School vouchers in US

[jessicasimpson]

I know the theory behind school vouchers, but I really do not see how they would improve anything. Could someone lay it out for me?

[lindajdunn]

The idea is to offer parents an opportunity to move their kids from an unsuccessful school to a successful one by giving them a voucher and allowing them to choose which school their student will attend.

At present, the only way to change schools is for a family to move and in some cases, that's not only impractical but impossible and the same family that cannot afford to move usually cannot afford private schools. Thus, their child(ren) is/are stuck in a bad school system.

The theory is that most students will want to use their vouchers at the better school system and thus the non-performing schools will be forced to improve or close.

[OROD]

Basically it's an utterly half-baked idea that only helps to make bad schools worse and cause a lot of kids to commute long distances to school when they should be going to one close by.

.

[jessicasimpson]

The idea is to offer parents an opportunity to move their kids from an unsuccessful school to a successful one by giving them a voucher and allowing them to choose which school their student will attend.

At present, the only way to change schools is for a family to move and in some cases, that's not only impractical but impossible and the same family that cannot afford to move usually cannot afford private schools. Thus, their child(ren) is/are stuck in a bad school system.

The theory is that most students will want to use their vouchers at the better school system and thus the non-performing schools will be forced to improve or close.

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

[OROD]

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

Vouchers are so you can pay for private schools if you want to use them that way.

.

[jessicasimpson]

Vouchers are so you can pay for private schools if you want to use them that way.

.

So the only thing vouchers would really accomplish would be to save people money who allready have there kids in private school

[OROD]

So the only thing vouchers would really accomplish would be to save people money who allready have there kids in private school

Probably. Like I said, the whole idea is half-baked. What they should be trying to do is fix schools that are failing rather than bus students to other places or give vouchers for private schools, or whatever. Bad schools that have fewer students only get worse, and eventually entire areas will have no schools whatsoever cause all the students will be going elsewhere. All they're doing is side-stepping the problem rather than fixing the causes.

.

[MUHSfencing]

since you asked, and the others have offered sound criticism of vouchers, I'll try & offer a point of view in support of the idea.

School vouchers would create an even playing field between the government run public schools and whatever kind of school the private sector runs.

This offers the parents a choice in their children's education. Parents can "vote" with their vouchers to send their kids to alternative schools, or decide to stay with the public schools.

Public schools can benefit from the critique of competition -- if a lot of parents decide that the style of teaching elsewhere is better, public schools can adapt to try and copy that success. And if it turns out that private enterprise provides a superior education (and who better to determine the quality of education than the parents?), then the public schools are outdated and can simply die out. There'd still be jobs for teachers & administrators at private schools.

further reading:

http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/sc...ice/index.html

http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/education/school/

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Probably. Like I said, the whole idea is half-baked. What they should be trying to do is fix schools that are failing rather than bus students to other places or give vouchers for private schools, or whatever. Bad schools that have fewer students only get worse, and eventually entire areas will have no schools whatsoever cause all the students will be going elsewhere. All they're doing is side-stepping the problem rather than fixing the causes.

.

The whole reasoning is predicated on the assumption that the bold part is doable. It probably is in most cases where the problems have not gone too far, but I strongly doubt that such is the case always. Think of it as bankruptcy - once an organzation is too rotten, it is better to break it, use whatever still useful parts (few good teachers, whatever) in other organizations rather than to try to fix the entire organization. Furthermore, the fear of folding will make school administrators with any sence of self-preservation clean up their act. If such do not exist at that school, or if the problems are so bad so that they can not be alleviated even by able administrators, then the school should not continue, IMO. FWIIW, US. federal law already recognizes municipal bankruptcy as a valid case of bankruptcy (chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code), which has been used in connection with school boards. Given that, is it not a bit incoherent that bankruptcy in all but name would not apply to individual schools?

