I read this sort of thing and I just do a slow burn.
In the end, though, I couldn't sacrifice my son to an education system that seems at best inefficient and at worst willfully corrupt. As much as I admire Mayor Fenty, I can't help noting that his children go to a private school.And if he doesn't send his kids to D.C. schools, why should I?
The more interesting question is why should all of the parents who don't have the choice to send their kids to a private school, or move to the suburbs? How do you write an article this long without noting that there are a whole lot of parents in the DC school district, each with their own child just as precious and unique and worth saving as David Nicholson's kid, who don't have any choices? How does the word "voucher" not appear once?
I very rarely get angry about politics. But every time I see some middle class parent prattling about vouchers "destroying" the public schools by "cherry picking" the best students, when they've made damn sure that their own precious little cherries have been plucked out of the failing school systems, I seethe with barely controllable inward rage. It is the vilest hypocrisy on display in American politics today. Now, I don't accuse David Nicholson of this particular sin . . . yet. Right now he's only guilty of the lesser sin of viewing real estate purchases as the natural vehicle through which one should excercise educational choice. Perhaps he favors vouchers to help the kids he's left behind. But if he does, I sure wish he'd mentioned it.
If vouchers were readily available, wouldn't that just be a way for private schools t jack up their prices even more? Sorta like how colleges can get away with charging extortionate amounts thanks to federal student loan guarantees.
The cost of education in most private schools (though not private academies) is well below the cost per student in the DC system. Performance is also substantially better. Not a bad combination overall.
If vouchers were readily available, wouldn't that just be a way for private schools t jack up their prices even more?
Shhhhhhh!
I went to a poor private Catholic school growing up. The teachers made well below the public school rates at the time. Not all private schools are exclusive or rich.
It's a breathtakingly callous argument, when you think of it: "We're going to condemn you to staying in a crummy school because we think it will make things marginally better for the other students." But it's worth examining why so many liberals - people who certainly _think_ they're nice people - buy it. I think the logic goes something like this: Sure some kids are better off with vouchers, but the ones left behind are worse off, so there's no net improvement. If you could show them that vouchers made _all_ kids better off, they might come around - or at least fall back on the more explicit argument that what's wrong with vouchers is that Republicans like them (this is considered an irrefutable argument in the suburb of Boston where I live.)
Solution: give every student a voucher, so that nobody is "left behind".
The bad thing about vouchers isn't the price of the education. It doesn't matter if prices go up "on paper" if they go down "in effect" due to vouchers. The ONLY bad thing about vouchers is when the government spends (our) money on something, it starts trying to interfere in whatever it's spending the money on. A tax credit might be the better approach.
How does the word "voucher" not appear once?
I support the non-use of the word "voucher."
Let's face it, the teachers unions and far left have basically won the first round of the PR wars when it comes to school choice.
My proposal: everybody stop using the "V" word and start using the term "portable scholarships."
What about means testing vouchers so it's scales inversely with income: >200% of poverty line: 100% voucher, 201-300%: 80%, 301-400: 60%, 401-500%: 40% and 20% for >500%
That would allow you to move them to not simply allow affluent parents to subsidize their education, and would allow for better directing funds at low SES families.
Government education is not nirvana? Who knew? Government healthcare will fix what ails you.
If vouchers were readily available, wouldn't that just be a way for private schools t jack up their prices even more?
Who cares? I'm certainly not going to lose sleep if rich people have to write somewhat larger checks. And I doubt the argument is true in any event. It seems to me making public education dollars portable would enhance competition in general in the K-12 sector, and, all things being equal, that should exert downward pressure on the price of education.
The evidence for a private school advantage is inconsistent at best and non-existent at worse. Once you control for unobserved selection effects-proactive parenting, parental involvement, etc.-the gains tend to vaporize. So, are private schools damaging public schools? What will school choice do? Impoverished inner-city schools experiencing an exodus of students will inevitably close, and those students will have to be relocated, taxing existing school resources, and forcing these schools to pull from the same teacher pool that includes the teachers from the closed schools. The problem with vouchers is that it completely misses the supposed causal mechanism. It isn't 'schools', per se, it is the resources within them--teachers, students, involved, educated parents--and these resources will, presumably, undergo dramatic changes with the introduction of school choice. Vouchers just displace the problem, they don't solve it.
I see it as my responsibility as a citizen and taxpayer to support public education. I would approve of vouchers, but only to secular schools. Since that is virtually unworkable, I don't see vouchers becoming a reality. But if someone came up with such a program, I would support it.
Why don't the rightwing people so in favor of vouchers instead raise money for poor children to go to the private school of their choice? I have seen this argument used against liberals in favor of social programs. Put your money where your mouth is, just as you expect liberals to do so.
Sure some kids are better off with vouchers, but the ones left behind are worse off, so there's no net improvement.
What gets me is that this argument is self-refuting. Even if all the brightest kids are peeled off by vouchers (which is not necessarily true), the kids left will be in smaller classes and receive more individual attention.
My sense of the charter school campaign, which has largely supplanted vouchers as the "achievable" goal for school reform advocates, is that many states have created a kind of California Energy Policy version of school reform. The legal arrangements for these schools are so convoluted as to confuse parents, antagonize local school boards, and achieve very little.
Charles,
Give me a tax credit for the money I give to a family to send them to private school and I will happily do it myself. I assume most libertarians would support this compromise to vouchers. Give me a tax credit to send my own kids to private school and see how that affects things as well. Cap the credit at something like 90% of state average for public school per student spending.
What are your objects to that?
We are all providing money for poor children to go to good schools, it just isn't happening. Why raise additional money to send them to private schools and leave the unused government school funding in place to be wasted? I like the "portable scholarship" approach.
Fine with me Skullberg, as long as they are not religious schools. If they are religious schools, you are on your own.
I think something should be done to improve urban education -- for example, using methods proven to work, like KIPP -- but the voucher system isn't scalable or politically viable.
Vouchers aren't scalable because the reason why crappy public schools are crappy is, to be frank, their students. Lower class black and Hispanic students who have lower IQ scores than whites on average, and have less discipline and parents who generally don't value education, aren't going to turn into good students magically if they are sent to a high-end private or public school. If you took all these students out of their 'crappy' schools and put them in predominantly white or Asian schools, you'd make life worse for the whites and Asians, by subjecting them to more violence and discipline problems, but you wouldn't make anything better for most of the urban black and Hispanic students.
The reason vouchers aren't politically viable is because suburban parents of all political persuasions have paid through the nose in most cases to buy houses in good school districts (i.e., school districts without a lot of lower class students). The liberals among them may flirt with certain broadly destructive leftwing policy ideas, but they aren't going to sacrifice their own children's safety or future for any of them. That's going too far.
Is that where the State or federal portion of school funding follows the student rather than accrues directly to a particular school?
Oh, and by the way, this liberal wants the federal government out of K-12 education. I live in Massachusetts, where we have superior public schools that consistently score well ahead of the national averages, especially in science and math. I don't want voters in Kansas who don't "believe" in science watering down my children's' education to satisfy their bizarre fears and ideas.
Why does reading this article put you in a slow burn? It's not hypocrisy to understand that the public schools available to him aren't up to par. He is actually paying (his own money) to send his child to private school AND is paying his tax dollars to public. He's not taking public dollars away from public schools. Acknowledging that the public schools aren't as good as they should be is not hypocrisy. Its realism.
I find it strange that the voucher argument basically seems to be "you're denying people something they can't afford". That doesn't seem to be a conservative or libertarian position. What's really missing in the voucher debate are the dollar amounts. Here in Philadelphia, Friend's Select school starts at $15,000 per year. Does Megan suggest taxpayers pay these tuitions so the kids she is concerned about being left behind can attend? I doubt it.
Provided that this voucher program ever gets implemented in an urban area... Isn't the right wing going to flip when a voucher is used to pay for a student to attend a Muslim school?
Why are vouchers to help students pay for parochial elementary and secondary schools controversial, but Pell grants to help students pay tuition at (for example) Notre Dame aren't?
It would seem to me that if the former case is problematic the latter case should be as well.
Charles, if you wish to completely defund the Department of Education, you certainly have my support.
What's a federalist? A central planner who has been mugged by reality?
I agree with Megan's outrage, but also with Charles's "put your money where your mouth is." I often get the impression that voucher proponents think that they will save money. I'm fairly liberal and a union supporter but I also see our urban public schools and have concluded reluctantly than vouchers may be a bad idea whose time has come, because efforts to fix the current broken system aren't working.
Two things should be kept in mind: (1) there don't now exist sufficient private schools to educate all the children who might migrate from the pubic system if vouchers were available, and those schools (or at least quality schools) won't emerge overnight; and (2) the students who don't migrate from the system will still need to be educated, and presumably those will be the students with lowest parental involvement and most in need of education.
So that suggests to me that vouchers will cost a lot of money, which should make teachers unions happy.
Why not a system where:
(1) the voucher amount is something large -- like say, the per capita amount per student now being spent in the public school, or >$10,000 in some places -- so that the student's voucher can actually support a well funded private school ($2000 vouchers are a bad joke) and
(2) reduce the public school budget by much less than the total voucher amount, so the public school system will actually wind up with more per student to spend on the [presumably] higher need students who remain in the public system. This could translate into smaller class sizes, more aides, higher teacher salaries (and also unfortunately more administrators).
This approach forces both sides to put up or shut up. Voucher propnents whose real interests are improving education and giving freedom of choice (as opposed to being a stealth approach to undercut public education by reducing spending), could support such an approach. Likewise, voucher opponents whose true interest is to improve education and maintain adequate public spending of the public education system (as opposed to simple protecting entrenched interests) could also support.
Charles,
Can you define a "religous" school? Is it curriculum? faculty? administration? Is there some reason besides being theo-phobic that you're basing this preclusion on? Would it apply to home schooling? I assume you'd also like to remove charitable deductions tax deductions for things like the Salvation Army...
Why not impose a standard base set of curriculum that "voucher-approved" schools must cover (and test for like NCLB) and allow them to teach whatever they want above that. Schools currently need accreditation, so I don't see the problem there. Or is there just something you think we should be forbidden from teaching?
Mike
Skullberg-
I think Charles' central gripe is that he doesn't want to pay the salary of religious prostyltizers. There's a difference between paying the salary of someone and offering them a tax break.
Religious schools do not merely education children on the tenets of a particular religion--they tell the children that whatever the dogmas are of the religion ARE FACTS, much like they rattle off the names of presidents or point to the periodic table.
Rickm,
Can I have the lists of approved things I can ask to withhold my taxes from because I disapprove of something they might do?
Also, if a parent wants their kid to think those are facts, who cares? And if it is simply a curriculum decision, can I get in on denying teachers specific parts of subjects to teach? In retrospect, I was taught plenty of things AS FACTS that weren't in school, like plenty of US history.
"I find it strange that the voucher argument basically seems to be "you're denying people something they can't afford". That doesn't seem to be a conservative or libertarian position."
Jonesin', you have more of a point if you're talking about vouchers for tuition at most private schools, which cost more than most K-12 districts spend per student. But not as much if the vouchers include parochial schools, which cost less.
In a "public" school, a class of children might hear a Native American myth about Grandmother Buzzard putting the sun in the sky (as my daughter did in DC pre-K last year), or (as you may have seen in the news) they might do a lengthy Ramadan simulation. Wasn't I peeved when my daughter repeated the myth to me, obviously convinced by the Grandmother Buzzard story! I think Charles is overestimating the degree to which public schools are religion-free. The question for parents, is which, if any religion we want our children to be educated in. (In our case, we switched over to an academically rigorous Christian school at first opportunity. It's in Texas and we pay $400 a month.)
The concept of "public" school is very problematic in a diverse society where all families don't want exactly the same thing for their kids.
Skullberg wrote: Why not impose a standard base set of curriculum that "voucher-approved" schools must cover (and test for like NCLB) and allow them to teach whatever they want above that. Schools currently need accreditation, so I don't see the problem there. Or is there just something you think we should be forbidden from teaching?
I wouldn't worry too much about it, because there's no way that's going to pass muster at the federal level at present; and if he gets his way regarding shifting education back into the realm of the states, the rest would sort itself out on state-by-state basis.
Skullberg: Easy. Any school that is run by any religious group. So this includes the many excellent Catholic schools that are basically very good secular schools with a nominal religious element to the curriculum. I don't want state or federal money going to any religious organization regardless of whether I agree with the religion or not.
I would expect states and private accreditation organizations to work out what belongs in the curriculum, though I would not be overly prescriptive there.
I am not anti-religion. I have belonged to and been in the lay leadership of my church for almost two decades. So drop the "theo-phobic" crap and stop trying to ascribe certain beliefs or motives to me that I have not stated.
I very rarely get angry about politics.
Then there's something wrong.
It is the vilest hypocrisy on display in American politics today.
That's just ridiculous.
Once you control for unobserved selection effects-proactive parenting, parental involvement, etc.-the gains tend to vaporize.
Marshall:
One of the benefits of a voucher system is that it gives the freedom to choose schools containing the children of such motivated parents to supportive-but-poor parents, not just supportive-and-rich ones.
It's true that a voucher scheme won't do much for the children of the subset of poor parents who don't care about their children's education, but it's not clear that any government action can actually help those children.
Charles,
I'll drop the theo-phobic nonsense, but I still don't see your point. Federal money goes to all kinds of organizations I disapprove of, it's part of the deal with paying taxes.
What I see here is selective content based discrimination on the use of tax revenues, since allowing parents to choose the schools which suit their children best and pass accreditation, clearly doesn't violate the establishment clause.
Can you explain what I am missing?
Skullberg wrote- "Can I have the lists of approved things I can ask to withhold my taxes from because I disapprove of something they might do?"
Its anything and everything you want.
"Also, if a parent wants their kid to think those are facts, who cares?"
I don't. But if its a government funded institution, that means I'm paying the taxes, and therefore I care.
"And if it is simply a curriculum decision, can I get in on denying teachers specific parts of subjects to teach? "
Dude, if its explicitly religious, you can't teach it in a public school.
Dude, if tis
Charles Giacometti,
Now that I think of it, a solid education is going to have to have something to say about religion, since religion is an important subject and has shaped a fair chunk of human history and current events. To be ignorant of religion is to be ignorant of literature, culture, history, and politics. Public schools are at a disadvantage here, because they can either address religion (often in ways that make a lot of parents mad), or they can ignore the issue as best they can (leaving big gaps in children's knowledge). My public school education certainly never dealt with the issue of who was Jesus of Nazareth, and we certainly didn't talk about Mohammed's biography. In the world that we live in, those are huge omissions.
Well, Amy, that is why you sent your kids to the school you did. Good for you. For my part, my children learn these things in Sunday school, and I am fine with that.
Skullberg, believe what you want. You are having a bad day, or you don't like me or something. Whatever it is, it is tedious.
I'm genuinely confused. You're arguing that if a school can provide a basic level of education on topics the government feels are necessary and sufficient, that if they are run by a group of people you prefer not to spend money one, then that should be sufficient to not do so, regardless of the curriculum or effect on children's education.
I don't see it is a legal proscription, so it is simply a personal one, and one that will be held at the whim of politicians (I don't want my kids taught by a school who believes X so add them to the banned list, I do want my kids...). Also, the taxpayer funding objection doesn't apply to tax credits since it's my money not yours, I"m simply paying less for public education.
A libertarian fraud exposed again.
You want to rob me to pay a bunch of psycho nuns to indoctrinate other peoples' children in fraudulent fantasies -- and provide more victims for pedophile priests. Vouchers are theft.
You should seek mental health treatment for your rage problem and your kleptomania. Inpatient. And you should write the check for it yourself.
Mr. Giacometti, and others,
then the answer is to de-fund education. Make it a completely private institution. OK, we can eliminate that suggestion as ridiculous. However, the point behind vouchers is to give parents a choice - allow them to get the best education for their child/ren, whatever they deem that to be - secular, Catholic, Hebrew, Muslim, Evangelical. The outcome will still be the same. The best schools will survive, the best teachers will be in place, and the preservation of a broken system (i.e., public/government schools) will be no more.
Skullberg-
If you can't see the difference between presenting gospel as fact and presenting a particular narrative of American history as fact in public schools then I suggest you... well I really don't have any recommendations for you.
Its more than "prefer[ing] not to spend money on" something.
Sam:
But, you miss my point, I think. It is doubtful these variables will change--that is, given school choice, parents become more proactive, become more educated, or become more involved--with the introduction of school choice. Thus, simply relocating their students to another school will not spark parental engagement or boost education levels, or change ethnicity, or alleviate poverty, all of which have been demonstrated to be strongly related to student achievement (it's not as though parents working two jobs suddenly experience a windfall of time to join the PTA or to help their child at home, or a windfall of money to stock their bookshelves with reading materials when vouchers are provided). Exercising a binary choice of school preference will not make parents more involved, more engaged, more educated, or wealthier. School choice does not address the underlying conditions and home environments that tend to depress school achievement. And, since school performance is a function of the quality of students--and their socioeconomic status, of course--the placement of previously low-performing students from disadvantaged backgrounds into high performing schools will only pull down the school's academic reputation, instigating another out-migration of students. School vouchers do nothing to correct the student-level conditions that determine academic performance. Anyone who has seen and analyzed data from an informally segregated school--that is, a comprehensive high school pulling from poor and affluent zip codes--can see that school context is not a placebo.
Holy Cow, Coombs! What an intelligent response! Shall we go over the list of government theft from taxpayers? Vouchers are returns to taxpayers of taxes paid to government to provide for the best possible education for the child.
Why all the venom towards Catholic schools? Check the headlines - there are many more predators in the public school system than in Catholic parishes...
"Government education is not nirvana? Who knew? Government healthcare will fix what ails you."
Funnily enough, virtually no one is proposing that we adopt a British-style system of government-run health care. A system of universal health insurance, which preserves competition among providers and offers individuals the choice of where to spend their money, closely resembles your precious, precious voucher system.
Maybe if we packaged them as "Health Care Vouchers" then libertarian twits would support the idea.
I favor vouchers for the free market effect. Public education really has no competition, which seems to be one of the major causes of the current problems.
A full voucher program would not only result in the creation of new, secular, private schools but would also force the public schools to become more responsive and competitive.
As far as Catholic/Muslim/Wiccan schools, I see no reason why vouchers should not apply, as long as they can separate out the faith-based portion.
I do not see why there should be any means testing for vouchers. This is education, not welfare.
Back to Megan's argument, though. I agree a mayor should send his own kids to the public school system he or she oversees, but a private citizen is under no such obligation. Isn't "Jane Galt" supposed to be a libertarian?
I go back again to my idea above. If rightwingers and libertarians really want school choice for all kiddos, raise the money privately and do it. What is stopping you?
Why, I might just "seethe with barely controllable inward rage" that Ms. McArdle and her fellow neocons haven't accomplished this already, now 6 years into Bush's rule.
"It is the vilest hypocrisy on display in American politics today."
Megan is partially right, but she's too enthralled by libertopian dogma to correctly identify the precise act of hypocrisy that's taking place.
If you genuinely, honestly believe that the major problems in public education today are centralized bureaucracies and lousy teachers protected by malevolent unions, which I suppose many of you probably do, then yes, it makes sense to hand vouchers to all the students and encourage them to all flee the public school system and allow it to implode. Meanwhile, I guess the magical market pixie dust of privatization will enable these economically and culturally integrated private schools to live happily ever after.
