School vouchers in US

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Why is it that people think only more money can "fix" a bad school or school system?

Money might fix such problems, in some cases. Politicians like saying that money is the problem, since that is something that can make them look like the fixer. If what is necessary to fix is not providable by them, then they can not take credit for fixing the situation. Personally I like to see politicians which correctly identify unsolvable problems as such. Alas, they are few and far between.

Sometimes cancers become inoperable and must be cut out, not merely dosed with ever more expensive drugs.

If cancers are inoperable then can not be cut out! That is by definition true.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

Yeah, I missed that one. Duh. I meant untreatable.

[The Chaotic Wind]

Honestly, some private schools are overrated. One of my best friends was going to one before, he literally felt as if he had no soul. As a result of all the monotonous things there, he eventually began having stress attacks and got to be pretty depressed, after a while his grades slipped a bit.
Recently he switched to my school and almost immediatly felt better, and his grades shot up pretty fast too.
It just goes to show you, just because something has a label, doesn't mean it works.

[dcmdale]

Not so in Sweden. Swedish non-county schools which wish to recieve vouchers must also accept all students which pass a minimum level of school competency. The level of that test is not set by the schools, I think (but do not know for sure) that it simply is to not be metally disabled. Those go to specific schools, for the most part.

I am not suggesting that the problems I brought up cannot be addressed; more, that they are problems that need to be addressed and usually aren't in U.S. voucher proposals. In some ways, because of the additional regulation, the system you describe strikes me as having a different class of school than we usually think of when we talk about private schools in the U.S. -- almost a "competing public school" which might not be a bad idea. "Charter schools" fill this role in some places in the U.S. depending on the implementation.

One of the arguments for vouchers is related to the fact that many (not all) public schools operate within a monopoly framework within the marketspace of publicly financed education. As the only game in town for those that cannot afford private education, there isn't a lot of competitive incentive to improve.

I am aware of the melting pot argument. However, there are some parents which want to opt out of it - both old-timers and recent arrivals. In Sweden, this is partly dealt with by having partial control of the curriculum. Private schools are not permitted to teach antidemocratic ideals, and a few other no-nos.

Traditionally, private schools in the U.S. have much more leeway, of course.

As you brought up, one possible refinement to the usual voucher proposal might be to require that schools sign up to non-discrimination clauses, recognized curriculum, etc. as conditions for vouchers.

Race remain an important consideration in the U.S. A system that allowed for tax supported racially segregated schools is bad (and unconstitutional).

That is because the founding fathers got it wrong, and made a constitution which begets a political landscape of two sides fighting each other bitterly, and very little premium on cooperation! I hate that huge muck-up!

Well, the founding fathers thought that what they were setting up was a system that put a premium on good government. Parties were anathema to them. Didn't work out that way.

Honestly, some private schools are overrated. One of my best friends was going to one before, he literally felt as if he had no soul. As a result of all the monotonous things there, he eventually began having stress attacks and got to be pretty depressed, after a while his grades slipped a bit.
Recently he switched to my school and almost immediatly felt better, and his grades shot up pretty fast too.
It just goes to show you, just because something has a label, doesn't mean it works.

Absolutely true. There are many really bad private schools. Also many good ones.

[jessicasimpson]

If the US had vouchers, this would give incentive for schools to attract students, not to be the best school with the best education.

[lindajdunn]

So why would you need a voucher, wouldn't open enrollment be so much smarter?

In the US, in my state (and presumably most others) school funding is derived primarily from local property taxes and from funding from the legislature based upon formulas dealing with students who are enrolled on X through Y days when the school is in session.

Thus, if your student starts at school A and wants to transfer to school B a month afterwards for whatever reason, the funding for your student still goes to school A and not the school in which the student is now enrolled.

When my daughter had difficulties at her school years after we moved and wanted to transfer to the school she would have attended had we not moved, it would have cost me about $4,000 per year because that was the amount the school had set. However, the school had since decided not to accept transfer students so we considered the possibility of renting a cheap apartment and using that address so she'd be a legal student.

I have co-workers who lied about their addresses so their students could attend a better school.

