School Vouchers

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Silverstream

I did some research when this was a hot issue back in 2001(?). These were my conclusions which are based on the assumption that we need more competition;

My local school district received about $7500 per student in revenue.
If they gave out vouchers for $5000, this would still leave them with about $2500 in revenue that could then be applied to helping the other students. At some point, the extra revenue per student would result in the education quality in the public schools rising to where people would not think it worthwhile to switch to a private school.

Private schools would see a huge increase in demand initially spurring construction (good for the economy). Demand for teachers would increase along with salaries therefore attracting better quality.

.

The fallacy is that competition or an "open market" will fix the problems of the public schools. In a free marketplace it is more likely that the failing weaker competitor will go out of business or reposition itself than "getting more competitive."

I also love phrases like "at some point" -- which is shorthand for "I'm not really sure, this is just a theory." And if there is anything we've learned over the last few decades is throwing money at a problem without fixing the root causes is a waste of money.

Finally, I don't get the 1+1=3 economic development argument as it relates to building new schools or hiring more teachers (at better salaries). At the end of the day District X still has the same number of students regardless of how they split public/private. If they need more space (or teachers); they need them regardless of the existence of vouchers.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Public schools do not budget with the assumption that every eligible child will enroll. This became abundantly evident in NYC when a large enough group of parents in districts with good schools chose public school instead of private school when the economy tanked. Some school districts had to send some of the kids to other school districts for lack of space and it created a budget headache for the schools.

Yep. They budget for what they anticipate demand to be. They do have an obligation to accomodate whatever shows up. If I was a taxpayer or parent in NYC I'd much rather have a rough, cramped year or two than building/hiring for peak demand.

[npita]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Schools do in fact estimate the population of the children within their district, factoring those that will not attend public schools, and size their instructor staffing, facilities, supplies, etc to meet those estimates.

Only to the extent that the money they have to work with is fixed. In other words, the public schools are already underfunded. Vouchers will only make that worse.

There are not a whole bunch of empty desks sitting their fallow because the little Johnnys & Marys didn't show up this year.

That contradicts my actual experience in high school. For courses that everyone was required to take, the classes were generally larger than anticipated. In other courses, like AP math and physics, there were indeed quite a few empty desks. I was relegated to independent study for several of the advanced courses, because the courses went at too slow a pace and I was only accomodated because a few teachers bent the rules and let me do what I wanted without actually having to attend a class, so I was a class of one student. More students would have provided the impetus to create an actual course.

The university makes similar judgment also.

Using different criteria. Public universities slow their rate of enrollment by raising entrance requirements. They still have to accept everyone who meets the requirements and actually wants to attend. Private schools do it by limiting enrollment (which often means raising tuition). Universities (at least the one I attended and evey one I've visited) do have plenty of classroom space. If the enrollment is high, they also have a vast pool of instructors (known a graduate students) available to teach.

As an aside, I find it rather ironic that I was ``qualified'' to teach physics to university students, but if I wanted to teach high school, I'd have to go to a lot of additional effort to obtain a certificate that states that I'm qualified, not to mention putting up with being micromanaged by the school administration.

My alma matter actually accepts some 35% more students, each year, than they expect will ever attend.

That's because statistics work very well and the 35% overacceptance represents an approximately 1-sigma deviation from the mean (assuming the number of applicants is more than enough to use gaussian statistics, which is a good approximation if the number of applicants is greater than 100).

However, statistics also tell you that there is a non-zero probability that the outcome will not be within the 1-sigma deviation from the expected outcome.

But to reject the concept out of hand based on your premise is...well, not based on what happens on the real world.

My premise is that private schools have the luxury of limiting their enrollment to fit their budget, while public schools do not. Vouchers would not alter that fact. Vouchers would only increase the dependence on the predicted outcome being correct, which as I've already noted is not a sure thing. What is a sure thing is that where the real world out come doesn't match the statistical analysis closely enough. (see below), as in the previously described NYC case), the outcome will be a disaster.

It is an outcome based justification rather than looking at the facts and coming to a proper outcome.

What you call ``justification'' is merely a statistical analysis which gives the most likely real world result and an estimate of how likely the ``real world'' result will deviate from the most likely case, which direction it might be skewed, etc. It's only ``justification'' if you include the rest of those details and everyone (or at least most everyone) agrees that the chances of being wrong are acceptable enough to base a budget on the analysis. That doesn't change my argument, it only means the public school system is already underfunded and has to spend some of its money to perform such an analysis, which if incorrect, will piss off a lot of parents and leave the school district scrambling. (See the NYC example already given.) Private schools never face this situation, since they can always accept as many applicants as they wish and limit their enrollment to some fraction of the applicants.

