School Vouchers - Good or bad idea?

[Meadmaker]

I want to start a discussion of school voucher systems, schools of choice, privatization, and similar issues.

First, let me say I am for them. I have tried and tried to come up with a reason they are a bad idea, and I can't do it. Maybe one of you can convince me otherwise. That's why I'm starting this string. (The only thing that I waiver on at the moment is in the area of charter schools. If charter schools were greatly expanded, perhaps there would be no need for school vouchers.)

Second, some background. My child goes to public schools. He is in kindergarten. A few years ago, we lived in a lower middle class, mixed race suburb. As our child approached school age, we decided we didn't like the looks of our local school district. We couldn't afford private school, so we moved. Now we live in a lily-white upper middle class neighborhood with a substantial Jewish population.

When thinking about problems vouchers and similar programs might cause, families like ours have to be considered. There are millions of people who have moved from city to suburb, or from one suburb to another, specifically in order to escape bad schools.

So, why am I for them? Under our current system, those of us who are not wealthy or who are not willing to undertake extreme financial hardship must send our kid to a government controlled monopoly school system with a one size fits all curriculum and an agenda set by politicians. With vouchers or something similar, we could choose a school with a curriculum that reflects our choices. It's very simple, really. Anyone who claims to be a liberal ought to support more choices, not less. If you are "pro choice", perhaps you could extend that philosophy a bit.

Now then, what are some of the arguments against?

"In districts where they have been tried, private school students have not had better test scores than public school students."

So? Is that what this is about? If they were worse, then this would be an issue, but since they are the same, then I can't see a downside.

Furthermore, I am quite certain that some public schools, notably my own, "teach the test". They study specifically for high performance on standardized achievement tests. My guess is that private schools are less likely to do this. If the students at public and private schools get equal test scores, I would suspect that the private schools are doing a better job at overall education, because they aren't teaching specifically to raise standardized test scores.

Finally, all the reports I have seen with this claim in them have compared public school and private school students in places with vouchers, or occaisionally public school vs. charter school students. What I have never seen is a comparison of public schools before vouchers, vs. public schools after vouchers. Many voucher advocates believe that the competition would make all schools perform better. I don't know whether or not this has happened.

"This will take resources away from public schools"

Well, yes. With fewer students, they will need less money. What's your point?

"This will erode support for public education"

Will the American people give up on subsidized education for youth because it goes to a private entity instead of a public one? I doubt it, but I'm willing to listen to the argument, if someone wants to make it.

"This will lead to increased segregation, either economically, or racially, or both"

See my background. People like me leave mixed-race low income places and move to high income, usually all white neighborhoods. We wouldn't have to do this if we could go to schools of choice. In other words, the current system creates not just segregated schools, but segregated neighborhoods.

(Unfortunately, my boss just called. More to come.)

 

[Donks]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
"This will take resources away from public schools"

Well, yes. With fewer students, they will need less money. What's your point?

While I'd support school vouchers, I do believe you're wrong in this particular point. Say there are 2 second grade classrooms (Does this work like that in the US, or do they force every second grader into the same classroom regardless?). Unless you lose half your pupils, you still need teachers for both and room for both. I guess you can sell a few desks. If you lose 25%, you might be able to cram the remaining students into a single classroom, with 50% more pupils than before. In any case, my point is that the costs for running s school probably tend to jump in discrete steps.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Aren't schools funded by the number of students?

My concern about school vouchers, besides the fact that I don't think my tax money should be paying for kiddies to be sent to Christ Hates Humanists Indoctrination Elementary School, is that the conditions in public schools will only deteriorate once the rats start fleeing. I would prefer it if resources and energy were devoted to improving the public schools to the point where nobody will want to leave, rather than writing them off and abandoning them to their fate.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think that federal money should not go to any organizations that discriminate based on religion, creed, race or sexual preference. Many private schools discriminate based on religion.

I also don't think federal money should be used to fund religion, and many private schools are religiously founded and teach creationism etc..

 

[CBL4]

I think the thread title "Good or Bad" sums it up. They are good for all the reasons you mentioned and others.

