School vouchers

[Fixated]

To be honest, I haven't heard much of the arguments for or against vouchers. Could anyone give me a basic overview of the debate without watering down the other side? (I know what vouchers are, no need to explain that)

[jono]

1. In a nutshell

the pro-voucher crowd says that vouchers will give opportunities to attend private school to kids who otherwise wouldn't get to go, and it will create competition which, much like "the markets," would put pressure on public schools to improve to keep pace with competitors.

The anti-voucher crowd says that vouchers won't cover the entire costs of private tuition, so the poorest kids who vouchers are supposed to help still won't be able to attend; consequently, they'll turn into giveaways for those who don't really need the help. Plus it's not helpful to incentivize public schools to improve by taking revenues away from them.

[leftyandproud]

3. anything to get costs down..

and I must say, after reading up on this issue, I agree something needs to be done...

in Washington D.C., it costs $14,000 PER PUPIL PER YEAR!!!!!

I'm thinking...Jesus Christ...spending this much money and our kids are still ranked near the bottom of all standard world exams...Thee is definately a problem.

What on earth do you need $14k per student for? We are talking $420,000 per classroom.

What do you need to teach a class?

A teacher...
with a textbook...
and a piece of chalk.

$420k?
If this can't get the job done, let them compete with others. Competition usually has a way of bringing the best out of people..forcing them to innovate or be left in the dust. Schools that don't improve over a 3 year period will be closed down and started new with a fresh staff...obviously the unions will hate it...but I think this will definately give them a kick in the pants. You don't need more than $14,000 per student per year to teach an elementary class. Other countries do FAR more with far less money.

[NashVegas]

12. Competition

When you force schools to compete, the losers are the kids.

You force kids to compete for grades, you set them against each other, create even more social classes for your Utopian Meritocracy, and insure they will forever be divided.

Put a kid from a poor background into a private school and that kid will be an outcast, regardless of the uniform. These are the kids the more snobbish parents put their children into private schools to separate them from.

Where was it - Milwaukie? Some place up north it was found that the vouchers were subsidizing the school and tuition paying kids. The tuition was X, but the school got extra funding from tithe and donations to cover x*2 for the tuition-paying students. When it came to the voucher students, the schools were collecting x*2 from the state.

Another reason many private schools can do it cheaper is they lack the athletic programs of public schools. My parochial school had a basketball court on its gym floor and that was it. Activities necessitating equipment included dodgeball, wiffleball, basketball and that was pretty much it. Oh, yeah. We also had a medicine ball. And that was it for phys ed. Not exactly a place for inspiring physical confidence, especially for girls.

My public school had not only the basketball court, but track, football, soccer, field hockey, gynmastics, swimming .. you name it, we probably had it. We also had science labs, something I never saw in private school. And a library bigger than a 20 x 30 foot room. Obviously, this was one of the lower-rent private schools. But it's probably about what a low-scale voucher would take care of.

14k is a bit much. This is DC we're talking, though, how much of that is also for security? How much is cost of living for the employees?

[LWolf]

13. Good point.

Competition in public ed right now is all about test scores. It's not enough to learn the material and show what you've learned on a test. You have to beat every other kid on the test. NCLB test scores are all about rankings. The scores are rankings. And the law says that every child needs to rank higher than average. The number varies from state to state, but they are all above average. And they are supposed to get higher every year.

Now let's see...to be above average, you have to take an average. When you take an average score, half of the kids will be below, and half above. So every student needs to score better than half of the students. This is a gross oversimplification, but it still represents the contradiction. My administrators don't understand the way the numbers are crunched. I've asked. They tell me not to worry, that "the test gurus know what they're doing." I've listened to statisticians and psychologists, PHD's all, argue over the way these scores are twisted into forumulas to come up with rankings. They can't agree among themselves what the end school score really represents.

In the world of ranking scores, kids will always be left behind. Anyone who didn't get the top score is left behind. In what fantasy world will every child in the U.S. get every answer on every test correct every single time?

Instead of constantly comparing kids in the effort to get every kid to "beat" every other kid, how about if we just take a student where she is, and help her to learn and grow from that point? Why not compare her scores to her own previous scores to measure growth, instead of comparing them to the rest of the nation?

[MassDem4Life]

44. where in the law does it say that ALL kids have to test above average?

i didnt see that

[LWolf]

150. It's the threshold they set for standardized scores.

The scores are rankings. Percentiles. At the state level, they want all kids eventually scoring at the 80th percentile.

The bizarre thing here is that they keep changing the tests, and changing the way they are scored, so that professional statisticians (the ones who aren't paid to promote the tests) and psychologists can't seem to make sense or agree about what the scores are really measuring. It's a confusion between norm-referenced and criterion-referenced scores. My administrators can't explain it to me. When they try, they confuse themselves. I've listened to the professionals debate it; they can't come to an agreement. I think it's because they are trying to rank criterion-referenced scores and then combine them with norm-referenced scores. A corruption of the numbers. And the scores are weighted, and the weights keep changing.
And while no one can clearly explain the math and what is actually measured when you apply their complex formula, we all live or die by the results.

The first year of testing is the baseline. You are set an improvement goal every year. If you don't meet the improvement goal, you are a failed school. It doesn't matter how high your test scores were to begin with, or how high you manage to push them. If you can't keep pushing them higher every year, you are a failed school.

Of course, the tests and the formulas keep changing, yet you are still compared to the year before.

Now put NCLB into the mix. It does the exact same thing, except it uses a different formula. You've got the API for the state, and the AYP for NCLB. In Florida, some schools were proficient on Jeb's test, but failed GW's.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter how high the scores are, they have to keep getting higher. Average (50th percentile) is way below the improvement goal.

[MassDem4Life]

43. WOW, so much wrong with this

first: Kids dont compete for grades, they get what they earn(except in public schools where social promotion rules the day)

Second:Why would a kid be a pariah in a private school? We are not talking Choate and Andover here, do you know that inner city catholic schools are 90% minority? Do you know that the kids learn more and without all the disciplinary problems? Do you know that the average tuition for a catholic school in this country is $3,200 per year? While the average public school is $7,700 per year?

Do you realize that if a public school gets $7,700 per kid to educate, and they lose $2,500 due to a kid leaving with a voucher, they have a net gain of $5,200.

Do you realize that the NEA has fought every reform measure proposed?Vouchers, magnet schools, charter schools, home schooling, teacher testing, teacher accountability, school accountability, merit pay. The NEA is not interested in the welfare of the kids, they care about their union members, the teachers.

Do you know that in a lot of city public schools the head custodian makes more than the principle, due to their union contract, and service and opening fees for after school programs?

[procopia]

128. No, YOU are wrong

Private schools do NOT teach kids more; studies bear that out. If a child is a discipline problem, he is simply kicked out.

Public schools do not cost more than private schools. The building maintenance, utility costs, etc., are simply absorbed by the church in the case of sectarian schools. Public schools get NO money for students not enrolled in them! They do not, as you said, get the balance from the cost of the voucher.

NEA does not fight reform--vouchers are NOT a reform! NEA backs PROVEN reforms. Vouchers have never improved academic performance in any place they have been tried.

[MassDem4Life]

144. ok, lets take this point by point

If private schools do not do a better job of teaching than why are people willing to pay thousands of dollars over and above the taxes paid to the public schools to send their kids there.

Fact is they do.

In most cities the difference is dramatic, between the public schools and the Catholic system for example. I wont even mention the vast difference between public and the elite private schools.

The average private sachools tuition nationwide is $5,225.00

The average public school gets $7,728.00 per student.

Most city districts get over $10,000 per kid.

As the voucher program works in Cleveland and Milwaukee, the parents get a voucher for $2,500.00




The public schools in both those cities get over $9,000 per kid
while the district loses the $2,500 in funding, they also lose the kid, and with it the need to spend the other $6,500.00 they would have spent if they were educating that child.

Do you get it?

Both of those voucher programs specifically say that the difference between the voucher and the public school tuition stays with the public school district.

The NEA has not backed any reform! They specifically hate, any form of teacher or school accountability, merit pay, or objective standards.

But, that is their job, they are a labor union, and are trying to protect their turf. I just hate it when they get sanctimonious by saying that they arem trying to benefit the kids. They are trying to benefit the teachers because that is who they represent, not the kids.


Ande jjust as academic performance didnt deteriorate overnight, neither will vouchers dramatically raise achievement overnight. but over a three year period they HAVe shown significant rises in achievement, with the rise becoming more dramatic every year thereafter.

Fact: 100% of private school graduates can read and write well enough to fill out a job application

21% of public school graduates cannot!
40% of public school grads can not place the civil war in the correct half century.
32% can not find their town or city on a USA map.
76% cannot name the first ten ammendments to the Constitution of the United States.
63% dont know who wrote the Declaration of independence
28% dont know which country we were declaring our independence from

defend those achievements from the public schools system.

[library_max]

156. Just a few of the "top hits" here

Where do you get your "facts"? Especially the "fact" that 100% of private school graduates can read and write well enough to fill out a job application?

When you take money and a student away from a school, you don't relieve that school of any expenses whatsoever. What, are they going to fire one-twentieth of a teacher? Stop heating and air conditioning one-four-hundredth of the school building? Retire one-thirtieth of a school bus? Where are they going to save any money?

Private schools have an advantage over public schools in that they can remove discipline problems and unmotivated students. Public schools by law are required to educate every student, including special ed students who are much more expensive to educate. So vouchers gives the private schools an additional chance to skim cream. They can't hold any more students just because of vouchers, but they can pick the best-of-the-best. This leads to a tier system of schools, where the motivated students and parents end up in the "best" school they can get and the "worst" schools with all the "worst" students and parents get consigned to guaranteed failure.

Vouchers are like rescuing five percent of the passengers on a stranded ship and then sinking it with the other 95% on board.

[ulysses]

157. excellent!

Vouchers are like rescuing five percent of the passengers on a stranded ship and then sinking it with the other 95% on board.

Yes. Yes.

[Yupster]

159. So if there's a sinking ship, and

I were a rescuer, I should not allow anyone to be rescued until I was sure that everyone could be rescued? I must be missing something here?

[ulysses]

161. library_max said "stranded"

not "sinking". In other words, you can either fix the engines or save a small number of passengers and then give the rest a torpedo.

