school taxes. So it wasn't $6000 per student, it was an extra $6000 per student.

I could be wrong and will admit it if given evidence.

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_03/Cash163.shtml

The schools' voucher payments are not based on tuition. Instead, a school's payment is determined based on reports it submits to the state that establish the per-pupil cost the school incurs in educating children. The state pays that amount for each voucher student to the private school, with the payment capped at what MPS received in per-pupil state aid. The maximum payment in 1998-99 was $4,894. It rose to $5,106 in 1999-2000 and $5,326 in 2000-01.

For those not interested in following the link, it's an anti-voucher article. The writers are distressed that some voucher schools are finding loopholes that let them get a voucher that ends up being less than or equal to the state portion of public school funding.

 

[Tricky]

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_03/Cash163.shtml


For those not interested in following the link, it's an anti-voucher article. The writers are distressed that some voucher schools are finding loopholes that let them get a voucher that ends up being less than or equal to the state portion of public school funding.

It does appear that some of the money comes from money that would otherwise be spent on public schools, but also that there are a lot of costs that require additional input. This is not surprising. They are essentially required to maintain two separate school systems. You cannot give vouchers without having measures in place that assure that the schools are doing a reasonable job. The voucher program does not appear to be "free". As I say, I commend Milwaukee for putting up extra cash for education. I have not seen any strong evidence that it was money well-spent.

 

[Meadmaker]

It does appear that some of the money comes from money that would otherwise be spent on public schools but also that there are a lot of costs that require additional input.

Did you read this somewhere, or are you just sure that it must be costing something somewhere?

And what about those parents who leave town rather than send their kids to public schools in large cities?

 

[Meadmaker]

What other characteristics do they have? Are they more educated? Are they less religious? What are the statistics for those with children as opposed to without?

I am in the second group, and do not agree with your explanation.

I oppose school vouchers because I do not think that my taxes should be used to support religious schooling.

I think that this so-called analysis is missing a lot of correlating factors.

Perhaps it's just coincidence that their principles are in line with their pocketbooks.

 

[pgwenthold]

Perhaps it's just coincidence that their principles are in line with their pocketbooks.

There are a LOT of things that "are in line" with our pocketbooks.

Amount of education, for example. Similarly, there is a correlation between amount of education and lack of religiousness, right? Hence, there will be a correlation between wealth and lack of religousness. Now, who is more likely to object to vouchers on grounds of not supporting religion: poor, religious people or wealthy, non-religious people?

And when it is the latter, why attribute it to the wealth as opposed to the obvious reason?