School voucher support and demographics

[pgwenthold]

- Public schools have to take everyone, and therefore have to spend more on things like special programs.

 

[Meadmaker]

There is also the fact that wealthier people are more educated on average, and therefore, the kids come from more educated parents. Do you think it is a coincidence that college towns tend to have pretty good high schools? It's because they're loaded with professors' kids.

I think this is, in fact, the key element. What I'm saying is that people are willing to pay a premium, in the form of higher house prices, in order to have their kids be guaranteed a chance to go to school with all those other kids of educated parents. Of course, they can only do this if they, themselves are wealthy, which probably means that they are educated.

I can't blame anyone for wanting that. I know I did, which is why I bought a house in an expensive suburb so that my kid could go to school with all those other kids of educated parents. If I were poor, I couldn't have done that. The houses would have been out of my price range.


I understand why parents would want that sort of economic segregation. I just can't understand why the government ought to perpetuate it.


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.




(Full disclosure statement. After a year in public school, my wife decided it still wasn't good enough for our kid, so now he attends a private school, and I'm flat broke. On the other hand, the administration at the private school is vehemently opposed to vouchers. They don't want the strings that would be attached.)

 

[pgwenthold]

I understand why parents would want that sort of economic segregation. I just can't understand why the government ought to perpetuate it.

Who says the government should perpetuate it? Go back and read my responses from early in the thread. There are ways to address the problem that do not require providing government funding to religious schools. The opposite of vouchers does not have to be "status quo."

 

[Billdave2]

I can think of a couple of possibilties that may come into play here:

- The public system may be using unionized staff, whereas the private (or christian) school may get by with non-unionized staff

- Did the private school have a wide range of after school activites (such as sports teams)? If its a small school, it may not have had enough students to bother with such luxaries

- Its also possible that tuition at the private school only covers part of the cost of education, and that money is obtained in different ways (for example, if its a christian school, is it affiliated with a church that might be providing some resources?)

1. I am in South Carolina, unions are not involved.
2. The private school doesn't have a football team but competes in all other sports.
3. It is a baptist church but gets no subsidy from SBC.

They do only have one or two busses, but if you take busses out of public budget it still comes out to over $6,000 per student.

 

[Billdave2]

- Public schools have to take everyone, and therefore have to spend more on things like special programs.

But what percentage of students in public school are in special programs? Lets say 10% (which I would think would be very high number). Do special programs for that 10% cost as much as the other 90%? Does that seem reasonable? Do you think the parents of those kids who need special programs would like to be able to send them to private schools that would better meet those special needs?

If a parent takes a kid out of public school and puts him in a private school (or even homeschools) giving them a voucher for some (but not all) of the money that is budgeted per child would result in more money per child for those that are left. Win-Win!

 

[pgwenthold]

But what percentage of students in public school are in special programs? Lets say 10% (which I would think would be very high number). Do special programs for that 10% cost as much as the other 90%?

Special programs are far more costly than regular programs. For example, the teacher/student ratio has to be much, much higher. Whereas a teacher in a good class could easily handle 25 - 30, in special programs that might go to 5 or even less of highly specialized teachers. They could easily be making twice the pay of a regular teacher at a private school.

Good students don't need a lot to learn.

 

[pgwenthold]

1. I am in South Carolina, unions are not involved.
2. The private school doesn't have a football team but competes in all other sports.
3. It is a baptist church but gets no subsidy from SBC.

Does it get money from the local church at all?

When I went to catholic school, the school was supported I assume some by the dioscese but a lot by the church (through church donations). Then again, I don't think church members paid tuition (none that I knew of). I just know that "school expenditures" were part of the church budget.

 

[Billdave2]

Special programs are far more costly than regular programs. For example, the teacher/student ratio has to be much, much higher. Whereas a teacher in a good class could easily handle 25 - 30, in special programs that might go to 5 or even less of highly specialized teachers. They could easily be making twice the pay of a regular teacher at a private school.

Good students don't need a lot to learn.

Using my local school as an example (see numbers on page 2). If 10% of the kids are in special programs (1,200 out of 12,000) and you put them in classes of 5, that would be 240 "extra" teachers. Actually it would be only 200 extra because the 1,200 in classes of 20-27 would have still needed 50teachers, but lets use 240 for this example. The average salery is $43,000 so double it to $86,000 per year. That comes to just over $20 million per year (The actual total teacher's saleries for the year are $40 million before fringes are added in). So subtract $20 Million from the budget and 1,200 kids and the per student dollar value is $5,370, still more than double what the private school cost and we have removed special needs kids at an extremly conservative amount.

Private school still costs much less in "real" dollars, for the same thing.

 

[Billdave2]

Does it get money from the local church at all?

When I went to catholic school, the school was supported I assume some by the dioscese but a lot by the church (through church donations). Then again, I don't think church members paid tuition (none that I knew of). I just know that "school expenditures" were part of the church budget.

This I don't know, but the tuition is for a student who is not a member of the church.

 

[Mycroft]

My problem with voucher programs is that they seem to be a plot to undermine the public school system by pulling funding from it one kid at a time. The backers seem to be predominantly religious conservatives who want their kids out of the public school system for religious reasons.

 

[Segnosaur]

This I don't know, but the tuition is for a student who is not a member of the church.

The local church may still be giving money to the school, even if its not allocated on a per student (or per church member) basis.

Just wondering, does this church belong to any sort of 'school board'? Not sure how your budget is calculated, but some public school money does get spent on head office administration. (Not that administation costs aren't excessive in some cases.)