However, here on planet earth, the primary problem is that racially-motivated suburban flight and the availability of exclusive private schools have drained urban public schools of most of the students from households with parents who are motivated to help their children succeed. These schools thrive primarily because they can select, either economically or academically, for the specific class of students they want. If we dismantled the public schools and sent everyone to private schools, then the private schools will look more or less like our public schools do now. And naturally, the elite schools will raise their fees even further and use entrance exams to keep out as many poor students as possible.
The hypocrisy that matters is not that "nice people" claim to support public education while sending their children to private schools. The hypocrisy is that we still have a segregated education system (now based on economic and cultural markers rather than race, per se) because people WANT segregated schools. In theory, we don't want any children to be left behind, but in practice we want our kids surrounded by good students who study hard and behave themselves. (Some parents make explicitly racist assumptions along these lines, naturally, but race is generally a red herring. It's primarily a class issue.)
The poor academic quality in most of our urban public school systems is an EXTREMELY DIFFICULT PROBLEM to solve. And while I'm not entirely opposed to experimenting with vouchers in certain areas, I think you're deluding yourselves if you think vouchers are a silver bullet. It makes more sense to invest in our public schools, make them more attractive to parents, and try to retain more students instead of exporting even more of them to the separate-but-unequal parallel private education system. And yes, this will ultimately require people who care about public education to put their money where their mouths are and send their children to public schools.
Rickm,
I don't see a legal distinction here, especially with regards to private schools. I'm not saying public schools can or should do this, that's clearly an establishment issue. My point is plenty of things are taught as fact that aren't, and that isn't an excuse.
What I'm saying is, given a voucher for education, spending that at a private school that meets all of the state/federal curriculum and testing guidelines, the content of any other curriculum is irrelevant. It doesn't pose an EC conflict and it's simply an arbitrary distinction that will ultimately be abused by politicians.
So this includes the many excellent Catholic schools that are basically very good secular schools with a nominal religious element to the curriculum. I don't want state or federal money going to any religious organization regardless of whether I agree with the religion or not.
Personally, I couldn't give a hoot if publicly-funded students in the process of gaining a really strong grasp of physics, calculus and English grammar also happen to pick up the finer points of Seventh Day Adventism or Zoroastrianism in the bargain (as long as it's all very voluntary).
Skullberg,
You wrote that "plenty of things are taught as fact that aren't". Is this one of those things: "given a voucher for education, spending that at a private school that meets all of the state/federal curriculum and testing guidelines, the content of any other curriculum is irrelevant".
Its not irrelevant. Its not irrelevant to me, I'm sure its not irrelevant to the far right--they're not going to flip at the curriculum of Muslim school?
I, and I'm sure a significant portion of the population, has a problem with Gov't funding religious schools. If politicians pander to this sentiment, its not 'abuse', its democracy.
Charles:
At least with respect to vouchers, your concern about use of funds in religious environments is legitimate (althought the SCOTUS has said otherwise). It's worth noting that an even bigger concern with vouchers might be the effects of the government's strings on the religious school itself; I'm less concerned about the influence of religious schools on the government, though.
However, I'm not sure I can understand your opposition to the tax credit system. In the tax credit system, the government is essentially saying "Hey, you can send your child to whatever school you want; if you want to keep your child in one of our schools, fine- but if not, we just won't charge you the cost of sending your child to one of our schools."
Mark wrote "your concern about use of funds in religious environments is legitimate (althought the SCOTUS has said otherwise)."
No they didn't. The SCOTUS just said that its not legally prohibited to use the funds in religious environments.
And yes, this will ultimately require people who care about public education to put their money where their mouths are and send their children to public schools.
Until it becomes your own child, then you start combing all the statistics and see that yes, school X has a large number of students on subsidized lunches, while school Y just a few miles away has few on that program. Of course, housing prices in the school Y district are higher. This is not abstract, it happens all the time, and it happened to me. The statistics are widely available for anyone that cares to look. Anyone that cares.....
For a parent who desires to give their child every competitive advantage, the decision is a no-brainer. Why would I handicap my child so that he may have the privilege of sitting in an English class with other students who do not speak English fluently? Now, some will say that those students that can't afford lunch or a nicer place to live deserve the same opportunity and I don't disagree. Every encouragement should be there in the form of counseling, support and tutoring, but guarantees cannot be provided. Work hard and the desserts are yours. This is a basic ingredient of being an American and I condemn those parents who don't teach it to their children.
Vouchers would be nice, but I agree it won't change the result for those students who aren't taught this basic lesson by their parents or guardians. Good schools attract parents with an interest in their child's education. Those parents who stick with a school with fails year after year are failing their children and selfishly putting themselves over their children's interest (save the guffaws). Vouchers and charter schools won't save them.
I think the real purpose of private schools is lost. I went to a private highschool in Cleveland, Ohio (which had a very miserable public school system), and this is how it was viewed by everyone at the time.
Going to private school, means if you do screw up and fail, you're not going to get "passed along", you're going to get kicked out. In fact, you probably won't even make it to the end of the quarter if you skip a lot of school or never turn in homework. An F started at 69 instead of 59, and if you skipped even 1 day without a phone-in from a parent, you got suspended.
My point, is that vouchers would encourage enrollment in public schools (or at least "away from bad school districts") for the first part of the first year they were instituted, but 1 semister in, you'd still see a lot of the kids that weren't doing well (which are making up the bad statistics of the public schools) expelled, putting them back into the now even worse public schools.
A parent with voucher in hand, does not guarantee that their student can get into a private school. Private schools have the power of choice, and will not choose to have a student that will be disruptive to the rest of the school. Vouchers would just make private schools more affordable to run, and the small amount of good studnets in bad districts would be gone, making school districts such as much of Cleveland only involve "all bad students".
There are some students that would do well in a good school but do poorly in a bad school. I believe I fit this description growing up, and was lucky my parents opted not to have new cars or go on vacations in order to advance my opportunities in life. But most of the students that had transfered in to my private schools, typically had dropped back out within a year due to grades. Perhaps starting at the 1st grade level would work, but then we would basically "write off" over 10 years of current children.
Charles Giacometti wrote: I am not anti-religion. I have belonged to and been in the lay leadership of my church for almost two decades.
Interesting. Given your long history of ungracious language both toward the host and other commentators on this site -- and not merely for having fun with people who are in like mood, but vicious swipes and general nastiness against people whose only crime was disagreeing with you -- I do have to wonder what they actually teach at this so-called church? Or is just one of those feel-good social clubs that hangs a cross on the wall in order to get the tax-exempt status?
LaFollette Progressive wrote: Maybe if we packaged them as "Health Care Vouchers" then libertarian twits would support the idea.
Zhhiiinngg!
(i.e., in spite of my disagreements with your general argument...I find that pretty funny.)
Michael W-- I agree, which is why I said "ultimately" parents who care about their kids' education will have to send them to public schools. Until that day, the system will be broken. But I certainly don't expect parents to sacrifice their own children's education for the sake of principle.
I live in a less-well-to-do corner of a well-to-do school district, with schools that have a few issues but still have good test scores. I'd like to use the public schools, and help work to preserve the quality of the system, but only if it is still reasonable to do so when the time comes. We'll see.
Rickm,
You admit that it has nothing to do with them getting an inferior education, it is simply that the people who run the school are the problem. That's fine, some people might call that simple bigotry, and that the government shouldn't be enforcing it by proxy. Under your thinking, shouldn't we ban private religious schools and home schooling entirely?
And once again, if this is a tax CREDIT then it isn't taxpayer funds, so it's not your money and it isn't government funding.
So that's the solution I see as most politically palatable:
Income scaled federal government tax credits with a maximum values of 80% per student expenditures based on 5 year running average of per student expenditures of the state, if the money is spent at an accredited school.
Governments don't fund private schools
Per student expenditures go up in public schools
Parents get choice in schooling
Anony-mouse: Well, aren't you something being able to deign what is a real religion and not! You must think you have a special relationship with God, which in my book makes you delusional and, well, forgive me, mentally ill--not to mention judgmental and full of hate for others not exactly like yourself.
If you have an IQ above 100, consider this, though. Maybe I find our host ungracious and nasty and feel entitled to respond in kind. Consider this very post, where she says things like, "But every time I see some middle class parent prattling about vouchers "destroying" the public schools by "cherry picking" the best students, when they've made damn sure that their own precious little cherries have been plucked out of the failing school systems..." Talk about ungracious and nasty. I suggest she re-read her sentiment if and when she ever has children--and if and when she ever grows a heart and a brain.
I don't suffer fools lightly. Sue me.
Skullberg-
Go read my posts. I said the content of the curriculum is relevant. I wasn't ambiguous. You either misread what I wrote or twisted my words intentionally.
Oh, and anony-mouse. How about if you grow a pair and respond with your real name? Part of your
Shoot, screwed up the HTML.
I said part of your nastiness is posting anonymously. Another typical internet coward.
There isn't a chance in hell I'd send my son to a religious school (always believed school was about teaching how to think and not what to think which would be, IMHO, at odds with a school run by a religious organization). NEVERTHELESS, it's all obfuscation. If you offer vouchers, then I believe it's going to be inevitable that some of them will go to these schools (with their 'separate' religious teachings...uhh whatever). The case law, as has been pointed out, doesn't prevent the idea and in the current political environment not sure how you'd prevent this anyway.
A voucher argument should assume that many of those vouchers will end up in the hands of churches. Sort of puts a different spin on it, no?
"Well, Amy, that is why you sent your kids to the school you did. Good for you. For my part, my children learn these things in Sunday school, and I am fine with that."
CG, that must be some humdinger of a Sunday School. I don't expect our parish's CCD program to do more than teach Bible stories, traditional prayers, sacramental preparation, and a bit of theology during the hour or so a week they have. To expect a once-a-week one-hour class to cover thousands of years of Jewish and Christian civilization, art, architecture, music, poetry, literature, and history is a bit much. I won't consider my kids at all educated until they know who Thomas Aquinas, Wilberforce, Elizabeth Anne Seton, Thomas a Becket, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Wesley, Bonhoeffer, Thomas Moore, Bonaventure, Francis, Newman, Vincent de Paul, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Bellarmine, Charles Lwanga, Charles de Foucault, Occam, Francis de Sales, Joan of Arc, Andrew Kim, Isaac Jogues, Francis Xavier, Charles Borromeo, Bernard of Clairvaux, Catherine of Siena, Terese de Lisieux, Edith Stein, Maximilian Kolbe, Jonathan Edwards, Rasputin, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Torquemada, and the Borgias were.
Rickm,
I don't think I misread or twisted anything, you're saying that the curriculum above and beyond what is necessary and sufficient for a school, is what you care about. Since that is the case, why do we allow private religious or home schooling to fulfill the education requirement? I just don't see a compelling reason to limit the topics that can be taught in school, so long as the school is teaching everything it needs to be.
And you still didn't respond to my tax credit issue, where it isn't government funding...
Amy P - Quite a list, but I don't get your point. I recognize almost all the names, but these are historical figures that are part of Western Civilization not the Religious History of Western Civilization. They should not be taught apart. These are figures that should be taught by any good history course. I think what CG was thinking (and the part of his argument I agree with) is that teaching a certain denomination's habits as part of daily life would be religious education and not appropriate for public education in a secular society.
Amy P. Wow. I had no idea how uneducated I am. Hell--I never even heard of some of those people, and I attended 8 years of Catholic school.
Skullberg-
There is a difference between "fulfilling the education requirement" and paying taxes to support a curriculum that is religious in nature. Does that even need to be stated?
Are the vouchers we are talking about tax breaks, transfers, or coupons?
thats why vouchers are a bad idea. you cant treat schools like their a business. no matter how many vouchers, or scholarships there are, there are still going to be kids who stay in public schools. So are we just supposed to say, screw them?
The solution is to make every single one of our public schools as good or better than the private ones. But thats expensive and people don't wanna pay for it so kids, often the poor ones, get left behind and are at a disadvantage to the rich, or middle class kids whose parents can afford private schools or vouchers.
I revise my above comment back to Amy P. After further reflection some of these saints (and most are) probably won't break the 'significant figures' level in a history course because some just aren't that significant.
Re Michael W and Amy: Yes, the important ones you learn about in any decent Western Civ course.
Oh, except David Koresh. Just look for him in any dictionary under "kindling."
Stephen wrote: 1 semister in, you'd still see a lot of the kids that weren't doing well (which are making up the bad statistics of the public schools) expelled, putting them back into the now even worse public schools
A couple of points:
a) Actually, a voucher system could easily be designed to create schools specifically equipped to handle problem students. This is a big advantage over the current system.
b) Why, exactly would the public schools be "even worse" if all the motivated parents moved their kids out? Certainly the average test scores would go down, but for a school to be "even worse" you have to show that the actual students do worse than they would otherwise.
LaFollete Progressive wrote:
And while I'm not entirely opposed to experimenting with vouchers in certain areas, I think you're deluding yourselves if you think vouchers are a silver bullet.
I totally agree with this. There is no easy solution. But I'm surprised that someone who recognizes the problem is so tepid in supporting any alternative to the status quo.
Personally I'd like to see funds to eduction massively increased. But I'd also like to see the system opened up to allow parents more choices, including home schooling, distributed learning models, etc.. I feel like public schools advocates have fetishized the idea of crumbling gray buildings.
Jonesin', you have more of a point if you're talking about vouchers for tuition at most private schools, which cost more than most K-12 districts spend per student. But not as much if the vouchers include parochial schools, which cost less.
Fred you’re right. The voucher argument does make sense if you want to send your child to parochial schools. I guess that’s my problem with the voucher argument. Its billed as “sending your kids to private school like other people opt to do”, but in reality its just a “send your kid to Catholic school” program. If that’s what voucher advocates want, then argue for it, but they shouldn’t pretend that they want poor people to have the same options as wealthier folk. I have nothing against Catholic school, I attended one, but I doubt the solution to our education problems can be solved with sending our children to Catholic schools. In my opinion this would lead to two problems. One, the same bad kids smoking marijuana and wandering the halls would now be at Catholic school. Two, these schools would quickly fill up leaving no room for the other children. I Philadelphia, many Catholic schools have been consolidated. I believe that the reason Catholic schools tend to be better is because the children they have are a subset of the children in the community. This subset has parents who tend to be more involved in their children’s education, based on the fact that they are willing to pay extra to send their kids to a tuition based school. It’s really no surprise that these children do better.
Rickm,
Like I said, it isn't about the educational curriculum. You're objecting to the things they teach above and beyond what we deem necessary. Which to me is simple bigotry: I don't care if their getting educated better, they might also be taught about X!
And I'm proposing tax credits, plain and simple, backed up by invoices from an approved educational institution.
Skullberg
Do you seriously think its bigotry for someone to object to having tax dollars used to finance religious prostylization? are you serious? If a public school is trying to indoctrinate students with religious dogmas, I am going to object. And you call that bigotry? I'm sorry, but thats simply dumb.
" ... There isn't a chance in hell I'd send my son to a religious school ..."
Apologies if somebody else has already pointed this out, but *ALL* schools teach some sort of religion, whether they intend to or not. It is impossible to teach an impressionable child for 12 years without inadvertantly imparting one's values along with the ostensible subject matter.
Government schools in particular teach religious dogmas e.g. 'global warming'. 'environmentalism', 'tolerance', 'diversity', etc., etc. ... and (worst of all) 'Love thy Government with all thy heart.'
These are non-theistic religions, and they differ in the details from what Sister Mary Margaret used to teach, but the concept is the same.
john w.
So what are they supposed to teach in science class? That there is no such thing as global warming? that creationism is real?
Its called education for a reason.
John W, exhibit A in why I want federal funding for education to go away.
john w - Unless you've discovered something I haven't heard of, we have yet to prove the existence of supernatural beings so teaching blind adherance to a particular religious faith has no place in a secular school or publicly funded system of schools. Teaching about those faiths is part of teaching our history, but it should not include any admonition that any person would be assigned to a mythical hell for not following any of the precepts of those religions.
None of the proponents of 'global warming'. 'environmentalism', 'tolerance', 'diversity' meet the standard of religious concepts. Global warming is a concept built around scientific consensus and remains a theory (though one with increasingly sound data to back it up). Environmentalism is a movement encompassing a wide range of people from Granny delivering her recycling to the curb to the Earth Firsters. Tolerance is an encouraged human behavior (necessary just to exist in a comlex society like ours, IMHO) and a hallmark of our society but can be discarded by anyone with free will. Diversity is a fact of our society, but I assume you're talking about things like multi-culturalism which I have problems with as well but, again, it isn't/shouldn't be taught as dogma but as a competing set of ideas alongside others.
Sister MM said if you don't fess up to your wrongdoings and say you're prayers, then bad things will happen to you and you won't be in the Lord's grace. Somehow I'm not finding the equivalence with the above items.
I tend to think that the very existence of unsubsidized private schools is, in itself, an argument for school vouchers. Think about it: if it were true that selection effects, and not quality of education, are what makes private schools successful, then why would people pay through the nose for a private school? After all, if you're going to get the same education either way, the cheapest option should be preferred. At it's not an insignificant price difference-- good private schools can cost many thousands of dollars per year to attend, so you can be sure that parents believe they're getting their money's worth. They are, you could say, putting their money where their mouths are. I view vouchers as enabling parents to do this on a wider scale, as opposed to just the small set of wealthy ones who can do it now.
And bear in mind that vouchers don't necessarily entail closing down all public schools straight off-- it just gives students a method for switching from one school to another. It's entirely possible (though, I feel, unlikely), that the parents will continue sending their kids to only public schools. If they do, fine, nothing will change. If they don't, that should say something about the relative quality of those schools, eh? And the students, instead of languishing in the bad schools, will move to good ones. It's true that some kids will be left behind in the bad schools, possibly, but remember that this is exactly what would've happened anyway, without vouchers-- only it would've been everyone forced to stay there, instead of just a few hapless individuals. So I don't see the downsides, here.
"Fred you’re right. The voucher argument does make sense if you want to send your child to parochial schools. I guess that’s my problem with the voucher argument. Its billed as “sending your kids to private school like other people opt to do”, but in reality its just a “send your kid to Catholic school” program."
Jonesin',
There is another possibility: That a widely-instituted voucher program would create a differentiated market for alternative schools at price points approximately equal to the value of the voucher. So instead of being limited to Catholic schools at the low end and elite private schools that would be cost 50% or more than the value of the voucher, you'd get a range of different schools created by educational entrepreneurs.
You could also allow schools to have a competitive application process, so Catholic schools and other schools could screen out the trouble makers. There would even be a market for serving trouble makers though. For example, a retired black army officer might hire ex-drill sergeants and start his own military school to take on the kids with behavioral problems; since he's getting paid by voucher, he'd have an incentive to keep students from dropping out. On the other end of the spectrum, an over-educated secular liberal might start his own school for gifted & talented types.
"Government schools in particular teach religious dogmas e.g. 'global warming'. 'environmentalism', 'tolerance', 'diversity', etc., etc. ... and (worst of all) 'Love thy Government with all thy heart.'"
Ah, yes. Brings back memories. We used to line up every day in public school and pledge our fealty to big government, then we had mock trials for anyone who harbored illiberal thoughts, with forced confessions and everything. I remember like it was yesterday.