Here are few reasons they are bad:
1) Frequently the vouchers are not large enough to allow choice to poor students who cannot afford private tuition even with the vouchers. So vouchers provide middle class choice while segrating the poor into public schools which decline in quality as fewer and fewer middle class attend them.
2) Most private schools are religious. Should tax payer money support religious training which is part of a religious schools?
3) If most private schools are religious, we are only providing choices to people of certain religions.
4) Private schools can discriminate. Should we support discriminatory schools?
5) Some private schools have been set up to avoid certain teachings e.g. evolution. Should taxpayer money support science classes which teach nonsense?
6) Private school teacher are frequently not certified. Should taxpayer money go to schools which have no guarantee of qualifications? (I realize that certification and quality are not necessarily related but certification does generally show some competence).
7) If we provide money to some religious schools, we need to provide money to all even the ones that resemble the madrasses in Pakistan or the ones that are started by the Branch Davidians.

I love the idea of vouchers for private schools but I have not seen a workable plan. BTW, my son is three and I live in a gentrifying neighborhood. I have two years to figure out how to provide him with a decent, secular education. Vouchers would probably help me. Right now, I am planning to move.

Also, IMO, the reason the private schools are so successful is because they get better students solely because they are private. If a parent is will to pay more money for school, they are almost by definition more interested in their childrens' education and the children are better students.

CBL

 

[TragicMonkey]

Also, IMO, the reason the private schools are so successful is because they get better students solely because they are private. If a parent is will to pay more money for school, they are almost by definition more interested in their childrens' education and the children are better students.

Perhaps, but the converse isn't necessarily true. I always attended public schools, because both my parents did and they found them decent, and also because they both have a sneaking streak of democratic tendency in them.

Although, since I was a military brat, I probably wouldn't have been able to get into private schools, since we moved very often and wouldn't have had the time to research schools or get through an application and screening process.

But, in keeping with a long tradition of screwing over its armed forces, I'm sure the US couldn't care less about the difficulties of military life on the dependents.

 

[CBL4]

I always attended public schools, because both my parents did and they found them decent, and also because they both have a sneaking streak of democratic tendency in them.

I attended public schools and thought they were great but I was in one of the richest counties in the country. I am now living in what is considered to be a "blighted" area. My son will not attend the schools unless they change tremendously.

CBL

 

[President Bush]

You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test. And live up to its, uh, full potential, electrochemical potential. Charter schools supply the deficiency that government schools, uh, mired in a system that refuses to change, will make America what we want it to be—a literate country and a hopefuller country.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I attended public schools and thought they were great but I was in one of the richest counties in the country. I am now living in what is considered to be a "blighted" area. My son will not attend the schools unless they change tremendously.

Homeschooling is an option in that situation. Also, although it's not popular, boarding school. Or you could relocate. Not easy options, any of them, but they are there.

The public schools I attended varied in quality, but my parents always found a house in the attendance range of the best public schools. Frequently we'd wind up living in a suburb-type city within a reasonable commuting distance of wherever Dad was stationed. My uncle, also military, didn't want to put himself to that inconvenience, so he picked the house he wanted and let fate deal his daughters their educational chances. One of the three finished college and is successful today.

I'm not implying you're a bad parent if you don't move, btw, I'm just expressing appreciation for my own parents, who were willing to put up with the absolute hell that is suburban southern New Jersey for the sake of the children. (Of course, it meant that I also had to put up with suburban southern New Jersey, but it's nothing that years of counselling won't overcome.)

 

[CBL4]

Homeschooling is an option in that situation. Also, although it's not popular, boarding school. Or you could relocate. Not easy options, any of them, but they are there.

My wife is leaning towards homeschooling. I am sure she would given them better academic teaching but I want my children to be around more children. That is already a problem and we are having to take them to music classes in order to meet older children.

I think we will either find a private school or move. Or perhaps we will start one way and later move. I have two years to decide.

CBL

 

[shanek]

Vouchers are bad, but not for any of the reasons given. They're bad because, just as they did with private colleges, sooner or later the government will start attaching strings to the money once the private schools come to rely on it. More government control of private schools is most certainly not desirable.

Educational tax credits are a much better solution.

