School voucher support and demographics

[Meadmaker]

I live just inside its area and will have to move in order to send my son to one of the other schools.

And that, in a nutshell, is what our school system has created. Does anyone think it ought to be that way? That people should move in order to attend a school that suits their fancy? Or, if they can't afford to move, that they are stuck with what they've got?

That is the reality today. There's no denying it. BD is like me, and my friends, and countless others. He will move, because he can, away from a neighborhood which will be left with others who did not move, because they could not. Segregation is the inevitable consequence of our current system.

So, how to change it?

We could provide school choice, in which case no one would be forced by geographical circumstances to attend a bad school.

However, some will say, a better choice would be to fix the poor schools. Make them better.

I see two problems with that. First, does anyone want bad schools? I think the answer is no. Despite that, there are bad schools. Why? Lack of money is often cited, but you will find that the worst schools often have very high spending per pupil. It certainly isn't as simple as spending money. I don't have the answer, but my point is that no one does. If they did, they would fix the problem. Obviously, they can't.

Second, I suspect that I understand the problem. The problem is not the schools, or the teachers, the facilities or administrators. Bad schools are bad because there are bad students, just like pwengthold noted that good schools are good because they are filled with children of highly educated parents. It isn't hard to figure out. If you base the school attendance on geography, there will always be an incentive to move to an area where more high achievers live, and since those areas will be more desirable, there will always be a financial premium to live there, which will perpetuate the economic segregation we have today.

So it has been ever since the invention of the automobile allowed people to live one place and work another. Before then, the laborers and managers and merchants had to live close to each other and all except the richest had to go to the same schools. Our ability to commute to work ended that. Now, the elite can live in one place, and drive to work, where they will meet the not so elite, and at the end of the day, they will drive their separate ways. I don't see any way of ending that completely, but I don't see any reason we should aggravate the situation by demanding that you attend the same school as your neighbors.

 

[Mycroft]

I see two problems with that. First, does anyone want bad schools? I think the answer is no. Despite that, there are bad schools. Why? Lack of money is often cited, but you will find that the worst schools often have very high spending per pupil. It certainly isn't as simple as spending money. I don't have the answer, but my point is that no one does. If they did, they would fix the problem. Obviously, they can't.

One of the reason private schools are as successful as they are is they have the option of turning away the bad students. The public school, where my daughter attends, is required to accommodate everyone, from the discipline problem to the severely disabled who needs special care.

Vouchers don't address these people, they just make it easier for the wealthy to insulate their kids from them.

Sure, I chose my house because of the school district it's in. Without that consideration, I'd be living somewhere much more urban and much less expensive.

So it has been ever since the invention of the automobile allowed people to live one place and work another. Before then, the laborers and managers and merchants had to live close to each other and all except the richest had to go to the same schools. Our ability to commute to work ended that. Now, the elite can live in one place, and drive to work, where they will meet the not so elite, and at the end of the day, they will drive their separate ways. I don't see any way of ending that completely, but I don't see any reason we should aggravate the situation by demanding that you attend the same school as your neighbors.

I know people who struggle just to pay the additional fees having a kid in school requires. These are not people who would be able to come up with thousands of extra dollars to cover the gap between their voucher and private school tuition every semester. Under a voucher program, their kids would be left behind in public schools made worse by the diversion of funds to private schools and the concentration of the problem students. It seems to me that would create a greater stratification of society.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I applaud Meadmaker for pointing out the issue with bad students. My parents are/were teachers and I've had a fair bit of involvement with various school systems in different capacities.

The school system is only as good as the students going to it. I know some students who simply do not care. In some student populations hatred of authority is rampant and failing scores are a mark of status/credibility.

In others, parents have explicitly told their children to give up. A teacher friend of mine recounted the battles she lost with a parent who refused to let his child do homework because he should be working in the family business. The kid wanted to go to college, but after a few grades of his parents telling him college was for liberals and not honest working people, he gave up. It was typical for the area (yay red states).

To figure out why a school performs the way it does the first thing to look at is the culture it exists in. Does the district as a whole have a culture focused on education? athleticism? anti-intellectualism? apathy?

This is the baseline that all other factors build upon, from the teachers to the funding to the administrators. All have an effect on the running of the school, but the students, parents and community are all products of the local culture and are the base material for them to work with.

As others noted before, private schools have an advantage as they can filter out the students who retain aspects of the culture counter-productive to education. Public schools have very limited options in that regard. What needs to happen is that the public schools need to be strengthened so that they can overcome their disadvantages, ideally serving even those children whose parents wouldn't care enough to use a voucher to send them to a better school.

I've got some ideas on that nature as far as multi-track curriculum based on periodic testing, with the focus shifted from school years to quarters in order to facilitate movement between different tracks.