Well, no, actually my schools were pretty conservative and I had a world history teacher who tried to explain why we shouldn't trust carbon dating or any other evidence that the world is more than 6000 years old. The teachers must have secretly disconnected Big Brother's spy cameras.
25Hour-
Many people don't send their kids to private schools because of the quality of education. They send them to private schools because there are not many black people in private schools.
Excerpts from an excellent essay by Michael Crichton (Sept. 2003):
" ... Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. ..."
Added by me: And if we don't repent of our sins, we shall all burn in the everlasting Hellfires of Global Warming. It's perfect!
Giacometti wrote: Anony-mouse: Well, aren't you something being able to deign what is a real religion and not! You must think you have a special relationship with God, which in my book makes you delusional and, well, forgive me, mentally ill--not to mention judgmental and full of hate for others not exactly like yourself.
Yeah, exactly, that's stuff right there. It could have come from the keyboard of the most viscious bigotted atheist without changing even one word.
Wow! You quoted Michael Crichton! Thats so funny, because it would just be so hysterically ironic if you cited a writer of fiction as a source for your argument rather than an actual scientist or group of scientists! Oh wait... you did.
john w - sorry, i'm still having trouble equating living in a warmer polluted world with eternal damnation. I think your description of environmentalism could only be ascribed to the fringes of the movement. However, the churches tell us that billions of people still believe the bull about eternal damnation.
Anony-mouse chimes back in again. Such courage, sniping anonymously on the Intertubes, likely done between breaks in the Rush Limbaugh show, wiping the dust from his Cheetoh-dust-smeared hands.
At least you are consistent, anony-mouse, a coward and an idiot to the end.
That's odd because I'm pretty sure there's broad support for tax exemptions for religious institutions... I guess you consider tax exemptions for the institution themselves somehow different from tax credits for parents. Can you explain this difference to me?
I've said that's out of bounds as an establishment clause issue. No one on here is asking for that to be allowed let alone done. That's a strawman plain and simple.
No I call it bigotry when you are trying to prevent OTHER people from sending THEIR children to schools the state has accredited, simply because they ALSO teach something you'd prefer not to subsidize even though it isn't an EC issue.
I've addresses the government funding issue by making it a tax credit, so that can't be your concern.
Skullberg-
Let me spell this out for you.
There is a difference giving someone a tax credit or break and subsidizing an institution. I never said anything about tax credits--from what I understand vouchers are not tax credits.
You wrote: "No I call it bigotry when you are trying to prevent OTHER people from sending THEIR children to schools the state has accredited, simply because they ALSO teach something you'd prefer not to subsidize even though it isn't an EC issue."
As I said on multiple posts, I do not want to pay, that means my money given to people, to send them to religious institutions.
Who are you arguing with?
I'm arguing for tax credits here, I think that is pretty clear from my posts. "Vouchers" can be manifested in many ways, including tax credits. I believe using tax credits solves your objection, so I would assume you would support the plan I laid out above:
Income scaled federal government tax credits with a maximum value of 80% per student expenditures based on 5 year running average of per student expenditures of the state, if the money is spent at an accredited school.
Henry-- "I'm surprised that someone who recognizes the problem is so tepid in supporting any alternative to the status quo."
I'd love to see changes made to the status quo, but in an environment where people sneer at the very concept of state-run education I feel compelled to defend the mere existence of public schools. There's a tendency in some quarters, particularly in McMegan's neck of the ideological woods, to view bureaucracy as an incorrigible evil and competition as an unvarnished good. I think that's a dangerous road to go down. Markets are wonderful things, but if you want accountability and minimum standards, then you need a central authority... not a marketplace.
There are already plenty of options, including home schooling, charter schools, etc., and more can probably be done along those lines. What I'd like to see more of is experimentation within the framework of a public school system-- magnet schools, prep schools, vocational schools... perhaps even the sort of tiered secondary school system that works well in many other parts of the world. This is generally considered inegalitarian and heretical thinking, but I think we're lying to ourselves if we don't admit that we already have a de facto tiered school system. Being honest about this would be a good first step.
Private school vouchers are a last resort. Vouchers won't eliminate our educational ghettos, they will help certain individuals while worsening conditions for the rest. That's not my idea of a sound public policy.
The problem, of course, Skullberg is that most education is financed locally so the feds are giving you back money they wouldn't (for the most part) spend so there'd have to be a complex mechanism for making your idea revenue neutral. Otherwise it just ends being what others have suggested, which is a subsidy for private schools - both secular and religious. Local taxing authorities would be loathe to jump into the game methinks.
If a voucher is simply a tax credit, then its going to be a pretty ineffective voucher. For the people who really need subsidized education--the poor--a tax credit is not going to cover it. Any discussion of serious discussion of vouchers is going to need some sort of subsidization over and above tax breaks.
Michael W
I agree with that, though I assume a 1-1 reduction in federal funding to tax credits (with 1 lag obviously) could handle it. This may not be the case, but that seems like details that can be worked out.
Also, I'd support this being done at the state level, and in that case it is much simpler.
Rickm,
I tax credit is perfect for this: it reduces taxes due directly. A $5000 tax credit for a family paying
Skullberg-
What is this a tax credit on? Federal taxes? If you are a poor family you are probably not paying that much in federal taxes. Payroll taxes-c'mon. Property taxes? you're only getting breaks if you own a home.
Hmm... Maybe, using Federal vouchers (or possibly tax credits) can be turned into a plus. Federal vouchers could be a subsidy (or even the primary funding source!) for all schools, private and public. It would offer more choices and could help aleviate the disparity of "rich school districts" vs. "poor school districts."
I suggest you look at the EITC on this, if you owe less in taxes than you are due in credits, the government cuts you a check. It's called negative income tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit#Structure
rickm,
"Wow! You quoted Michael Crichton! Thats so funny, because it would just be so hysterically ironic if you cited a writer of fiction as a source for your argument rather than an actual scientist or group of scientists! Oh wait... you did."
Michael Crichton may be a phenomenally successful writer of fiction, among other things, but he's also an incredibly intelligent man. He has a medical degree from Harvard, he was a writer in residence at the Salk Institute, and he was awarded a scientific/technical Academy Award for his own invention. He has read more about climate change and global warming than nearly any other lay commenter on the subject. Before you dismiss what Crichton has to say, go to Barnes & Nobel and pick up a copy of "State of Fear". The first part is a didactic novel. Feel free to ignore it if you like, but the appendix includes an essay by Crichton on global warming. Read it, and read the exhaustive annotated bibliography he includes as well. You may still disagree with Crichton's conclusions, but you won't be dismissing him so easily.
I didn't really mean to say "all" schools in my previous post. Obviously some schools won't take Fed money or will have additional funding sources that will be greater. I simply meant that Fed. money could someday replace property tax money.
Fred-
I get my science from scientists.... mmmk?
If you genuinely, honestly believe that the major problems in public education today are centralized bureaucracies and lousy teachers protected by malevolent unions, which I suppose many of you probably do, then yes, it makes sense to hand vouchers to all the students and encourage them to all flee the public school system and allow it to implode.
This is precisely the problem with the DCPS, which the original article was about. Spending per pupil is among the highest in the nation, but the bulk of it goes to the massive central bureaucracy, not the schools themselves, which is why every August the local news has several stories about schools not opening on time because of dilapidated buildings, no books, etc.
Indeed, if you had bothered to read the article Megan linked, then you would know that much of the problem is also the lousy faculty and staff, headed by lousy principals, who don't give a flying fig about establishing relationships with parents in the hope of fostering better learning environments. And why should they care? They are accountable to no one.
The easiest, and probably best, solution to the DCPS nightmare is to simply shut down the entire school system, sell off the assets, and give every child in DC a check (not a voucher, or scholarship) for the precise amount that the system is currently spending per pupil. That child (and his parents) can use that money to pay for tuition to a private school, an out-of-city public school, moving expenses to another locality, crack, smack, new Jordans, whatever.
Sure you wouldn't do anything to help those kids who don't care about school and whose parents aren't motivated to help them. But as many have said earlier in the thread, those kids are mostly lost causes anyway. More importantly, the kids who do need help, and desperately want it, will have the wherewithal to get the education they want. And no more worrying about those kids left behind in public schools.
Skullberg, in that case, then its tantamount to a subsidy.
And it not like Crichton's views are anywhere near reasonable.
See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
Christina - Agree with you, at first. I did read the article and it's true it's about the dilapidated condition of management in DCPS. Anyone with a child in school can easily relate to his stories and his lament.
In the end, it's all about the kids you describe as the "lost causes". Their parents don't care (or don't know enough to care) and vouchers won't change that. That requires a completely different discussion because the practical solution can't include abandoning them.
Actually, most of the people I know who don't approve of vouchers do so for the rank dishonesty of the approach. The argument usually goes something along the lines that the public schools spend $9,000 per child per year (or pick your own absurdly high figure). Then voucher proponents suggest giving each child $5,000 to spend _out of that $9,000_. If the child stays in public school, fine, if not, the school system loses $5,000 per child withdrawn per year. There are two things wrong with this argument, one of them involving willfull dishonesty.
First, if one insists on the 'voucher experiment' - and the results to date have been unspectacular, to say the least - on should not use monies already appropriated by the schools.
And second, the money that the pro-voucher people want amount to an enormous give-away. In fact, it does not cost anywhere near $9,000 dollars for the average student . . . and voucher proponents know this. To arrive at that $9,000 dollar/year figure, the usual practice is to look at all the money spent by the school and divide it by the number of students. In fact, the marginal cost of educating each individual student is far lower. That "$9,000 per student" is going to pay off the new track, which very few students ever use, or for after-school clubs, or for students with disabilities, etc, which is added on oh-so-innocently to the costs of the average child . In point of fact, the cost to educate this average child is far, far lower - much lower than the $5,000/year the voucher people want. Iow, they want a subsidy for their education. That's real hypocrisy.
Now, if people only wanted what it cost to educate their own child in the public system as a voucher, or if the funds were not taken out of the revenue for the public schools, I think you might see more suppport for the notion. But that's not exactly been the case, has it?
"I get my science from scientists.... mmmk?"
So does Crichton. Read the annotated bibliography.
SOV - I have my doubts about vouchers for reasons elucidated above, but your strawman isn't convincing to me.
If they argue for 9,000 but get the 5,000 then fine; so why the attack on the 9,000? The amount, if it were given (and I'm not arguing for that) would be somewhere just north of the marginal amount in order to be fair. After all, the fixed costs of the school system would eventually go down due to closures, etc.
If the $5000 for the voucher isn't withdrawn from the school system then it is a subsidy and that's something few people would favor.
If vouchers were to work (and, again, not arguing for them here), they must be both carrot (incentive for the schools to compete and improve) and stick (punishing those schools that underperform). The key for me, is improving the performance of students whose parents don't care or don't care in a way that leads to better outcomes. Any suggestions for that?
Since Megan is recycling a topic from last March, I'll lightly edit and recycle my comment on it (the 3rd-to-last comment on the 2nd post on March 18th):
I'm amazed that so few people know that two states, Maine and Vermont, already have education vouchers for some of their citizens, and they apparently work just fine. When I was teaching in Maine five years ago, I was told that the rule was that anyone who lived more than 20 (or maybe it was 25) miles from the nearest public school could get roughly $5,000 a head from the state to send their children to any non-religious private school. Some of my students' parents had (I was told) intentionally built houses in out-of-the-way places so that they would be eligible to send their kids to "the second-best school in Maine" (that's what they all said), where I taught.
I was also told that some towns never got around to building public schools, because they found the private schools perfectly adequate and well worth the money. Fryeburg, Maine, for instance, has K-8 public schools, but sends all their high-schoolers (~500) to Fryeburg Academy for $5,000 a head. Fryeburg Academy is 300 years old and also serves a few dozen tuition-paying students from over the line in New Hampshire, and something like 150 boarding students from the U.S. and abroad, who of course pay quite a lot. There are apparently some class tensions between the richer boarders and the poorer locals, some of whom lived in trailer parks, but it works well enough to keep the local taxpayers happy.
I may have been misinformed on some of the details, and I may remember them wrong after five years. If you want to know more, a quick Google search found two PDFs that look useful: the Cato Institute's "Lessons from Maine" and some Maine educators' "An American Tradition in Education: New England Town Academies".
Michael, I will say this one more time, and this will be the last time. The voucher proponents want to take more money out of the public school system than what the school system is paying to have those kids educated.
The typical figure is probably more like $2,000/year and quite likely less in some areas - much less. But they want $5,000/yr, double or triple what the public schools are actually putting towards the average students education.
Not. On. My. Dime.
SoV,
So if the voucher is 100% of the average marginal cost of each student opting out (which will go up as more students us it), then you are on board?
Whether or not you seethe, Megan, is quite irrelevant to the point that public schools are, in fact, required to take every student and private schools are, in fact, not.
That simple fact makes comparisons between them a matter of comparing apples and oranges, nor does the fact that any particular parent would prefer for their children to go to a private school alter that fact. A big part of the reason that public schools under-perform private schools IS that public schools take everyone regardless of academic potential and there's nothing hypocritical in acknowledging that basic reality.
Unless you seriously believe that a voucher system could get every single child into a private school, including the students who are unruly, come from broken homes, and those with manifest learning disabilities, then the only thing that vouchers accomplish is making public schools the dumping ground for the students that private schools won't touch which will, of course, make them perform even worse.
Not that any of this matters since it's a near certainty that increased applications to private schools will simply cause them to raise their rates so that many of the voucher holders are still going to have no choice but to send their kids to public school with the net result that vouchers will simply act as a subsidy for private schools -- which doesn't seem to be much in line with the core principles of Libertarianism.
Fred,
I hear what you are saying. I just don't have that much faith in the free market to produce a positive outcome. How long would it take for a differentiated market to appear? Five years? Ten? What are students supposed to do while this market creates itself?
I think the money would be too great of an incentive for many opportunist individuals to get into "the education business", creating "C" level private schools, with little oversight. I tend to find most people (in both the public and private sphere) can be rather opportunistic and greedy given the proper circumstances. In Philadelphia we have charter schools, and they've had problems as well (google philadelphia charter school fraud if you want). I see a system of people opening schools just for the money, not because they have a vision of how quality education should be. I fear the Mc Elementarys these folks would create.
To me it goes back to how much voucher money are we talking about? I doubt pro voucher folk want to pay to send my (nonexistent) kids to $15,000 Friend's Select (nor should they). What do you think a fair amount of money would be? Do you think quality for profit schools would find this amount incentive enough to open?
I agree that there's some population of students that would fail under a voucher system. But they're failing under the current system, and we're sacrificing some number of students who could succeed to those kids. Suppose the failing kids continued to fail, but could no longer destroy the environment for the other kids, wouldn't that be a plus?
Or does it have to improve every single student to be worth doing? Must the perfect be the enemy of the good? Can't we help some kids?
Charles Giacometti wrote:
Why don't the rightwing people so in favor of vouchers instead raise money for poor children to go to the private school of their choice? I have seen this argument used against liberals in favor of social programs. Put your money where your mouth is, just as you expect liberals to do so.
I do--although I wouldn't consider myself "right-wing," I give as much as I can to the Washington Scholarship Fund, which provides private-school scholarships for D.C. kids. (WSF also currently has the contract to administer the D.C. school voucher program, but that's a separate fund.) I figure it's the least I can do to support parents who know their kids deserve better.
Intriguing that the same crowd who vociferously opposes SCHIP because --after all --people are responsible for tehir own health care choices, even children, is eager for government handouts when its their hot button.
And those who feel Mr Giacommetti's comments about pro\ivate charity for school choice are out of line should review a sampling of the --usually far more scurilous -but essentialy similar postings from their fellow travelers regarding SCHIP.
But of course, the refrain will be --"It's not the same!"
Skullburg, yes, I wouldn't mind trying that out as an option. In fact, I'm not against a voucher system per se at all, as long as that funding is not pulled from public schools over and above the marginal cost of educating the average student. Oh, and no money for religious instruction, or instruction that goes against conventional teaching - you don't get funding if you're dropping the evolution unit in the biology classes in favor of Creationism or ID, or whatever they're calling it to sneak it in under the radar these days. However, it's pretty much a given that putting your kids into a private school is not necessarily going to give them a better education. _That_ particular myth was debunked a long time ago.
OK, hold on there SoV...
However, it's pretty much a given that putting your kids into a private school is not necessarily going to give them a better education. _That_ particular myth was debunked a long time ago.
I agree, it's not "necessarily" going to do that, but hey, let's look at the admission rates for kids from the Potomac School into Ivy League institutions and compare them with _any_ public school. Yeah, yeah, I know maybe I'm picking an outlier, but you were describing the private school education superiority as a "myth". I'm not so sure.
Because, as it has been pointed out, public schools are required to take everyone regardless of need, they are going to have to make some compromises. Instead of offering AP Calculus they may need that teacher for Special Ed. It follows that many private schools will be better because they are choosy about who they take, and some of those schools will take voucher students. Your argument would imply that these high performing schools are forever out of reach to those holding out hope for a voucher.
I'd also argue that many of the high performing public schools are private schools by another name. I look at the upstate NY school district attended by my son. Real estate prices in this district reflect the superiority of the school thus pricing out many lower income families. Obviously it didn't just start this way, but through vision and a '30 year plan' on the part of the local government a school system was built that reflected the high esteem held by the local villagers for public education. No private institution even bothers to compete in this district. I mentioned in another post about the district voting for a very expensive artificial turf for the athletic fields last year. I think this was a result of the trust that the townspeople have that money given to the school is not wasted and that the investment in the school brings a healthy return.
Here's another of my questions: If we allow those students to leave with a voucher that have caring parents and motivation to do well, are we making a conscious decision to decrease the quality of the public school from which they come, and, if so, do we have some obligation to that public school?
It's hard to argue against providing motivated students with options when the cost is equal to the taxpayer. I am a skeptic on vouchers just because I think the costs are not completely represented in the voucher transaction. What are the costs to society of underperforming schools which have the best students taken from them?
Before SoV flames me, just wanted to note that the rest of her post was right on...right up to that last sentence.
I'm amazed that so few people know that two states, Maine and Vermont, already have education vouchers for some of their citizens, and they apparently work just fine.
Few people know that quite a few countries have largely voucherized education systems as well. I think one or two of the Nordics operate this way, and the Dutch and Japanese do, as well. Again, I think Megan is on to something in using the term "V-word." It makes it all sound so sinister and unamerican. In its purest and simplest form, a voucherized system merely means the very considerable sums we spend on each student's education become portable. Not unlike, say, government subsidization of a college student's education, or indeed Medicare or food stamps.
Given the fact that education policy in the US bizarrely departs from usual public sector practice in tying the spending to geography (and in denying choice to the beneficiary), I say the onus should be on the opponents of school choice to defend staying with the status quo.
Imagine, for a moment, telling a Medicare beneficiary that he or she can't see a particular doctor because the physician in question is located on the other side of some imaginary border called a "district line." Quite rightly we wouldn't stand for it. I guess the only reason we justify it with respect to public education is the incredible, world-leading results we get from our public eduction system. Oops, sorry -- the world-leading results we Americans do get in education are observable only in the sector where we don't use geography to deny people their choice of school (and where the schools themselves have to compete furiously for their customers' business): post K-12.
Funny, that.
What are the costs to society of underperforming schools which have the best students taken from them?