Consequently, (as you noted), everyone shares the cost of educating students, even those of us with no kids because we could not afford to educate every student if only those with kids who attended public schools paid for it.

As an additional point, even though I have no kids, the fact that I'm subsidizing the education of students in public schools means that I have the right to voice my opinion in how those students are educated (and I have a very strong opinion on quite a few aspects of education, especially where it comes to what is considered science).

Finally, public schools are obligated to try to educate the willfully ineducable whom no private school would accept. Just because your kids might not fall into that category doesn't mean you should not bear the same burden of educating them that the rest of us do should you decide to send your kids to private schools.

Vouchers amount to giving (an additional) tax break to people who decide to have kids. I really don't understand why having children should qualify for any deduction at all. Having kids is a personal choice, not a public obligation.

[npita]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

NYC doesn't have vouchers.

I never claimed otherwise. I claimed that vouchers would have only made the situation worse, but thank you for helping me make that point more obvious.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by npita

I really don't understand why having children should qualify for any deduction at all. Having kids is a personal choice, not a public obligation.

I assume you are aware that there are many tax deductions out there for families with children. The tax code in the US and most countries is in part based on advancing certain public policy goals. For example, in the US, the home mortgage deduction is there to advance the goal (rightly or wrongly) of home ownership. Deductions for child care expenses, taxes for public schools, etc are again advancing a certain public policy. As a society we have made the decision that children are an important fabric of society and parents are deserving of some help. I will assume that you disagree with that public policy decision.

[Silverstream]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

The fallacy is that competition or an "open market" will fix the problems of the public schools. In a free marketplace it is more likely that the failing weaker competitor will go out of business or reposition itself than "getting more competitive."

Except that the public schools have little room to "reposition" themselves as their fundamental charter is to provide an education for the public and certainly cannot go completely out of business. Some schools could be closed down (as they can be now).

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I also love phrases like "at some point" -- which is shorthand for "I'm not really sure, this is just a theory." And if there is anything we've learned over the last few decades is throwing money at a problem without fixing the root causes is a waste of money.

I totally agree that throwing money at the problem IS NOT the only answer. However, money, is absolutely a major factor.

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Finally, I don't get the 1+1=3 economic development argument as it relates to building new schools or hiring more teachers (at better salaries). At the end of the day District X still has the same number of students regardless of how they split public/private. If they need more space (or teachers); they need them regardless of the existence of vouchers.

I guess I should have spelled this out as it seems obvious to me. Yes there are the same number of students. If however a higher percentage go to private schools and I think its indisputable that private schools have a higher cost on average than a public school per capita "cost", then the amount greater than this cost times the number of students equals the increased amount of dollars going into educating our children.

If more money is going to private school education and there is a larger number of students, they will have the means and the cause to build new facilities and hire more staff. Since the staff at the public schools should only decrease marginally if at all (remember their revenue per student has increased) and the number of private school teachers has increased, salaries for teachers would increase. The downside is that less competent teachers would be more likely to keep their jobs but at least the average class size would decrease.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

I assume you are aware that there are many tax deductions out there for families with children. The tax code in the US and most countries is in part based on advancing certain public policy goals. For example, in the US, the home mortgage deduction is there to advance the goal (rightly or wrongly) of home ownership. Deductions for child care expenses, taxes for public schools, etc are again advancing a certain public policy. As a society we have made the decision that children are an important fabric of society and parents are deserving of some help. I will assume that you disagree with that public policy decision.

Yeah I don't have any kiddies of my own yet...but even my selfish, sorry ass can see the benefits of educating the young 'uns. Afterall when I get old I'm gonna need some young doctors to treat me, some young nurses to bath me, etc. etc.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Silverstream

Except that the public schools have little room to "reposition" themselves as their fundamental charter is to provide an education for the public and certainly cannot go completely out of business. Some schools could be closed down (as they can be now).

Exactly. So we prop up and throw more money at something that is broken because we've decided it can't fail. The reason "competition" and "markets" work is because we let the losers fail (some recent examples by our federal govt not withstanding). They are replaced by better or more efficient business models. As you have acknowledged that won't happen here


I totally agree that throwing money at the problem IS NOT the only answer. However, money, is absolutely a major factor.



I guess I should have spelled this out as it seems obvious to me. Yes there are the same number of students. If however a higher percentage go to private schools and I think its indisputable that private schools have a higher cost on average than a public school per capita "cost",

actually I'll dispute this. some private schools (Catholic parochial specifically) actually spend less driven by lower salaries for teachers, more prudent management and not having to absorb the expense of dealing with high cost "special cases" (e.g. special needs children)

then the amount greater than this cost times the number of students equals the increased amount of dollars going into educating our children.