Yes, it sucks to be the remaining students when all the students with drive(or with parents with drive) go somewhere else, driving the problem-student percentage through the roof in the bad school. However, with no punishment possible, counties will let the problems fester in the bad schools - they will not fix them, or do so far too late.

Sweden introduced school vouchers 1992, under the government of a right -of-center coalition. The social democrat party (labor) regained power shortly thereafter, but did not dismantle the system which they had been opposed to, since it proved reasonably popular. It remains in place till now, with 6% of the primary school student body studying at schools not organized by the counties. I am not aware of any county-run school being shut down during these 15 years, and I follow politics well enough so that I would have seen that in the papers.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[OROD]

Yes, but this is not Sweden. You're saying that if a school is having problems, they should just do what the good schools do and the problem will be solved. Hehehe... sure. Where's the money going to come from for that? What happens when there are fewer and fewer students, do they get less money from the state? If they get less money than they were getting before, when things were bad, how the hell are they going to improve? And then, what happens when all the private schools are gone and there's only private ones? What happens if you cant afford (even with vouchers) to send your kids to one? I guess you're out of luck right?
.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Yes, but this is not Sweden. You're saying that if a school is having problems, they should just do what the good schools do and the problem will be solved.

No, that was not was I wrote. I wrote that administrators of problem schools should attempt to fix the problems. Operative word being attempt.

Hehehe... sure.

I have no illusions that they will succeed in all cases, which you should have noted if you read my 1st post in this thread.

Where's the money going to come from for that?

I am in favor of a system where tax-funded schools get funded from bodies larger than counties. In this way, the risk of the average tax-paying ability of the inhabitants of the funding body shrinking lower than wat is needed to sustain basic societal functions is greatly reduced. A town can be crushed under urban blight or the closure of a large company, but much less rarely a whole state.

What happens when there are fewer and fewer students, do they get less money from the state? If they get less money than they were getting before, when things were bad, how the hell are they going to improve?

Entirely true. The point is that the threat of closure/firing will shake up all but the most subpar administrators and teachers before the situation gets that bad. If the people involved can not be motivated even by that, they should not be involved in teaching at all.

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.

And then, what happens when all the private schools are gone and there's only private ones?

I take it that you meant to write public and private, respectively. Otherwise, I can not make heads or tails of your sentence.

What happens if you cant afford (even with vouchers) to send your kids to one? I guess you're out of luck right?
.

In Sweden, private schools which wish to accept school vouchers are expressly forbidden to demand school costs from the parents. As a consequence, the huge majority of private schools do not ask for tuition or other school costs.

You might want to come over here, opposition to school vouchers is part of the policy held by the largest party, which usually (not now, though) hold the reins of govt.



Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[dcmdale]

"Vouchers" is really mostly a sub-issue of the public school vs. private school debate. Proponents of vouchers (surprise?) are usually those who have their kids in private school (or would if they could afford it). The underlying support, then, is as varied as the reasons people chose to send their kids to private schools.

Say you are a (legal) immigrant Islamic family with kids in elementary school. Your daughters are made fun of because of their modesty. Your sons get into fights with kids calling them "terrorists." P.E. means either violating your ethics about boys and girls playing together, or having stand around watching all the other kids have fun (emphasizing to everyone how different your kids are). The curriculum is a warmed over stew of atheist-leaning liberalism, social christianity, and American rah-rah-ism. Your kids are being taught that religion is stupid, that sex is natural, that homosexual sex is something that they should consider, that individualism is good, that the United States is usually the good guy, that Islamic nations are backward and out of touch with the modern world. Your holidays aren't recognized and while you can take them out, they have to try to catch up. And so on. See: http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=1264

If you put your kids in a private Islamic school, you are paying for their schooling twice: once in taxes for public school that theoretically you should be able to use, but is religiously hostile; second time, for the private school that your kids are in. If you can't afford private school, you are stuck with public "education."

Does a person in this situation really care about the impact of vouchers on public education?

Just one example of many reasons parents choose private schools. Bad public schools, as mentioned, are another. Special needs, another. Racism, another. Disciplinary issues (expelled from public school). Unwillingness to give excused absences for NACs. Lots of reasons.