So trapping a good student in an underperforming school is justified if the school looks better as a result?
In any event, some of us crazies actually think society as a whole is likely to see a net benefit if underperforming schools are actually required to improve, lest they lose their customers. If such a school truly becomes abysmally bad at its mission, hopefully it will lose all its customers, and go out of business. Closing down irredeemably ineffective schools is high up on my list of Things To Do when you're trying to improve education.
"Indeed, if you had bothered to read the article Megan linked, then you would know that much of the problem is also the lousy faculty and staff, headed by lousy principals, who don't give a flying fig about establishing relationships with parents in the hope of fostering better learning environments."
I did read the article, thank you very much. I also happen to have some experience with the subject that runs a bit deeper than just a single newspaper article. I'm also capable of grasping the concept that DCPS has more than one set of problems to deal with.
No matter how desperately you may want to demonize the teachers and administrators (and some of them are, indeed, quite lousy), there are actually a great many people working for DCPS who care very, very deeply about providing the students with the best education they can possibly receive. I don't think anyone who has never worked in an inner-city public school system fully understands how thoroughly the deck is stacked against those teachers before they ever set foot in a classroom. They are fighting apathy and disarray with very little community support. And it really doesn't help one damn bit for self-satisfied ideologues to lazily scapegoat the people who actually dedicate their lives to educating these children.
For every teacher and administrator who "doesn't give a flying fig" about establishing relationships with the parents and community, you should probably take into account the far larger number of parents, students, and community members who have no interest in "fostering better learning environments" and disrupt the learning environment for those who do.
San Francisco public schools run on a lottery basis, which is basically a voucher with no ability for the schools to disciminate. Not surprisingly, you have to be lucky to get in the best schools, but it is, to all practical extents, equally tough for everyone. I've been navigating the system for my soon be kindergartener, and this is what I've learned:
-Any parent with an interest in his child's education and who does not care about having to travel across the city to get their kid to school can get their kid into a very good public school - schools that can compete with any school in the state.
-The diversity of schools in SF is pretty phenomenol. There are language immersion programs in Spanish, Chinese, and Korean. There are arts focused schools. There are science focused schools. There is a year round school. It seems very likely to me that the force of competition has caused schools to differentiate and specialize.
-Even so, only 50% of parents in public schools enter the lottery. The rest take the district assigned school, which will almost always be a poorer performing school. And many of the bad schools are really, really bad.
Given that only 50% of parents care enough to participate in the lottery (which is completing a form and writing in your top 7 choices), it's hard to see that vouchers will fix the problems with inner city education. However, it is a wonderful thing that parents in SF have an option, if they care. Sadly, a lot don't and that's a very, very tough problem to address. And, on the surface, it does look like many SF schools do compete to have attractive programs to bring students in, and that this lottery system has forced improvements in public education. In fact, last year, public school enrollment increased, which is a big deal in a city with an on-going decline in the number of school aged kids.
The issue of schools being able to select students is a huge issue with vouchers. The private schools do assessments on every kid. While they all stress diversity, I suspect they are more interested in diversity of skin color versus true socioeconomic diversity. All the private schools I've seen in SF have very generous scholarship programs, but I haven't seen any true "inner-city" kids in them. But I have to believe that teaching is more efficient when kids are somewhat at the same level. How do you teach a classroom of kindergartners in which some read and some don't speak English? Can you really do either group full justice?
You can't look at what's happening in San Francisco and believe that the lottery isn't helping some kids, and that's worth a lot. But it's not an educational fix either.
I think we should face facts that "Public" schools are government run schools. I think we should outsource to private organizations the "public" school systems. Then we could have much easier accountability.
The voucher proponents want to take more money out of the public school system than what the school system is paying to have those kids educated. The typical figure is probably more like $2,000/year and quite likely less in some areas - much less. But they want $5,000/yr, double or triple what the public schools are actually putting towards the average students education.
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. 1) Public schools are not educating kids for $2,000 a year, let alone "much less." The salary for a teacher alone -- who may have 20 students -- is going to be $35,000 or $40,000, and more as experience goes up. Do the math. And you think that's the only cost of education?
2) Lots of areas -- New York, New Jersey, DC -- spend over $13,000 per student per year. You're saying that 5/6 of that is spent on the gym or on special ed? Sheesh.
3) You seem to think that whenever a voucher student leaves a public school, the public school's budget goes down by the amount of the voucher. Why do you think voucher programs are funded in that manner? Students leave public schools all the time -- because they move, transfer, homeschool, or go to a private school without a voucher. And when they do, there's a per-pupil allocation that the public school then loses. What on earth makes you think that vouchers are any different?
4) You're suggesting that it's an unfair "subsidy" to give private schools a voucher that's any higher than their marginal cost. OK, so you'd be fine with stripping down the public school budget just to your supposed marginal cost of under $2,000 per student? You're against "subsidies," after all. Of course, I strongly suspect that you're using a blatant double standard here -- public schools should get $10,000 or $13,000 per student, while private schools should be forced to operate based on absurdly low estimates of marginal cost -- but maybe you do indeed want to cut public school budgets by 70-80%.
Michael W:
"However, it's pretty much a given that putting your kids into a private school is not necessarily going to give them a better education. _That_ particular myth was debunked a long time ago.
I agree, it's not "necessarily" going to do that, but hey, let's look at the admission rates for kids from the Potomac School into Ivy League institutions and compare them with _any_ public school. Yeah, yeah, I know maybe I'm picking an outlier, but you were describing the private school education superiority as a "myth". I'm not so sure."
I think you're missing something, and it's something that was addressed very early in the comments section. In order to attribute the gains experienced by students in exclusive, hoity-toity private schools to the schools themselves, you must know the counterfactual: that is, had they not attended the private school, would they have enrolled in an Ivy League School anyway? Research, and simple intuition and common sense, suggests yes. Most of the parents who send their students to Choate or Andover are well-healed, educated blue-bloods who also have legacy credits a-waitin' Poindexter's arrival at their Ivy League alma maters. The private school advantage becomes a myth when you control for these selection effects.
Denise,
"P R I V A T E!" as oppossed Corrupt, Wasteful "P U B L I C!" education!!!!
Got that, FREE ENTERPRISE, competes for Dollars! Those that provide the BEST Product at the LOWEST Cost, Thrive, those that don't, well, I Think, you can figure that out?
It's what made this country GREAT!
DUH
"If vouchers were readily available, wouldn't that just be a way for private schools t jack up their prices even more?
Shhhhhhh!"
Per your later post, I don't generally flame, and when I do, it's to discipline bad behaviour, not bad logic, bad facts, or bad thoughts.
But no, that myth was debuncked a long time ago:
----Begin----
1996 Math test scores 9 year olds 13 year olds 17 year olds
Public Schools 230 273 306
Private Schools 239 286 316
1996 Science test scores 9 year olds 13 year olds 17 year olds
Public Schools 228.0 254 295
Private Schools 238.0 268 304
1996 Reading test scores 9 year olds 13 year olds 17 year olds
Public Schools 210.0 257.0 286.0
Private Schools 227.0 274.0 294.0
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP 1994
Trends in Academic Progress; and NAEP 1996 Trends in Academic Progress,
prepared by Educational Testing Service. (This table was prepared
August 1997.)
----End----
Iow, yes, you may get a better education at a private school, but not _because it is private_(and no, getting a better education is in no way guaranteed.) Studies of these sorts have been done many, many times, and the vast majority of them report the same facts. In fact, I'm puzzled that the people posting here who believe so passionately in this issue are not better informed; the usual pro-voucher mantra is now 'choice'.
Marshall says.....
I think you're missing something, and it's something that was addressed very early in the comments section. In order to attribute the gains experienced by students in exclusive, hoity-toity private schools to the schools themselves, you must know the counterfactual: that is, had they not attended the private school, would they have enrolled in an Ivy League School anyway? Research, and simple intuition and common sense, suggests yes. Most of the parents who send their students to Choate or Andover are well-healed, educated blue-bloods who also have legacy credits a-waitin' Poindexter's arrival at their Ivy League alma maters. The private school advantage becomes a myth when you control for these selection effects.
Marshall - I think you overrate the advantage of being a legacy. Admissions are just too competitive and scrutinized. If you f/o in high school, it doesn't matter who daddy is. However, I agree with the rest of your post. It's one reason I'm NOT 'for' vouchers (still on the fence). However, the response I posted to SoV, which you pulled from, was meant to convey the belief that if you pulled together the list of "best schools in the country" based on the achievements of those who went there, test scores, and admissions to selective schools, I'm betting you'll find the list over-weighted with private schools. The reason for this is not because there aren't good students in public schools (ok, proud parent here and will say my son is one of them) but because public schools are required to take everyone. That very fact means that they can't be directly compared to private schools. BUT. But, that doesn't mean that private schools aren't better. If we could provide the quality of education they provide at the Potomac School to every child then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Put me down for being supportive of public schools with the recognition that many suck and perhaps should be closed. Vouchers MIGHT be one way to force the issue. As I've stated, I'm agnostic on the issue.
What an absurd statement! And in such an ignorantly pugnacious tone too. No, I am against private subsidies to people who choose to go outside the public school system. They are perfectly free to educate their children however they see fit . . . But. Not. On. My. Dime.
Yes, it's an absurd statement, but it's one that you made. After all, you're the one who has been saying that it's alright for public schools to spend all kinds of money but that it's an unfair "subsidy" if private schools get anything more than what you suppose to be their "marginal cost."
So all you're really saying is that you're opposed to vouchers, and that it has nothing to do with the idiotic rationales that you have given. (I.e., the claim that kids can be educated for much less than $2,000 per year -- an amount that wouldn't even pay their teacher's salary, or the claim that vouchers are taken directly from a public school's budget).
Michael, here are some old stats:
1996 Math test scores 9 year olds 13 year olds 17 year olds
Public Schools 230 273 306
Private Schools 239 286 316
1996 Science test scores 9 year olds 13 year olds 17 year olds
Public Schools 228.0 254 295
Private Schools 238.0 268 304
1996 Reading test scores 9 year olds 13 year olds 17 year olds
Public Schools 210.0 257.0 286.0
Private Schools 227.0 274.0 294.0
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP 1994
Trends in Academic Progress; and NAEP 1996 Trends in Academic Progress,
prepared by Educational Testing Service. (This table was prepared
August 1997.)
This is the raw data, and even these small differences tend to go away when student composition is factored in - the 'cherry picking' vs the 'take all comers' admission standards.
The worse performing school system in the U.S. is the Washington DC school district. It is also the most expensive - $13,000 per year per student. Just think that is about $455,000 per classroom per year based on 35 students in a class. The cost of a Catholic school education is D.C. is about 5,000 per year. Based on 35 students that is about $175,000 per year per class. The Catholic schools in DC have a 98% success rate of graduating students that can go on to college. The most expensive Federal Government program is Social Security with Education coming in second. Yes non-believers - we spent more on education than on the necessary War in Iraq. The richest Senators in DC are Kerry and Kennedy - all their children have attended private as well as the Clinton's and Carter's children. Just a side note: All of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson's children have attended extremely expensive private schools Why, because DC schools prove that the NEA's mantra we need more money to be successful is just plain wrong.
I will file this blog entry on the 112,788th reason I homeschool my child.
Which brings to mind the question: Do you have any rational and defensible reasons for opposing vouchers? I.e., reasons for which there is even the most infinitesimal support from the realm of facts?
Sigh. How to put this politely? You're an idiot, an aggressive one, and you have nothing worthwhile to say on the subject. Here's what I posted not less than 24 hours ago:
Here are your options: you can either make nice, and apologize. Or I will cheerfully ignore you. Your call (I'm guessing that, like so many of the 'personal responsibility' crowd, you will, in fact, fail to take responsibility for your intemperate words.)
Michael, I've tried three times to post the relevant statistics on the outcomes of public vs private education, but they're being held by Megan for some reason. They were copied from an old usenet post of mine, so there may be some nonstandard characters that are being flagged as suspicious by the system.
I don't want any governmental spending on education, at all.
Are you over 18?
You're an adult, be nice to your parents or sign the note, or get a job. This will cause colleges to scream. Too bad, their services are grossly overpriced, under qualified and non-innovative.
Ditto k-12.
Until we get Big Money out of the monopoly Big Education, we won't see constant quality and price decrease, a la autos, computers.
Further, and more importantly, doesn't anyone see that the same people that don't want an government supported, and mandated religion, are just wickedly comfortable with government taxed, supported and mandated mind control, conditioning, and socialization? Why is it that, say, liberals who are appalled at 18 year old men being conditioned by military boot camp are just ga-ga over kids in their (mostly) mind camps for over a decade?
Very strange, this whole mental lock of having 1800’s model learning, with 23rd century costs and Soviet style quality, still locked into the popular mind. I suppose what would you expect of mass indoctrination other than child like support for the father/mother figure organizations that conditioned them.
"No, I am against private subsidies to people who choose to go outside the public school system. They are perfectly free to educate their children however they see fit . . . But. Not. On. My. Dime."
And yet you are perfectly happy with subsidizing a corrupt, wasteful institution that is destroying your and my children!
Not even if you Stand on Yo head!!
Sheesh!
Put Da money in the hands of the Students and Parents instead of the Bureaucrats and corruupt politicians!! Spend No more or No less, Just put the Power back in the hands of the Consumer!
Seems to be a pretty tough concept for you to Grasp! I for one do not want a Poll/Bureaucrat Dictating to me or deciding what is good enough for my children!
Why should I continue funding a BROKEN system??
It's not all that tough a concept to grasp, but you do seem to be struggling with?
Sheesh!
Saying that you'd support vouchers under such hypothetical conditions -- and based on a dumb view of marginal cost -- isn't very meaningful. It's like me saying, "The real marginal cost of getting health care is about $500 per year. No one is getting a subsidy for health care from me. Not. On. My. Dime. But hey, I support universal health care if it is limited to $500 per person per year."
Not a very meaningful concession, is it? And rather stupid to boot, given that no one in their right mind thinks that the real cost of health care is so low.
Which is why I'm certainly not going to apologize for saying that you have put forth a similarly idiotic view of "marginal cost" in education. No remotely informed person could claim that the marginal cost of education is far less than $2,000, let alone that any voucher over that amount is a "subsidy" (as if private schools incur nothing but marginal cost). These are dumb, dumb views. Sorry, but if you disagree, you should put forth a bit more effort into coming up with evidence and bit less effort into acting all sniffy.
Rickm,
"Religious schools do not merely education children on the tenets of a particular religion--they tell the children that whatever the dogmas are of the religion ARE FACTS, much like they rattle off the names of presidents or point to the periodic table."
And public schools don't do the same? For instance in their interpretation of history?
Paul. I agree. Privatize the whole enchilada. Cut taxes, no vouchers, no tax credits, no subsidies, no loans, no Department of Education. Parents pay for what they get and if they are unhappy take their children and their money elsewhere. No laws to force children into schools until they are 18, no laws against kids working (well maybe until they are over 12). We are mentally stuck in the ideas that 1) the state owes our kids an education and 2) state education is a good thing. I am amazed that it has taken this thread several dozens of posts to get through to this idea.
Note that nowhere did I cite a dollar figure, only that this requirement hold.
But you knew that. Just like I knew you weren't going to take responsibilty for what you had already written. You are contemptible.
Uh, you guys wanting to push for vouchers? When you refuse to chastise people like this specimen out of some misguided notion of solidarity, you only weaken your position. I would wage that individuals like this are what most people think of when they think of voucher advocates.
You want to appear more reasonable? If I were you, I'd tell John Doe to just grit his teeth and act like a man, and apologize for spouting off like that.
If, otoh, you are only interested in preaching to the converted . . .
Mike T.
No. They don't. I went to public school, I never heard "accept this narrative of history" or face eternal damnation.
Mike T and RKV -
Homeschooling is always an option. To pass the tests for a GED, just tell your kids that the information they need to pass is just that and nothing more.
Of course, future employers will also feel free to not hire your children.
In both cases, Free To Choose.
Let me try posting these figures again:
1996 Math test scores 9 year olds 13 year olds 17 year olds
Public Schools 230 273 306
Private Schools 239 286 316
1996 Science test scores 9 year olds 13 year olds 17 year olds
Public Schools 228.0 254 295
Private Schools 238.0 268 304
1996 Reading test scores 9 year olds 13 year olds 17 year olds
Public Schools 210.0 257.0 286.0
Private Schools 227.0 274.0 294.0
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP 1994
Trends in Academic Progress; and NAEP 1996 Trends in Academic Progress,
prepared by Educational Testing Service. (This table was prepared
August 1997.)
And this is the raw data, uncorrected for the composition of the student body.
ScentofViolets: "George Bush is a cyborg terminator being controlled by aliens."
John Doe: "That's a stupid view for which there is no evidence whatsoever."
ScentofViolets: "My goodness, what an affront. I'm not going to continue this unless you apologize and take responsibility for your mean words [sniff, sniff.]"
I'll make just five points for now.
1. Even in Washington, DC, a dream or "wish" list of what a parent or teacher would want to see in a school will always cost more to implement than what the local taxpayers will agree to pay, probably by 30% to 40%, so public schools will always be "underfunded" if one is pursuing a dream list (highly educated teachers with MA/MS/PhD degrees, modern buildings, wonderful athletic facilities, state-of-the-art science/computer/language labs, wide choice of curricula, etc.). One of the reasons elite private schools, like the ones that educated FDR, JFK, GHWB, GWB, Al Gore and Chlsea Clinton, have students that do so well is they have the funds to fund every wish.
2. Public school systems have three major functions, being (A) raising enough funds to operate, (B) setting broad, and sometimes quite specific, goals of what should be taught, and at what grade level, in each course (and testing toi see that the goal has been met) and (C) providing the in-the-classromm instruction to see that (B) has been met by usung the funds raised in (A). A voucher system doesn't so much as totally erase the public schools as make vouchers schools a way to carry out part (C). Public schools don't raise their own cafeteria foods, they buy them (outsourcing to food bokers), they don't make their own pencils, paper, copiers, blackboards, desks, computers, towels or toilet paper - they buy it from suppliers, or in the case of buses, they contract out the bus routes. What a voucher mechanism does is to outsource part C - the in-you-child's-face teaching.
3. I mentored a young man the last two years in third and fourth grade in an inner-city school. He wass bright (I believe and that's also what his teacher told me), and he had an outstanding teacher, but he wasn't learning nearly up to his potential. Why? There were bright students and slower students, calm and obedient students, and disruptive students, students from homes where parents actually cared and some from homes where parents didn't actually care, all mixed up together. If that mix doesn't change, no amount of money will fix it. Vouchers allow concerned parents to at least save their own kids, even if they feel powerless to fix the whole system.
4. Setting a voucher rate equally to 80% of the marginal cost of educating a child in the publicly run classroom, but funnelling 100% of the tax money (localk, state, federal) through the school board, means that the school system is better off with each child that accepts the voucher approach. Thus if the local full funds are $7,500 and the marginal cost is $6,500, the voucher is for $5,200, and the parents will have to kick in the difference, or have a partial or full scholarship.
5. If a parent freely, voluntarily, and knowingly selects a school with a religious component to it (chapel, lunch-time prayers, bible study) for his child, wht is that to you, so long as the teachers actually teach the required subject matter and the students pass the year-end comprehensive tests, showing they have mastered the material they should have covered?