[library_max]

162. Two points

Number one, a stranded ship is not a sinking ship. The public schools can be fixed, or at least vastly improved, but it's going to cost money and require giving teachers more say in how schools are run. One of the main canards of the voucher-pushers is that the public schools are hopeless and must be abandoned.

Number two, vouchers don't just rescue the few, they actively knock holes in the bottom of the ship to guarantee the drowning of the many. If you've ever taught school, you know that motivated students and motivated parents are the lifeblood of any school. Take away the few that remain in any given school and you've doomed the rest of the school. And remember, the private schools can't quadruple in size overnight. They can only take the very best few.

[Yupster]

164. Sticking with the analogy then, I'll say

let's spend the money and time it takes to fix the ship (public schools), but in the meantime, get as many passengers off while we're working on it.

[ulysses]

165. problem being (as the analogy stretches)

that the passengers are also the mechanics. Remove the passengers and the ship doesn't get fixed.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

24. What do you need to teach a class?

To add to your list:

-electricity
-heat/air conditioning
-custodians (I don't ghave enough time to vacuum and sweep, too)
-aids for special ed kids
-resources for special ed kids
-supplemental resources (not all kids can even read the textbook at grade level, so I must provide alternate materials)
-computers with internet access, printers (we are required to do our gradebook and attendance on our computers AND print out weekly updates
-desks
-paper (actually a larger cost than you'd expect)
-for elementary--glue, construction paper, scissors, etc. for projects)
-tape player (for book read-along activities)
-TV/VCR
-video library
-newspapers/magazines
-in-class libraries (if you would like your kid to be able to read more than expository text materials)
-trade books

If you only give teachers textbooks, that makes for incredibly bored and unenlightened students.

[Code_Name_D]

34. And don't forget the wages.

Both teachers and administrators. And some where in their you have to set aside money for research schools used to explore the scientific boundaries of education.

The vouchers solution to cutting cost is to mandate the hiring of more administrators in order to power the voucher program itself, while also tying the income of these schools to the number of. This give you a double whammy effect. As more students leave the school to excursus their vouchers, the voucher program itself will become more expensive, while grants and taxes are tied to the student, with these students leaving seeing a reduction in the revenue set aside for that school.

[MassDem4Life]

45. wrong

I have not seen ONE voucher propsoal that advocate increasing administration.

they simply say, if your kids is in a failing school you can have X amount of dollars to send them to the school of YOUR choice!

Why is that wrong?

And where is the incentive for the public schools to change their ways and improve if they hae a captive clientele?

Do you think we would have more technologically advanced fuel efficient cars now if the auto industry didnt get a wake up call in the 70's with foreign competition?

[procopia]

33. TIMSS: "Comparing the incomparable"

Something you need to know about the TIMSS international comparisons (especially notice the percentage of countries meeting criteria for TIMSS test):


"Icelandic students who were compared to our 12th graders averaged 21.2 years. Those in Germany, Norway, Italy, Austria, Sweden and Switzerland were merely closer in age to our college sophomores."

American physics students were compared to Norwegian, Swedish and others with 3-year physics programs.

"American TIMSS cadre contained our students taking pre-calculus." American pre-calculus students included in TIMSS comparason take (more advanced) calculus test.

"Finally, the official story about TIMSS has not reported that most countries did not meet the TIMSS criteria for participation. To have their results counted, countries were supposed to have a combined student-school participation rate of at least 75% and a sample of students representative of at least 90% of all students eligible to participate. Only 9 countries met the first criterion and only 14 met the second, and only four met both. Some countries excluded 22% of eligible students (Cyprus), or 30% (Italy) or even 43% (Russian Federation). Reporting the results for all 21 countries is thus comparing the incomparable, something that is strictly forbidden under normal rules of research."

http://www.america-tomorrow.com/ati/gb80413.htm

[Star]

66. Not just teachers and textbooks and chalk

That $14,000 also pays for the school building itself, the utilities to run it (electricity, gas, water, etc), the custodians who clean it, the cafeteria people who feed the students, the supplies to support lessons (paper, copy machines and repairs, pencil sharpeneres, transparencies, dry-erase markers, poster paper, glue, staplers and staples, testing materials, grade books, attendance books, construction paper, colored pens/crayons, erasers, paper clips, etc), the office staff (secretaries, principals, vice-principals, counselors, etc) to keep the school running and the supplies they need, the school district personnel (superintendents, human resources, etc.) school buses and their drivers, security/safety personnel, the school nurse and medical supplies to keep the kids healthy, athletic equipment for PE programs and sports, groundspeople (especially if sports are played), special ed people (teachers, psychologists, etc), computers and internet connections, printers, other books besides textbooks, the library staff and the supplies they need, magazines and newspapers for the library.....

Think about your school and all the things that are paid from that $14,000 per pupil.

BTW, do you think competition is helping the energy industry? Wasn't that the argument used for deregulation? Schools don't need to compete with each other, they need support and respect from the entire population.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. The problem in DC is corruption

not lack of money. But it won't be cleared up until the movers and shakers in Washington care enough to clear it up. Which they won't, because their children don't attend public schools.

If I had my way, all members of Congress and the Senate, any president with school age children, and all White House staffers would be required to send their kids to DC public schools.

Those schools would improve so quickly that it would look miraculous. Within ten years, DC would have the best schools in the country.

[northzax]

121. no they wouldn't

because none of those people live in DC. They all maintain their home states as residences, pay no taxes here, don't vote here or anything. also, most live in the suburbs, so Northern Virginia would have great schools, not the district.

[MrBenchley]

6. The money for vouchers

is siphoned off from public schools...

Voters in ten states have been offered vouchers, and voters in all ten states have turned them down. In the 2000 there were refernda in two states....pro-voucher proponents outspent opponents better than two to one and lost by an even bigger margin. In at least six other states voucher proponents haven't been able to gather enough signatures from voters to have a referendum. After 9/11 Rudy Giuliani tried to push vouchers in NYC, and fewer than 2% of the voters wanted them.

One of the major pro-voucher forces is a WalMart heir.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1415

[Gore1FL]

2. It is the attempt to massively privatize schools

and then subsidize them.

In other words, they want to give money to people to run un-regulated schools.

There is no particular redeeming quality to this "solution" for a known problem with the public school system.

The right hates throwing money at problems (even the ones that are solved by throwing money at them) and instead wish to definance the public school system.

They don;t want to fix public schools, they want to eliminate them in the guise of giving people non-existant choices.

The only clear winner in vouchers are those that run regulation-free private schools.

[KG]

4. there is also the assumption that 'private' schools

are somehow inherently better. i've yet to see evidence that that is the case.

the voucher movement is a thinly vieled first step to mass privatization of schools. and just as with many other social services under pressure to be 'privatized', the worker gets screwed. teachers are no longer municiple employees, so they lose union protections, pensions and benefits, and often their pay goes down. these corporation are also free to hire unquailified people and sometimes protected from legal action against them.

school privatization is a concept that has already shown it won't work, witness the collapse of the edison corp. in boston (i think)

[DocSavage]

7. The right to choose

I put the education of my kids above my politics, so keep the flames low. If I were in a situation were I was unable to move to a different school district, and my kids were not getting the quality of education I was paying for, I would want an option.

Now, that said, as to your arguments. I, as a consumer will spend my money for the best product that I can afford. Private schools are a product. The administration at a private school is not going to hire non-qualified people if they want to compete for the education dollar. To hire qualified people they are going to have to at least match or beat the salary and benefits offered by the local school districts. Do not include Edison is this, they were contracted by the city and the school board, so they were influenced.

During my travels thruout the US I ended up living in New Orleans. Private schools abound. The quality of public education was atrocious. I did not have kids then but still I was concerned. The population was being charged thru property tax and mill levies for a product that was not living up to expectations. But, there was not much we could do. The school board was political and the teachers union was strong. They both failed to see and ackowledge the quality of education that was being offered by the private school sector. It is very telling when members of the city government and some teachers themselves send thier kids to private schools.

One of the major problems that I see is the educational requirements that the state and the feds mandate. It takes control away from the community and the parents. And, be kind but tenure had to be done away with.

[LWolf]

9. hmmmm

I'll hang on to my tenure, thanks. It means my district can't fire me when I publicly disagree with their policies. It keeps my voice speaking up for my students and their families. Administrators don't have tenure. That's why my former assistant principal was demoted last year. She didn't fit the district's "vision." She wasn't a testocrat. She wasn't marching in line to create a district of stepford schools, teachers, and students. So they sent her back to the classroom. And she tendered her resignation. I can speak up all I like. They've "spoken" to me about it several times. But they can't fire me because of it.

Speaking of standardization....

I agree that parents should have choices. That's why I've spent 20 years working at "schools of choice" within my district. Public school choices. It works. Except that the current effort to standardize schools so that every school is comes from the same cookie cutter template means there isn't any difference from one school to another to choose from. Public tax money should be spent on public schools. And there should be plenty of choice. It's possible. It's successful. I know, because I've done it.

Private schools should also be a choice. But not with public money. Not unless they have to comply with the same laws and regs that public schools do. And most of them won't want to deal with that.

[MassDem4Life]

53. first of all public money is a misnomer

it all comes from private individuals. Secondly one of the major refroms attempted by the public education system is charter schools, as a sort of compromise. charter schools dont have to comply with most of the idiotic regulations governing public schools. Magnet schools enjoy special staus with regard to regulation as well, ans they are totally public.

And public school choice within the public school system only works if their are schools within that system worth sending your kid to. for most cities that is not applicable.

My advice to the NEA would be that power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[LWolf]

140. Public money:

taxes paid by private individuals to fund government programs. Not to fund private programs.

The magnet schools in my area do not receive any special waivers from state or federal regs.

The charter schools do, but those waivers don't include the current testing mess. In my state, charter schools are still accountable to the local district that chartered them. We have a couple in my district.

Schools within a system...that's the point. All schools in a district don't have to be the same "cookie cutter" system. They can be schools of choice without the charter or magnet label. The schools of choice I've worked at were designed by parents and teachers. Not administrators. We had to comply with all legislation, but not with all standard procedures/format in the district. A district doesn't have to be a standardized system.

Truthfully, to make this work, you need all 3 groups to have some vision and flexibility: admin, staff, community. And if your district doesn't listen to you, you need to do the same thing you do when your president, governor, or other rep isn't listening. Write letters to them and to the editor. Leaflet. Demonstrate. And vote them out.

