Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the typical left vs right dichotomy, the left is anti-voucher and the right is pro-voucher.
The left does have legitimate concerns about the poorest kids in the worst schools being left to flounder. The right generally believes education would improve for most with the introduction of competition, and I agree.
Can we come together to craft a school choice program that would better meet the needs of all children?
I think the first step to doing so would be a program tailored to local needs. For example, transportation doesn't pose the same challenges in a densely populated area with ample public transportation as it would in a less densely populated area where you need a car to get around.
How can we address the issues of the worst public schools being left with the worst of the worst kids when the more concerned and committed parents pull their kids out?
Is there any solution that would overcome objections with regard to parents choosing schools run by churches?
I have a couple of thoughts.
To be effective, a voucher program needs to be large enough to cover a wide swath of socioeconomics and/or high performance and low performance schools.
Allowing students in poor performing schools first choice in changing schools, and extensive outreach to the parents in those schools to make sure they are aware of their options, and resources available to them with regard to transportation if needed.
Generally, vouchers are less than the average amount spent per child in the public school system. I'd suggest no cost to the parent if they're switching from one public school to another, but a lower voucher amount for private schools. It's generally assumed that private schools have a lower cost per student because they get to pick and choose their students. A lower voucher amount is consistent with that, but can that concept be improved upon? Let's say a parent gets to spend the voucher amount at any private school that will accept their child, however, if a private school has higher academic standards and does not accept children performing at lower levels, the private school has to refund part of that voucher amount back to the school district. So a private school has financial incentive to accept a more diverse assortment of abilities. A private school that chooses to accept only the easier to teach students is compensated accordingly.
How to address the issue of wealthier parents simply taking the voucher amount and applying it to the tuition of a school with vastly higher tuition that no middle-class or poor parent is going to be able to afford? Is this as big of a problem as the class warriors make it out to be? Is it as important if the overall education for lower and middle class students is improved with greater choice?
What about making the amount of the voucher dependent on the quality of the public school a parent is zoned for? If you are zoned for a horrible school, you get a higher voucher amount for private school and/or you have first shot at moving to a higher rated public school. If you're zoned for a school in a well-to-do area and that school has better performing students because they're well fed with involved parents, you get a lower voucher amount if you choose private school.
Maybe the local community sets a cap on the percentage of private schools allowed to charge more than the top voucher amount? It runs counter to free market principles, but would it be worth it to compromise those principles somewhat to provide more equal opportunities in education?
Just ideas to kick around, please contribute your own solutions to objections, or other objections so others might propose solutions, and discuss whether there are reasonable compromises that may be made to improve education with both sides working together.
In the typical left vs right dichotomy, the left is anti-voucher and the right is pro-voucher.
The left does have legitimate concerns about the poorest kids in the worst schools being left to flounder. The right generally believes education would improve for most with the introduction of competition, and I agree.
Can we come together to craft a school choice program that would better meet the needs of all children?
I think the first step to doing so would be a program tailored to local needs. For example, transportation doesn't pose the same challenges in a densely populated area with ample public transportation as it would in a less densely populated area where you need a car to get around.
How can we address the issues of the worst public schools being left with the worst of the worst kids when the more concerned and committed parents pull their kids out?
Is there any solution that would overcome objections with regard to parents choosing schools run by churches?
I have a couple of thoughts.
To be effective, a voucher program needs to be large enough to cover a wide swath of socioeconomics and/or high performance and low performance schools.
Allowing students in poor performing schools first choice in changing schools, and extensive outreach to the parents in those schools to make sure they are aware of their options, and resources available to them with regard to transportation if needed.
Generally, vouchers are less than the average amount spent per child in the public school system. I'd suggest no cost to the parent if they're switching from one public school to another, but a lower voucher amount for private schools. It's generally assumed that private schools have a lower cost per student because they get to pick and choose their students. A lower voucher amount is consistent with that, but can that concept be improved upon? Let's say a parent gets to spend the voucher amount at any private school that will accept their child, however, if a private school has higher academic standards and does not accept children performing at lower levels, the private school has to refund part of that voucher amount back to the school district. So a private school has financial incentive to accept a more diverse assortment of abilities. A private school that chooses to accept only the easier to teach students is compensated accordingly.
How to address the issue of wealthier parents simply taking the voucher amount and applying it to the tuition of a school with vastly higher tuition that no middle-class or poor parent is going to be able to afford? Is this as big of a problem as the class warriors make it out to be? Is it as important if the overall education for lower and middle class students is improved with greater choice?
What about making the amount of the voucher dependent on the quality of the public school a parent is zoned for? If you are zoned for a horrible school, you get a higher voucher amount for private school and/or you have first shot at moving to a higher rated public school. If you're zoned for a school in a well-to-do area and that school has better performing students because they're well fed with involved parents, you get a lower voucher amount if you choose private school.
Maybe the local community sets a cap on the percentage of private schools allowed to charge more than the top voucher amount? It runs counter to free market principles, but would it be worth it to compromise those principles somewhat to provide more equal opportunities in education?