If more money is going to private school education and there is a larger number of students, they will have the means and the cause to build new facilities and hire more staff. Since the staff at the public schools should only decrease marginally if at all (remember their revenue per student has increased)

Why only marginally? Or better question how do you define marginally?

and the number of private school teachers has increased, salaries for teachers would increase. The downside is that less competent teachers would be more likely to keep their jobs but at least the average class size would decrease.

Here is a key issue... Class size....if class sizes were the issue to begin with, why not just hire more teachers? Don't hide the issue as being "vouchers" or "choice"

I'd argue vouchers should not result in more teachers system-wide (public enrollment + private). 1+1 = 2; not 3. If class size is the issue fix that in the public schools.

my thoughts in BOLD above

[sofiaofhouston]

No one will agree with me but......my family members go to private schools. That's just the way it is....Public school is not even an option. Classes are too big and we are not chancing our family's education by waiting for school reforms. The kids need a good education now. If one family member can't afford it, we simply pool family funds to pay for it. We take care of our own, we don't depend on government systems or wait for a change.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by sofiaofhouston

No one will agree with me but......my family members go to private schools. That's just the way it is....Public school is not even an option. Classes are too big and we are not chancing our family's education by waiting for school reforms. The kids need a good education now. If one family member can't afford it, we simply pool family funds to pay for it. We take care of our own, we don't depend on government systems or wait for a change.

Pretty much the way it was in my family/community...the Catholic Schools I attended had extensive need based scholarship programs and no member of the Parish that had a legit need and was willing to make an effort was turned away.

And one other note - for many the notion of "private schools" probably conjures up images of elite academies - when in fact the majority are faith based & cater to a vast range of backgrounds, but most are pretty darn blue collar

Even though I don't support vouchers, I can sure see how they would have made things easier for the families of a number of my classmates

[discreetgent]

No one will agree? My family has always gone to private school as well. Public school in cities we have lived were never an option for getting a good education. All the schools had scholarship programs to help families in need. And yes, parents made a sacrifice as well; instead of buying that new car every 2 or 3 years the money went/goes for tuition.

[Silverstream]

[quote=atlcomedy;168665]
Originally Posted by Silverstream
Except that the public schools have little room to "reposition" themselves as their fundamental charter is to provide an education for the public and certainly cannot go completely out of business. Some schools could be closed down (as they can be now).

Exactly. So we prop up and throw more money at something that is broken because we've decided it can't fail. The reason "competition" and "markets" work is because we let the losers fail (some recent examples by our federal govt not withstanding). They are replaced by better or more efficient business models. As you have acknowledged that won't happen here
I don't disagree with this at all. There's just no way that the public schools system will be replaced by a more efficient model so frankly its not worth discussing or wishing for it to happen. By introducing more competition from the private sector, at least it might be marginally better.

I guess I should have spelled this out as it seems obvious to me. Yes there are the same number of students. If however a higher percentage go to private schools and I think its indisputable that private schools have a higher cost on average than a public school per capita "cost",

actually I'll dispute this. some private schools (Catholic parochial specifically) actually spend less driven by lower salaries for teachers, more prudent management and not having to absorb the expense of dealing with high cost "special cases" (e.g. special needs children)
You can always pick out exceptions (particularly with religous based schools) but as on average private schools cost more per pupil. On the other side of the scale for example is my alma mater which now costs between 20 and 25k per year.

Since the staff at the public schools should only decrease marginally if at all (remember their revenue per student has increased)

Why only marginally? Or better question how do you define marginally?
If the revenue per pupil actually increases, there will be very little pressure to reduce staff. The definition of bureaucracy would be the public school system IMHO.

Here is a key issue... Class size....if class sizes were the issue to begin with, why not just hire more teachers?
Simple, more teachers cost more money. I really don't want higher taxes for their bureaucracy.

I'd argue vouchers should not result in more teachers system-wide (public enrollment + private). 1+1 = 2; not 3. If class size is the issue fix that in the public schools.
Class size is always an issue in a learning environment.
You phrase the equation improperly as I never said the student population would increase. Only that there the distribution from public to private would change. If employment in the public sector remains the same and the private sector grows, the number of teachers rises.

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

my thoughts in BOLD above

[Rudyard K]

Perhaps we need to start at the top of the pyramid and work down.

First, the framers of our state constitution mandated that the state provide education for its children. This isn’t some law…this is the basis for our state. So, regardless whether you think my children should have been provided a public education or not…the framers of the constitution, of the state in which you reside, did. I tend to agree with them, but that is also irrelevant.