I don't have any advice for the NEA. I'm sure I would if I thought they had any power.

[MassDem4Life]

145. my friend, if you

honestly think that the NEA has no power I dont know where you have been. in the states where they have the charter, the have closed shop rules. They are the largest political lobby in the country. And they hold total sway over the district in which they operate.

[LWolf]

151. I have been in California

working for one of the largest elementary districts in the state for the last 20 years. We currently serve about 23,000 students.

In all of that time, I have never heard the NEA mentioned once in the staff lounge, at staff meetings, at our local PETA meeting, in the workroom, at evening social hours, by administrators or teachers. Our local chapter is so far removed, I've never heard a local office holder mention NEA. They don't even mention CTA, although I get mailings from them about political issues.

[MassDem4Life]

153. No, YOU wouldn't

unless you are a rep.

but the school hears from the CTA, and by extension the NEA. And their decisions are guided by it. And if they propose something that the CTA/NEA doesn't like you can bet they will feel the pressure even before they find themselves in court.

The really funny thing is that 71% of public school teachers think that the NEA is simply a professional organization.

They are a full fledged labor union, and an activist one at that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

154. The NEA is a labor union? As a Democrat, I'm horrified...

...NOT.

You keep mentioning the NEA as if it's some evil cabal that aims to....well, you never say why you object to it. You just assume that we should all share your opinion that it's bad.

As if we should all nod our heads and say, "Oh, WELL! If the NEA is against vouchers, then obviously, I should be for them."

The right wing loves to hate the NEA, partly because it funds Democratic candidates, partly because it advocates for public schools, and partly because the Republicanites have a knee-jerk reaction against unions.

There are two myths about the NEA:

1. That they urge teachers to indoctrinate the students in left-wing ideology.
(Yet we get young DUers attending public schools around the country complaining that their teachers try to indoctrinate them in right-wing ideology, so obviously a lot of teachers are ignoring that alleged directive.)

2. That they protect the jobs of poor teachers.

Well, now what is your alternative? If there were no job protections, teachers could literally be fired because they spoke harshly to Mr. and Mrs. Influential's obnoxious little heir apparent, or because they had a personality conflict with their principal, or because they assigned a book that the local fundamentalists objected to.
There was a case in my high school where an English teacher was the object of relentless parental demands for his dismissal because--get this--he was too demanding (the "A" students thought he was the best teacher in the school). If they could have gotten him fired by majority opinion, they would have. But fortunately, there were union protections in place.
Protecting the jobs of a few poor teachers may be the price we pay for protecting the jobs of good teachers who are doing a fine job in the classroom but somehow manage to offend someone with clout.

Otherwise, the role of the NEA in the average teacher's life is greatly exaggerated by the ideologues who urge their sheep to chant, "Private good, public bad."

Dem4Life, huh?

[ulysses]

155. it's stunning, isn't it?

The unstated memes are flying thick and fast from some on this thread...:eyes:

[dsc]

17. Unless things have radically changed since 1997

New Orleans teachers make less money than any other big city teachers in the country. Care to expound some more on the power of that union.

[northzax]

136. interesting

but your analysis is a bit wrong...

The administration at a private school is not going to hire non-qualified people if they want to compete for the education dollar. To hire qualified people they are going to have to at least match or beat the salary and benefits offered by the local school districts

you obviously have no experience with private education. As a general rule, teachers at private schools, independant and religous, are paid LESS, not more, than public school teachers. They also, as a general rule, have fewer 'qualifications'

a first year teacher in DC public schools gets 34,500 this year. a first year, right out of college teacher at Georgetown Prep makes about 27,000. I would wager that you cannot find me ONE private school, be it Andover, Hershey, Sidwell, Pounahou or any other, where the teachers, on average make the same as the teachers in the local public school system.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. They are better in some cases

I used to live in D.C. which has the education system of a third-world nation. It's intolerable, but the poor are stuck with it. The rich, they vote with their feet and their wallets.

[jiacinto]

15. I actually agree with you on something here

From what I've heard Edison's record is at best mixed. I haven't heard positive things about then.

[LWolf]

16. You've heard correctly.

I don't have time to Google it up this morning...I'm on my way out the door. I'll have to work from memory.

Edison schools are corporate schools. The school district pays them the allotted tax money to run the school. They start off with lots of promises, including promises of support for teachers. They bring in new rules, regs, procedures, and structure, and ease the way with all of the promises.

A few years down the road, they are not able to fulfill the promises on the funding. Just like regular public schools. They start cracking down, diluting programs, cutting, etc., just like regular public schools.

They don't have a market on how to teach; it is simply a corporate perspective on how to run schools, not how to actually teach kids. So they are not more successful than regular public schools. They have their ups and downs like the rest of us.

The questions should be, IMO,

Do you want your tax dollars paying private "ceos" to run your schools like a corporation?

Do you think we can do a better job teaching your children with a ceo telling us what to do and how to do it?

Do you want private corporations making curriculum decisions for your child's school?

[KG]

18. well, edison's stock is way down and they are heading toward

bankruptcy. and not sure exactly what results in the classroom are, but if they were anything approaching an improvement i'm sure the 'liberal' press would be crowing about it.

but the privitization movement is bound to fail. when turning a profit is a higher priority is than educating children, the children will lose.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. By that definition

Everything in our society would fail. We would have no cars that work, no food, no gasoline, no new drugs. Nothing.

Just because Edison hasn't made it work doesn't mean squat. Private schools have worked for hundreds of years in America.

[ulysses]

38. you miss KG's point

I don't think he's saying that private schools don't educate kids in the current environment. He's saying that the wholesale privatization of the school system won't work, and he's right.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. Not sure that's true

Though I don't support it. What I do know is that in many urban school districts, the state has outright failed and poor kids suffer as a result.

If we wait for them to try and fix it, we'll lose another generation.

[ulysses]

55. not sure what's true?

What I do know is that in many urban school districts, the state has outright failed and poor kids suffer as a result.

That often happens when you're set up to fail through budget cuts and the like.

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. DC has tons of money

But seems to toss it down a sewer hole.

[ulysses]

86. so what are your class sizes like?

[Muddleoftheroad]

102. Thankfully

I don't live there any more. But, if I recall correctly, they were in the 30-student range.

[MassDem4Life]

54. WHY???

[ulysses]

56. WHY??? what?

[MassDem4Life]

77. why wont

wholesale privatization of the school system work?

[ulysses]

81. one reason will suffice.

Education is not a business and students are not a product.

[MassDem4Life]

98. Of course

education is a service!
It is a product
and it should serve the parents interest by providing a body of knowledge for their children. When it fails in this task, and has for 25 years it is time to seek alternatives, not speak platitudes and defend a corrupt system.

[Nederland]

103. Question

Why is it that we have a functional, market based system with freedom of choice at the college level? Why do you believe that what clearly works at the collegiate level would not work at say, the high school level? The US has a higher education system that is the envy of the world. It has this excellent system because colleges compete with each other for students. There is no reason we couldn't do the same for secondary schools.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

106. Because not everyone needs to go to college

But countries all over the world (even in the Third World) recognize that it is in the public interest to have their citizens educated in the basics.

Did you see this week's episode of Wide Angle, which was about school around the world?

In a system where fee-charging schools dominate, poor children are left behind even more than they are here, because the parents can't afford even modest fees.

According to the Wide Angle program, after Kenya dropped its former practice of charging tuition for elementary school, kids came out of the woodwork to enroll.

Oh, and about that right-wing canard about colleges competing, that's apples and oranges. I graduated from a small, church-related liberal arts college, did graduate work at two Ivy League schools, and taught at a large state university and another liberal arts school, as well as taking night courses at another two large state universities and a community college. So we can say that I've seen the whole spectrum of higher education in America.

Point number one is that these schools are NOT competing for the same students. There is little overlap among the applicant pools of the Ivy League, the religiously based colleges, the large state universities, and the community colleges.

There is also a lot of bias in admissions. The colleges very definitely choose exactly the students they want, and they even engage in bidding wars for the best ones. Yes, poor but bright students can get great financial aid packages, but as tuition costs rise (mostly due to administrative bloat) and donations from alumni fall, the "free ride" scholarship is becoming a thing of the past. A $10,000 annual scholarship sounds generous, but if tuition is $25,000, that still would require the poor family to come up with a year's income to send their child to that school. Meanwhile, the mediocre rich kid is welcomed with open arms, because he or she doesn't need financial aid.


Only the community colleges are required to take every high school graduate, and they are often the only choice for very low income students.

Yet with budget cuts, the state universities, and even the community colleges, are having to raise tuition and cut back on the classes that poor students could take to learn job skills or earn credit toward a four-year academic degree.

So what you really have in American higher education is not an egalitarian system where merit wins out, but a socially stratified system in which the private institutions pick the applicants they prefer, offering a few token scholarships to the poor, while the poor and middle class are increasingly relegated to public institutions that are having their budgets cut right and left.

All the right-wingers and libertarians conveniently forget the fact that one of the principal reasons for non-religious private schools is to remove rich children from the necessity of having to associate with lower-status children. The non-religious private schools are also very pricey. According to figures I read five years ago, the two fanciest private schools in Portland charged $10,000 a year for elementary school and $15,000 for high school.

By the way, the religious private elementary and high schools are so low-priced because they are heavily subsidized by the religious bodies that run them. They also traditionally relied on nuns, who worked for room and board, period, or on religiously dedicated people to teach for very little pay.

I'm all for choice within the public school system. For years, Minnesota has allowed students to transfer among school districts without paying tuition, and I'm observing that Minneapolis offers a lot of alternatives within its system, including even a Waldorf school.

Parents have more control than they realize. They need to demand better of their local school boards, and if the school boards don't give them better quality, then that school board needs to be voted out and replaced by people who care about education.

But the right wing would absolutely hate if poor people discovered that they have the potential for political power. That's why they try to co-opt the more ambitious poor people by offering them ways to abandon the public system, thus removing the parents most likely to agitate against corrupt and inefficient school boards.

[MassDem4Life]

115. hmmm iinteresting that you find

private schools pricey at $10-15k


All the right-wingers and libertarians conveniently forget the fact that one of the principal reasons for non-religious private schools is to remove rich children from the necessity of having to associate with lower-status children. The non-religious private schools are also very pricey. According to figures I read five years ago, the two fanciest private schools in Portland charged $10,000 a year for elementary school and $15,000 for high school.