Some obvious issues with vouchers:

1. Good students are cheaper to teach than other children. Private schools, because they can be selective, can skim the brightest, easiest/cheapest kids from the market leaving public schools with the hardest to teach, most expensive kids.
2. Public schools are a major part of the "melting pot." Conservatives who support vouchers will probably be appalled if vouchers gives rise to an entire system of Spanish speaking schools teaching that California and Texas are Mexican territories currently illegally occupied by the imperialist U.S., but will be rightfully recovered as the Mexican population gets voting power.

As with virtually anything political, there are valid points on all sides and the person who tries to understand and balance them won't get elected.

[Inquartata]

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

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

[keith]

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

which is true.

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

Are you proposing euthanasia for the school administration, teachers and students?

[OROD]

Your kids are being taught that religion is stupid,

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.

that sex is natural,

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

that homosexual sex is something that they should consider,

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.

that individualism is good,

See "religion is stupid" above.

that the United States is usually the good guy,

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.

that Islamic nations are backward and out of touch with the modern world.

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.

.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Massive amounts of bile spilled

.

Getting a little off-topic, are we?

In any case, you completely failed to adress dcmdale´s point - which was that parents want to have their children in schools which teach value systems that the parents agree with, and in which their children will not stand out in a negative way.

It simply is not relevant to the discussion that this hypothetical Islamic family has a value system that you do not agree with. What matters is that they hold such a value system in the first place.

Come to think of it, it might would have been better (not for you, but for humanity in general) if you and your family would be relocated to Riyadh or Teheran. A few years of you dealing with their respective school systems, to get them to teach your kids in a way you find agreeable, would teach you a bit of Now-the-shoe-is-on-the-other-footism.

Have you ever lived in a place where you are in the significant minority? If so, what have you learnt from it? I have, moving to a new school in the other end of the country (having a immediately recognizable dialect) and being the only one with USA heritage in the entire school system - in the early 70ies. That was not fun, I can assure you.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Some obvious issues with vouchers:
Good students are cheaper to teach than other children. Private schools, because they can be selective, can skim the brightest, easiest/cheapest kids from the market leaving public schools with the hardest to teach, most expensive kids.

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.

Public schools are a major part of the "melting pot." Conservatives who support vouchers will probably be appalled if vouchers gives rise to an entire system of Spanish speaking schools teaching that California and Texas are Mexican territories currently illegally occupied by the imperialist U.S., but will be rightfully recovered as the Mexican population gets voting power.

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.

Any ideas on how to balance the wishes, so that both secluders and melting-pot enforcers are relatively well satisfied? Figure out some law suggestion!

As with virtually anything political, there are valid points on all sides and the person who tries to understand and balance them won't get elected.

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!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

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.

dcmdale, whom you quoted, lives in the USA IIRC. He would still have been speaking English, and living well, even if the USA had not entered WWII. I, OTOH, would have spoken German much better than in my currently quite rusty way.

BTW: if you want to speak English correctly, note that the language is spelled Russian. A and O are at the opposite sides of the keyboard.


Guten Abend!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

Are you proposing euthanasia for the school administration, teachers and students?

Just surgery.

[Inquartata]

dcmdale, whom you quoted, lives in the USA IIRC. He would still have been speaking English, and living well, even if the USA had not entered WWII.

Mmm...possibly not. I mean, it was touch-and-go just with the Soviet Union as rival. Can you imagine having to compete for the world's resources with the combined Warsaw Pact nations AND Europe AND parts of North Africa? Had Germany finally gotten around to invading and occupying Britain and then without the disadvantage of a second front managed to conquer and consolidate the Soviet bloc, plus retained the oilfields of North Africa, I do not think that we in the US would have been able to outcompete such a titan as it did the Soviets alone.

( Oh, and add in Japan and her holdings, since without the US that nation would have remained in the Axis as well. )