posted
This isn't an anti-vouchers rant, because I'm actually more or less in favor of them.
I'm just wondering about the logic behind the common republican positions of favoring vouchers while opposing most other services that involve spending tax money on helping people. If you can't afford food or shelter, which are essentials, they don't believe the government should help you with it, because that encourages laziness and dependence on the government. But giving people money to help pay for private schooling, when the government already provides free schooling is fine?
Is it because education is an investment, while welfare seems to return no yields? But what about healthcare, then? Isn't a healthier populace an investment that would pay dividends to society? I would expect people with better access to healthcare would be less likely to become unemployed and less likely to be a burden to society in the future.
The only real difference I can think of is that they stand to benefit themselves from vouchers. Would they be more likely to favor government subsidized healthcare if it came in the form of vouchers you could take to the doctor of your choice, since everybody goes to the doctor sooner or later?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in favor of vouchers -- as well as other "entitlements." But they're not really the same thing, are they?
Medicare, welfare, and such are supposed to help those who are in need. I don't like calling them "entitlements," because I'm opposed to them being long-term, and to people thinking they are owed them.
Public schools, OTOH, are supported by my taxes. Now, I'm in favor of them, since I think society has a vested interest in ensuring that everyone get a good education. Vouchers for those who choose not to go to public school but are using the money to get an education seems reasonable. (But they shouldn't be the full amount that the public school system spends per child -- maybe half? And certainly not for more than taxes paid in.)
Then again, I send my kids to private schools, so I'm hardly unbiased.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But giving people money to help pay for private schooling, when the government already provides free schooling is fine?
That is assuming that the government is paying more money for vouchers. I always thought the concept of vouchers was to redistrubute money that the government has already allocated for education. Giving parents choice does not equate spending additional money--at least it shouldn't.
posted
Okay, so it's the fact that it uses existing money rather than raising taxes that makes it different . . . then would most people who favor vouchers but oppose other government expenditures on social programs really rather see public schooling done away with altogether? All of the funds that go into public schooling could go back into the economy, and schooling could be run as well as health care is now.
Other than one or two libertarian extremists here, though, I haven't seen people take a stance similar to this. Is this simply because public schooling is already considered a fait accompli?Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:(But they shouldn't be the full amount that the public school system spends per child -- maybe half? And certainly not for more than taxes paid in.)
Nationwide, we spend an average of close to 10 grand per pupil per year. But this is a very misleading number, because there are some students with special needs who drive that number up. A more realistic total for the average student is closer to five thousand a year. Most existing voucher (or "scholarship") programs will give students in the neighborhood of two thousand or so a year to attend a private school.
However--and this next part is pure speculation, as opposed to the preceding, which comes from research and coursework I have done in the field--since as far as I know most states pay for public schooling through property taxes (which also pay for other things), and the occasional bond or half-penny sales tax, I would guess that the average person does not donate as much as two thousand dollars a year to public schooling. (Particularly considering that the cost of schooling is spread out to people who don't have kids as well as those who do).
So am I understanding you correcly--are you saying you should not be able to receive more in scholarship money than the amount you contribute in traceable taxes to public schooling itself? This would seem to me, more than vouchers as a whole, to create a benefit that would truly only benefit the very wealthy, since only they probably get taxed enough to be able to get a decent voucher through a plan like I seem to hear you suggesting. In fact, in most states, apartment renters would not be eligible for such vouchers at all. (This aside from the fact that, as it is, wealthier people are more likely to be able to take advantage of vouchers, since they generally don't cover the full cost of tuition at a private school.)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, the problem with public and private schools competing like that is people have the impression that private schools are good and public schools are bad. That's not necessarily true, but people send their children to private schools based on this assumption. Unless you want public schools to be spending some of their budget on publicity, I'm not certain competition is a good thing in this case.
And yes, there are public schools out there that are better than nearby private schools. Maybe not a lot, and the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I am more prepared for college than I probably would have been had I gone to one of the private schools in my area.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think the idea is more along the lines that once public schools are forced to compete for the money that they currently take for granted, they will use what they have more efficiently in order to keep students from taking their money to go to private schools."