 

[LostAngeles]

Homeschooling is an option in that situation. Also, although it's not popular, boarding school. Or you could relocate. Not easy options, any of them, but they are there.

The public schools I attended varied in quality, but my parents always found a house in the attendance range of the best public schools. Frequently we'd wind up living in a suburb-type city within a reasonable commuting distance of wherever Dad was stationed. My uncle, also military, didn't want to put himself to that inconvenience, so he picked the house he wanted and let fate deal his daughters their educational chances. One of the three finished college and is successful today.

I'm not implying you're a bad parent if you don't move, btw, I'm just expressing appreciation for my own parents, who were willing to put up with the absolute hell that is suburban southern New Jersey for the sake of the children. (Of course, it meant that I also had to put up with suburban southern New Jersey, but it's nothing that years of counselling won't overcome.)

The first two public schools I attended were quite good to my recollection. The later ones were not and all were in the same town as one of the orginal two. By the time my sister got into high school, my mother found a way to get her into the Blue Hills Regional School, which if you ask me, was substantially better.

And it was a Vo-tech school.

With half of the class time as her old school.

And higher MCAS scores when they introduced it.

And didn't treat dyslexia with a behavoirist.

And...

I agree with what another poster said about liking the idea of vouchers, but not seeing them implemented in a workable way.

 

[phildonnia]

I think that federal money should not go to any organizations that discriminate based on religion, creed, race or sexual preference. Many private schools discriminate based on religion.

I don't believe this is true.

I also don't think federal money should be used to fund religion, and many private schools are religiously founded and teach creationism etc..

The argument that the school voucher people would make (and I don't necessarily agree) is that it is not "government money" that is being given, but the taxpayer's own money. Given the socialist structure of education funding, this is not strictly true.

Would you also be opposed to a government small-business loan for someone to open a christian book store? How about a government student-loan for someone to attend BYU? How about tax-exempt status for educational foundations that promote an agnostic point of view?

 

[TragicMonkey]

The argument that the school voucher people would make (and I don't necessarily agree) is that it is not "government money" that is being given, but the taxpayer's own money.

In that case, since I don't have children, why aren't I getting that portion of my taxes back? The argument is that free public education of the young is an investment in society, in which I have a compelling interest. If that's the case, then it would seem only fair that everyone else also has a compelling interest in the free public education of children that aren't theirs, and should pay for it.

Just because they're willing to send their own kids to private school doesn't excuse them their social obligation to provide funding for public school.

 

[shanek]

In that case, since I don't have children, why aren't I getting that portion of my taxes back?

Works for me.

The argument is that free public education of the young is an investment in society, in which I have a compelling interest. If that's the case, then it would seem only fair that everyone else also has a compelling interest in the free public education of children that aren't theirs, and should pay for it.

Conversely, then, it would also be the case that everyone has a compelling interest in the private education of children that aren't theirs, and should therefore pay for it.

Just because they're willing to send their own kids to private school doesn't excuse them their social obligation to provide funding for public school.

And just because they decided to send their own kids to private school doesn't excuse you from your social obligation to provide funding for their private school.

That "fairness" thing's a bitch, ain't it?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Conversely, then, it would also be the case that everyone has a compelling interest in the private education of children that aren't theirs, and should therefore pay for it.

And just because they decided to send their own kids to private school doesn't excuse you from your social obligation to provide funding for their private school.

That "fairness" thing's a bitch, ain't it?

On the contrary, since the public is funding education, it would seem necessary to have special "public" schools, with the government overseeing them. As an American institution, these schools would have to reflect the American Constitution, and be secular in nature. I would be perfectly willing to support such an institution with my tax money.

How fortunate that such a school system already exists, along those exact lines.

The existence of nonpublic schools, therefore, would be extraneous to the public schools, and obviously not necessary to receive public funding, since a) they are not compelled to conform to constitutional standards, as a public institution must, b) they are not under government control, as would be necessary for a public institution, and c) we already seem to have schools that fit a and b, being publicly funded.

eta: I liken it to medical insurance. They'll pay for your kidney operation, but not for your face lift. You have to pay for that on your own, because it's extra, unnecessary, and entirely optional.

eta2: And complaining that you're ugly does not make your cosmetic surgery any less optional.