The quality of schools varies widely here.

[jessicasimpson]

In the US, in my state (and presumably most others) school funding is derived primarily from local property taxes and from funding from the legislature based upon formulas dealing with students who are enrolled on X through Y days when the school is in session.

Thus, if your student starts at school A and wants to transfer to school B a month afterwards for whatever reason, the funding for your student still goes to school A and not the school in which the student is now enrolled.

When my daughter had difficulties at her school years after we moved and wanted to transfer to the school she would have attended had we not moved, it would have cost me about $4,000 per year because that was the amount the school had set. However, the school had since decided not to accept transfer students so we considered the possibility of renting a cheap apartment and using that address so she'd be a legal student.

I have co-workers who lied about their addresses so their students could attend a better school.

The quality of schools varies widely here.

How would vouchers help/hurt your situation?

[lindajdunn]

How would vouchers help/hurt your situation?

It's too late for my daughter, but the vouchers they're talking about around here would allow any student to take that voucher and go to a different school. I would be responsible for transportation.

Schools do NOT have to accept transfer students if they have insufficient room, etc. but they would no longer be turning students away because they wouldn't receiving funding.

It makes public schools more receptive to the idea of accepting transfer students.

[jessicasimpson]

It's too late for my daughter, but the vouchers they're talking about around here would allow any student to take that voucher and go to a different school. I would be responsible for transportation.

Schools do NOT have to accept transfer students if they have insufficient room, etc. but they would no longer be turning students away because they wouldn't receiving funding.

It makes public schools more receptive to the idea of accepting transfer students.

wouldn't it be better (and easier) to lobby the public schools to accept transfers, than to change the entire nature of public education

[cl00bie]

There might be cases where the administrators and teachers are good, but the schools are really bad due to factors entirely out of their control. I have not read about any such case, but if you have - please post a link. I suspect that such cases need specific legislation. In any case, they should not be treated with the same methods as the bad-people problem schools, and they deserve a thread of their own.

A huge problem in any school are the students whose parents don't give a crap about what they do in school, and maybe are absentee, with possible drug or alcohol problems. All it takes is one or two of these children in a class to make it impossible for the rest of the class to learn anything.

In private school, there is a mechanism for dealing with a persistently badly behaving student, and that is expulsion.

However, because we have a civil right to an education (whether we want one or not) it's impossible to remove problem students from a public school.

If you are a parent, and you are handed a voucher to allow your child to go to whatever school you'd like him or her to go to without any out of pocket expenses, what would you choose? I know I'd want my child to go to the best school. So what you effectively do is take a problem child who was the cause of the problems in his class at public school, and put him in a private school where he can disrupt that class.

I believe that we ought to help children get the best education they can. But I don't believe that it ought to be completely cost free, and forever. In other words, there should be a little sacrifice required to sent your child to a private school via a voucher. Possibly a deductible based on a percentage of your income (so that it hurts everyone equally regardless of how much you earn). For the richest, it would be all out of pocket for them, so they get no help.

Also problem children should be easy to expel back to public school if they consistently disrupt their classes.

Just my opinion. That and $2.15 will get you an extra large coffee at Dunkin' Donuts.

[cl00bie]

Oh, and that priest left a message... he wants little Johnny to come over to his house on Saturday for some "special" Bible study.

I was a little taken aback by this, until I saw this:

OROD
Senior Member

OROD's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SFFC ~)----------San Francisco, CA
Posts: 1,522

I guess you have different Catholic bible studies in San Fran than I'm used to on the East coast.

[lindajdunn]

wouldn't it be better (and easier) to lobby the public schools to accept transfers, than to change the entire nature of public education

Actually, no.

Part of the problem here is that local school boards determine such policies and thus one would need to go to each township in all 92 counties in this state to lobby for changes. One could also try the state legislature but no politician that plans to run for re-election is going to touch an education bill that would require his voters to accept outsiders coming into their schools.

And there's still the matter of funding.

Why should A accept your student from school B when there will be no funds accompanying that student? It hurts their ability to provide for the students of residents/taxpayers/voters of that school district.