Which is, of course, a load of crap, since it makes two assumptions beloved of privatization experts -- that people are perfectly mobile, and demand is completely elastic -- which happen to be entirely untrue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think the idea is more along the lines, "Parental input into the means chosen to educate their children has already been recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution and, as such, an important value in our society. Choosing school-funding methods that increase the availability of such choice to parents of lesser means is consistent with that value."
posted
Nope, favoring vouchers is quite consistent with the neo-conservative desire to protect themselves and their worthless offspring from competition by harming the poor.
posted
While I agree that's an ulterior motive, Dag, that's not the argument used to sell it to the masses.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, aspectre, did a Republican run over your dog or something? You don't even provide any explanation (or semblance of logic) behind the venom you spat.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, every piece I've seen starts off with the proposition that school choice allows poor people to exercise the same choices that middle-class people can exercise by moving and better off people can exercise by paying for private school.
Any market arguments are about why the program can work, not about why it's the right thing to do.
posted
Dag, let me ask you: do you BELIEVE that particular spin? Do you honestly think that most voucher proponents look at it as a way to help poor people afford private school?
If so, why do you think so few voucher programs come with riders requiring private schools to accept all applicants?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I absolutely believe it. That is the motivation.
As to the last question, you'll need to explain why a program designed to offer tuition assistance so people can afford to send their children to better schools should add on a policy that seriously alters the way those schools operate.
posted
Because here's the trick, which I can only imagine many of the people who believe that bit of spin haven't thought of:
Private schools, particularly urban ones, often do "better" precisely because they are entitled to be selective. Specifically because they can reject students and punish them in more permanent ways, these schools are able to require discipline from the students and participation from the parents.
However, not all students are going to be disciplined; not all parents are going to participate. Schools, aware that they are being judged on the results of standardized tests, will do whatever they can to avoid taking on these problem cases. What, then, will happen to these students?
Why, the same thing that CURRENTLY happens: public schools will take them, because the mission and mandate of public schools remains to provide education to everyone. But if most of the "good" students are elsewhere, doesn't that mean that public schools will be routinely saddled with the dregs?
Yes. Yes, it does.
And, moreover, in smaller towns -- ones where schools are not thick on the ground like flies on meat -- parents may well find themselves forced to choose between sending their kids to the $4000 private Catholic school (which WAS only $3000, but it raised its tuition when everyone got $2000 vouchers), the $2000 Pepsi school, which also offers free books and Pepsi T-shirts to kids who sign up to work for Pepsi at an unpaid internship for one year after graduation, and the public school -- which is where all the kids the Pepsi school and the Catholics don't want get sent.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, if the purpose is to make private schools affordable to poorer families, why not make them need based, and then big enough to cover the full cost of tuition? (Or at least bigger).
-o-
Tom, I don't see why it would be necessary to make private schools be less selective. Most people acknowledge that the reason private schools often have higher success rates is because they can kick out disruptive people while the public schools cannot. Public schools are generally better funded, and their teachers are generally more qualified (and better paid), so this ability to be selective and kick people out really is the sole advantage that private schools have--unless you believe that a religious environment is inherently an advantage as well. (I have statistics to back that up, by the way; it's not just conjecture.) So it sounds like you would want to make voucher-accepting private schools basically turn into public schools.
I do favor requiring voucher-accepting private schools to be held to the same standards of accountability, though, in terms of state-mandated testing and so forth. Again, I think it's inconsistent that republicans want public schools to be more acountable, and they want to give public money to private schools, but they don't want the private schools to prove themslves in the same way. Voucher money is public money, and the public deserves to know what they're paying for.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if most of the "good" students are elsewhere, doesn't that mean that public schools will be routinely saddled with the dregs?
Yes. Yes, it does.
Actually, statistics on existing voucher programs do not show this to be the case. Most students stay where they are because of other factors, including programs that public schools have teh resources to offer that private schools do not.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Most vouchers are need based in some respect.
2. I'd be in favor of making them cover a greater percentage of the tuition. Ironically, opposition to this comes generally from voucher opponents.
3. Selectivity is part of what makes private schools better. However, Tom, you are seriously impugning the dedication to education made by a lot of private schools when you say, "Schools, aware that they are being judged on the results of standardized tests, will do whatever they can to avoid taking on these problem cases." Certainly Catholic schools, with which I have the most experience, are extremely dedicated to providing educational alternatives to poor public schools and take underperforming students on a regular basis.