Michael W:
Apologies for "overrating" the advantages of legacy credits, which was not my intention. Legacy credits are, of course, a function of other socioeconomic characteristics which are strongly associated with both private school enrollment and academic achievement--as such, their effects will most likely vanish when you control for these background characteristics. Even parents who send kids to these exclusive schools who aren't magnanimous donors or alums differ systematically from those that don't, which confounds the independent effects of private schools and home environment.
And, ScentOfViolets, I'm curious as to which statistics you are posting. My hunch is that they will show much higher means on student achievement in private schools than in public schools. This is misleading, of course, for reasons previously stated. For a nice, non-technical exposition of this problem, check out this abstract and paper.
http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=document.showDocumentByID&nodeID=1&DocumentID=226
Regarding this statement obviously posted by someone who lives in Another World or The Guiding Light:
Homeschooling is always an option. To pass the tests for a GED, just tell your kids that the information they need to pass is just that and nothing more.
Of course, future employers will also feel free to not hire your children.
In both cases, Free To Choose.
My homeschooled child has taken the Iowa Standardize Test. He just finished 7th grade - His history was 12th grade, Math at 11th grade, Science at 9th grade and English at 8th - this was at the end of the seventh grade school year. I will put him against any kid in a public school at his grade level on testing any day of the week and twice on Monday.
For more edification: Both Stanford University and U.C. Berkely have now established Departments that specifically recruit homeschool children - why because on the average they out perform, not only academically, but on traits like responsibility, the desire to learn and outside activities such as sports and community service, their public school counter parts. Stanford Univeristy now offers a program for High School Homeschooling.
Even more edification: Homeschoolers are now the norm for winning things like the National Spelling Bees, Science Contest and starting their own business before they even graduate from high school.
My son has already been visiting potential colleges - all of the college he has visited are very interested in him and he is only in eighth grade.
Personally, I like vouchers. And I love this blog, because it is always interesting.
Consider the following, which offers and alternative to vouchers:
1. Abolish the Us Department of Education, which has been an abject failure at best. I don't know what it costs, but allocate the savings back to the states. (This step is not really crucial, but we need to dismantle large parts of the federal government anyway [not all of it, just a few chunks here and there] and this is a great place to start.
2. Treat schools like separate corporations. Give principals (CEOs) a budget and let them spend as they see fit. Minimize the role of school boards and system wide administration, which is hugely expensive and inefficient.
3. Sit back and watch what happens.
Some will fail, but I'd wager we would see the death of teacher unions (an inherent good!) and a more entrepreneurial approach to education. The blanket complaints about education so clearly present on this blog would get addressed. We'd find some actual solutions. Right now US education is so monolithic and instutionally water-logged that this sort of experimentation is virtually impossible.
No offense meant, but this is like watching a room full of monkeys trying to solve a Rubik's cube.
Let's keep it simple:
1. Government takes money from parents to fund public education.
2. In many cases this education is substandard, by the subjective evaluation of those who have the most interest in seeing the child learn - the parent.
3. Given the choice, many parents would take the money government takes from them, and use it to provide a better education for their children.
In the liberal worldview, where it is perfectly acceptable to fuck over actual individual lives for the sake of the amorphous society (made up of individuals, ironically), giving parents choice is a BAD THING. Instead, one must pray harder, give more tithing, and stop being so selfish - it's not like it's really your money or children (it takes a village).
Choice is only good when it concerns killing babies, not educating them.
Cowgirl - the context of my comments were the responses from Mike T and RKV who expressed displeasure over the teaching of certain ideas in public schools which had nothing to do with their overall performance. I was simply giving them an option since their apparent intent was to shield their children from public school taught 'ideologies'.
Homeschooling is a great option as you've described. Please put me back in the 'real world'.
Dear Scent,
You state that "That "$9,000 per student" is going to pay off the new track, which very few students ever use, or for after-school clubs, or for students with disabilities, etc, which is added on oh-so-innocently to the costs of the average child . In point of fact, the cost to educate this average child is far, far lower - much lower than the $5,000/year the voucher people want. Iow, they want a subsidy for their education. That's real hypocrisy."
I'm not sure what source you're using for this data (another High School newspaper article perhaps?), but the California Legislative Analyst's Office seems to disagree with you. For 2005-2006, operational spending for K-12 was estimated at ~$58.9 billion. Of that, total spending on students with disabilities was ~$4.4 billion. Removing that $4.4 billion leaves spending per pupil at ~9,100 on an Average Daily Attendance basis.
As I'm sure you're aware, this number does not include spending on infrastructure (tracks, gymnasiums, etc...) which are covered by bond funds or money raised within the community.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2006/education/ed_01_ov_anl06.html#Overview
Regards,
Neil S
Michael W.
My apologies...
Cowgirl...
"Free To Choose."
My RIA. I am not free to choose because people like you support a government that takes my money to educate other people's children. Further you and your friends make laws which dictate how I am to raise my children. I have two children and this discussion is not academic. They are good kids and A students (GATE) and have done well under the current regime. I'd be very happy to bail them out of the publik skrewls if you would just let me keep my own money, so I could afford to take care of their education myself. They would be even better than they are now.
"RKV who expressed displeasure over the teaching of certain ideas in public schools which had nothing to do with their overall performance."
Michael - don't misrepresent me. I said no such thing nor implied any such thing (displeasure in ideology). What I said was that we should privatize education, and end so-called public schooling. Don't misrepresent me. I made an economic and public-policy argument, not a religious one. That it happens to be moral to require parents to raise their own children, rather than to put that cost onto the public, is a beneficial outcome as well.
I hear what you say RKV, but, there's some cost to society for abandoning kids who don't have parents who care. Eventually, we'll have to care for them in prison, on public assistance, or through lost productivity. So the cost to you would likely be not that much different. We're competing globally but then you know this. Our competitive advantage in manufacturing labor intensive, low margin goods requiring no education is no more...but again I think you know all this and more.
So, let's look at this realistically. Is there middle ground between no public education and socialist utopia? I think so.
Sorry RKV...maybe I was inferring that you had an agenda with this statement ..no laws against kids working (well maybe until they are over 12).
Gee, ya think the 13 year olds would provide better service at Mickey D's?
RKV, sounds like you need a better job so you can better provide for your children. In fact, maybe you shouldn't have had children if you weren't prepared to take care of them in the way you knew would be best for them.
(Insert several thousand hateful comments from the rightwing about the Frosts here to back up my point about how this is exactly how the right wing treated them regarding the SCHIP program.)
Somewhat seriously, though, I wonder why so many people expect a bailout here. These aren't new problems. This has been the reality of public schools at least since the 1970s, earlier in the major urban areas.
I hear comments like those from RKV and "I seethe with barely controllable inward rage. It is the vilest hypocrisy on display in American politics today."
160 posts, and yet no evidence contained within to prove the claim that this whole venture is founded on-- the notion that American public school is failing. McArdle provides no evidence to prove that; no one ever does, beyond "everyone knows...." Everyone is wrong. Here is the truth: American public education is not in crisis. If you adjust for the fact that the vast majority of the industrialized world does not include special ed students with regular ed students, like the US does, the United States has decidedly average public education. I'm going to say that again: the United States has an average public education system. It is not in crisis. It is not collapsing. It is not falling apart. And among the hundreds of people posting here, no one has seriously tried to prove they are. Which is a failing of intellectual maturity of a pretty amazing order.
LaFolette's health care voucher analogy would only work if we were paying property taxes to support specific health care centers.
Property taxes go to the public schools. Giving people vouchers or tax credits to cover education costs is just letting them have control of money the government has already confiscated from them. That's why vouchers are somewhat libertarian.
Of course the full monty libertarian option would be to just not confiscate the money to begin with and let people educate their kids as they choose.
Freddie:
Did you just arrive in the US or maybe you don't have school-age kids?
The United States back in the 40's, 50's, 60's and even 70's was at the top of the list of schools in the World - we are now at somewhere like 27th in the World.
The High School exit exam for California High School graduates is the equivalent of 8th grade and only 60% pass. Which begs the question, why should California taxpayers have to finance 4 years of high school for every student when in the end it really doesn't matter. You call that average? I call it the 112,789th reason I homeschool my kid.
The whole reason for the blog and discussion on school vouchers is because the public school system is failing - that was a given. Don't need a discussion on something that is already a fact -the blog and discussion are trying to find ways to fix it.
I see my cites are still not being allowed to go through so let me physically enter the shorter result table:
1996 Math Test Scores 9 year olds 13 year olds 17 year olds
Public Schools 230 273 306
Private Schools 239 286 316
1996 Science Test scores
Public Schools 228 254 295
Private Schools 238 268 304
1996 Reading Test Scores
Public Schools 210 257 286
Private Schools 227 274 294
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP 1994 Trends in Academic Progress; and NAEP 1996 Trends in Academic Progress, prepared by Educational Testing Service. (This table was prepared August 1997.)
Sorry for the poor formatting; I don't know how this works on this site. Anyway, please note that these are raw figures. Even these small percentage differences go away when controlling for composition of student body, eg, the 'cherry picking' effect. This is, as I have said, been known for some time. In fact, most voucher proponents who know this insist that the issue is really about choice (that's not what they said, ten or fifteen years ago, in fact, quite the opposite, that public schools were 'failing'. But let that pass). Yes, it is certainly possible to get a good, even superior education at a private school. _But not because is it private_.
In fact, having taught in both public and private schools, I am at a loss as to what is, precisley, is claimed that is being done differently. As far as I can tell, it certainly isn't the teaching style. If any of these voucher enthusiasts have any idea of these specific differences are, I'd certainly like to hear them. Maybe I could use them in my class.
Freddie, I've just attempted to post mulitple times on the specific test scores of private vs public schools. At first I just cut and pasted, and I wondered if maybe some bad control character was causing the whole post to bounce. But I've just laboriously typed in a table of scores on math, science, and reading, and Megan still isn't allowing me to post them. This is definitely Not Cool.
But I can summarize the results: the uncorrected scores show maybe a five percent difference between the scores of kids educated in public vs private scores. And when you correct for the composition of students, even that disappears.
Megan, why aren't you letting these posts appear?
And you know, Freddie, that if such results were to show the obvious superiority of private schooling, we'd hear no end of the matter. Heck, I'd rethink my position on the whole affair if that were the case.
But they don't, of course, and that's why no one is posting them. And possibly why I'm not being allowed to post them.
160 posts, and yet no evidence contained within to prove the claim that this whole venture is founded on-- the notion that American public school is failing.
Um, Freddie dear . . . no one said that all American schools are failing. But some school systems are failing -- most notably inner-city DC. No one seriously disputes THAT. And liberals are complete hypocrites when they say, "Well, of course I'm sending my kids elsewhere, but never mind about that, and don't any of you poor people go getting the same idea, because that wouldn't be fair to all of the public school students left behind."
I would love to see a breakdown of these costs. In my area (NYC), they use the 13k/student figure and I have a very hard time believing that they really include cap-ex and pension commitments.
A few friends of mine who work in the system are in their late 40's and preparing to retire with a lifetime of benefits paid for by the NYC school system. The schools themselves, are on priceless properties.
Does anyone know of a real accounting for this somewhere?
I go back again to my idea above. If rightwingers and libertarians really want school choice for all kiddos, raise the money privately and do it. What is stopping you?
Taxes. People can barely afford to get their own kids out of the public schools.
Tax credits are the way to do it, that way the government is not involved in financing and has no control over what gets taught. To cover poor kids, anyone should be allowed to fund a student. The elderly couple with no kids could take the credit for instance. Yes that means some children will get religious instruction, but if you want to ban people from spending their own money on religious teaching, we have a word for that. Bigotry.
As for what education will look like—we simply do not know what our education system would look like if we had the freedom to choose. The idea that some people will be left behind is crazy, especially because of the amount of money available if we privatized. Administration savings alone are huge. We could give every child in America several thousand dollars just by abolishing the NEA and mailing out voucers. Right now private schools are often cash strapped, but imagine if they had the cash to try new ideas.
There's so many possibilities, all of them better than the current model.
Hi Megan,
I would like to point out that George Bush did sign a voucher plan several years ago (4, I think) which gives 2000 kids in DC a voucher to attend a private school.
How are those 2000 kids doing? Haven't heard any stories about it since. You think NPR wants to do a story?
Not sure this really affects your point one way or the other, but it seems relevant somehow.
Jim
8, I say the same thing to you that I suggested to RKV. It sounds like you need a better job. I would never have had children if I couldn't afford to do everything for them that I possibly could. This includes paying taxes of course. It also includes living in the best house I can, in the best neighborhood that I think will offer them the things I think they need. It would have been incredibly immature of me to say, "I will have kids anyway because I just know taxes will go down simply because I want them to."
I have always suspected that is a big part of the libertarian mindset, by the way. Are they simply so immature to expect that taxes will magically go away because they wish them so?
It's pretty simple. Get a better job, or don't have kids. If you already have them, suck it up. No one is going to give you a handout. Why should they?
JoshK, this is one of the problems with the pro-voucher argument. In a nutshell, they're comparing apples to oranges. The figures are generally what is spent per child in a public school (which most people would agree is dishonest) with the cost to the parent of enrolling a child in a private school. The two aren't remotely similar. I've already mentioned that the cost to educate the average child in a public school is nowhere near what is claimed. On the flip side, often the cost to the parent of a private school is heavily subsidized. For example, in those oh-so-parsimonious Catholic schools, building and maintenance costs are not figured in; those are absorbed into the general cost of running the church. Now, I understand that what is happening in this instance is that the school is simply using church property which would otherwise be idle, that the grounds-keepers for the church are just doing their job, albeit a trifle extended. Fine. I applaud that. But you cannot use that as a point against public schools who simply are unable to resort to that sort of accounting.
Further, if you want to go the route of comparing costs with costs, the cost for many people who use the public schools is . . . zero. Somehow, I don't think the voucher advocates want to make this sort of cost to cost comparison.
John Doe-
Well of course I can say the following without being a hypocrite: "Well, of course I'm sending my kids elsewhere, but never mind about that, and don't any of you poor people go getting the same idea, because that wouldn't be fair to all of the public school students left behind."
Oh sure you can have the same idea. But don't expect me to pay for your private (religious) education.
"It's pretty simple. Get a better job, or don't have kids. If you already have them, suck it up. No one is going to give you a handout."
You know, most thugs have enough decency to rob you without giving you a lecture afterwards about needing to work harder to make up the loss. Do you really think morality is thrown out the window when government is involved?
JoshK,
Neither pension nor healthcare benefits in retirement are typically included for any public employees at the local level, nor are the costs included on the town or city's balance sheet. They're paid out of future revenue.
In other words deadspin, you really are an arrested adolescent, aren't you?
It sounds to me like you have a lousy job, no prospects, and are further hampered by your lack of understanding of how the world works. You think you have no control over your financial situation which is, well, pathetic.
Jim:
A welcomed request for empirics. I wasn't aware of this program, but I did find a very limited evaluation of the program using primarily descriptive statistics. They provide this very important caveat to their results:
"The analysis will be conducted by comparing the mean test scores of program participants and DCPS nonapplicants, testing for the statistical significance of the difference. To create the most relevant group of DCPS students for comparison, we will draw from the DCPS database the group of non-applicant students who qualify for the program (i.e., eligible for free/reduced-price lunch), stratified by grade level to match our scholarship performance reporting sample. We will present these comparative results as descriptive findings, since the absence of random-assignment to the scholarship or public school conditions would render any causal claims highly speculative."
Also, interestingly, they did find statistically significant differences on several socioeconomic and ethnic variables between eligible applicants and nonapplicants, suggesting that simply applying to the program is not a random act. Again, problems of selection. It's also astonishing how few eligible parents actually exercised their school choice option.
Jim:
A welcomed request for empirics. I wasn't aware of this program, but I did find a very limited evaluation of the program using primarily descriptive statistics. They provide this very important caveat to their results:
"The analysis will be conducted by comparing the mean test scores of program participants and DCPS nonapplicants, testing for the statistical significance of the difference. To create the most relevant group of DCPS students for comparison, we will draw from the DCPS database the group of non-applicant students who qualify for the program (i.e., eligible for free/reduced-price lunch), stratified by grade level to match our scholarship performance reporting sample. We will present these comparative results as descriptive findings, since the absence of random-assignment to the scholarship or public school conditions would render any causal claims highly speculative."
Also, interestingly, they did find statistically significant differences on several socioeconomic and ethnic variables between eligible applicants and nonapplicants, suggesting that simply applying to the program is not a random act. Again, problems of selection. It's also astonishing how few eligible parents actually exercised their school choice option.
http://hpi.georgetown.edu/scdp/files/Impact1.pdf
I have always suspected that is a big part of the libertarian mindset, by the way. Are they simply so immature to expect that taxes will magically go away because they wish them so?
It's pretty simple. Get a better job, or don't have kids. If you already have them, suck it up. No one is going to give you a handout. Why should they?
It takes a special degree of schizophrenia to write 1) one paragraph that bashes libertarians, immediately followed by 2) another paragraph that sounds like a vicious parody of the most extreme libertarian ("no handouts for losers").
ScentofViolets: I've already mentioned that the cost to educate the average child in a public school is nowhere near what is claimed.
This should read: "I've already mentioned my theory that it costs less than $2,000 to educate the average child in a public school, but I provided absolutely no evidence for such an implausible notion, and I ran away whining like a baby when someone pointed that out."
I confess that I didn't read through all the comments, so if I'm restating something that someone else has said, I apologize in advance.
By my observation (btw, I'm 61 and have a ninth grader who attends an independent high school and four grown kids) the breakdown in public education pretty much coincided with the Great Society programs of the 60s. I don't mean to pan those programs, per se, but rather blame the idea that people aren't responsible for their own behavior that seems to have taken root about that time.
That's when teachers lost control of their classrooms because their administrators and school boards didn't back them up. It's when our society determined that the remedy for every problem from racial prejudice to hurt feelings is to file a lawsuit. It's when parents no longer were on the same side as teachers. ["What do you mean my dear little Johnny misbehaved? He was merely expressing himself by putting bubble gum in that girl's hair, and if you were a better teacher you'd realize that. I'm going complain to the school board about you."] That change has, among many other things, discouraged talented people from becoming teachers and demoralized many good existing teachers to the extent of burnout, leaving the profession, or moving to private schools to the extent there are openings.
In the world in which I grew up, anything that led to punishment in school and a note to my parents meant more bad news for me at home. That doesn't happen so much now. Back then it was the norm to have one parent at home and one working. Now two-income families and latchkey kids (or after-school daycare kids) are the norm in many places and perhaps most urban and suburban settings. In that world, schools concentrated on teaching and not social engineering. In that world the first instance of talking back to the teacher meant a trip to the principal's office and loss of privileges or worse. In that world, kids who repeatedly disrupted classes were kicked out, and they and their families became subjects of opprobrium. Nowadays, heaven forbid that anyone should "suffer" because of their own bad behavior.
The reason private schools, whether run by religious organizations or independent, work so well is that the people who send their kids there value education and are solidly behind what the school is doing. This is evidenced at the most obvious level by the fact that they pay their taxes AND tuition. The same thing is true of public schools that work--the parents are involved and are pulling in the same direction as the teachers and administrators. Unfortunately, that condition is true at a much smaller percentage of public schools now than in the 1950s.