 

[Meadmaker]

The argument that the school voucher people would make (and I don't necessarily agree) is that it is not "government money" that is being given, but the taxpayer's own money. Given the socialist structure of education funding, this is not strictly true.

Not only is it not strictly true, it's not even close to being true. It is very definitely government money. This particular "voucher person" would never use that argument.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't want to go overly long, so I'm going to ignore some of you, at least for the moment. I'll just respond to CBL4, because his message follows along the lines of my opening post, which included a list of possible objections to vouchers.

Here are few reasons they are bad:
1) Frequently the vouchers are not large enough to allow choice to poor students who cannot afford private tuition even with the vouchers. So vouchers provide middle class choice while segrating the poor into public schools which decline in quality as fewer and fewer middle class attend them.

Agreed. However, poor people could afford to live in my old neighborhood, and they can't afford to live in my new one. In other words, vouchers improve the current situation.


2) Most private schools are religious. Should tax payer money support religious training which is part of a religious schools?

First, most private schools are religious today because it is primarily religious people who are sufficiently motivated to make the economic sacrifice associated with removing your kid from public schools. If there was a market, non religious private schools would be more abundant.

Nevertheless, any voucher program would inevitably result in tax dollars going to religious schools.

My response is that there should be some restrictions put on what the schools receiving vouchers can use them for. Specifically religious instruction should be separated. Shane doesn't like strings attached, but I do. This is a complex topic, and I will not pretend that this response even scratches the surface of how to actually accomplish this, so those of you who are interested in continuing a dialog, be patient.

Restrictions or no restrictions, tax money will inevitably be spent on religious instructions. For example, if my kid were sent to a private school with your tax dollars, you would be funding foreign language instruction, and I can guarantee you that the language my kid would study first would be Hebrew.

In other schools, kids would learn reading by reading the Bible.

Is that so bad? I firmly believe that if you taught kids to read the Bible, and they followed the instructions, half of them would be atheists by the time they turned 18. More to come, but my basic response is that I am not afraid of this.


4) Private schools can discriminate. Should we support discriminatory schools? [/QUOTE]

My own feeling is that we should require them to accept all students regardless of religion, and they should follow other restrictions related to race and other forms of discrimination. I'm open minded about gender discrimination and religious discrimination in the hiring of teachers.


5) Some private schools have been set up to avoid certain teachings e.g. evolution. Should taxpayer money support science classes which teach nonsense?[/QUOTE]

My opinion is that we shouldn't allow the teaching of nonsense, but we shouldn't require teaching of topics they find offensive. Once again, this is a complex topic, so more to come later. Also, once again, I think if you teach science in general, and do it well, you won't have to teach evolution. The kids will discover it despite their parents and teachers.


6) Private school teacher are frequently not certified.

Any school receiving government money should require accreditation.

 

[shanek]

On the contrary, since the public is funding education, it would seem necessary to have special "public" schools, with the government overseeing them. As an American institution, these schools would have to reflect the American Constitution, and be secular in nature. I would be perfectly willing to support such an institution with my tax money.

How fortunate that such a school system already exists, along those exact lines.

The existence of nonpublic schools, therefore, would be extraneous to the public schools, and obviously not necessary to receive public funding, since a) they are not compelled to conform to constitutional standards, as a public institution must, b) they are not under government control, as would be necessary for a public institution, and c) we already seem to have schools that fit a and b, being publicly funded.

eta: I liken it to medical insurance. They'll pay for your kidney operation, but not for your face lift. You have to pay for that on your own, because it's extra, unnecessary, and entirely optional.

eta2: And complaining that you're ugly does not make your cosmetic surgery any less optional.

Yes, well, all you're doing is coming up with excuses for freeloading. You're demanding that parents who send their children to private school pay twice, while a parent with a child in government school only has to pay once. Society is still benefiting from the child in private school—in fact, arguably moreso, since the private schools continually perform so much better than the government schools.

The real solution is to end the involvement of government in our schools. You can have public schools without government, you know.

 

[shanek]

Not only is it not strictly true, it's not even close to being true. It is very definitely government money. This particular "voucher person" would never use that argument.

There's no such thing as "government money." It's our money.