When the average public school costs $7,700 and provide an inferior education for that amount. And a lot of districts are over $10k per student.

[northzax]

138. it's worth noting

that your private school that costs 15,000 a year probably spends about 22-23,000 per student per year when other sources of income (grants, annual giving, endowments) are taken into effect.

[MassDem4Life]

146. and the public districts that

get over $10,000 in tax money actually spend closer to $12,000, when you add revenues from fund raisers, channel one, vendors such as coke, and pepsi.

So what?

[Nederland]

129. The do compete

Oh, and about that right-wing canard about colleges competing, that's apples and oranges. I graduated from a small, church-related liberal arts college, did graduate work at two Ivy League schools, and taught at a large state university and another liberal arts school, as well as taking night courses at another two large state universities and a community college. So we can say that I've seen the whole spectrum of higher education in America.

Point number one is that these schools are NOT competing for the same students. There is little overlap among the applicant pools of the Ivy League, the religiously based colleges, the large state universities, and the community colleges.

Of course Ivy League schools don't compete with Commuunity colleges for applicants. I never said they did. What I did say is that schools compete for students. Ivy League schools compete against other Ivy League schools for students, religious schools compete against other religous schools, and community colleges compete against other community colleges for students, etc.

There is competition for students. Its is not a "right-wing canard".

[northzax]

139. as an alumnus of one of the 'fanciest' schools in Portland

of which you speak (Catlin Gabel, 2003-2004 tuition $17,500. Plus 800-1000 for books and a required laptop at 2000-3000) I can tell you that the actual amount spent on each student is at least 25,000/year. the rest is made up from donations. it's also worth noting that in my three years at Catlin I never had a class larger that 15 students. Most were under ten. If I didn't do my homework, my parents knew about it by the end of the day. If I skipped class, I was caught. and so on. and remember, on top of that tuition, my parents, and the parents of every other Catlinite, (and the Oesians) paid for public schools in the form of taxes, public schools we were not using.

I have also taught in public schools (for the other side of the issue) where I made more money than my teachers at Catlin, but had 35 students in my class. it wasn't possible to give the same amount of attention to them as I received, simply not possible given the numbers involved. At Catlin every teacher knew every student by name (At least in the upper school.) I certainly didn't know every student at the schools I taught in, there were well over a thousand of them. let alone know anything about them.

There will always be private education. but we cannot expect public schools to provide the same services as private ones, the resources do not exist to do so. All we can work for to to develop a system (we once had one) where every student is educated to the best of their ability and desire. So perhaps some version of school choice works. The answer is not to take the best students and resources from the worst schools, it is to create additional resources so that all schools can educate the students they have.

and one more thing: do you know what the single biggest drain on public school systems is? special education. I have a cousin who is autistic. His local school system pays over 150,000/year for him to attend a school that can handle his needs. that's wonderful, but it is a huge drain on the resources of the district. think of all the students who need special assistance. and do the math.

I am all in favour, by the way, of vouchers. Every student should get the cost of his/her education paid for at an equal level by the state. That includes all the people currently enrolled at private schools, all the students being homeschooled, all students. There's only one catch. Any school that accepts vouchers must accept that voucher as the TOTAL tuition and fees for the year. If Catlin's tuition is $17,500 this year, and the Portland voucher is 7,500, Catlin must take every student who applies at 7,500. That includes any student who has special needs. what? you need to spend most of the day in one on one counseling? well, any school you apply to has to accept you, and provide these services, for the sum of 7,500. I guarantee you that if we actually level the playing field, very few schools will take vouchers. The ones that will are new schools (like in Milwaukee) and many of those will fail, or provide worse services that their counterparts. Vouchers are an interesting idea. but they will not solver the problem, simply push the needed decisions back a little farther. Do you really think that teachers and administrators don't care at any schools? will losing students and money make them work harder? maybe a few of them, but the teachers I know already work their asses off in an awful situation. You really think that cutting them back will help? I was working 12 hour days 6 days a week as a teacher for $27,500 (in LA), there was nothing left to give, I burned out in three years. How is competition going to help? I wouldn't make any more money working any harder, they won't make more. Unless you are willing to turn education into a for profit concept (quick, name a for-profit college or university? What, you can think of DeVry, University of Phoenix? good schools for their thing, but not exactly Harvard)

[OldSoldier]

101. And they work because...

* They get to choose the students they want to do business with. Trust me: the local $18,000/year private school is NOT accepting the kids whose mamas are crack hos who force the kids to feed themselves. More importantly, they get to choose how many students they want to do business with. If the school's business plan revolves around an 18:1 student-teacher ratio, kid 19 is going to be turned away.

* They have massive parental involvement. This is usually required--we print for a Christian school in Raleigh that says, right on the application for enrollment, that the parents are required to do x number of volunteer hours every year--and the higher the grade your kid is, the more hours you're in for.

* For Christian schools, they have far lower facilities costs--name one that isn't on the grounds of a church. When you get a free building (purchased by the congregation) and free maintenance, like the local Christian schools all have, you can put more of your money into textbooks and computers.

* Also for Christian schools, staff costs can be lower. Call it a ministry and people will do it for next to nothing. Works that way here, anyway.

[Yupster]

41. If a private school is crappy and closes

to me that is a good thing. I want crappy schools to close.

If a public school is crappy, it doesn't close. It can stay crappy and crappily screw up generations of kids.

PS - I have one six-year old, and he goes to the best private school that we can afford. I hope the public schools get better, but in the meantime, my kid will go to the best school we can find. Let other people's kids wait and hope for change if they want to. I just feel bad for the poor mom with kids in a horrible school who loves her kids and knows they're not learning, but can't afford to put them anywhere else.

[ulysses]

42. >:(

Let other people's kids wait and hope for change if they want to.

And may "hope" make up the difference between vouchers and tuition...

[MassDem4Life]

52. edison corp,

has nothing to do with vouchers. they are a company that takes over the administration of public schools.

they do not own and operate private schools.

You want to see success on a far greater scale than the public schools, look at the Catholic schools system in any major city.

even the few select public schools that are outstanding by objective measure, such as Boston Latin, Roxbury Latin, Stuyvesant. Are run more like private schools, parents are screened as are kids. Parents sign contracts that they will see that their kids is prepared at all times, and participates in the school. they hire only outstanding teachers, and will fire or transfer the dolts. They do not engage in any new age, feel good wishy-washy, edu-fads such as whole language, inventive spelling, child-centered learning, new-new math. they use a classic curricula.

[LWolf]

8. Yes.

You got it. It's moving closer every year.
An interesting agenda:

1. Write contradictory legislation that can never be successfully enacted and start cracking down and labeling "failure" when it doesn't happen. Make sure that compliance requires massive expenditures. Don't fund the expenditures.

2. Make all of the various laws, rules, regs, fundings sources, etc. so convoluted that you spend way too much $$$ just trying to decipher them and map a tortuous path through the mine field. Don't expect people who spend their time actually teaching or raising their kids to be able to navigate.

Now you've got most of the nation, including most educators, who can't keep up with or interpret all of the laws and find a way to comply with all of them at the same time. You've got districts shelling out big bucks to consultants, and to companies on approved materials and text lists because someone in the dept of ed says those materials are "approved" and will document compliance if you use them. It's just a coincidence that the publishers donated big bucks to someone's campaign....

3. It's time! Schools now look so bad that the public will support vouchers. Send less money to private schools, because you've set public schools up to fail. Of course, the private schools don't have to comply with the ed code. Or, contract the ed $$$ out to corporate companies who come in and run the schools. Example: Edison.

Private schools don't do anything better. They just have better working conditions. They can look better because they don't have to comply with the ed code, and because they don't have to educate every kid. They can sort and choose who to enroll and who to send elsewhere. Even so, many private schools offer a more limited curriculum than do public schools.

[MassDem4Life]

57. your last paragraph is funny

because inner city catholic schools do a better job of educating the very same"unteachable" kids as the public schools, with far less money.

Please explain how this is possible.

[LWolf]

99. Here ya go, right from that last paragraph:

1. They don't have to comply with the ed code.

That means that, instead of frantically spending all of their time, energy, and $$$ trying to comply, and document compliance, with the massive number of mandates/laws/regs, many that conflicting with each other, they can just teach.

[MassDem4Life]

116. yup and the lesson here is...

for the public schools to get back to teaching.

they also dont teach fads. they stick to what works.

[LWolf]

141. LOL

A fad is whatever you didn't do. I can make just about anything work whether I like it or not, and I've seen some of the best practices fail in the wrong hands.

In reality, the most effective teachers don't jump onto fads; they choose some here and some there from each for their toolbox, and pull out the tool appropriate to the specific need.

[MassDem4Life]

149. most teachers do what the curriculum coordinators

have laid out as a curriculum, they have to or they can face reprimand.

No fads, huh? have you heard of Whole language, inventive spelling, free form writing, child centered classes, teachers not as educator but as facilitators, new-new math, learning to learn(eschewing book facts), STW, need I go on?

[LWolf]

152. I've heard of them all.

And used them all successfully. At least, bits and pieces of them. Not as stand alones.

That's the point.

You are correct. Many teachers do what the curriculum coordinators tell them to. Many of us don't. Here's an example:

My district mandated 2 days of "staff development" on the new language arts series. The 2 days before school started. Well, guess what? I didn't need 2 days spent listening to paid consultants tell me how to use a text book to teach my class. So I used my 2 "no questions asked" days and didn't go. I worked in my classroom instead, spending 2 of my alloted sick/pn days to move in. My boss had to evict me. He wasn't allowed to allow me on campus when I was supposed to be over being developed. He came in and lectured me, sitting in a chair, while I stapled things to the walls and set up things in the room. A long, long, relaxed lecture that lasted until I was done. Then he walked me to my car, so he could say he'd escorted me out.

Because I wasn't there, they wouldn't issue me the teacher's materials. They wanted me to drive to the other end of town to pick them up and sign them out. They were only available on the one day we had to meet with our teaching teams and do team planning. So I didn't go.

I let my boss know that if he wanted me to use the new text books, he could do one of 2 things:

1. Get me an extra copy of the student text so I would know what was inside of it to plan with.

2. Get me the stuff sitting at the other end of town. They are still fighting over this issue.

If not, the kids would have books but no lessons. Their choice.