You want to improve public education? Then give control of the classrooms back to the teachers, and make sure administrators back up their teachers in disciplinary matters. On the other side of that coin, get rid of teachers who can't or won't maintain order and teach their subjects. Do something with misbehaving kids so they don't ruin school for those who want to learn. Quit punishing victims along with the bullies. Make it socially unacceptable to be rude or disrespectful to teachers and fellow students and ostracize those who don't get it. Get parents back on the side of the teachers, and convince them that education is the way to a better life for their kids. All this cannot be done by government alone (in fact, maybe the best thing for the Federal government to do is get the hell out of the way), it requires the cooperation of all facets of society--especially the media, because pretty much everyone has contact with the media every single day, and that is true of no other institution.
I believe that unfortunately, none of the things in the preceding paragraph will happen because too many people have too much invested in the status quo. Certain people who desire power realize that their power can exist and grow only if the problems remain unsolved; as a result those people will do everything they can to support all proposals except the ones that work, and that's too bad for the rest of us who really want excellence in public education. I am not sacrificing to have my kid in an independent school because I'm elitist--I feel like I was driven out of the public school system by its failures.
It sounds like you need a better job. I would never have had children if I couldn't afford to do everything for them that I possibly could.
Charles,
Are you a troll, an idiot, a joker, or do you honestly think that's a valid answer? I'm serious here. It would take me too long to write multiple responses.
Charles G. writes:
In other words deadspin, you really are an arrested adolescent, aren't you?
It sounds to me like you have a lousy job, no prospects, and are further hampered by your lack of understanding of how the world works. You think you have no control over your financial situation which is, well, pathetic.
I can see why Mr. G posts on a blog whose proprieter used to refer to herself as Jane Galt.
"I think we should face facts that "Public" schools are government run schools. I think we should outsource to private organizations the "public" school systems. Then we could have much easier accountability."
Sure. Right. Just like outsourcing security in Baghdad to private organizations has greatly enhanced accountability when compared to the inefficient government-run army.
Look, there are often benefits to contracting out government work, but "accountability" ain't one of them. Somebody would still need to account for where the money is going, analyze school performance, and manage the bidding process. It would either result in a breakdown of accountability or graft an extra layer of bureaucracy onto a system that has plenty already. Contracting makes sense for highly specialized jobs that few government employees are qualified to do. It would be a colossal clusterf&&k if we did this to our schools. Vouchers are actually a much less terrible idea than outsourcing.
"LaFolette's health care voucher analogy would only work if we were paying property taxes to support specific health care centers. Property taxes go to the public schools. Giving people vouchers or tax credits to cover education costs is just letting them have control of money the government has already confiscated from them. That's why vouchers are somewhat libertarian."
People are tied to school districts and pay taxes to support the schools whether or not they use them. Most of us are also tied to group health insurance plans and have premiums deducted from our paychecks to cover services whether or not we use them. School vouchers mean that you are still taxed to pay for everyone else's education, but you have the choice to go outside the "in-network" schools. Universal health insurance means money is still deducted from your paycheck to pay for everyone else's health care services, but it gives you the choice to go outside your "in-network" providers.
It's not a perfect analogy, of course, but the basic idea in both cases involves the state collecting taxes to pay for services, while enabling the individuals some say over how they receive the benefits.
The difference being that where education is concerned, we'd be shifting resources away from state-run providers who work with children no one else is willing to teach. In health care, we'd be shifting money away from a profit-driven industry that is unwilling or unable to insure millions of people.
ExRat wrote:
"That change has, among many other things, discouraged talented people from becoming teachers and demoralized many good existing teachers to the extent of burnout, leaving the profession, or moving to private schools to the extent there are openings."
Why don't you attribute the lack of good teachers to economic growth and opportunity? Why go to college and to get a job making crap wages teaching when you can do something else with your degree and make much more? It also helps explain the disparity between private and public schools.
Why attribute an overly litigious society (more commonly associated with consumer purchases) to the putative failure of education?
Actually John Doe, not schizophrenic at all (though thanks for that bit of Psych 101 mixed with Internet anonymity--so courageous! Is your other name "anony-mouse"?). The libertarian mindset is on perfect display here. They don't want to participate in the social compact? Fine. They are free to go their own way. But if they want to go their own way, they have to be ready to pay for it, and clearly many of them are not. If you are so unsuccessful that you can't pay your taxes and make ends meet you are a loser, plain and simple. On top of that, if you simply imagine taxes will go away, you are either incredibly immature or delusional. Anyone who, in the face of such realities, goes out and has kids anyway? I don't even know what to say to them, but please don't whine about it. You made your bed, etc.
I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. Well, no, I'm not.
Now answer with your real name, and I will gladly respond, but if you keep sniping anonymously, I am done with you, little man.
For every teacher and administrator who "doesn't give a flying fig" about establishing relationships with the parents and community, you should probably take into account the far larger number of parents, students, and community members who have no interest in "fostering better learning environments" and disrupt the learning environment for those who do.
You are very much correct that there are heros that work in difficult school districts. I'm sure there are more than a few Jaime Escalantes out there. But is that what we're going to pin our hopes to? We're going to hope that more heros are willing to put up with sclerotic, massive central beauracracies, disinterested students and parents, and massive red tape to make a difference in the lives of some of the 35 or so kids they teach each year? That's absurd given the fact that most young teachers get out of the profession within 5 years, precisely due to those factors. The people who stick around are mostly the lousy teachers and administrators who learn that the most efficient course for them is to keep their heads down, coast along, and wait for retirement.
I don't see why we should be willing to perpetuate such a system.
"160 posts, and yet no evidence contained within to prove the claim that this whole venture is founded on-- the notion that American public school is failing. McArdle provides no evidence to prove that; no one ever does, beyond "everyone knows...." Everyone is wrong. Here is the tr..."
Head up and Locked, a common trait of Da Dims!
It's common knowledge that is readily available!
Question: How does the Quality of Education compare to the rest of the World, Asian Students, etc! Cost per student??
May I suggest a little investigation before opening mouth??
LOL, I hear Google is a pretty good Search engine!!
IDIOT!
Why don't you attribute the lack of good teachers to economic growth and opportunity? Why go to college and to get a job making crap wages teaching when you can do something else with your degree and make much more? It also helps explain the disparity between private and public schools.
Actually private school teachers make far less than public school teachers. They put up with the lower wages because they have a far better working environment.
Here's a Little HEP for ya! You seem to need all you can get!!?
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338
"John Stossel's 'Stupid in America'
How Lack of Choice Cheats Our Kids Out of a Good Education"
"Stupid in America" is a nasty title for a program about public education, but some nasty things are going on in America's public schools and it's about time we face up to it."
Cont.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13458
"D.C.'s Distinction: $16,344 Per Student, But Only 12% Read Proficiently"
Posted: 03/23/2006
Cont.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41821
Higher education in decline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 8, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
"College costs have risen dramatically over the last several decades. In many cases, it's difficult to find a college where per-student costs are under $20,000 each year. Most often, tuition doesn't measure the true cost because taxpayer and donor subsidies pay part of the expenses.
While costs are rising, education quality is in precipitous decline, particularly at the undergraduate level. Part of the reason is the political climate on college campuses, where professors use their classrooms for proselytizing and indoctrination and teach classes that have little or no academic content. Let's look at some of it. "
Cont.
"Engage You Brain, Before Opening your Mouth!"
Rickm:
Why don't you attribute the lack of good teachers to economic growth and opportunity? Why go to college and to get a job making crap wages teaching when you can do something else with your degree and make much more? It also helps explain the disparity between private and public schools.
Because it's my observation that most really good teachers still regard teaching as a profession--a calling. While they will certainly gravitate toward those employers that offer higher compensation, they aren't really motivated by money like say, a sales rep.
Why attribute an overly litigious society (more commonly associated with consumer purchases) to the putative failure of education?
I was really trying (evidently not so well) to make the point that there seems to have been a more general acceptance of the idea that people aren't responsible for their own decisions and actions: "If something bad happens to me, it's someone else's fault, and somebody has to pay." Besides that, even lawsuits that will fail are costly to defend, and school boards are exquisitely sensitive to such things as insurance costs. It follows that a school board threatened with litigation has an incentive to appease the angry parent whether or not the complaint is well grounded, rather than support the teacher or administrator. I have personally spoken with teachers who have given up trying to maintain discipline in their classrooms because (a) the paperwork and red tape involved in discipline proceedings is too onerous and (b) the school administration won't do anything to correct the problems.
I have to leave this discussion for a while to attend to some things.
I send my kids to private schol for a variety of reasons, but I'll distill it down to these:
1) The quality of education is much better. There are certainly good public schools, but do use statistics to deny what is as plain as the nose on your face is to be deluded. Most public high schools have a far lower % of kids who take the SAT's than private schools. The vast majority of the kids in those schools are there as placeholders, adn they are warehoused until they can be "graduated".
2) The quality of parents and their involvement in their kids lives and education is much higher.
3) I believe that an education without a grounding in basic character (Call it religious beleifs, whatever), is useless if we expect our children to USE what they've been taught and become functioning members of society.
I am reluctantly against vouchers because they always come with strings attached. What will inevitably happen is that gov't bureaucrats will teake control of private education and destroy it on the basis of trying to ensure "quality", "diversity", and other such DoubleSpeak.
Tax credits, I'll take.
But in the end, my wife and I sacrifice a great deal to send our children to the best shools we can. We do without new cars, a bigger house, and new "stuff", so we can spend that money on our kids' education. It is our choice, and we gladly do it.
So kindly leave us alone.
Mike-
Are you a parody? Quoting something that says "While costs are rising, education quality is in precipitous decline, particularly at the undergraduate level" is not evidence. That article just reads of some poll results. Its not real analysis.
Christina-
Actually, what I meant was that rising economic inequality means that more and more middle class people are going to send their kids to private schools, thus making public schools contain more lower class students. My point still stands that higher salaries in the private sector make teaching a less than attractive occupation.
But if they want to go their own way, they have to be ready to pay for it, and clearly many of them are not. If you are so unsuccessful that you can't pay your taxes and make ends meet you are a loser, plain and simple.
Charles,
Do you understand how education is funded in America? We're not talking about all taxes here, we're talking about education. (Although I don't know why you dislike libertarians if your advice to poor people is to get a better job. Libertarians are not social darwinists, as you apparently are.)
We already give handouts to people for education. It's called public school. Most school districts pay at least $5,000 per student, and well over $10,000 in cities, to educate children. What people here are talking about is that instead of forcing parents to pay the taxes, they could instead keep the money and use it on private education. Most voucher programs are much less, so if the school district spent $10,000, the voucher, or tax break, might be $5,000.
The taxes are the same. Nobody is asking for a handout. They want to be able to choose. That's all.
Vouchers would be valid at public schools too. They should cover the entire cost at these institutions. The other shoe to drop needs to be open enrollment statewide.
8 -- it's not clear if Charles trying to parody hypocritical liberals (who say "you are a loser, plain and simple" to poor parents in inner cities) or cold-hearted libertarians (who say "you are a loser, plain and simple" to everyone).
The First Amendment protects freedom of thought by protecting speech, the press and religion.
We don't have the government producing 90% to 95% of our radio broadcasts, TV broadcasts, dance programs, theatrical presentations, operas, music and art.
There have been governments which do so. Does anyone here want our government to do that?
We don't have the government producing 90% to 95% of our newspapers, magazines and books.
There have been governments which do so. Does anyone here want our government to do that?
We don't have the government running 90% to 95% of the churches.
There have been governments which do so. Does anyone here want our government to do that?
Yet our government does teach 90% to 95% of our children how to think (methods) and what to think (basic facts). In places where they are required to attend 180 days out of the year for six hours a day for twelve years.
I'm trying to harmonize this with the spirit of the Bill of Rights. The cognitive dissonance is massive.
Why can't we adopt a system which decreases the number of children in government run schools - without abolishing your beloved government run schools? As a matter of liberty? And can you understand why this is a matter of freedom? Even if you don't want the freedom, can you understand why others might? People who might be better able to exercise their freedom if they weren't forced both to pay to support the public schools and pay either private or parochial tuition? Would even poor people like this freedom as long as you are paying for their children anyway?
We don't have to maximize school choice as a matter of freedom, but I'm actually more eager to choose my kids schooling (and I have, we home school) then I am to choose TV channels (we cancelled our cable).
What about the spirit of the Bill of Rights?
Yours,
Wince
"Mike-
Are you a parody? Quoting something that says "While costs are rising, education quality is in precipitous decline, particularly at the undergraduate level" is not evidence. That article just reads of some poll results. Its not real analysis."
Denian the Undeniable!! Pictures, Maybe? You wouldn't be a DIM, now would ya??
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13458
"D.C.'s Distinction: $16,344 Per Student, But Only 12% Read Proficiently"
The state spending figures below are the total median expenditure per student as reported in "Revenues and Expenditures by Public School Districts: School Year 2002-03," published by the Department of Education in November 2005. The NAEP 8th-grade reading and math scores were published by the Department of Education in October 2005.
State Per Pupil Spending
Percentage of 8th-Graders at Proficiency or Better
in Reading
Percentage of 8th-Graders at Proficiency or Better
in Math
Alaska $16,665
27%
29%
District of Columbia
$16,344
12%
7%
New York
$13,989
33%
31%
New Jersey
$12,419
37%
36%
Wyoming
$12,116
35% 29%
Delaware
$10,874
31%
30%
Connecticut
$10,765
34%
35%
New Mexico $10,602
19%
14%
Rhode Island
$10,189
29%
23%
Massachusetts
$9,952
44%
43%
Wisconsin $9,805 34%
36%
Maine
$9,787
38%
30%
New Hampshire
$9,731
38%
35%
Vermont
$9,614
37%
38%
Maryland
$9,298
30% 30%
Pennsylvania
$9,298
36%
31%
Minnesota
$9,133
37%
43%
Colorado
$8,948
31%
32%
Montana
$8,927
37%
36%
West Virginia
$8,845
22%
17%
Texas
$8,826
26%
31%
Nebraska $8,714
35%
35%
Indiana
$8,673
28%
30%
Michigan
$8,651
28%
30%
Hawaii
$8,632
18%
18%
Kansas
$8,620
34%
34%
Oregon
$8,577
33%
33%
North Dakota
$8,552
37%
35%
Illinois
$8,465
31%
28%
Nevada
$8,458 22%
21%
Washington
$8,454
34%
36%
Georgia
$8,393
24%
23%
California
$8,262
21%
22%
South Carolina
$8,226
25%
30%
Ohio
$8,208
24%
34%
Virginia
$8,087
35%
33%
South Dakota
$8,001
35%
36%
Iowa
$7,789
34%
34%
Florida
$7,571
25%
26%
Idaho
$7,554
32%
30%
North Carolina
$7,469
27%
32%
Missouri
$7,462
31%
26%
Louisiana
$7,443
20%
16%
Alabama
$6,942
22%
15%
Kentucky
$6,934
31% 22%
Arizona
$6,933
23%
26%
Utah
$6,859
29%
30%
Oklahoma
$6,817
25%
20%
Arkansas
$6,774
26%
22%
Tennessee
$6,460
26%
21%
Mississippi
$6,387
19%
13%
The chart didn't copy very well, why don't you read the article this time??:)
Again, "Open Mouth, Insert Foot"
Does Yo Momma still Wipe YO Arse for you??
"You can lead a horse to water, But ya can't make him Drink!"
Now, why don't you try and do a little "Boning Up!"
Question, Again:
How does the U.S. Rank in relation to the rest of the world as far as Test Scores(That would be Quality of Education) and Cost per Student!!?
Duh, again, Spanky!! No facts??
RFLMAO
How long do you think a Company would survive in the Private Sector if they produced the kind of results ilustrated by the Chart above??
Duh again!! "Sharp as a Beach Ball!"
How long to you expect people to listen to you if thats how you talk to them?
Mike:
Exaggerating punctuation does not increase the persuasiveness of your argument, nor does citing tendentious online publications. You're comparison groups are wildly off the mark--is it fair to compare urban with rural districts, or 'Texas' with the District of Columbia? Do you think the demographics of these two groups are different? My hunch is yes. Also, is high public education expenditure and low reading proficiency scores evidence of ineffectiveness, or are these expenditures a function of already low achievement scores? Which way does the relationship go? Also, does taking a simple cross-section of this relationship really support your point? What if, in certain districts, expenditures rose in one year, and scores improved? Is this captured by your "analysis"?
Marshall, I applaud your effort to talk to Mike, but, really, give it up. He has absolutely no capacity to answer questions on your level.
I've been accused of social Darwinism already, so I won't mind suggesting that Mike is a candidate for sterilization if he hasn't procreated already.
Charles,
You seem to interested in rights. What about the spirit of the Bill of Rights? See above.
Yours,
Wince
Hmmmm.
1. Want to fix the school system?
Eliminate teachers unions.
2. Want to improve school systems?
Implement vouchers so the parents of school children become customers of schools rather than as supplicants on bended knee.
3. Want to really improve school systems?
Give non-profit status to K12 school systems.
Wince, you are "forced" to pay taxes because the majority of people where you live want the services they are paying for. Do you think you can win them over to your side? If not, you have to realistically conclude that you will always be paying those taxes. If you realistically conclude you will always be paying those taxes and want to be able to spend money on private schooling (home or otherwise), you need to be in a position to do just that.
Same ole, Same ole Lies and Spin!
Gee, is the "Cost of Living" the same in Kansas as it is in Mexi-Cali??
Not even a Bad Try!
I show you facts and you deny and Lie!
Now those are Dollars Spent, again my point, Spent and what is the True Cost??
Corruption and Waste, adds to dollar spent, not necessarily the Legitimate Costs of Education!!
Soo, U R happy with your return on the Cost of Education in this country??
Good Luck, U R gonna need it because U R obviously Beyond HEP!
"Daryl and his other Brother Daryl!"
I love it, he's like an evil Dr. Seuss.
What about Gene's comment above? Nobody's really addressed that one, and it seemed pretty level-headed to me... What about school choice, and more money for education generally? Seems we spend our money on worse things...
And what about the broader issue of what a transition to a more a voucher oriented system would look like? I don't intend this as an argument against vouchers, but it's not a trivial issue.
rickm wrote in response to Skullberg:
"Can I have the lists of approved things I can ask to withhold my taxes from because I disapprove of something they might do?"
Its anything and everything you want.
Does that mean I have legal grounds to stop paying property tax because the elementary school teaches that private property is evil? "We don't own things. That's bad"
rickm to Skullberg again:
"And if it is simply a curriculum decision, can I get in on denying teachers specific parts of subjects to teach? "
Dude, if its explicitly religious, you can't teach it in a public school.
Apparently the elementary school my daughter goes to hasn't gotten the memo. There is a fair amount of non theistic religious dogma taught there, mostly having to do with environmentalism.
Charles Giacometti:
Skullberg: Easy. Any school that is run by any religious group. So this includes the many excellent Catholic schools that are basically very good secular schools with a nominal religious element to the curriculum. I don't want state or federal money going to any religious organization regardless of whether I agree with the religion or not.
But it is apparently ok for state and federal money to go to schools that teach borderline Gaia worship with a splash of Marx and post-modernism thrown in on the side? Those are religious doctrines, albeit of the non-theistic kind. Well, except that some of the Gaia worshippers literally are Gaia worshippers.