Just ideas to kick around, please contribute your own solutions to objections, or other objections so others might propose solutions, and discuss whether there are reasonable compromises that may be made to improve education with both sides working together.
Good question and while I admit I haven't really developed my position on this, I have thought about it and here are a few of my concerns:
If private schools were allowed to accept tuition in addition to vouchers I don't think giving them a smaller voucher amount if they refused to take the kids who would cost more to teach would do anything to keep them from cherry picking their students, they would just offset that loss with higher tuition from wealthy parents- so, wouldn't it be business as usual except that well off parents would be receiving a break on tuition? If you had full enrollment of kids who were voucher + tuition then how would it help kids whose parents had a voucher but couldn't pay tuition on top of it?
My biggest concern about us subsidizing for-profit schools is that privatizing prisons has not gone well. For profit enterprises have a fiduciary responsibility to earn money for their shareholders and at least with private prisons when their expenses are higher than predicted they cut costs rather than sacrifice profit; usually by spending less on inmate meals, medical care, or on staff. Will private schools do the same thing if they have cost overruns? Will they buy fewer books, cram more kids in a classroom, ignore special needs kids? And who will be monitoring them? And if they do sacrifice the kids education in order to make more money, what then? Give them more money? pull the kids out of the school? If you take them out of the school, where do they go, it's not entirely certain to me that there would be other schools with room for a few hundred kids in the middle of a school year.
I am not religious, but I think they are generally ok if they have an opt-out of religious classes and activities, but at least I would feel somewhat more comfortable that a Religious school would be more committed to a child's education than to profit.
I personally think a "no strings attached" voucher would be good. For example, let's say it costs $6000 to educate your child a year in a public school. So the town/city gives you a $6000 voucher. If your child goes to that public school you turn in the voucher to the town/city and your child's tuition is paid for that year. If your child goes to a private/religious school that costs LESS than $6000, the remainder of unused funds goes back to the town/city. If your child goes to a private/religious school that costs MORE than the $6000, then you have to make up the difference. If you homeschool you get a fraction of the $6000 (say $2000 or $3000) for supplies/books. And as far as a "religious class exemption", that would be up to the school. Remember, you ARE sending your child to a R-E-L-I-G-I-O-U-S school. Why would you send them there in the first place if you don't want them to receive religious training?
I personally think a "no strings attached" voucher would be good. For example, let's say it costs $6000 to educate your child a year in a public school. So the town/city gives you a $6000 voucher. If your child goes to that public school you turn in the voucher to the town/city and your child's tuition is paid for that year. If your child goes to a private/religious school that costs LESS than $6000, the remainder of unused funds goes back to the town/city. If your child goes to a private/religious school that costs MORE than the $6000, then you have to make up the difference. If you homeschool you get a fraction of the $6000 (say $2000 or $3000) for supplies/books. And as far as a "religious class exemption", that would be up to the school. Remember, you ARE sending your child to a R-E-L-I-G-I-O-U-S school. Why would you send them there in the first place if you don't want them to receive religious training?
But what you are advocating is just a nice big fat break in tuition for people who can afford private schools, I'm really not liking that idea...how does it help a middle class or low income kid?
I personally think a "no strings attached" voucher would be good. For example, let's say it costs $6000 to educate your child a year in a public school. So the town/city gives you a $6000 voucher. If your child goes to that public school you turn in the voucher to the town/city and your child's tuition is paid for that year. If your child goes to a private/religious school that costs LESS than $6000, the remainder of unused funds goes back to the town/city. If your child goes to a private/religious school that costs MORE than the $6000, then you have to make up the difference. If you homeschool you get a fraction of the $6000 (say $2000 or $3000) for supplies/books. And as far as a "religious class exemption", that would be up to the school. Remember, you ARE sending your child to a R-E-L-I-G-I-O-U-S school. Why would you send them there in the first place if you don't want them to receive religious training?
I like the concept of this, but real world application wouldn't work.
Most likely private school costs would just be inflated by $6,000. The poor would be back at square one with horrible schools because that's all the voucher would buy them. While the rich continue to pay the same mount + their $6,000 Voucher. The only change I see would be the influx of public money into the private sector, which is no bueno.
Also, it doesn't cost 6000$ to educate every child. Some children cost 3000$ some cost 20,000$. That's why public schools can educate everyone. You have to have enough money in the pot to educate based on needs. A student that needs a full time aide or being boarded at a school for the blind costs so much more.
If you create public schools the cherry pick, they have results more similar to private schools. (Magnets)
Houston schools are a perfect indicator of this phenomenon.
The way for vouchers to work is if each student gets a different amount based on their needs.
Or
You could also have a separate funding for special needs students from a different fund. Everyone gets 4000$ at a flat rate. (Or whatever number is predetermined) The state or federal government adds in funds if the student is ELL(English language Learner) SE (Special Ed) or OHI (other Health Impaired).
I just don't think the tax payers are going to want to pay for private school education for everyone else's kids.