Why did I get away with this? My students succeed. My boss knows the kids will be learning in my room with or without district mandates. And he knows that reprimands will blow up in their faces. Just like the mandates do.

It's true that most teachers are more subtle than I am.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. Catholic schools are subsidized by the Catholic church

and you'd better believe that they kick out any disruptive kids.

[MassDem4Life]

117. yup, and there was

a time when Public schools kicked out disruptive kids too. it was called discipline, and for the most part it worked! because they learned they could not get away with that behaviour.

Now public schools dont do that, and the kids know it.

SAC and time out, and peer mediation are not a threat.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

122. Public schools don't do that

because they are mandated by law to give every kid an education.

[MassDem4Life]

147. suspedning, or even expelling a kid is not denying them an education

now any more than it was 20 years ago.

as a disciplinary procedure it worked to some degree then and would now as well.

[library_max]

158. Because

they can remove any student they consider disruptive. I've taught in an inner city school, and I know how much that would have helped in my classrooms. But then, what are you going to do with the throwaways? Do you just want to have public schools full of nothing but the discipline problems, the unmotivated, and the students whose parents don't care? You might as well bar the windows and hire guards instead of teachers, then.

[MassDem4Life]

50. this is an attempt to give public schools a wake up call

funny that term... "un-regulated"

All schools are regulated to some degree, and private schools face the ultimate regulation, the parents! If they are not doing a good job the parents can send their kids somewhere else.

Funny how uncertified teachers in private schools do a better job on average than the certified public school teachers.

Funny how unregulated private schools are doing a better job of educating kids on avergae than public schools.

Funny how even parents with limited education and no formal teacher training in the unregulated privacy of their own homes, do a better job on average than the public schools.

we have been throwing money at public education since 1960, what has it gotten us? Education spending has more than tripled in inflation adjusted dollars, test scores have fallen by 40%, 585 if you include the fact that the SAT has been recntered three times in the last twenty years. And that doesnt take into consideration that kids now have twice as long to take each section as I did when I graduated in 1979, and they can use calculators on the math portion now.

The winners in voucher programs are the kids who get an education. the parents who have control over seeing that they get their monies worth., the country in having a better educated workforce, and business that doesn't have to have remedial program to teach employees how to read and write. And of course colleges that dont have to spend their first semester teaching freshmen through remedial courses what they should have learned in high school.

[procopia]

124. So many talking points

from the right-wing voucher advocates. I recognize every one: "throwing money at public schools...test scores falling...education spending..." All lies. The only winners in a voucher program are the private schools and those like Falwell and Robertson who have admitted they want to destroy the evil public schools.

[MassDem4Life]

148. ok, the issue is the education

of children.

THAT should be the only issue. If a school does that job well, they should be rewarded, wether public or private. They can enjoy all the accolades and prosperity that their excellence has brought them.

By the same token a school that is notdoing a good job of educating kids, should not garner any sympathy, or excuses, wether public or private.

The fact is that in inflation adjusted dollars total public school spending has more than tripled since 1960.

Objective measurements such as SAT's have fallen dramatically. By over 50% in the same period( taking into account that the test has been re-centered three times in the last 25 years.)

And that doesnt even take into consideration that students can now use calculators on the math portion of the SAT. and have twice as long to take it as they did in 1979.

If A KID IS IN a failing inner city school what interest do we have in keeping him there? If we really want that child to realizehis potential, or at least have the chance to, we should be advocating getting him out of the bad situation and into a better one.

Why do we fight this?

[goddess40]

5. Breaking the teachers union is on the list also.

After Reagans administration broke the flight controlers union Tommy Thompson started after the teachers here in Wisconsin.
I believe, first they slapped a cap on what the schools could spend then they rolled out the vouchers.
The whiners have been complaining about teachers getting summers off and that they get great benefits for years. The right has encouraged that by giving public teachers 'failing grades'. The right also goes after the teachers by giving the districts less money and requiring that they do more. My advice to those whiners is to go back to school and get thier degree and try it.

[MassDem4Life]

58. really,

I would be shocked to find you have a district there that has had to make do with less money than the previous year. because I have not been able to find one district like that in the country. And I have spent many hours looking.

[library_max]

160. Try adjusting for inflation and looking again

[Fescue4u]

168. terrible isnt it?

The teachers are entitled to unionize just like any other hourly group of employees.

The only different with teachers, is that imo, that should only be allowed to strike during the summer months..when it cant hurt the children.

[LWolf]

10. Check out the H/E/SP thread

More on vouchers at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=117&topic_id=680

[jiacinto]

14. My issue with vouchers

I am from the DC area originally, although I am now a resident of Florida. Most of the private schools in the DC area have very high tuitions--the equivalent of almost a year's worth at a private liberal arts college. From what I've heard the voucher is supposd to be $7500, which will only cover part of the tuition. How these families are going to make up the difference I don't know.

The other problem that I see is that these schools don't have to take "problem students". They can reject people and I don't see them taking in what they will (unfairly) perceive as "problem students". Given that many of these children probably score below average I really fear that these schools will not let them in. How are they going to make these children "academically qualified" to get admission into these schools?

Then comes the issue of other expenses beyond tuition. These parents are going to have to pay for books, extracurricular activies, and field trips. I am sure that there are weekend "enrichment activities" that will cost money. How will these parents be able to pay for these activities?

Lastly I think of the children there. How are these low income children going to be received at these schools? It's obvious that many of these other kids don't want them there and will be hard on them. And how are these children going to feel when they see their peers driving expensive cars, taking nice vacations, and having many more advantages than them? Children can be cruel and I really worry how these children are going to fit in there.

These are my concerns regarding vouchers.

[Nikia]

20. I thought that it was for non problem children in failing schools

I thought that the idea of vouchers was to help average and above students at poor schools get into a better educational environment before they got too far behind. The partial cost factor I suppose is a big issue. Many of the less expensive private schools which vouchers might cover more completely are parochial schools which are partially financed by the church. Some people have a problem with that because they see it as a violation of the principle of the separation of church and state.
Some schools include expenses in tuition but there is no reason that they have to and this could be a problem for families just able to meet tuition with vouchers and some of their income. That could be problematic in them fitting in.
As far as fitting in, it may or may not be an issue. My sister went to a private prep school with the help of financial aid and a school academic scholarship when she moved to an urband area with my mom and step father. She found the students to be rather snooty in general although most were nice to her face. There was an incident, however, that almost got my sister expelled based solely on basis of the word of two best friends who were children of the school's donors. The teachers and administration believed everything those girls said and nothing my sister said. Finally, the affected person who had brought the incident to the attention of the teachers came forward with the name of the guilty party (She orginally didn't reveal who it was.) which was one of the girls. Of course, the girl was not expelled and not even suspended. I guess what I've learned from this incident is that admitting poorer students will not work if they are not treated equally by teachers and school administration. I think though that teasing based on income inequality goes on in many public schools as well in smaller areas. Many parents send children to private schools though to get them away from what they see as undesirable people and often transfer this attitude to their children.

[jiacinto]

35. But they won't be treated equally

The other problem is that even the "non problem students" are still behind their peers at a private school. They are still more likely to not be on the same level. And they will then come into the schools at a big disadvantage.

But even so those students still present more problems than these schools may be able to handle.

[MassDem4Life]

60. So you admit that

the public schools are not educating on par with private schools yet your solution is to keep them in the same system that has been failing them for 20 years, and done nothing constructive to improve.

And again, they will fit right in with the kids in catholic schools which tend to have a more diverse population in the cities than public schools, and do a better job of educating. And the average tuition is less than most of the vouchers proposed.

[library_max]

166. Same talking points, same nonsense

I've taught in public schools, I've taught in Catholic schools. The Catholic schools "do a better job" because they can pick and choose their students, period. And they "have a more diverse population in the cities than the public schools" because they have more white students, so I'm not sure what that statement is supposed to contribute to your argument.

The law is that public schools have to provide each and every student with an appropriate education. That's why their job is so much harder than private schools, Catholic or otherwise.

Now there are two honest approaches to that problem. We can expend the time, effort, and money to fix the public schools, district by district, but that would be hard and expensive. It would mean finding realistic ways to educate the hard-cases, usually meaning smaller classrooms, more disciplinary personnel (possibly one per teacher), and a lot of enrichment and supplementary programs. Or we can declare defeat, change the law, push out the most challenging students, and "save the ninety-nine."

But it's not honest to pretend that we can save the public schools with "competition" or with vouchers that will only help the lucky few.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

108. So if the "non-problem" kids

leave the public schools, that leaves public schools populated exclusively by "problem kids," so the general public will be even less inclined to support them than before.

It all leads to the destruction of the public school system.

[dsc]

19. Several things

First I won't pretend I am giving you a balanced portrayal here. I am firmly convinced vouchers are the worst idea in education since segregated schools.

Vouchers don't work. Cleveland has had vouchers and charter schools since the early 1990's and they are proven failures. There has been study after study showing that at best they perform the same as public schools and most show them doing worse. Not one study showed them doing better. This despite the fact they got to start with k-3 and work their way up.

The inflated money figures given for cost per pupil are averages and inflated for many reasons. Here are some illustrations. I work in a district which serves a small city (less than 30k) and thus we aren't talking about a huge high school. At this high school are all of the following rooms. A MH room, which is staffed by a teacher and 2 aides which had 8 students last year. Cost of staff alone around 70k in salary and benefits. (our district per pupil is around 5k). That doesn't include the various things these kids need (wheel chairs, standers, etc). A OH room same staffing for around the same number of students. A SBH room which as 1 teacher and 1 aide for 6 students. (cost of staff alone around 50k in salary and benefits). Several other special ed rooms with 1 teacher for around 10 students per period. None of these students would go to a private school under vouchers. In addition, our district pays for speech therapists, reading teachers, tutors, psychologists, and councilors for both our schools AND the local Catholic schools. And we pay to transport both our students and theirs. So our around 5k per student is paying both for our students and some of the cost of theirs.

[oneighty]

22. Country living!

Since there are no private schools in our area

voucher programs are rarely discussed.

180

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Vouchers

One of the realities of vouchers is that private school parents massively support the public school system and then pay a second time to send their kids to private schools.

If you don't think this has an impact imagine for a second what would happen to the public school system if all the private school kids decided to show up one year. There is no way the schools could house or educate them and the school systems in many places would collapse.