In some areas, we had forced busing for desegregation which addressed some of the issues of school inequality but the long term result was merely white flight to other townships and a further degradation of inner city schools.

[Maeve_Mari]

God created the Earth in 6 days. Uhuh. Then rested on the seventh. Rested? God, rested? Dont question, questioning is bad, blind faith is good. If you dont blindly swallow what your priest feeds you, you're going to Hell. Oh, and that priest left a message... he wants little Johnny to come over to his house on Saturday for some "special" Bible study.

What, religion, stupid? Naww.

Uhmm... do I really have to address this one? How the **** do you think you got on this planet dude??

This is news to me. Please site the textbook that is teaching this. Oh, wait, you cant cause you just pulled this out of your ass.

See "religion is stupid" above.

If it wasnt for the U.S. you would likely be speaking German or Russion right about now... I mean, if you were alive at all. No one is perfect, and the U.S. is no exception. But, we're a lot better than most.

Oppression of women, promotion of terrorism, advocation of the destruction of Israel, the United States, most other western states, advocation of Islamic law over the world, teaching children in school to hate the West, glorifying terrorists as martyrs, ...

Islamic nations are not only backwards and out of touch with the modern world, they are also dangerous. If they continue on their path, one of two things will happen. Either, eventually, oil will run out and the world will move on to new energy sources. In that case, all those "Islamic" nations will lose their power to make trouble and will be back to killing each other over camels. Or, they'll get their wish of a final conflict with the West and Israel and will end up glowing in the dark for the next 40,000 years.

.

Don't be so hard on dcmdale, his point was valid. I believe his example was blunt and simple to demonstrate a situation where a family might choose private school other than because of a bad (non-performing) school. He wasn't making an argument on religion or natural sex - only that public education (heck, public assembly in general) for some people is very uncomfortable to them.

I think that's why many families choose private schools or home schooling. It's ot always that the neighborhood school is bad, but that the neighborhood school doesn't represent the same values they hold dear and they dont want their children exposed to that way.

Do I think they deserve vouchers for it? Ahhh, no.
I think that a community is only as good as it's public education system - from nursery through college and vocational - and enticing people out of it with $vouchers$ is destructive to the base schools and doesnt do anything to improve the neighborhood schools.

Parents can certainly send their children to private schools that teach the curriculm particular to their needs. But I dont think that the government needs to pay them back for doing that.

[jBirch]

A huge problem in any school are the students whose parents don't give a crap about what they do in school, and maybe are absentee, with possible drug or alcohol problems. All it takes is one or two of these children in a class to make it impossible for the rest of the class to learn anything.

True enough. The problem, in this case, is a teacher trying to instruct/baby-sit/entertain 30 children for 7 hours.

In private school, there is a mechanism for dealing with a persistently badly behaving student, and that is expulsion.

Actually, it's called "money". After all, you can get expelled from public school too.

However, because we have a civil right to an education (whether we want one or not) it's impossible to remove problem students from a public school.

This is the result of our society believing that all children deserve to be taught certain basic skills/knowledge/principals. Even "problem children". The systemic problem, IMHO, comes from the fact that we do not let the children choose not to take that education. We FORCE it upon them. In effect, we jail our kids for 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 10 months of the year.

So the bigger question, why do we force children to attend school at all? Why not simply let them attend or not based on their whim?

James.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Don't be so hard on dcmdale, his point was valid. I believe his example was blunt and simple to demonstrate a situation where a family might choose private school other than because of a bad (non-performing) school. He wasn't making an argument on religion or natural sex - only that public education (heck, public assembly in general) for some people is very uncomfortable to them.

Strange ahem... "argument-fellows"!

When MM sides with dcmdale in a political discussion - what next? Hell freezing over?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

There might be cases where the administrators and teachers are good, but the schools are really bad due to factors entirely out of their control. I have not read about any such case, but if you have - please post a link. I suspect that such cases need specific legislation. In any case, they should not be treated with the same methods as the bad-people problem schools, and they deserve a thread of their own.