Based on the above premise, then we now must move to “How will that be accomplished?” When I was a kid, state funds provided around 70% of the public education costs to educate a child. Local enrichment, typically in the form of property taxes, made up the difference. By the time the Robin Hood laws came about, that ratio had flip flopped. In other words, the state provided about 30% of the cost to educate a child, and local enrichment made up the difference. The poorer school districts (i.e. those with low property values), rightly so IMHO, sued the state and said it was not fulfilling its constitutional mandate. And just so you won’t think I am being self-serving here…I came from one of the richest property value school districts in the state. Those poor school districts were having to have high property tax rates to fill the gap, while rich school districts were getting to have lower property tax rates to fill the gap.

The Texas Supreme Court agreed with the poorer school districts. So, we went through several iterations of ways for the state to raise revenues so that it could provide for public education. The fly in the ointment for the state was the fact that it was also constitutionally mandated that it would take a public, statewide vote to pass a statewide property tax. Legislators, being how they are, didn’t want to face the electorate to have such a vote. So, they passed version after version of the Robin Hood plan, trying to come up with a state property tax that held up as constitutional. The one we have today has been ruled constitutional. We have the wonderful John Cornyn to thank for that as he was the swing vote on the Texas Supreme Court. Again, IMHO, our current Robin Hood plan violates the state constitutional mandate for a statewide vote on a property tax. But the ruling stands, nonetheless. It was never a question of whether the state was required to provide for public education. It was only a question of how those funds would be raised.

Under your premise, it might be that the most cost efficient method of providing that education would be to round ‘em all up, put them in some institution in the center of the state, and cram their heads full of stuff. Or perhaps one could take a more enlightend view and decide that some kind of a public school system or systems, of a more localized nature, might be the better way to go.

If I had the attitude such as one who doesn’t think I should have to contribute to such funding, then the most cost effective methodology for providing lip service to the process, would be to have a crappy school that I call public education, and hope like hell that very few folks sent their kids there. Then I could say I’m providing the education required…and “Hell, it’s only those rich folks who are sending their kids elsewhere that are being screwed. If they don’t like having to foot the bill, let them bring their kid here to crappy elementary school. Either way, I have fulfilled my moral duty.”

Don’t get me wrong. I am all about personal responsibility. If we want to change the system where I handle me and mine and everyone else handles them and theirs…I’m all for it. But let’s do it for everything. I’ll handle my own doctor bills you handle yours. I’ll get together with my neighbors and we’ll handle our own parks, roads, police, fire, etc. The rest can do whatever they please.

I was unaware of all the empty chairs in all the AP classes. Somehow, no one invited me into any of those classrooms. I was just one of the regular kids. I dunno, maybe we ought to charge the smart kids more for having those low teacher-student ratios. Somehow, I think there are more of us dumb asses out there than there are smart kids…and I could get the votes.

[ANONONE]

Interesting thread. . .

Will somebody please show me in the constitution where EDUCATION is a right?

Even if you could find it (you won't the federal government purposely left that to the states) or if we agreed for argument sake that it as a right, on what precedence does anyone have to expect the government to pay for it?

You have a right to bear arms. Do you see the government issuing vouchers so you can purchase a .357 Magnum?

All states are different, but the one I live in had some really heated discussions about this when Voinovich was the governor. The pro-voucher group, made up mostly of Catholic parents that were upset because they felt they were being taxed to send the children of other people to school were exposed as just being self-interested. What they really meant was, they wanted a kick-back to pay for the extra tuition they chose to spend to send their kids to parochial schools (in Ohio schools are funded through property tax levies).

They were slaughtered in the public debate because:

1) Even parochial schools are funded by those tax dollars for all non-religious portions of the education (bus transportation, math science and history books, special education resources and staff, etc).

2) They had a chance to vote against tax levies. Most of them didn't vote against them because a funny thing happens when tax levies fail repeatedly, your property value decreases dramatically.

3) It was pointed out that the only reason their test scores were higher was because they had control over the quality of students they would accept at enrollment, and more importantly they could expel disruptive students, which in this day and age of litigation it was becoming more and more difficult to remove students that were serious disruptions to the educational process.

As soon as the voucher thing was tossed around and they could see the writing on the wall: "Sure you can have vouchers as long as you are aware you will have to pay for all of those things you were already having the state fund out of you own coffers--the vouchers REPLACE those other funding mechanisms--and you have to have open enrollment," they quickly backed down.

[discreetgent]

ANONONE, I'm puzzled. Ohio has vouchers. One program is the original set up in the Cleveland area and then a second one that was passed for the rest of the state in December of 2006 (I think).

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by ANONONE

Interesting thread. . .

Will somebody please show me in the constitution where EDUCATION is a right?

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 7. EDUCATION

Sec. 1. SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FREE SCHOOLS. A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.

I can't speak to your state. But this one is mine.