Of course, in many urban districts, the school systems HAVE collapsed, but nobody wants to admit it because only the poor suffer.

[oneighty]

25. So.

Give their property a school tax exemption.

They can apply that to their private school

education. That will be their voucher.

180

PS. Many of us in NY State no longer are

required to pay school tax. General revenue

is supposed to be covering the lose???

180

[Nikia]

26. That would benefit the rich most

School revenue is mostly generated through property tax. The poor usually don't own property. Richer people usually own more expensive property than poorer people. As a result, rich people who could easily afford private tuition would get their children's private education fully paid. Poorer people who might own their own home worth under $100,000 would probably still be unable to afford private school. Those who didn't own any property and least able to afford private school and live in areas with poor schools, would not get this voucher.

[oneighty]

31. Right

I considered that. Just through it out for discussion.

My take on the local people is that they do not

want vouchers because they do not want poor

people to get any of that kind of money!

Meanwhile our local public schools are doing just fine!

The children learn and most finish school.

But, we are country.

180

[Touchdown]

27. So what?

I'm single and have no children, and don't want any. I still have to pay for public schools.

And you know what? I don't mind it at all. That public school will at least teach little Johnny how to be a respectful member of society. He may go on to college-soon into law, the military-soon into politics, or get a job changing oil at the Amoco station-soon to move into management...none of that matters. What does matter is that he's not a burden on society, he's not robbing me of my wallet, he's not taking up a space in prison...costing us more money to house him, he's not breaking into my house, and he's not stalking with intent to rape my sister.

Granted, that people fall through the cracks, and no school can guarantee that everyone will be an upstanding person, and Johnny just might turn out sour, but with a public education system that I proudly pay for, his chances of being a burden on society is much less than without it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. If the public schools worked, you might have an argument

They don't. And poor parents have no options.

[LWolf]

30. Actually, my public school classroom works pretty well.

Ask my parents.

It would work better if I was not constantly hamstringed by politicians; I, and many teachers, do the best we can with what we are allowed to do these days. That's not a reflection on public schools, it's a reflection on the politicians that manipulate them for political agendas. What doesn't "work" are the brilliant mandates thought up by those outstanding think tanks and promoted by those incredibly capable politicians. Pete Wilson, GWB, Jeb, etc.

My district has, pre-standards and accountability "movement," offered many choices across the district. Inter and intra-district transfers. Various "schools of choice" with different programs. That was before the current political cycle.

[procopia]

32. Public schools work as well or better than private schools,

when student background and entrance requirements are considered. Several studies confirm that. There is no evidence that private schools are superior, not a single study!

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Tell you what

You send YOUR kids to D.C. public schools. I'll pick a RANDOM private school in the U.S. Trust me, I'll do better.

[sujan]

48. so what private school did you go to?

or do you consider yourself a failure too....l

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. I went to both actually

But my experience with the failures of the public school system stem from D.C. public schools. It's horrific there.

[procopia]

110. That's hardly fair

If your argument is that private schools are superior to public schools, then let me choose a random public school, and you pick a random private school.

"Tell you what."

Instead of you picking my school, let me pick yours, this one:

"A pair of Cleveland journalists revealed that a city voucher school enrolling 100 students and claiming $268,000 in taxpayer money was not fit to be called a school. The 110-year-old building had no fire alarm, no sprinkler system, broken windows, lead paint flaking off the walls at dangerous levels, and little, if any, heat in the winter. Academically, two-thirds of the school’s teachers were unlicensed, including one who had been convicted of first-degree
murder for a bar room shooting."

http://www.nsba.org/site/docs/9100/9012.pdf

[MassDem4Life]

65. really,

tell that to college admissions officers.

You honestly are going to propound that Choate, Andover, Exeter, Latin, St.Albans, Wheatley, Catholic, and lutheran schools do no better job educating kids than public schools?

Than why do so many people pay dearly to send their kids there?

[procopia]

105. Money magazine confirmed it

Read my post again. I said *when student background and entrance requirements are considered* public schools do as well or better than private schools.

"In October, 1994, Money magazine compared private suburban schools to public suburban schools. "We were shocked" wrote the editors. They clearly expected to find a pronounced superiority for private schools and they didn't. "The best news to come our of Money's survey of public and private schools across America was that, by and large, public schools are not lacking in experienced topnotch teachers, challenging courses, or an environment that is conducive to learning." Should you send your kid to a private school? "Here's the bottom line," wrote the editors. "You're probably wasting your hard earned money."

http://www.america-tomorrow.com/bracey/EDDRA/EDDRA12.htm

[library_max]

167. Ooh, crickets!

Profound silence from the voucher pushers when confronted with a documented fact they don't like!

By the way, has anyone else noticed that all the teachers on this thread (current and former, including yours truly) are anti-voucher, not pro? Ain't it awful the way teachers are against education in this country? :eyes:

[Yupster]

84. When my wife and I

were deciding where to send our kid to school we visited just about every school in town.

The choice quickly narrowed down to two private schools.

Because they were better than the other schools in town, in our opinion way better. That's not a study. That was just the opinion of our family, both of us former public school teachers.

I think the large percentage of politicians in Washington would agree with us because they don't let their own kids near the public schools.

I give Jimmy Carter a lot of credit. He sent Amy to Washington's public schools. Clinton wouldn't let Chelsea near a public school.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. As I said

if the members of Congress and the Senate and the Georgetown elites were required to send their kids to DC schools, those schools would soon be the best in the nation, because those parents would not only care (and most poor parents do care) but would also have the political savvy to force improvements.

It's not public schools per se that are the problem. It's public schools that deteriorate because no one with the power to change them cares to improve them.

No right winger can satisfactorily answer this question: If the "cream" of the poor students are given vouchers to leave Hellhole High to attend Holy Roller High or High and Mighty Academy, what happens to those who are left behined?

[Cheswick2.0]

51. Nope

Public schools work just fine. It is the social system that is screwed up.

With Vouchers poor kids aren't going anywhere but will be left in unfunded ghetto schools.

[MassDem4Life]

63. but that is not true

most city schools have a dropout rate above 35%.

They have rampant ccrime IN SCHOOL!!!

And the kids are not getting the basic education to fill out a job application. city schools are by and large consigning generations of mainly poor minority kids, to a poor miserable existence, destined not to fulfill their potential.

Yet it is not Pc to discuss this.

Look at ti this way, little johnnie is a crack dealer.

He must maintain inventory, buy his product reasonably, and set his markup, and sell it to make a profit. He has employees, his lookouts, mules, and runners., He is running a business. though illegal. He has raw, untrained business skills.

What is his future?

Jail, prison, or death.

Why?

Lack of education.

This is the only difference between him and the entrepenuer

[LWolf]

28. A couple of points:

1. Tax money from the general fund paying for services from a religious institution is a big issue here. If the private school is secular, and does not teach or promote a particular faith, it might not be as big an issue. What % of private schools are secular?

2. Private schools get public money but don't have to comply with all of the restrictions/laws/rules/regs that public schools have to to get that public money. Another issue. And, if you force the private schools to comply, how are they any different? If you think private schools do a better job, just remove all those rules & regs for public school....and let them pick and choose which students they'll serve. Limit the number they enroll, and turn away those they want to. Given the same working conditions, who will do the better job?

3. Vouchers often won't cover the entire cost of tuition at a private school. Parents can pay the rest, or the school can subsidize by raising tuition for the paying families. How long will this last before the paying people need subsidizing, and it becomes a "public" system based entirely on public money again?

4. What would happen to private schools if all the public school kids decided to show up with their vouchers? Is there any way they could house them or educate them? What would collapse?

[Yupster]

78. My assumption is

that if a voucher program went into effect, there would be new private schools (mostly small) opening up all over town. They would be run mostly by public school teachers who always thought that they could do things better if they could run things their way.

There would be schools that emphasized music, science, math, gymnastics, discipline.

I'd like to see 1,000 flowers bloom.

[LWolf]

100. That's a big assumption

to base the destruction of public ed on. I have to rush off to my public ed classroom this morning, but I have more thoughts here. I may start a new thread tonight.

[dsc]

39. that is plain false

Private school kids get that money back. Public schools are required to provide non educational services to private schools. In Ohio, the public pays all transportation costs, speech therapy costs, psychologist costs, and a host of other expenses.

[Yupster]

76. We have to drive our kid

to private school every day.

[dsc]

131. Then I bet you get some of the other things

I mentioned. I did omit the idea that if the private school is the closest of its type or is too far away than they don't have to do the transport. For example if a person wished to go to the next county's Catholic schools as opposed to this county's then they don't get the bus.

[Yupster]

137. Can't think of any

Maybe you can offer suggestions. Our school has its own extra-curriculars. My kid's in the first grade and doing well, so we haven't had to deal with any kind of testing issues. I don't know if the public schools would pay for that or not. Hopefully I'll never find out.

Otherwise, I really can't think of anything the public school system provides for us?

We buy our own textbooks, and they're far different from the public school ones.

[Cheswick2.0]

49. EVERYBODY supports public schools

It is for the benefit of all of us. It takes a village and if parents don't want pay twice they can leave their kids in public school.

[Yupster]

74. If the local public school sucked, I'd

pay half my income to get my kid out. My kid's education is more important than almost anything else including what kind of car I drive or how big a house I live in.

I feel bad for the parents with kids in failed schools who really have no alternative. My kid will do fine with a voucher or without one.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

111. "My kid's education"

Sometimes I think parenthood makes people shortsighted and selfish.

My kid this. My kid that.

Whatever happened to looking beyond your own lawn?

Your precious, unique, better-than-all-others kid is going to grow up in a world populated by other people's kids.

If our society abdicates its reponsbility for ALL children, than your little prince or princess is going to grow up into a world of ignorant, unskilled, angry, at-loose-ends adults, who were once the poor children that you didn't care about as long as your heir(ess) was taken care of.

[MassDem4Life]

118. but my kid is my responsibility

I would hope that those other kids parents feel the same way about their responsibilities., that is where those comments come from, but you knew that of course

[ulysses]

37. vouchers serve no purpose

other than as an attractive-sounding political "solution" to the varied problems that face public education.

Even if the $7,500 figure holds, the gap that still remains between that amount and the tuition at most private schools means that, at best, vouchers will help a tiny number of kids while leaving the huge bulk to deal with even poorer public schools than what they have now. It's what it looks like when lives are used as political footballs.