 

[Billdave2]

My problem with voucher programs is that they seem to be a plot to undermine the public school system by pulling funding from it one kid at a time. The backers seem to be predominantly religious conservatives who want their kids out of the public school system for religious reasons.

I can't speak for others but in my case it has to do with quality of education. The schools in my local district (from my posts above) are actually some of the best in the state, and although South Carolina has a bad reputation in general, the two high schools in my district are both top notch. Most of the 9 elementary schools are very good also. Two of the three middle schools are in line with the two high schools, but the third is dreadful. I live just inside its area and will have to move in order to send my son to one of the other schools. That is the problem. I don't have any choices. I can't afford private school tuition. I would love to be able to send my son to the best schools in town. When it comes down to it, the people that are really screwed by all this are the poor and middle class who can't afford the better schools. Rich people will send their kids to private school anyway or move into "good" public school areas. The problem, is money isn't the answer to better schools and there are problems with schools in this country in general. There is no one size fits all school that all students can thrive in, and public schools cannot meet those needs completly. There needs to be a healthy mix of school types, and these types should be available to all, not just the rich. The best way to acheive this is with some way for everyone to have access to different types of schools. And if religous types want to send their kids to religous schools, and those schools meet standards, what is wrong with that? If you want to send your kid to a school for the arts, or a school for future scientists or whatever, as long as the kids get a good education they should have those options.

 

[Billdave2]

The local church may still be giving money to the school, even if its not allocated on a per student (or per church member) basis.

Just wondering, does this church belong to any sort of 'school board'? Not sure how your budget is calculated, but some public school money does get spent on head office administration. (Not that administation costs aren't excessive in some cases.)

The church school is acredited by the state. The budget numbers I am showing do include administration and all costs, but the private school has administration also. It is a fairly large school, the high school is a 2A school for competing in state sports which is not big put not the smallest either.

 

[Segnosaur]

The church school is acredited by the state. The budget numbers I am showing do include administration and all costs, but the private school has administration also. It is a fairly large school, the high school is a 2A school for competing in state sports which is not big put not the smallest either.

I know the school itself will need administrative staff (principal, secretaries, school nurse or leaches to bleed the student's wounds, etc.) I'm talking about central administration. (For example, I assume the public school is controlled by some sort of elected trustees, in which case the cost of their meetings must be factored in.) Does the religious school have similar administration outside of the school.

 

[Billdave2]

I know the school itself will need administrative staff (principal, secretaries, school nurse or leaches to bleed the student's wounds, etc.) I'm talking about central administration. (For example, I assume the public school is controlled by some sort of elected trustees, in which case the cost of their meetings must be factored in.) Does the religious school have similar administration outside of the school.

I don't know about the private school, but the school district's budget for Trustee expense is less than $15,000 or 0.019% of the budget.

 

[Segnosaur]

I don't know about the private school, but the school district's budget for Trustee expense is less than $15,000 or 0.019% of the budget.

Trustees were only one example of the cost of administering a group of schools. You also need secretaries at the head office, infrastructure (e.g. computers) to handle recordkeeping and to handle things like transfers within the board, etc. If the private school is stand-alone, it won't have any of those types of expenses. Those types of costs could account for the extra expenses. (Especially if the board itself is wasteful.)

 

[Billdave2]

Trustees were only one example of the cost of administering a group of schools. You also need secretaries at the head office, infrastructure (e.g. computers) to handle recordkeeping and to handle things like transfers within the board, etc. If the private school is stand-alone, it won't have any of those types of expenses. Those types of costs could account for the extra expenses. (Especially if the board itself is wasteful.)

I will be the first to admit a large school district has more overhead than a small private school. I don't question why they have more stuff in total, but why does it cost more per student. The small private school still has to keep records, handle the transfer of new students in/old students out, and computers and such.I t is the porpotionality of the situation. Also, there should be at least some economies of scale somewhere to help mitigate the additional requirements at least to some extent.

 

[Segnosaur]

I will be the first to admit a large school district has more overhead than a small private school. I don't question why they have more stuff in total, but why does it cost more per student. The small private school still has to keep records, handle the transfer of new students in/old students out, and computers and such.I t is the porpotionality of the situation. Also, there should be at least some economies of scale somewhere to help mitigate the additional requirements at least to some extent.

Although the private schools may have to worry about things like recordkeeping (as well as individual public schools under a board), there are things that the board schools would have to worry about

Not that I'm saying its correct, or that thre isn't waste, just that the waste may not be at the school level; it may be with the board administration.

 

[Billdave2]

Although the private schools may have to worry about things like recordkeeping (as well as individual public schools under a board), there are things that the board schools would have to worry about

Not that I'm saying its correct, or that thre isn't waste, just that the waste may not be at the school level; it may be with the board administration.

I would agree with that. I am saying that vouchers/more school choice is a better way to go than throwing more money at the current system. I am using the schools in my town as my examples, because I was able to get data, but with the one exception (the middle school from my earlier posts) I think the rest of the schools are as good or better than the private school in my town. There is private catholic elementary that I would rank near the top of the list of elementary schools, but I have no idea how much the tuition is, so I didn't include it in my calculations. Once again our local district is one of the top ten in the state. Some districts in the lower part of the state are dreadful, and if I lived there sending my child to private school would be more urgent. I just don't think everybody (or even the majority of people) in favor of some type of voucher/school choice is a raging fundamentalist christian who would rather have the government subsidise sending thier kids to inferior christian schools for religous reasons, or rich people who want to destroy public schools to spite poor people.

 

[pgwenthold]

I would agree with that. I am saying that vouchers/more school choice is a better way to go than throwing more money at the current system.

I point out again that this is a false dichotomy. The opposite of vouchers does not have to be the status quo (or more like the same)