A huge problem in any school are the students whose parents don't give a crap about what they do in school, and maybe are absentee, with possible drug or alcohol problems. All it takes is one or two of these children in a class to make it impossible for the rest of the class to learn anything.

Well, there are such cases, but they do not represent an example of the special case that I was asking examples of. They are bad-people problem schools, just that it is the parents that are the bad people. I will hand it to you that such people are beyond the powers of the school teachers and administration, though.

In private school, there is a mechanism for dealing with a persistently badly behaving student, and that is expulsion.

However, because we have a civil right to an education (whether we want one or not) it's impossible to remove problem students from a public school.

The obvious conclusion is that the problem students should be moved, not their classmates. Put them in classes all of their own, preferably with the school day starting out with a 15-mile drive to nowhere, and then they have to run back too school! That will only work is the school for problem children is situated in a place where there are no diversions along the way, and the surroundings are sufficiently desolate/cold/unappealing so that problem children find it a winning proposition to run to school as fast as they can, given the alternative of staying outside.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[lindajdunn]

In private school, there is a mechanism for dealing with a persistently badly behaving student, and that is expulsion.
=======
I forget who said this but in my community, children are expelled fairly frequent under zero tolerances rules and the failure rate is much higher than the one reported because the schools have been using creative math when reporting the drop-out rate. The school administrators' response (locally) to difficult students is to encourage them to drop out of school after years of beign neglect. This, of course, merely moves the problem rather than solves the problem.

[jeff]

Pretty good off-topic spread here!

Just read an item that described schooling in New Zealand, where public schools went to open enrollment. In a sense it was like vouchers since the tax revenue supporting the student went with the student, rather than staying in the municipality they lived in. So, everyone tried to get their kids into the best schools, which wound up being over-subscribed and turning away most non-catchment-area students. The good schools stayed good, and the bad schools got worse because some of their best kids (and I imagine, faculty) got skimmed off. So, the system didn't particularly work (I'm interested in comments from NZ members of this board for their opinion).

Another comment I've read on vouchers is that they don't cover the costs of private schools, so they provide a perk to upper middle class by reducing their tuition burden, while presenting a false hope to the poor who remain trapped in bad schools that are now worsened (because funding is diverted, and because at least some of the best students will escape).

[Maeve_Mari]

Pretty good off-topic spread here!


Another comment I've read on vouchers is that they don't cover the costs of private schools, so they provide a perk to upper middle class by reducing their tuition burden, while presenting a false hope to the poor who remain trapped in bad schools that are now worsened (because funding is diverted, and because at least some of the best students will escape).

That too.
The State/County here doesn't pay a quarter of the cost per student for the public schools what we pay for our children to go to a private school. The result really would be that if there was a voucher system in place here. I'd get a coupon value off and the school make up would still be the same kids it is now!

I love a good sale, but that is not what I expect from my state. If the schools in my community aren't properly funded and rated, then everyone in the community loses out.

[dcmdale]

I love a good sale, but that is not what I expect from my state. If the schools in my community aren't properly funded and rated, then everyone in the community loses out.

I am inclined to believe that the funding aspect of vouchers can be worked out. I know of some school districts in California that often voucher-ish opportunities quietly: the student is officially enrolled in the public school, but assigned to "independent study" at the private school/homeschool. The public school grants the student rights to use the public school facilities (library) and participate in after-school activities and is responsible for administering state mandated testing. The students are guaranteed the right to terminate the private school arrangement and return to the public school. The public school receives the per diem for the student, keeps half and gives the other half to the private school/homeschool for expenses "consistent with secular public education" (i.e., it can be spent on Math texts, but not bible studies). The parents remain responsible for covering the remaining cost of education.

Since the school districts are the ones setting the terms, I have to assume that terms like this work for at least these school districts. I might be wrong. They are getting money that they wouldn't otherwise get with relatively little additional expense.

From a strictly funding perspective, a voucher system could be set up along similar lines. I don't see that vouchers *must* be structured to send 100% of the funding associated with a student to the student's school.

However, I also agree with Jeff, that the amount of money that a voucher would be worth, would often be minuscule in comparison to the cost of quality private education, so I wouldn't expect to see massive change in enrollment.