[Yupster]

70. Ulysses?

you wouldn't think that if vouchers became a reality, then there wouldn't be many more private schools opening up based on the amount of the voucher. Maybe small schools run by a few current public school teachers? or administrators?

[ulysses]

79. free market horseshit.

Here's the reality: a privatized school system won't even try to educate *every* child in America. It can't - competition won't allow it.

If we're to go that route, at least admit it. School privatization will only attempt to educate some kids. The rest are screwed.

Sucks for them, huh?

[Yupster]

93. But if there's an inner city school

that isn't educating anyone, and is violent and drug infested,

and you had a chance to get 10 % of the kids out of that school, wouldn't you?

What if you could only get one kid out?

What if it was your kid?

I bet it would be worth it then.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

113. It would be even more worth it

to storm into school board meetings and demand changes from the school board, which is ELECTED by the citizens who care to show up for local elections, and which it can be VOTED OUT if it doesn't respond.

Of course, that takes more effort than reading private school brochures, and it would require you to look beyond the confines of your own family to consider the common good, but what the hey.

I thought that's what Democrats were all about.

[MassDem4Life]

120. in most cases

the school board is also hamstrung by union rules and the threat of lawsuits. also the mantra from the "educators" that the laypeople on the school board, are not professional educators, and therefore can offer no solution, as they do not have the requisite training.

THIS IS OFCOURSE PURE BULLSHIT!!

[Yupster]

130. I agree, let's do all those things...

It's a fight that we should fight for the next ten years,

but in the meantime, get those poor kids out of those crappy schools.

[MassDem4Life]

119. so you are afraid that

a privatized public school system would be the same as the current public school system, huh?

[alarimer]

40. religion

There is also the (possibly) Constitutional issue of subsidizing private religious schools with public funds. I believe that violates separation of church and state. Private schools can also pick and choose their students; troublemakers, the handicapped or others may be left behind to fend for themselves because the private schools can't or won't deal with special needs students. I think vouchers should be illegal. People can choose to put their kids in private schools if they want; they already have that choice. Scholarships are available for some.

[MassDem4Life]

72. you are wrong

The Supreme Court ruled in the Cleveland case that giving the vouchers to parents, and allowing them to choose the school wether public or private, secular or religious was not unconstitutional.

Al the Constitution says is that the government cannot ESTABLISH a reilgion, nor PROHIBIT the free exercise thereof.

Voucher do neither. Also public money has supported religious schools and programs for 200 years. one example, the GI bill, money goes to jesuit colleges such as Boston College, Notre Dame, Georgetown.

[Cheswick2.0]

47. vouchers, NO

public money to private business with a bottom line to turn a profit.
Public money to private institutions we have no control over and taken away from those we do have control over.
Public money drained from public institutions and the poorest children left in rotting schools to struggle with not enough funds, not enough teachers and no supplies. Not just no, HELL NO

[TheYellowDog]

61. There is a way around the

anti-voucher crowd's argument. Instead of giving parents a voucher for $1,000 or $1,500 a year, give the parent(s) a voucher worth the amount that the school district spends per child per year. Usually this is around $7,000-$8,000 a year, and that is enough money to pay for tuition at most private schools.

[ulysses]

62. bullshit.

Usually this is around $7,000-$8,000 a year, and that is enough money to pay for tuition at most private schools.

Bullshit.

[TheYellowDog]

64. Really?

LOOK IT UP. It's true. The average tuition in most private schools in an area like DC is around $6,500.

[ulysses]

69. yes, really.

I've taught in two private schools. My current employer (tiny school, no computers except for a couple of ancient machines that aren't online, through grade 6 only and 12 kids per group max) charges 5k per year. All well and good, except that she'll be losing both me and at least one other teacher after this year because I'm 34 and refuse to keep making 1,600 per month at my job.

My other school? $15k for high school kids.

[TheYellowDog]

71. That's one school

Most are well below that, that's probably the best school in the area.

[ulysses]

83. nope

My understanding is that that's pretty much average down here.

[Yupster]

67. that's exactly what we're paying right now

Most expensive school in town (city of 90,000 people) costs us $ 7,800 this year. Goes up a little each year though.

Maybe it's BS at the Friends Academy in Washington DC. It's the reality of our life right now.

[TheYellowDog]

68. Thank you, Yupster

Ulysses has been proven wrong.

[ulysses]

73. well, no.

How many kids will that school take?

[TheYellowDog]

75. It's ONE

school. IF there are a lot of parents with vouchers then more schools will open up to supply the demand.

[ulysses]

80. again with the free market hocus pocus?

Who's going to open and run these schools? The same public school teachers you think are doing such a shitty job now?

[TheYellowDog]

85. I never said teachers were doing a shitty job.

I NEVER said that. I just think that the bureaucracy eats up so much of the per pupil cost that kids never see the benefit. DO NOT put words in my mouth ulysses.

[ulysses]

87. and you don't think

that private schools - especially once they're tasked with educating the underfed, never-read-to, handicapped, latchkey kids that the public schools by law have to educate - have money-gobbling bureaucracies?

Wake up.

[TheYellowDog]

90. Not near as much bureaucracy

as a government-run school system.

[Yupster]

96. I would guess public school teachers mostly

I can imagine a tough grizzled older teacher opening a one-room schoolhouse and taking in 20 kids who have trouble with discipline, but with parents that want to work with them.

At $ 7,000 per voucher, the teacher would have $ 140,000 to work with. I could see that happening where I live. I know the teachers who would do it.

[Yupster]

97. The school my kid goes to

is pre-k through grade 12.

There are 2 classes per grade, so figuring about 20 kids per class, about 550 kids.

A cool thing.

The first day of school, my kid (1st grader but third year in this school) went to his first grade room, and the room was filled with high school seniors. Each senior had been given the name of one first grader. The senior took my kid by the hand and showed him his desk and his stuff, got him working and gave him a Class of 2015 T-shirt. That senior comes in once a week to read with my kid and help him as a buddy (mentor?). Last year, he was matched up with a junior.

My wife and I were very impressed.

[Cheswick2.0]

88. excuse me, butt please explain

what the hell private schools become at that point except public funded business (corporate welfare)over which we have no control?

[ulysses]

89. an excellent point. n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

91. with teachers they pay like slave labor, of course

Lets face it, this site is rank with trolls who love anything that will bust the unions. They imagine union busting and removing education from the "hands of the government" will lower their taxes.

[TheYellowDog]

92. I'm not a "troll"

n/t.

[Yupster]

95. When my wife and I

were visiting all the schools in the area, the last thing we gave a damn about was whether the teachers were unionized or not.

We wanted the best education for our kid.

The voucher debate, the unionization debate, the church-state debate is all flotsom to us. We just want our kid educated as best we can

And that's what every parent wants, even poor parents.

I would love to see a politician tell a crying mother in a shit school that he understands that Billy isn't getting educated in this school, but he can't leave because we can't try solutions that might harm teachers unions, or we're afraid that letting Billy go to the better Catholic school across the street might violate our interpretation of the constitutional issue of chuurch-state separation. Of course the politician's kid would be going to an academy in suburbia anyway.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

114. But Billy's mother

can

1) Tell the politician that his ass is grass in the next election if the local schools don't improve fast because she and the other mothers are getting organized. Also tell the politician to stop spouting baseless right wing talking points about teachers' unions (the great canard of people who've never actually taught in a public school and therefore think that "anyone can teach.").

2) Make sure that Billy has a library card (oops, the rightwingers are cutting back on libraries, too, but let's just imagine that things are at least as good as they were in the Depression, and we do have free public libraries) and uses it. Take him to free or low-cost cultural events. Get together with other parents who want the same things for their children.

Invoking the "crying mother" as a support for dismantling public education is typical of self-serving tactics. "I really don't give a shit about poor people as long as my precious little angel is attending the best schools, but I'll use the spector of the weeping mother as an excuse for my selfish position."

[Yupster]

132. My kid is already in a good private school

My precious little angel is out already. If I care about helping people in crappy inner city public schools, it's not self-serving. My kid is out already don't you see.

In fact, if I was self-serving, I would want the crappy schools to stay crappy so my angel could soar above those poor other kids trapped in their crappy schools. I wouldn't want the kids of the masses polluting my kid's fine school.

Luckily for me I can think beyond my kid. It probably comes from having been a public school teacher for nine years and having worked with these crying parents. I learned that the worst kid in the school still has a parent who loves him and wants him to do well. Even when everyone ese has given up on him, the parent will still cry out for help.

As far as telling the politician that you'll defeat him in the next election, good luck. The inner cities are all one party systems, run by political machines. The voters, the poor, less educated of the inner cities are among the least informed of all voters in the nation. They vote largely by name recognition.

Luckily they vote 90 % + for the Democratic machines that control the cities. The Republican Party gave up on these people long ago. I wish there was a way to break the machine style politics, but in the meantime, get those poor kids out of those crappy schools.

[recidivist]

134. Actually, it has been voucher opponents who have used the racial issue.

Many states have voted on vouchers. In most instances, vouchers/school choice starts with a significant lead in the polls. Then the NEA and its state affiliates have thrown major national resources into the battle, outspent voucher proponents five and ten to one, and scared a lot of people into voting no.

In both California and Ohio, and perhaps other places as well, one tactic used has been a whispering campaign that vouchers would let "those" people move out from the inner city and transfer to "your" nice suburban school. Regrettably, this kind of thing works.

I would be embarassed to belong to an organization that employs such tactics.

[Yupster]

135. The teachers at my kid's school are all

I think without exception former public school teachers.
I taught with many of them.

The high school history teacher was the department head of the local public high school until 3-4 years ago. I taught with her many years ago. Same with the latin teacher. She was the department head of the public school language department.

The school does not pay as much as the public schools in town, but it is not a dramatic difference. Losing TRS is a big deal since it is such an incredibly favorable retirement plan.

However, everytime there's an opening for a teacher, a whole line of public school teachers apply. There are a few reasons.

1. There are no discipline concerns. (anyone who's ever been a public school teacher knows how attractive this is)
2. A chance to work with a student body where every student cares and every parent is involved.
3. Your own kid gets to attend the school at a reduced tuition rate.

[Shanty Oilish]

94. Very true

We'll be paying for private schools over which we have no control.