I like the concept of this, but real world application wouldn't work.
Most likely private school costs would just be inflated by $6,000. The poor would be back at square one with horrible schools because that's all the voucher would buy them. While the rich continue to pay the same mount + their $6,000 Voucher. The only change I see would be the influx of public money into the private sector, which is no bueno.
This would definitely happen. Private schools don't want to deal with students who have issues. If a student does have issues, the parents have to pay for tutors or private services. If they don't work out, they just get kicked out.
I can take the best kids from all around and group them together. Guess what...it's a "great" school even if it doesn't have a good program. The testing results show that. Take that same program and add in students with discipline issues and learning disabilities and it is not a "great" school anymore. The testing results go down.
I personally think a "no strings attached" voucher would be good. For example, let's say it costs $6000 to educate your child a year in a public school. So the town/city gives you a $6000 voucher. If your child goes to that public school you turn in the voucher to the town/city and your child's tuition is paid for that year. If your child goes to a private/religious school that costs LESS than $6000, the remainder of unused funds goes back to the town/city. If your child goes to a private/religious school that costs MORE than the $6000, then you have to make up the difference. If you homeschool you get a fraction of the $6000 (say $2000 or $3000) for supplies/books. And as far as a "religious class exemption", that would be up to the school. Remember, you ARE sending your child to a R-E-L-I-G-I-O-U-S school. Why would you send them there in the first place if you don't want them to receive religious training?
No way should taxpayer funds be given to homeschoolers. If they can't afford it out of their own pocket, they can send their kids to public school instead. Why should my money be used to subsidize religious nutjobs and their weirdo kids?
If private schools were allowed to accept tuition in addition to vouchers I don't think giving them a smaller voucher amount if they refused to take the kids who would cost more to teach would do anything to keep them from cherry picking their students, they would just offset that loss with higher tuition from wealthy parents- so, wouldn't it be business as usual except that well off parents would be receiving a break on tuition? If you had full enrollment of kids who were voucher + tuition then how would it help kids whose parents had a voucher but couldn't pay tuition on top of it?
If there were a maximum tuition and/or maximum annual increase in tuition allowable for schools that accept vouchers, would that help with your concerns? So for example, suppose the voucher is 8,000 while the average cost currently paid by the school district is 10,000 per child. If a private school is currently charging 8,000 per child (not uncommon for private schools to spend less per student than public schools because they can cherry pick), don't allow them to have more than a minor incremental increase per year. If a private school charges more than some percentage above cost to educate in public schools (let's say 10%), they either lower tuition or can't receive vouchers. So a private school charging more than 11,000 per child would need to come down to 10,000 or they can't receive vouchers at all. Would that help?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
My biggest concern about us subsidizing for-profit schools is that privatizing prisons has not gone well. For profit enterprises have a fiduciary responsibility to earn money for their shareholders and at least with private prisons when their expenses are higher than predicted they cut costs rather than sacrifice profit; usually by spending less on inmate meals, medical care, or on staff. Will private schools do the same thing if they have cost overruns? Will they buy fewer books, cram more kids in a classroom, ignore special needs kids? And who will be monitoring them? And if they do sacrifice the kids education in order to make more money, what then? Give them more money? pull the kids out of the school? If you take them out of the school, where do they go, it's not entirely certain to me that there would be other schools with room for a few hundred kids in the middle of a school year.
Private schools seem to do well by their students now, so I'm not sure the prison example is applicable. Few schools are going to shoot themselves in the foot by failing to meet the needs of their customers. What you describe as a possibility if schools are privatized is already happening in public schools, because parents have no choices. In order to receive voucher funds, I have no problem with schools being required to meet reasonable guidelines to receive voucher funds. What if there is some kind of financial penalty for the school if parents pull the kids out mid-year? I don't think that would be necessary, because schools are going to want to meet their students needs or else lose them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
I am not religious, but I think they are generally ok if they have an opt-out of religious classes and activities, but at least I would feel somewhat more comfortable that a Religious school would be more committed to a child's education than to profit.
It might even be possible that not-for-profits start up, solely for education, outside of religious institutions, because they could under a voucher system.
This would definitely happen. Private schools don't want to deal with students who have issues. If a student does have issues, the parents have to pay for tutors or private services. If they don't work out, they just get kicked out.
I can take the best kids from all around and group them together. Guess what...it's a "great" school even if it doesn't have a good program. The testing results show that. Take that same program and add in students with discipline issues and learning disabilities and it is not a "great" school anymore. The testing results go down.
At least the kids with discipline issues wouldn't be surrounded by other kids with discipline issues, so they could be addressed.
As I originally suggested, the voucher amount for private schools would be less than the cost to educate in public schools. So the public schools would be left with additional funds to deal with problem students. I like the idea of federal funds following the student in addition to the voucher amount, in the case of ESL or other special needs, for those parents with special needs children who want them to go to private school.
I would imagine that some method of measuring performance other than raw test scores would be necessary to determine what makes a school highly rated. Overall grade level proficiency perhaps...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