As for greater ease of removal of disruptive students, I view that as a plus.
quote: I'm just wondering about the logic behind the common republican positions of favoring vouchers while opposing most other services that involve spending tax money on helping people. If you can't afford food or shelter, which are essentials, they don't believe the government should help you with it, because that encourages laziness and dependence on the government. But giving people money to help pay for private schooling, when the government already provides free schooling is fine?
I obviously can't speak for others, but for myself there is a very good reason to support vouchers AND welfare reform, medicare reform etc.
The first reason is the old Give a man a fish/ teach a man to fish idea. By supporting measures which will hopefully improve education we should be directly reducing the number of people who require welfare.
Second reason- Welfare reform does not mean throwing the poor out on the street (at least if it were instituted as I think it should be). The basic problem with welfare as I understand it is that there is a large potential for abuse. If I were in charge of the welfare program then I would structure it this way:
The mission of the welfare program is threefold: 1) To serve as a safety net for those who have temporary serious difficulties (eg, a serious non-chronic injury, loss of job etc). 2) To care for those who cannot care for themselves (ie chromically ill etc) 3) To aid in training and preparing people for the workplace.
To accomplish this I would basically allocate the funds such that x amount would be used as temporary, no-strings attached support for say 90 days. Anyone who can prove need could draw from this fund (basically this is unemployment insurance). Next allocate x amount for the severely disabled who can't care for themselves. The rest would be spent in two ways: job training and searching aid (ie job services offices) and in setting up some sort of infrasatructure in which welfare recipients who are not severely disabled but who have passed the 90 day aid limit can can work for their aid. In the LDS church there are a series of welfare farms, canneries and other similar establishments where welfare recipients can work in return for their aid. That way they keep their self-esteem and have no impetus to stay on the dole. Basically I believe that a program like this would cut out the freeloaders and free up funds for other uses.
On the side of things related to say, prescription drug plans and universal healthcare: I am against them simply because we cannot afford them. The figures for the amount of the GDP that will be swallowed by social security and health bills twenty years down the road is staggering. While I favor aid for catastrophes (see welfare proposal) I just don't think that it is the role of government to pay for expensive medical treatments for an ever-increasing elderly popluation.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what about holding voucher-receiving schools to the same academic standards NCLB sets for public schools?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as we can ensure that evolution is being taught, right? j/k
"Public schools are generally better funded, and their teachers are generally more qualified (and better paid), so this ability to be selective and kick people out really is the sole advantage that private schools have...."
Keep in mind that part of the plan here is to remove funding from public schools, Icky.
posted
Tom, it removes part of the funding, and an entire student.
Elizabeth, no. They would still be able to kick out troublemakers. They could still have mass every week or whatever. They could still set their class sizes and electives or pedagogical philosophies. I simply want to know how their kids would score on the FCAT. I want to know what grade their school would receive. We sometimes take it as a truism that private schools are better. I'm not denying this (or agreeing with it) I'm simply saying that if we want parents to have choices which is what voucher proponents say, then they should truly be informed choices, no? And further, if my money, in the form of my taxes, is going to go to a private school, then I want some assurance that that private school is at least as academically sound as the average public school.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Tom, it removes part of the funding, and an entire student."
*nod* Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, it tends to remove exactly those students who are cheapest to educate. And as voucher programs vary widely, the amount of funding removed should not be considered inconsequential.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
When I think of private schools, I think of Deerfield Academy, Andover, Exeter, and Greenwich Country Day. Independent schools do have their own rating system throught NAIS. You would have to make it in to the school in the first place, voucher or no voucher. They are college prep schools.
And I think that if a school is independent, it is independent, and should not have to adhere to public school standards, which may or may not be higher, even if a voucher comes from public funds. You can't have it both ways.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. Independent schools are accredited, not rated. And it is you who are seeking to have it both ways. If you get public money, you should have some public oversight. If not, don't accept the funds. The premise is that public schools are failing. Okay . . . demonstrate that the private recipients of these funds are not.
posted
Jacare, your welfare reform ideas are actually a lot more generous than what currently exists. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, its always amazed me how people think welfare provides such great aide, when in fact the aide is rather limited, both in time and amount.
It comes from television "specials" and "exposes" that emphasize a few extreme cases, rather than the extreme majority of normal cases.
Welfare has improved a lot from a few years ago with the implementation of a more work-encouraging infrastructure, but its still no panacea.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
