Musn't say the V-word

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.

Comments

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.

Posted by Peter | October 24, 2007 10:59 AM

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.

Posted by Ed Reid | October 24, 2007 11:07 AM

If vouchers were readily available, wouldn't that just be a way for private schools t jack up their prices even more?

Shhhhhhh!

Posted by denise | October 24, 2007 11:15 AM

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.

Posted by Nelson | October 24, 2007 11:16 AM

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.)

Posted by Jim Barnett | October 24, 2007 11:17 AM

Solution: give every student a voucher, so that nobody is "left behind".

Posted by Ed Reid | October 24, 2007 11:22 AM

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.

Posted by Nelson | October 24, 2007 11:24 AM

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."

Posted by Jasper | October 24, 2007 11:26 AM

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.

Posted by Skullberg | October 24, 2007 11:27 AM

Government education is not nirvana? Who knew? Government healthcare will fix what ails you.

Posted by MarkD | October 24, 2007 11:28 AM

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.

Posted by Jasper | October 24, 2007 11:32 AM

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.

Posted by Marshall | October 24, 2007 11:33 AM

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.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 24, 2007 11:34 AM

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.

Posted by Henry | October 24, 2007 11:43 AM

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?

Posted by Skullberg | October 24, 2007 11:43 AM

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.

Posted by Ed Reid | October 24, 2007 11:47 AM

Fine with me Skullberg, as long as they are not religious schools. If they are religious schools, you are on your own.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 24, 2007 11:55 AM

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.

Posted by Harry | October 24, 2007 11:56 AM

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.

Is that where the State or federal portion of school funding follows the student rather than accrues directly to a particular school?

Posted by Thorley Winston | October 24, 2007 11:58 AM

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.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 24, 2007 12:03 PM

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.

Posted by Jonesin' | October 24, 2007 12:06 PM

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?

Posted by rickm | October 24, 2007 12:09 PM

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.

Posted by Rob | October 24, 2007 12:10 PM

Charles, if you wish to completely defund the Department of Education, you certainly have my support.

Posted by Will Allen | October 24, 2007 12:12 PM

What's a federalist? A central planner who has been mugged by reality?

Posted by Will Allen | October 24, 2007 12:14 PM

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.

Posted by Gene | October 24, 2007 12:15 PM

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

Posted by Skullberg | October 24, 2007 12:16 PM

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.

Posted by rickm | October 24, 2007 12:19 PM

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.

Posted by Skullberg | October 24, 2007 12:34 PM

"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.

Posted by Fred | October 24, 2007 12:35 PM

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.

Posted by Amy P | October 24, 2007 12:35 PM

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.

Posted by anony-mouse | October 24, 2007 12:36 PM

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.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 24, 2007 12:39 PM

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.

Posted by Xanthippas | October 24, 2007 12:40 PM

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.

Posted by Sam | October 24, 2007 12:43 PM

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?

Posted by Skullberg | October 24, 2007 12:49 PM

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

Posted by rickm | October 24, 2007 12:50 PM

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.

Posted by Amy P | October 24, 2007 12:52 PM

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.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 24, 2007 12:55 PM

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.

Posted by Skullberg | October 24, 2007 1:10 PM

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.

Posted by Alan Coombs | October 24, 2007 1:14 PM

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.

Posted by Gordon Smith | October 24, 2007 1:17 PM

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.

Posted by rickm | October 24, 2007 1:23 PM

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.

Posted by Marshall | October 24, 2007 1:24 PM

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...

Posted by Gordon Smith | October 24, 2007 1:24 PM

"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.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 24, 2007 1:25 PM

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.

Posted by cdeegan | October 24, 2007 1:31 PM

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.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 24, 2007 1:31 PM

"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.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 24, 2007 1:31 PM

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.

Posted by Skullberg | October 24, 2007 1:35 PM

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).

Posted by Jasper | October 24, 2007 1:44 PM

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.

Posted by rickm | October 24, 2007 1:46 PM

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."

Posted by Mark | October 24, 2007 1:47 PM

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.

Posted by rickm | October 24, 2007 1:52 PM

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.

Posted by MIchael W | October 24, 2007 1:54 PM

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.

Posted by Stephen | October 24, 2007 1:57 PM

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?

Posted by anony-mouse | October 24, 2007 2:11 PM

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.)

Posted by anony-mouse | October 24, 2007 2:15 PM

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.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 24, 2007 2:24 PM

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

Posted by Skullberg | October 24, 2007 2:30 PM

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.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 24, 2007 2:37 PM

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.

Posted by rickm | October 24, 2007 2:37 PM

Oh, and anony-mouse. How about if you grow a pair and respond with your real name? Part of your

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 24, 2007 2:39 PM

Shoot, screwed up the HTML.

I said part of your nastiness is posting anonymously. Another typical internet coward.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 24, 2007 2:40 PM

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?

Posted by Michael W | October 24, 2007 2:46 PM

"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.

Posted by Amy P | October 24, 2007 2:50 PM

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...

Posted by Skullberg | October 24, 2007 2:55 PM

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.

Posted by Michael W | October 24, 2007 2:55 PM

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.

Posted by rickm | October 24, 2007 2:55 PM

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?

Posted by rickm | October 24, 2007 2:59 PM

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.

Posted by freaktown | October 24, 2007 3:00 PM

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.

Posted by Michael W | October 24, 2007 3:03 PM

Re Michael W and Amy: Yes, the important ones you learn about in any decent Western Civ course.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 24, 2007 3:07 PM

Oh, except David Koresh. Just look for him in any dictionary under "kindling."

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 24, 2007 3:10 PM

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.

Posted by Henry | October 24, 2007 3:16 PM

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.

Posted by Jonesin' | October 24, 2007 3:20 PM

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.

Posted by Skullberg | October 24, 2007 3:23 PM

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.

Posted by rickm | October 24, 2007 3:28 PM

" ... 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.

Posted by john w. | October 24, 2007 3:41 PM

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.

Posted by rickm | October 24, 2007 3:45 PM

John W, exhibit A in why I want federal funding for education to go away.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 24, 2007 3:55 PM

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.

Posted by Michael W | October 24, 2007 4:08 PM

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.

Posted by 25Hour | October 24, 2007 4:15 PM

"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.

Posted by Fred | October 24, 2007 4:16 PM

"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.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 24, 2007 4:23 PM