 

[Meadmaker]

One of the reason private schools are as successful as they are is they have the option of turning away the bad students. The public school, where my daughter attends, is required to accommodate everyone, from the discipline problem to the severely disabled who needs special care.

I think the experience of one of the people on my block is relevant. We know them, but we don't like them all that much, if the truth be told.

The child in the family is a problem child. He went to private school, or perhaps I should say "schools", because he got kicked out of at least two of them. After that, I don't know what they did, whether they got him professional help, or whether the mother (no father at home) just managed to find something in herself, but the kid straightened out. He has been at his current school for two years now, and isn't such a rotten kid. I can't prove it, but I think being thrown out was a wake up call, and necessary for this kid's development.

Public schools shouldn't have to put up with the worst of the worst, either.

I know people who struggle just to pay the additional fees having a kid in school requires. These are not people who would be able to come up with thousands of extra dollars to cover the gap between their voucher and private school tuition every semester.

Why must there be a gap? In Sweden, the law is that a voucher school cannot charge more than the cost of the voucher, which is set to be equal to the amount the state pays per pupil. It works there.

 

[Billdave2]

One of the reason private schools are as successful as they are is they have the option of turning away the bad students. The public school, where my daughter attends, is required to accommodate everyone, from the discipline problem to the severely disabled who needs special care.

Vouchers don't address these people, they just make it easier for the wealthy to insulate their kids from them.

Sure, I chose my house because of the school district it's in. Without that consideration, I'd be living somewhere much more urban and much less expensive.

I know people who struggle just to pay the additional fees having a kid in school requires. These are not people who would be able to come up with thousands of extra dollars to cover the gap between their voucher and private school tuition every semester. Under a voucher program, their kids would be left behind in public schools made worse by the diversion of funds to private schools and the concentration of the problem students. It seems to me that would create a greater stratification of society.

Not all private schools are for the children of the rich and powerful. There are private schools that cater to "problem" children as well. Like I said before, school is not a one size fits all kind of thing. What we need are more choices in types of schools, arts schools, science schools, schools for "problem" kids. There is no way the public school system can provide this. Having choices allows schools to try new ways of teaching that public schools can't or won't try. They use voucher systems in many european countries already. As Meadmaker says, there are ways to do this that do not require it to only be benificial to the rich. Right now they are the only ones who can afford to send there kids to private schools. Don't the poor and middle class deserve to be able to send there kids to the best schools?

 

[Meadmaker]

There are private schools that cater to "problem" children as well.

I believe, although I would have to look it up to be sure, that Georgia and Florida currently have voucher programs in place that are only available for special needs kids who cannot be served effectively by public schools.

They use voucher systems in many european countries already.

Do you know which ones? I'm aware of Sweden, but I did't know of others.

 

[Alt+F4]

Thought for the day. We actually already have school vouchers, on a national level. When I bought my house in my expensive suburb so that my kid could go to a high quality public school, I took out a mortgage that was a lot higher than the one in the neighborhood across the freeway. That means higher interest payments. The government gives me a tax break on the interest I pay. Thank you, taxpayers, for subsidizing my decision to send my kid to a high quality public school.

What about the folks that live in the expensive suburb and rent?

 

[Billdave2]

I believe, although I would have to look it up to be sure, that Georgia and Florida currently have voucher programs in place that are only available for special needs kids who cannot be served effectively by public schools.



Do you know which ones? I'm aware of Sweden, but I did't know of others.

I think Belgium does as well.

 

[Meadmaker]

What about the folks that live in the expensive suburb and rent?

No vouchers for them.

 

[Alt+F4]

No vouchers for them.

Why not?

 

[Meadmaker]

Why not?

What I was saying is that the government (i.e. you and the other taxpayers), are subsidizing my decision to send my kid to a high quality school. My new house is more expensive than my old house, so I pay more interest. I get a tax deduction for that interest, which deduction amounts to about 2,000 dollars per year. The reason I bought my new house is to get the good schools. Economically, it is exactly the same as if you had given me a 2,000 dollar voucher to pay for the school, except that I get to use it even if I don't send my kid to the school.

If I rented instead of purchased, I wouldn't have received the "voucher".

 

[Alt+F4]

If I rented instead of purchased, I wouldn't have received the "voucher".

I can guarantee you that anywhere in the United States where school vouchers are used, families who rent rather than own also get the voucher.

 

[Billdave2]

I can guarantee you that anywhere in the United States where school vouchers are used, families who rent rather than own also get the voucher.

I think what Meadmaker is talking about is not really a "voucher" per se. He means that the more expensive your home is, the more your interest deduction helps with your income tax return. I don't agree since everyone in the neighbor gets this whether they have kids or not. It is not really related to school vouchers.

 

[Meadmaker]

The point is that the government is subsidizing my decision to send my kid to a better public school. There's no intent to do so in the law; it's an unintended consequence of the home mortgage deduction, combined with the premium paid to live in neighborhoods with better schools.