What is a religion? Is it any system of normative judgements, which contains an inherent moral code, and a guideline of approved and dissapproved behaviors for individuals and/or society? Or is it limited only to those "faiths" that posit at least one deity? If so, does that mean you wouldn't object to taxes going towards schools that teach Buddhism, since Buddhism has no deity? How about Neo-Confucionism?
The normative judgement that humanity is a cancer on the earth and that humanity should impoverish itself to minimise impact on all non-human life is falsifiable exactly how? The normative judgement that property should be collectively owned is falsifiable how? That grades should be based on effort and not on performance? That boys (should | should not) be more like girls? That we (should | should not) identify with and care more about those of our own country instead of the world as a whole? That the individual (is | is not) ultimately responsible for his own actions and that society (is | is not) responsible because of the influence it exerts on shaping the individual in question? These are all beliefs, even if they aren't theist beliefs. They are not facts, but most public schools teach one side or the other of most of these beliefs. Who gets to decide which of these beliefs are taught in schools and from what angle?
How about letting the parents decide? They are the ones with the greatest vested interest in the welfare of their children.
Michael W:
There isn't a chance in hell I'd send my son to a religious school (always believed school was about teaching how to think and not what to think which would be, IMHO, at odds with a school run by a religious organization).
you would still have the choice to not send your son to a religious school if vouchers were implemented. I don't recall anyone proposing to bus kids to the Seventh Day Adventist school or the nearest madrassa at gunpoint.
And you haven't spent much time around Jesuits if you believe that all religious affiliated schools teach "what to think" instead of "how to think". I've met Jesuit priests who were amazing logicians. I was even fortunate enough to have one as a teacher. How many public high schools require taking a logic class to graduate?
Charles,
Do you think the majority can vote against people's rights? May I assume you would be in favor of a campaign to replace most privately run TV with government run TV, provided that it was favored by the majority?
I'm not talking taxes. I'm talking freedom. What do you have to say about freedom?
And what do you think about that 90% to 95%?
Isn't that a little high for a free people interested in freedom of thought?
Yours,
Wince
Mike Magnum-
You do know the difference between "can ask" and "legal grounds" do you?
So if schools should only teach things that are falsifiable, how do they go about teaching the value of falsifiability? Because thats not falsifiable.
Your talk of non-theistic religions as a substitute for things you do not like is pretty asinine.
Rickm,
Not asinine at all. Maybe a little sideways.
How about politics? Should public schools teach particular political beliefs? Those things Mike Magnum was talking about all appear to be political beliefs.
Has your public school managed to purge it's curriculum of political beliefs? Not mine.
Where are those Spirits of the Bill of Rights Past, Present and Future? Can they yet haunt some political Scrooge and change his ways?
Yours,
Wince
mike, responding to ScentOfViolets:
"No, I am against private subsidies to people who choose to go outside the public school system. They are perfectly free to educate their children however they see fit . . . But. Not. On. My. Dime."
And yet you are perfectly happy with subsidizing a corrupt, wasteful institution that is destroying your and my children!
Not even if you Stand on Yo head!!
Sheesh!
Put Da money in the hands of the Students and Parents instead of the Bureaucrats and corruupt politicians!! Spend No more or No less, Just put the Power back in the hands of the Consumer!
Seems to be a pretty tough concept for you to Grasp! I for one do not want a Poll/Bureaucrat Dictating to me or deciding what is good enough for my children!
Why should I continue funding a BROKEN system??
It's not all that tough a concept to grasp, but you do seem to be struggling with?
I think ScentOfViolets understands quite well, but is more than happy to keep the status quo, with normative judgements that he/she agrees with being taught to an essentially captive audience of the nation's children, but I could be wrong.
ScentOfViolets - imagine if public schools taught that America was superior to all other countries and that the rest of the world should mimic American culture, politics, and it's economic system, and oh by the way adopt English as their official language. Imagine they also taught that homosexuality was an unnatural aberration, taught that the only reason for the existence of natural resources and other species is for them to be exploited by humans, taught that women should defer to men, that the measure of a nation's worth is how many other nations it can subdue, and that America should achieve complete political hegemony over the earth. Imagine they taught that the poor deserve their misery because they are "lazy" or "weak". That what those crazy Europeans call "genocide" could more accurately be called "culling the unfit". Imagine if these schools disciplined children for fighting only be punishing the "loser" of a fight. Now, how would you feel about your tax dollars funding that? Keep in mind, there is not a single religious element in that list. I sure wouldn't want my tax dollars paying for that, regardless of the fact that it is completely secular. Not a single one of those are falsifiable. They are all normative value judgements.
That list above is obviously an exaggeration for effect, but many people feel a lesser revulsion for the values that are taught in the public schools their children attend, and they have no recourse but removing their child by placing the child in a private school. Many parents are appalled at the low academic standards in many (most?) public schools, and they have no recourse but to pay for a private school.
You should not get to decide for other parents what environment their children learn in, what the academic standards should be, nor what values are taught in the school. If anyone gets to decide, it should be the parents.
"You should not get to decide for other parents what environment their children learn in, what the academic standards should be, nor what values are taught in the school."
I do get to decide if I'm paying for it.
So 50 comments on, we have a single commenter who is producing statistics of very questionable value that don't even show nearly the kind of problem he thinks they do. So I ask again, where's the beef, folks? Dozens of libertarians waxing poetic about how if we just institute school vouchers and eliminate teachers unions, American education will suddenly take off like a rocket (despite the notable lack of describing a mechanism through which they think it will happen.)
And yet in these 210+ comments, still no real compelling evidence to suggest that American public education is in crisis. What we do have here is incredibly weak tea. And yet you're all sure, sure, that Things Are As Bad As They Have Ever Been. Well, I'm sorry, but opinions without proof or minimal evidentiary standards are delusions. The truth of the matter is, it suits your ideology to say that public schools are failing. But they're not, and none of you have risen to the challenge of explaining why you think they are.
I call it the 112,789th reason I homeschool my kid.
Reason number 1: you don't want your kid going to school with "that kind".
I do get to decide if I'm paying for it.
The question isn't a matter of "do or don't" it's rather a question of "should or shouldn't."
I believe one of the very most beneficial features of making eduction dollars portable is removing the ability of yahoos with a flat earth mentality to force my kid to study creationism or intelligent design. Under the status quo, making sure one's child receives a proper eduction is chancy for the non-rich, and, in some parts of the country depends on exceedingly thin majorities. School choice obviates this pernicious situation.
"Pro School Choice Liberal wrote I believe one of the very most beneficial features of making eduction dollars portable is removing the ability of yahoos with a flat earth mentality to force my kid to study creationism or intelligent design."
You do know that in a public school, you can't teach those things.
"It's pretty simple. Get a better job, or don't have kids. If you already have them, suck it up. No one is going to give you a handout."
People aren't asking for a handout. The government is already spending that money to buy the exact same service...except the government purchases from what is often a lower quality supplier. If the government is spending $9000 dollars per student, how is it asking for a "handout" for a parent to want to excersize control over what that money buys them?
If the argument is that people shouldn't expect a "handout", how is it that you can support government funded schooling at all? It wouldn't hurt me at all to stop paying property taxes.
Oh, no...you're argument isn't about the expenditure, it is about control over what is taught and by whom.
"Want to improve school systems? Implement vouchers so the parents of school children become customers of schools rather than as supplicants on bended knee."
Have you read Megan's blog post from Queens, perchance?
Look, I realize it's a losing battle to try and convince a roomful of libertarians that it is not actually a good idea to privatize all public services and let the magical marketplace fix everything. That, indeed, there are no sound historical or economic reasons to think that this would be a good idea, and quite a few good reasons to think otherwise.
I've seen some passionate complaints about public schools, but I haven't seen a single voucher advocate answer any the important questions that are always raised by voucher skeptics. The schools that take on voucher students will need to expand, to hire more teachers, to accept students with behavioral problems and poor educational performance, and all of these things will cost more money and lower their test scores. Many will raise their standards and/or their tuition to maintain their elite status. The public schools will almost certainly continue to decline with the loss of revenue, but will continue to need public support to take care of the developmentally disabled children and others who have nowhere else to go.
What, then, will happen?
Rickm:
"Your talk of non-theistic religions as a substitute for things you do not like is pretty asinine."
Can you explain to me what makes Neo-Confucianism a religion but not envrionmentalism? Ignoring the strictures of either one doesn't make you wrong in the eyes of a believer of the respective faith, it makes you immoral. Emmitting carbon is not just something that needs to be done in moderation out of self interest, it is a sin.
Freddie,
You say where's the beef?
Here's some stats you have ignored. In this free country, populated by a free people, 90% to 95% of our most impressionable minds are spending 6 hours a day, 180 days a year for 12 years at a government run school. What's freedom loving about that? Where's the choice? Where's the diversity? The nonconformity?
Can't we try something to get those percentages into a more freedom loving range? How about 80% to 85%?
There's more to performance than standardized test scores, which, practically by definition, don't measure diversity of thought.
Yours,
Wince
"Emmitting carbon is not just something that needs to be done in moderation out of self interest, it is a sin."
Fine someone who believes in that tenet.
There's nothing that has made me believe that America's education system is failing more than this thread.
You do know that in a public school, you can't teach those things.
Please. You may trust the courts to hold the line on ID in public education, but I sure don't. Not after two terms of judicial picks by one George W. Bush.
Another couple of points.
Innovation, cost reduction, and quality. Neither will be under great pressure with vouchers. Very soon the private schools will game the system as well as government schools. Both, like two competing defense contractors will offer up near neigh identical high cost, low quality product.
Think mandatory auto insurance in a two-insurer town.
Where do you think the politicians will retire?
With out freedom and with out cost being dictated by the customers pocket, the idustry will not be forced to innovated.
Please don't tell me the government will do it. I'm too old.
As the most important notion of education is freedom. It changes from person to person, and over time. Government can not adapt itself to it, so it demands that liberty adapt to government. However, I have to give credit in that the government has well boxed in the mental parameters of the possible. To me it all reads like mental capos arguing about who get to wash the chalk board.
LaFollette Progressive,
You said: I've seen some passionate complaints about public schools, but I haven't seen a single voucher advocate answer any the important questions that are always raised by voucher skeptics.
Several commenters have noted that school choice works in actual practice. Here is an article about how school choice without vouchers improved San Francison schools. School choice is also the practice in New Zealand and in Sweden.
You can be sceptical, but it is hard to argue with successful practice.
Yours,
Wince
Freddi: "So 50 comments on, we have a single commenter who is producing statistics of very questionable value that don't even show nearly the kind of problem he thinks they do."
In Washington state, where I live, we have something called the WASL. It is a test given to all schoolchildren of a given grade (3-8 and 10) that measures student progress and determines whether schools meet standards. A failing grade on the WASL means that the student can't display a minimum proficiency at math, reading, and writing. It's comforting to know that the statewide failure rate of about 40%-50% in math and writing and around 30% in reading isn't a crisis. And here I had thought that 2 out of every 5 students not displaying the minimum amount of subject specific knowledge to be considered as having met grade appropriate standards was fairly dire. I'm not sure what is worse; that some schools feel the WASL scores are so important that children who fail the test do not continue on to the next grade, or that some schools feel it isn't important enough to hold a child back.
http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?year=2006-07
The question is this:
If vouchers DID destroy public education, how would we be able to tell?
yours/
peter.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/reprints/milwaukee_voucher_experiment.htm
Since apparently Megan isn't letting my posts go through with the actual statistics.
"published by the Department of Education in November 2005. The NAEP 8th-grade reading and math scores were published by the Department of Education in October 2005."
Questionable Facts??
RFLMAO
Lyin, Spinnin, Dodgin, Bobbin, and Weavin!
FOOL!
Lets see your FACTS, Lay it on us!! SHOOOW ME, "Put up or Shut Up!"
Didn't think so!!
"All Hat and No Cattle!"
Is "Mike" a parody of a Rush Limbaugh listener, or does someone actually think like that?
Wince and Nod--
"Several commenters have noted that school choice works in actual practice. Here is an article about how school choice without vouchers improved San Francison schools."
San Francisco has school choice without vouchers-- choice within a public school system. The county I live in also has a (limited) school choice arrangement. This is exactly the type of reform that I do support.
Private school vouchers are an entirely different can of worms. I am very skeptical of "reform" proposals that seem intended to phase out public education entirely. Judging by the enthusiasm on this board for that goal, I don't think my concerns are misplaced.
I'm jumping in here with my perspective from actually attending a public school in the Washington, DC area. It was actually a very good public school, one of the best in the area. But one thing that I noticed was the patchy quality of the teachers. Some of the teachers were truly engaged, passionate, and creative in finding ways to inspire their students. And some of them were almost completely switched off. They handed out the same photocopied tests for ten years in a row, they instructed us to sit quietly and read the textbook in class rather than lecture or engage, and they had an antagonistic attitude towards the bright students in their classes who challenged them and made it clear they didn't have a good grasp of the subject matter they were supposed to be teaching.
All the students knew about the teachers you had to avoid, the teachers whose classes were so useless you'd learn more by skipping them. (Which I often did, and went to museums or read.) I'm sure the principal must have been aware of the situation as well. Why were those teachers still there? They didn't seem to have a sense that they had any obligation to provide value in return for their salaries. Maybe it was teachers' unions, maybe it was general apathy... I have no idea.
It's confusing to think through the potential consequences of any policy options but it seems a no-brainer to me that some sense of competition and an imperative to provide value could help. Teaching's a tough job and many people aren't suited for it; maybe you need to double teachers' salaries but make it possible to fire the duds. Anyway it annoys me hugely whenever I read liberal people arguing that "you can't criticize the brave & noble teachers, they are all doing their best in difficult circumstances" because I know from personal experience that's just not true. Some of them really are lazy jerks who have gravitated to a career that offers easy hours and no consequences for poor performance.
It also annoys me hugely when people start talking about "good kids" and "bad kids" as if those are some kind of static categories and you can't let too many "bad kids" in or they will wreck your whole school. Children are much more malleable and adaptable than adults, and a talented and motivated teacher really can do wonders, even without support from parents. In my opinion a "bad kid" is much more likely to improve than a grown-up, set-in-his-ways bad teacher.
After, what, 230 odd comments, we see for the hundredth or thousandth time that the voucher advocates have exactly nothing to support their positions but their feelings - and yes, that's exactly what I mean - no statistics demonstrating the supposed superiority of private schools, no numerical defense of the actual cost per student of public vs private schools, nothing.
I'm guessing that's why the public consistently votes these voucher schemes down whenever there's a public referendum on them.
Here's a thought: you might win a few more converts to your position if you actually supported it with facts and figures. And no, unsupported flat pronouncements and glaringly inapt analogies are _not_ facts and figures. Those only demonstrate poor thinking skills and bad writing habits picked up from hack science fiction writers.
Statistics can be used to 'prove' anything, and are not necessary in this case. The superiority of private schools is proven by their very existence. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people pay good money and lots of it to send their kids to private schools, and millions more would do so if they could only afford it, even though they all could send their kids to public schools for free, proves that the private schools are better.
Here's a totally apt analogy:
When I was in college, every student who lived on campus paid for 21 meals per week in the dining hall. Nevertheless, most of us ate off-campus at least once or twice a week, and would have done so more often than that if we'd had the money. Anyone who said "cafeteria food is just as good as off-campus food" would have been laughed at. The mere fact that we were spending money on one kind of food when the other kind of food was "free" (i.e. we had already been forced to pay for it) proves that it was (in general) better. (I add "in general" because occasionally we would finish an off-campus meal thinking "I might as well have saved my money and stayed on campus". The solution was not to stay on campus next time, but to try a different off-campus place.)
Dr. Weevil-
Did any hungry students pay to eat off campus do so because they didn't want to be with the black kids in the cafeteria?
SoV I'm sympathetic to your last post, but you must admit that if every school in DC was producing results akin to Sidwell Friends School (to name yet another example) then this conversation would not be happening.
LaFollette Progressive,
San Francisco has school choice without vouchers-- choice within a public school system.
That's what I said, perhaps with too much brevity. But Sweden and New Zealand have school choice outside the public school system, and have for years.
ScentOfViolets,
Nothing? You have not been reading carefully. Perhaps you mean "nothing except points which I think I've refuted".
Care to address my point? It's not a feeling point. It's a philosophical point about the nature of a free people, and how to preserve that nature. Do you really believe that and overwhelming super majority of government run schools promote the diversity of thought we believe necessary for the preservation of freedom among a free people?
BTW, this right-wing conservative would be happy for Muslim children in America to attend Muslim run schools, if that is their parents choice. Freedom to exercise one's religion, right?
Yours,
Wince
To reiterate, Maine and Vermont have voucher systems for some areas right now, and have had them for years. If you want to argue that voucher systems can't work in the U.S., you need to prove that they're not working in the parts of the U.S. where they already exist.
The Milwaukee voucher experiment began in 1990, and was drasticly overhauled in 1998 to include religious schools. Someone here has quoted a 1999 study claiming they don't work, but it would be nice to know if there is anything (a) less ideologically slanted and (b) more recent. I tried Googling "vouchers Milwaukee" and everything I found was from groups that had a pretty obvious ideological interest in either opposing (75%) or supporting (25%) them.
Deebledoor:
I've taught at six different private, Catholic, or charter schools, ranging from one that charges more than Harvard to one that has trouble meeting its payroll, and none of the students were there to get away from black students, nor would they have succeeded if that's what they had in mind, since all six have significant numbers of black students. Some students (of various races) were there to get away from thug students who had abused them at their previous schools, but, if you haven't heard, American thug students come in all races and both genders. The only lily-white high schools I'm familiar with have been public schools in expensive suburbs.
I don't know where you got the notion that I think public schooling is just fine, Michael W. I don't. And yes, there are 'troubled schools' for want of a better term. Their pathology, however, is well-known (broadly speaking, bad inner-city schools and bad rural schools), and has a lot less to do with the schools and a lot more to do with the culture and areas they are embedded in. Yes, I am sympathetic to parents who want to withdraw their kids from schools because they are not safe environments, because of the disruption from other students, etc.
But if that is the case, let's discuss those issues instead. And I think I've already made my views clear - don't tolerate disrupition, don't tolerate 'bad' kids, and give the teachers some actual authority and backing from the establishment to deal with these issues.
This, btw, is not a problem with the schools, but with the parents. Let's talk about the real issue here, instead of some faux-libertarian scheme whose supporters simply are not arguing from the facts at hand.
Nor are they, in fact, making coherent arguments for their position at all. In typical libertarian fashion, they are making highly emotive assertions as if they were fact . . . and then expect other people to prove them wrong. Which is part of why the general public seems to loathe them so much.
"After, what, 230 odd comments, we see for the hundredth or thousandth time that the voucher advocates have exactly nothing to support their positions but their feelings - and yes, that's exactly what I mean - no statistics demonstrating the supposed superiority of private schools, no numerical defense of the actual cost per student of public vs private schools, nothing."
Soo, U R satisfied with the Public School System?
OOOH TAY, Spanky!!
In typical libertarian fashion, they are making highly emotive assertions as if they were fact . . . and then expect other people to prove them wrong.
You mean like asserting that public schools educate kids for way less than $2,000 a year, and then expecting everyone else to prove it wrong? Or asserting that public school budgets are reduced by the amount of the voucher itself, and expecting everyone else to prove it wrong? Oh wait, that was you.
But wait, I shouldn't talk to you until you apologize for your hurtful (sniff), mean (gasp), and harsh (sound of sobbing here) comments that libertarians are "highly emotive" and have "poor thinking skills and bad writing habits picked up from hack science fiction writers."
I suspect most of the posters here are thoughtful people - after all, you are spending their free time commenting on public policy on a libertarian leaning economics blog. But I can't help but be a little disappointed that there really wasn't much movement towards finding actual solutions or persuading one's critics. Perhaps Megan could offer a post addressing the basic merits of choice
Surprisingly, it appears that there is not even a consensus on the basic premise that public education in this country is producing less than desirable results. I certainly think it is fair to question that premise, yet I wonder what proof would satisfy the doubters?
If anyone is still reading these comments, I wonder what your thoughts are on the following specific educational issues:
1. IDEA - good or bad? (Personally I think it is one of many well intentioned reforms that have had a demonstrably negative impact on public education.)
2. Teacher salaries - are teachers underpaid, and if so, what would the "right" salary be?
3. If we randomly selected 5 school systems and allowed each to implement the voucher system of its choice (including the use of parochial schools), what metric would we use to determine success or failure.
4. It is often asserted that it is very hard to fire a teacher. If this is so, why is it so (or why do we allow this)?
5. Even adjusting for hidden costs (e.g., nuns as teachers) that they don't bear, parochial schools
have long been and remain consistently cheaper to operate than public schools. Why? Where is the savings? What are the material differences between the two systems (besides religious instruction)?
I hope I get a couple answers. But even if I don't I have enjoyed the discussion.
3.
ScentOfViolets -
I agree. In fact, education is a service, and following these same principles, I can't see why we should have some hare-brained "choice" scheme foisted off on us regarding other services either.
Take food, for instance. Instead of having all these crazy libertarian choices, I think the government should assign you -- and everyone else who lives in your geographical vicinity -- to grocery store A.
Oh, sure, you and your neighbors will still be able purchase groceries from store B, which has fresher produce, shorter lines and friendlier employees. But of course you'd still have to pay your normal rate to store A in addition to paying for the actual groceries from B. Because if you didn't, that would mean fewer resources for the government to send to store A, which might lead to A going out of business.
In the end, employees at store A would either have to find other jobs, or start offering better produce, service, etc. of their own, and I think we both know that's just crazytalk.
No, no. Much better to keep the system the way it is. In fact, let's get the government to not only continue to require us to pay store A, but to raise the prices in the store. Perhaps if we pay them more money, the service will improve. I can't think of a single other arena in which paying more money sends the signal that you are dissatisfied with service; but hey, maybe we'll get lucky.
- Alaska Jack
Late to the party, but I had to throw in a few pennies' worth:
[M]uch of the problem is also the lousy faculty and staff, headed by lousy principals, who don't give a flying fig about establishing relationships with parents in the hope of fostering better learning environments. And why should they care? They are accountable to no one.
Exactly. I think this started when administrators stopped having teaching duties, which, over time, turned them into politicians and bureaucrats. The answer to this is that administrators must teach in additon to their other duties. This would have the advantage of keeping them out of their "ivory towers" and in touch with what's actually going on in the classroom, as well as weeding those with no talent for teaching out of the educational system.
[T[here's some cost to society for abandoning kids who don't have parents who care. Eventually, we'll have to care for them in prison, on public assistance, or through lost productivity.
This is true, but there are a few kids that are simply beyond hope and who, by their very presence in the schools, disrupt things for everyone else in their midst. It would be easier if these repeat problem kids could be expelled like they used to, without inviting a lawsuit.
I have always suspected that is a big part of the libertarian mindset, by the way. Are they simply so immature to expect that taxes will magically go away because they wish them so?
I don't think anyone is wishing for taxes to magically go away, but I bet a lot of us are wanting taxes to go down, because the government is spending them wastefully on things that they shouldn't be involved with in the first place. The government should defend our shores, implement a few things to "help the trains run on time" and otherwise leave us alone. Far too much of our money is spent on pork and pointless social engineering projects, and we'd all be better off it we could have that money back to invest as we choose.
"wasn't much movement towards finding actual solutions"
Huh? Did you read the article?? Can you read? Pictures, maybe?
DUH!
The whole article is about a Solution:
V O U C H E R S, putting the power in the hands of the Students/Consumers!!
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumber!
SHEESH!
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/CDA02-03.cfm
"April 12, 2002
What the Harvard/Mathematica Study Says About Vouchers and Low-Income African-American Students
by Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., and Krista Kafer
Center for Data Analysis Report #02-03
In February 2002, researchers at Harvard University, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR), and the University of Wisconsin released the results of a three-year study to determine the effects of voucher-like scholarships on low-income student achievement in New York City.1 In just three years, the vouchers offered by the School Choice Scholarships Foundation (SCSF) were found to have had impressive effects, especially for African-American low-income students. Specifically:
Standardized reading and math test scores for black students who had used the vouchers (worth up to $1,400 each year) to attend private schools for three years were 9.2 percentile points higher than those of comparable black students who did not attend a private school.
Overall test scores for black voucher recipients who attended a private school for at least one of the three years were, on average, 7.6 percentile points higher than those of black students who had never attended a private school.
Parental satisfaction with their child's school was higher among parents of students who attended a school of choice. When asked to assign a grade to their children's school, 42 percent of voucher parents gave their school an "A," while only 10 percent of the parents of the control group public school students did likewise.
Thus, voucher-like scholarships have significant effects on the education of low-income students. Even black students who had attended private school for only one or two years did better than their public school peers did on standardized reading and math tests. This CDA Report will first discuss how the School Choice Scholarships Foundation program selected students to receive the vouchers and then will review the results of the study published by Mathematica."
Gee, why would Da LiBruls be against this? Could it be they would no longer be able to indoctrinate future voters, Keepem Down on the Farm/Plantation?
"Librulism is a Mental Disorder!"
Who was it that asked for "Solutions?"
1. What was the GI Bill?
2. Was it successful?
3. Did it have an effect on college tuition?
4. Has it been a backdoor for federal regulation of universities?
My take: A voucher program, yes, yes, and yes. So, vouchers work, but there are negative consequences.
Right now he's only guilty of the lesser sin of viewing real estate purchases as the natural vehicle through which one should excercise educational choice.
And why is this a sin?
1. The fact is real estate is a very big factor in educational choice. I'm not going to send my kid to the other side of the country for an elementary or even high school unless you show me that school is really, really, extra really good.
2. Education is a public good. Even if I don't send my kid to the local public school, the local public school is of interest to me because it impacts my neighbors, my neighborhood, the character of my community etc.
3. Like every other public good you have the ability to purchase it on your own with your own money. Does Megan get upset over 'middle-class' DC residents who opt to buy their own cars and pay for their own gas rather than take public transit? Do they get guilt trips if they oppose a 'transportation voucher'?
4. Rather than a guilt trip, those who send their kids to private school should be thanked. They are taking the burden off public schools using their own money. They are not denying poorer families the ability to send their kids to private schools anymore than by owning a car you are denying a poor person a seat on the bus.
It's amazing when the subject of vouchers is raised libertarian minded folks turn economics on its head.
I don't object to voucheres in all cases. I think they should be tried in areas of concentrated failure and experimented with but I dislike the way they are presented as some type of right or entitlement... You already have a right to send your kid wherever you want if you're willing to pay for it.
Too many voucher advocates pretend, though, that if you can't afford to pay for the 'choice' it is somehow being robbed from you by the gov't. If you seriously believed this, you would have to end up being a very silly socialist (I can't 'choose' any downtown Manhatten real estate, for example...even with vouchers there will be many elite private schools that will be out of reach of even the upper middle class). And don't try to say it's just letting you spend your own tax money. No one is taxed by child, they are taxed by property or income or consumption. The guy who lives alone in an expensive house is more likely to be paying those school taxes than the single mother with 3 kids who probably pays less in property taxes each year than her kids consume from the public school.
6. The problem with many voucher advocates therefore is that they are trying to sell an entitlement and the problem with many entitlement is that they entitle the actual voter to very little except binding them to paying for it. "Choice" therefore means the actual people paying the bill for 'public education' get to have little or no choice as to what they are paying for while individual parents get all the choice. Often the two interests will match but not always. Take grade inflation, for example. While taxpayers/voters may oppose it individual parents are almost always for it (assuming it is their kids who will see their grades inflated). Take 'radical curriculums'. While taxpayers have an incentive to steer towards the mainstream individual parents have an incentive to see their particular peeves promoted (whether they be creationism, fundamentalism on the right or assorted leftist causes on the left). At least with public schools you have to actually convince a critical mass of voters/taxpayers to buy into some new idea before you get to fund it publically.
"parents get all the choice"
That would be the Consumer! It's worked pretty well soo far!
So, you would rather TRUST the POLLS/Washington than the Parents/Consumer?
OOOOOOOOOOH TAY, Spanky!
You haven't learned much, have ya!
"Public Funding?" It isn't all ready? Your arguements are nuttin by pure BULL SHIT!
Again, I'll trust the Parents before I trust the POLLS!
Wake UP!
How bout we have VOUCHERS and let the Parents choose whether they want their Kids to learn how to Put on a Condom, Have Plays Entitled, "The Vagina Monologue(SP?), Reading assignments about Pete and Peter gettin married, etc!
DUH Again!
An interesting point by LaFollette Progressive, which I want to break down a bit:
[If voucher programs are put in place, the]schools that take on voucher students will need to expand, to hire more teachers, to accept students with behavioral problems and poor educational performance, and all of these things will cost more money and lower their test scores.
I'm not sure this is true of all schools, unless the idea is to make all these things a requirement. For instance, I could see schools filtering students with behavioral problems, thereby creating a market for schools that specialize in such students. Specialization has been the driver behind industrialization and indeed civilization itself; there is plenty of reason to think it would improve the overall education levels if we actually let it.
Many will raise their standards and/or their tuition to maintain their elite status.
By definition, only a few schools will have "elite" status, and quite frankly, that niche is well occupied by the Exeters of this world. To stay successful and keep from fighting over the "best" students, schools will have to find other ways to differentiate.
And it's important to point out that student talent is not directly proportional to parent income. So any school that keeps raising fees will simply turn itself into a den of well-moneyed mediocrity. That would create a sweet opportunity for any school that took talented students whose parents didn't own a Lexus.
The public schools will almost certainly continue to decline with the loss of revenue, but will continue to need public support to take care of the developmentally disabled children and others who have nowhere else to go.
Here is where LFP's viewpoint strikes me as the most interesting. Maybe I'm mistaken, but his tone seems wistful -- like it's a bad thing that the developmentally disabled etc. will be left behind in public schools. Well, perhaps -- but isn't it interesting that he chooses to ignore all those people who DO suddenly have someplace to go? You know, all those people whose education will improve, and who will have a chance to explore their full potential and benefit society, rather than be stuck in poorly performing schools for the benefit of those children who are unlikely to be helped by ANY system, and on whom LFP chooses to narrowly focus our attention? Why is it that the lack of benefit from vouchers to the least educable part of the population cancels out the benefits to everyone else?
I'm guessing that if LFP's scenario comes true, government schools will become another welfare program, and act as the schools of last resort. There will be fewer of them, and they will specialize in the most difficult cases, and attract teachers who want to work with those kids. This doesn't seem like such a bad thing. Alternatively, public schools could become like public universities: a different, but still valid, approach to education, with its own culture, and some outstanding schools amongst pretty good ones. Incompetence is not intrinsic to public institutions, but comes from a lack of competition and real accountability.
Either way, the most talented and driven kids would undoubtedly benefit from school choice -- and so would the society that unleashed their potential. Perhaps its time to think of our debt to them and not just to those they'd leave behind.
Mike
So, you would rather TRUST the POLLS/Washington than the Parents/Consumer?
Yawn, yes the angry young man wants to rant. First of all Washington has little if anything to say about public schools. Most public schools are locally funded and controlled.
Yes parents/consumers get all the control WITH THEIR MONEY. Anyone may use their money to send their kids to any school they want. What you're talking about thought is using other people's money and yes that means taxes and 'the POLLS'. This is what I don't like about voucher radicals. Their sense of boundless entitlement that they extend nowhere else. What they are saying is that taxpayers should give vouchers to parents and taxpayers should forfeit their right to vote on how their money is spent.
E Nough
I'm impressed by your post in defense of vouchers but what bothers me about them is that advocates propose a radical change without really explaining why. The fact is most people are happy with their public schools, most communities are not large enough to accomodate a huge market of competiting schools. While its always been popular to declare that education is failing the fact remains the US labor market is the best compensated and most productive in the world...in other words whatever some standardized test or other dubious metric says the US population seems to be well served by their schools on average.
I can see vouchers being tried in limited areas where schools are exceptionally bad and dense urban areas where there's room for many different schools to serve a market. I suspect, though, that the 'failure' in these areas is more of a general failure of the local society rather than the schools specifically. I've read, for example, that the DC gov't is very corrupt and incompetetant...hardly able to plow the snow let alone police the streets. Could it be then that the DC area is suffering from serious social problems and that makes the schools bad rather than the schools in DC simply being bad?
The other issue I have is general principle. There is a difference between parents and taxpayers, namely in this case taxpayers are the ones paying and they are not necessarily the same people. Idiots like Mike can rant about condom classes but the fact remains when such classes are proposed voters have the ability to debate them and decide and they do. School board elections can be quite dramatic in many otherwise sleepy towns. Mike is basically saying taxpayers/voters should NOT have any real say.
This is foolish IMO because public education is not just a gift taxpayers give to parents or kids. Public education was established because taxpayers do get something out of it. They get a population that is socialized in the norms of the community. They get kids off the street during business hours (not something to laugh at BTW, lots of kids on the street can cause quite a bit of mayham). They get the economic benefits of a population with a min. skill set and so on.
While in many of these areas the interests of parents overlap the interest of taxpayers they don't overlap 100%. For example, taxpayers probably would not like grade inflation but parents probably do. There's a bit of a tug of war here but there should be. Taxpayers are footing the bill but parents have primary authority in raising their kids so there's going to be a back and forth. The ideology of voucherites seems to be that we must demand a one-sided surrender in that 'tug of war' where taxpayers will simply pay for whatever parents want. This is the underlying message of voucherites like Mike who paint this as some sort of entitlement that 'the polls' are stealing from parents.
Boomton: "Most public schools are locally funded and controlled."
False on two counts:
1) Local (property) taxes account for less than 1/2 of K-12 revenues across the US.
2) Significant control resides in State legislatures, which determine age of compulsory attendance and, often, teacher credential requirements and the scope of collective bargaining. In States which mandate College of Education degrees, Colleges of Education exert significant influence over K-12 education.
(Boomton): "This is what I don't like about voucher radicals. Their sense of boundless entitlement that they extend nowhere else. What they are saying is that taxpayers should give vouchers to parents and taxpayers should forfeit their right to vote on how their money is spent."
I recommend the Brookings/Urban Institute/CED study Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services and Myron Lieberman's Privatization and Educational Choice. Some people express support for vouchers in terms of entitlement, but to many voucher supporters, the issue involves standard economic considerations of efficiency and adaptation, which competitive markets address better than do tax-subsidized State-moopoly enterprises.
(Boomton): "advocates propose a radical change without really explaining why."
Usually, school voucher advocates give several reasons. Broadly speaking, the education industry is not a natural monopoly and above a very low level there are no economies of scale at the delivery end of the education business as it currently operates. Natural monopoly and economies of scale are two usual welfare-economic arguments for State (government, generally) operation of an industry. Even when an industry is a natural monopoly or exhibits significant economies of scale the case for State operation is not decisive, and in any case, the education industry is not a natural monopoly and does not exhibit significant economies of scale. Education only marginally qualifies as a public good as economists use the term and the "public goods" argument implies subsidy and regulation, at most, not State operation of school.
Across industreis, across countries, monopolies deliver wretched goods and services at high cost, and subsidized goods are over-consumed. A subsidized monopoly enterprise is a formula for over-consumption of shoddy goods. The policy which prevails in most US States, which restricts individual parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy to schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, has produced an abusive, wasteful bureaucracy.
(Boomton): "the US labor market is the best compensated and most productive in the world...in other words whatever some standardized test or other dubious metric says the US population seems to be well served by their schools on average."
Or, one could conclude that the US market-oriented legal system provides the best compensation and greatest productivity, and school is largely irrelevant to that.
(Boomton): "Could it be then that the DC area is suffering from serious social problems and that makes the schools bad rather than the schools in DC simply being bad?"
Large streams of resources attract predators, who win the contest for control against voters, with more diffuse interests, and against parents, whose interests are transitory.
(Bomton): "Mike is basically saying taxpayers/voters should NOT have any real say."
Here, the difference between a voucher-subsidized market in education services and a State(government, generally)-monopoly system amounts to the question of who better represents voters' interests: parents or school bureaucrats. On average, I'll trust parents.
(Boomton): "Public education was established because taxpayers do get something out of it. They get a population that is socialized in the norms of the community."
That's one way to put it. The US State-monopoly school system originated in anti-Catholic bigotry. If the "norm" is tolerance of diversity, well, the way to teach tolerance of diversity is to tolerate diversity.
(Boomton): "They get kids off the street during business hours (not something to laugh at BTW, lots of kids on the street can cause quite a bit of mayham)."
Dunno how that's an argument against vouchers, since there's no necessary relation between school vouchers and the repeal of compulsory attendance laws. But...in Hawaii, juvenile arrests foe assault, drug possession, and drug promotion fall in summer, when school is not in session. Juvenile arrests for property crime fall when school is not in session. Reported burglaries fall when school is not in session. Juvenile hospitalizations for human-induced trauma fall when school is not in session.
(Boomton): "They get the economic benefits of a population with a min. skill set..."
Again, that's not an argument against school vouchers so much as an argument for some compulsory school.
One realistic argument against school vouchers holds that independent and parochial schools would have no incentive to charge less than the voucher. While I believe that tuition vouchers would be a big step up from the current State-monopoly school system, for this and other reasons I prefer a policy I call Parent Performance Contracting.
"First of all Washington has little if anything to say about public schools. Most public schools are locally funded and controlled."
Let me see if I got this Straight, U R saying there are No STRINGS attached to the money Washington sends the Local School Districts??
"I was Born at Night, But not Last Night!"
Question: We're you Dropped on Yo head at Birth or do you Just Practice STUUU PID?
SHEESH
"One realistic argument against school vouchers holds that independent and parochial schools would have no incentive to charge less than the voucher."
UNBELIEVABLE statement! What about those schools, private and public that would be COMPETING for those VOUCHER dollars??
DUH, Those that produce the best product for least cost, they win, those that don't, Lose!
It's Called "FREE ENTERPRISE," "COMPETITION!"
It's what made this country GREAT!
A free enterprise System Rewards those that Work Hard, Work Smart, Are creative, etc., Punishes those that are Corrupt, Lazy, and Stuu Pid! They cease to exist, as it should be, while those that produce the best product for the least cost thrive and grow!
Socialism Rewards Lazy, Corrupt, and Stuu Pid!
Is this Too Tough for ya?? Pictures, Maybe?
Incredible!
Mike,
What incentive does a voucher-accepting school have to charge less than the full value of the voucher?