As you probably know, in PA, Wisconsin and other states there are cyber charter schools which are public schools, technically. They give homeschoolers the opportunity to use public funds. The student gets a free computer, printer, textbooks, all curriculum material sent to the home. The charter school takes this money from the public school district---or if the sd resists, the state withholds the money from the sd.
If the child is only homeschooling, this curriculum costs over a thousand dollars, I believe. If the child is formally enrolled in the charter school it's free. Some of them even reimburse the parent for internet fees.
Control and accountability? These are tax dollars being spent, not in private schools, but in private homes.

[Blue_Chill]

112. My problem with vouchers is the bottom line - will they work?

I don't think they will. The current cost of a good private school is much higher then any voucher amount that would be given. Thus many low cost private schools would spring up for the sole purpose of 'MAKING MONEY'. If the goal is to make a profit and the school is already low cost then the amount actually reaching teachers and kids will be incredibly low.

So what happens at the end? Areas with low income will still have horrible schools, and upper class neighborshoods will still be better but now they will cost parents MORE money. Taxes(vouchers) + the extra cost of tuition which will not be covered entirely by vouchers.

It doesn't work so I will oppose it.

[recidivist]

123. Let's find out. A radical idea, I know ....

Don't know how this thread got to 100+ replies before I found it, but I'm glad to see more and more pro-voucher posters every time the subject comes up. A year ago, this was a lonely argument on this board. A year from now, we'll be close to a plurality. The Democratic Party is shifting on the issue, and none too soon.

As to your question -- "Will it work?" -- let's put it to the test: a real test, with no artificial constraints designed to impose failure. That would mean:

(1) The voucher amount should equal the full per-student cost in the public school system. Here in D.C., that's currently somewhere north of $12,000 per year, which is well above the national average. That will buy a lot of school. No poor student would be left dangling.

If voucher opponents had the courage of their convictions (clearly they don't, but that's another story), they would stop their efforts to limit vouchers to unrealistically low levels. There has been too much of this in the past. In the various, limited experiments to date, voucher opponents first fight to the last ditch against any test at all. Then they try to sabotage the test by any means necessary, such as limiting the voucher to $1,500 while the public schools are spending four to eight times that amount. One would expect better from people who were truly interested in students' welfare, but that obviously is not the top priority for certain special interest groups.

(2) Independent schools should be free to do what they want with regard to discipine, curriculum, and teacher recruitment and retention. Vary the formula and see what works. If they want to kick out the incorrigible troublemarkers, let them. Public schools used to do the same thing, and probably should do so again. The idea that schools need to mainstream every problem case is part of the problem. If this means some kids end up in specialized institutions, so be it. That said, I suspect the discipline problems would be much less if a consistent disciplinary regime were established from the early grades onward.

(3) The experiment needs to be sustained long enough for a realistic test: ten years at a minimum; 20 would be better. You can't expect to change the culture overnight. You also can't expect new schools to magically leap into being. Initially the practical impact of vouchers would be small, as the immediately available slots in existing private schools are limited. It will take time for new schools to be created and get up to speed. This also provides time -- and a powerful incentive -- for the public schools to get their acts in order, which is a good thing. The problems in urban public schools are ultimately governance issues, and vouchers are a way of forcing some of the most obdurate bureaucracies in America to reform or die.

I have long suggested D.C. for such an experiment, and only partly because I live here. D.C. is small and self contained. One could mount the experiment without having to juggle statewide concerns, and anyone who profoundly objected could use the voucher to transfer to nearby VA or MD public schools. Our public schools are a mess, so it would be a rigorous test. And, frankly, one couldn't do much harm....

It is one of the most telling indicators of how the wind is blowing that voucher advocates are enthusiastically in favor of a no-holds-barred test, while voucher opponents are terrified at the prospect. It is obvious from the fervor of the opponents that they, however much they may deny it, assume vouchers would work. Otherwise, there should be no objection to a realistic test.

P.S. Just for the record, I am open to the possibility that a voucher experiment as described above would fail. I don't dwell on that possibility because I don't expect it, but if it happens, I'm willing to eat crow. I wish voucher opponents had the same willingness to finally answer the question but, frankly, I don't think the education of children is their primary concern.

[Blue_Chill]

125. possible flaw in your logic

12,000 is the average cost per student but how much of that can really be put into a voucher and how much simpley is cost of running a school that will still be in place.

I suspect the actual voucher amount will be much much lower then that.

[recidivist]

126. There are NEVER flaws in my logic ....:)

If you want an honest test, the cost of operating the building has to be part of the deal, along with direct instructional costs, teacher pay and pensions. The whole shebang: total system cost vs. total system cost.

If it were up to me, to assuage the fears of voucher opponents I'd fund a voucher experiment in D.C. entirely with "new money" and leave the public school budget alone. This is what Congress is proposing to do on a limited scale in the pending D.C. voucher plan, and it is the right approach.

[Blue_Chill]

127. Reality bites

A "honest test" would require a significant spending increase. It will never happen no school district can afford it, and no republican is going to allow a rich white kid to get the same size voucher as a poor black kid. In a perfect world you may be right, but in modern America your test might destroy many a life.

[recidivist]

133. But it doesn't bite too hard ....

The costs are manageable. Say District A enacts a voucher plan. There will be exactly the same number of students pre V-day as after. They will require approximately the same number of teachers, classrooms, textbooks, and rubber duckies as before. The idea that the public school system will get hammered financially is based on the idea that a high percentage of students will immediately take the voucher and opt out, leaving the public system with half empty schools that still have to be serviced.

Not necessarily. Let's take a closer look....

As a preliminary aside, remember that my proposed experimental test bed is D.C. I would hope Congress would provide "new" money to fund the vouchers, with no cuts to the public system's budget. That has been the drift of the debate in recent years, and voucher proponents would endorse this approach simply to get a real test up and running. D.C. is also small, and the costs would not be prohibitively large whatever we did.

That said, D.C. is a special case. What about the rest of the country? Suppose our generic District A tries a voucher experiment?

Well, in the first place, any feared mass exodus can't happen overnight. There aren't enough private school slots to accommodate it. We would be looking at a transition over several years, so even in the toughest case, there should be ample time to redraw boundaries and close excess schools if necessary. Painful, but that's what you would do if your student based evaporated.

(An obvious solution, of course, would be to sell or lease excess schools to newly forming private schools. I don't know about the rest of the country, but here in D.C., this idea is rejected out of hand by a public school bureaucracy that is bent on blocking the competition. Even public charter schools get backhanded. This is part of the public school culture that needs to change.)

Secondly, in a city like D.C. which has been losing population for decades, there are already half-empty schools all over the place. Closing them is a political hot potato. This is one of the many places where our inept pols have preferred to let the school system hemmorage money. One ought not to blame vouchers for the fecklessness of public school officials.

Third, there are many growing cities and booming suburbs with the opposite problem: overcrowded schools, classrooms in trailers, etc. In these places, vouchers should afford much needed relief. Every 15-20 kids who opt out is one less classroom the public system has to build.

Finally, the one area where many public school systems WILL get crunched is administrative staffing. D.C., like a number of other urban systems, has roughly as many non-teaching as teaching personnel. (I don't know offhand if we're currently above or below 50% on the teacher/non-teacher ratio; this has fluctuated a bit in recent years.) Most private schools, including private school systems like the urban Catholic schools, run on a small fraction of the administrative overhead.

I do not mind holding public school systems' feet to the fire on this score. Lydia Leftcoast, if you're still reading, we might agree at least on this: the first thing we do is we fire most of the administrators. A number of the active teachers on this board have made similar points in the past.

Finally, I think you are raising a red herring by interjecting race into this. There are significant funding discrepancies from one school district to another, and some of these involve rich suburbs vs. poor inner city schools. But within each school district, funding is equalized. As a legal matter, no school district could get away with systematically funding white students at a higher level than minority students. Any voucher would be the same for everyone.

[salmonhorse]

142. Vouchers?

So called 'vouchers' never address where the remainder of tuition is supposed to come from and only leave open the door for our educational system to be thrown open to the corporations. Bush's brother is/has been hocking a software down in; you guessed it: Florida, these last some couple years that is designed to manage the educational system. William Bennett for instance, the holier than thou gambler, owns stock in a company that publishes ancillary school textbooks. These guys hate us but they just love our money. We The People's money.

Whatever is left over is intended to be handed over to the christian right for conversion.

[skeptic9]

143. THE VOUCHER STALKING-HORSE, and how to stop it

Voucher programs of the kind established in Cleveland and Milwaukee and proposed for DC are simply stalking-horses for

A. legal school segregation, and

B. the wholesale transfer of public funds, from poor children in public schools to middle class parents on the religious right.

Most of the children of parents who demand vouchers ALREADY are in religious schools. (The vast majority of private schools are operated by churches.) Public voucher subsidies would not even mainly go to children now in public schools, let alone help educate poor children.

Every voucher plan ever implemented verifies assertions A and B by rejecting ALL of the following sensible restrictions on voucher programs.

1. Vouchers must go only for children who are performing poorly in public schools, and not for children already in religious and other private schools.

2. Vouchers must go only to low-income parents.

3. Schools taking vouchers must accept them as full payment for tuition, and not charge parents extra amounts over and above the amount of the voucher, even for "optional", "extracurricular" school activities.

4. Schools taking vouchers may not turn any student away.

5. Schools taking vouchers must be accountable for these public funds, by testing their students on the same schedule as public schools, using the same test instruments. Religious and other private schools that do not raise children's test scores will be removed from voucher programs. (NOTE: After forty years of trying, the right has produced no credible studies showing that vouchers raise student test scores.)

6. Schools taking vouchers may not arbitrarily expel students. They must keep for at least 15 years records on all students who leave before graduation, so that they may be held accountable for their contribution to the high school completion of ALL their students.

If school voucher programs are not to be stalking-horses for GOP payoffs to their backers on the religious right, all of these sensible provisions would be part of every voucher proposal. But just watch what unfolds, now that poor children are being used as pawns to open the public money spigot for political payoffs, at the expense of poor children's educations.

Progressives can defeat voucher plans by insisting on iron-clad guarantees of features 1 throough 6. Voucher plans that included these guarantees of fairness would be of no value to right-wing politicians.

[shamgar5]

163. Religion

Christians have been trying to get their hands on tax money for years. That's what vouchers are about. Tax money to support sending little "Johnny Bible Thumper" to a christian school. That and the fact that the better-off would rather their kids not associate with the lower classes.:mad: