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.
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?
Rather a broad assumption about home schoolers, don't you think?
Why not offer an online option for home school kids that would cost considerably less per student than a brick and mortar school?
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?
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.
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.
In your first example, if I understood you correctly there would be $2,000 a year that parents would have to pay in addition to the voucher. I raised two boys alone with no child support, it was tough but I made it work. But there was no way I could have paid $4000 a year in tuition for school, so a private school would have been out of the question for my kids (and I think we were middle class) If the private school had to lower it's tuition to match the amount in the voucher I think there's a good chance they would follow the example I gave of private prisons, their decision would be make less money or spend less, and corporations generally do not decide to 'make less money'.
The thing is that none of these solutions are going to fix the core issue which is that while we have some great public schools too many of them are just awful. The awful schools are almost always in very low income areas and generally have a high number of ESL kids. I'm still wondering what will happen to those kids at the end of the day? Private schools won't want them, and if the kids in those schools who are successful leave those public schools, those schools only get worse. The school district can't control who enrolls like the private schools can, so is it really fair to stack the deck against public schools like that?
Maybe we need to rethink giving tax money to private schools and spend that money on hiring tutors for the kids who are failing. Or maybe we give private schools some sum of money as recompense for them agreeing to take in a certain number kids who are at the bottom of their class in in local public schools. No matter what we do, the rich kids will do just fine, they always do, but the poor ones will probably drop out of school and end up unemployable, or even worse end up in jail.
In your first example, if I understood you correctly there would be $2,000 a year that parents would have to pay in addition to the voucher. I raised two boys alone with no child support, it was tough but I made it work. But there was no way I could have paid $4000 a year in tuition for school, so a private school would have been out of the question for my kids (and I think we were middle class) If the private school had to lower it's tuition to match the amount in the voucher I think there's a good chance they would follow the example I gave of private prisons, their decision would be make less money or spend less, and corporations generally do not decide to 'make less money'.
The thing is that none of these solutions are going to fix the core issue which is that while we have some great public schools too many of them are just awful. The awful schools are almost always in very low income areas and generally have a high number of ESL kids. I'm still wondering what will happen to those kids at the end of the day? Private schools won't want them, and if the kids in those schools who are successful leave those public schools, those schools only get worse. The school district can't control who enrolls like the private schools can, so is it really fair to stack the deck against public schools like that?
Maybe we need to rethink giving tax money to private schools and spend that money on hiring tutors for the kids who are failing. Or maybe we give private schools some sum of money as recompense for them agreeing to take in a certain number kids who are at the bottom of their class in in local public schools. No matter what we do, the rich kids will do just fine, they always do, but the poor ones will probably drop out of school and end up unemployable, or even worse end up in jail.
There will be some people who could make the 2,000 a child work within their budget, while 10,000 wouldn't. At least this gives more people the ability to afford private school.
The bad schools that would only get worse could be assisted with the difference between the voucher and the actual per child cost of public schools. If the average per child is 10,000, and vouchers are no more than 8,000 (possibly less, if we go with allowing lower vouchers for people who are already zoned for good schools, should they choose private anyway) then you have 2,000 or more for every child who goes private to spend on the children left over. And/or private schools with high admission standards get to keep less of the voucher amount, so that leaves more funds for the kids left in public schools who aren't so easy to educate.
Many parents who are involved and care about education whose children go to poor schools find their children's education disrupted by the kids whose parents are not involved and do not care. Allowing these children free escape to a better public school at no cost helps them. There does need to be extensive community outreach to ensure that parents at bad schools understand their options, and bad schools should be given the first shot at changing schools. The kids left over in the bad schools? You have a core group of children that need a laser focus on their entire life situation, not just education, IMO, and this helps identify them. Policy for those schools can be adjusted in a way that better meets the needs of these children. More mentoring, more tutoring, more life skills education, smaller class sizes, etc. And to be honest, I'd suggest CPS keep a close eye on the kids left over.
And having free choice in public schools means the public schools can be more innovative in meeting all kinds of different needs. Maybe some schools specialize in ESL or special needs. Special needs children exist across all socioeconomic groups. High schools with more vocational training for kids who are more interested in the trades than in pursuing higher education. You never know what the public schools might do to meet more needs if parents have choices, in part because more parents will have the option of private school if public schools aren't meeting their needs. I think we can improve greatly on the current model of a child's address determining where they go to school, with the limited exception of some magnet schools, for which competition to get in is usually intense.
There will be some people who could make the 2,000 a child work within their budget, while 10,000 wouldn't. At least this gives more people the ability to afford private school.
The bad schools that would only get worse could be assisted with the difference between the voucher and the actual per child cost of public schools. If the average per child is 10,000, and vouchers are no more than 8,000 (possibly less, if we go with allowing lower vouchers for people who are already zoned for good schools, should they choose private anyway) then you have 2,000 or more for every child who goes private to spend on the children left over. And/or private schools with high admission standards get to keep less of the voucher amount, so that leaves more funds for the kids left in public schools who aren't so easy to educate.
Many parents who are involved and care about education whose children go to poor schools find their children's education disrupted by the kids whose parents are not involved and do not care. Allowing these children free escape to a better public school at no cost helps them. There does need to be extensive community outreach to ensure that parents at bad schools understand their options, and bad schools should be given the first shot at changing schools. The kids left over in the bad schools? You have a core group of children that need a laser focus on their entire life situation, not just education, IMO, and this helps identify them. Policy for those schools can be adjusted in a way that better meets the needs of these children. More mentoring, more tutoring, more life skills education, smaller class sizes, etc. And to be honest, I'd suggest CPS keep a close eye on the kids left over.
And having free choice in public schools means the public schools can be more innovative in meeting all kinds of different needs. Maybe some schools specialize in ESL or special needs. Special needs children exist across all socioeconomic groups. High schools with more vocational training for kids who are more interested in the trades than in pursuing higher education. You never know what the public schools might do to meet more needs if parents have choices, in part because more parents will have the option of private school if public schools aren't meeting their needs. I think we can improve greatly on the current model of a child's address determining where they go to school, with the limited exception of some magnet schools, for which competition to get in is usually intense.
If all you end up with is public schools in poor areas the cost per student would be enormous, as it is now it's offset by 'other kids' attending those schools who would be drawn off to private schools under your plan. What then? Will the pro-privatization activists blame unions and teacher pensions for the even more dismal state of education in poor schools?
The other problem with your suggestion is isolating that 'core group of kids who need special attention' they did that in Nevada with their "zoom schools". The concept was well intended but it has not gone nearly as well as planned and while the state won't acknowledge it, it has led to discrimination against the kids attending those schools with lots of snickers and sneers about the 'short bus kids'.
It's complicated and I'm not against alternatives to public schools, there are good reasons to have options available. When my boys were in grade school one of them scored very high in tests and was considered 'gifted' the problem was that the gifted class was full so he was put on a waiting list and somehow never made it to the top of the list. I did everything I could to figure out a way to pay private school tuition for him because he was bored silly in public school but there was no way I could do it, and I was not sub class, or poverty stricken, or whatever you call poor people... I was divorced & worked full time- ZERO food stamps or other benefits and paid a mortgage on a house. I did not send my kids to school so that they could have 'free daycare', so don't go there please... What are you going to do about kids like mine, or will they just be a casualty because what we are going to do here is give the wealthy tuition breaks and put the poor in little special schools with CPS oversight because if they are poor they are probably abused
Is there any solution that would overcome objections with regard to parents choosing schools run by churches?
Personally, I think that's a red herring. Vouchers are a tool to (hopefully) improve overall educational
achievement, but it should be up to each recipient to decide how best to meet that goal. The analogy I draw is that if someone uses their food stamps (or whatever they're called now) at Grocer A, that doesn't mean that the government is favoring Grocer A over the others. It's the choice of the recipient.
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.
Most (all?) religious schools see as their mission not just education, but religious education. Exempting some kids from religious instruction would violate the central purpose of the school. I prefer to assume that parents can decide whether or not they want their kids to receive the particular religious instruction offered at a particular school, and choose accordingly, to either send or not send their kids to that school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meyerland
I just don't think the tax payers are going to want to pay for private school education for everyone else's kids.
Parents who send their kids to private school pay not only their own kid's tuition, but also pay for the kids who go to public schools, through their tax dollars. This to me is no more fair than the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtoks
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?
Be careful what you ask for. Do you really want the weirdo kids of those religious nutjobs sitting next to your kids in public school and infecting them with their weirdo religious nutjobbery?
"Most (all?) religious schools see as their mission not just education, but religious education. Exempting some kids from religious instruction would violate the central purpose of the school. I prefer to assume that parents can decide whether or not they want their kids to receive the particular religious instruction offered at a particular school, and choose accordingly, to either send or not send their kids to that school."
My cousins all went to Catholic school, none were Catholic they were able to opt of religion class.
"Parents who send their kids to private school pay not only their own kid's tuition, but also pay for the kids who go to public schools, through their tax dollars. This to me is no more fair than the other way around."
That is a red herring. I am retired and don't have any kids in school, why should I pay for other people's kids to go to school? Answer: Because is good for society to have an educated workforce and that educated people are less apt to be unemployed and live in poverty duh
"Most (all?) religious schools see as their mission not just education, but religious education. Exempting some kids from religious instruction would violate the central purpose of the school. I prefer to assume that parents can decide whether or not they want their kids to receive the particular religious instruction offered at a particular school, and choose accordingly, to either send or not send their kids to that school."
My cousins all went to Catholic school, none were Catholic they were able to opt of religion class.
I stand corrected. My experience is with evangelical Protestant schools. I should not have assumed that their way of doing things is a universal characteristic of all religious schools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
"Parents who send their kids to private school pay not only their own kid's tuition, but also pay for the kids who go to public schools, through their tax dollars. This to me is no more fair than the other way around."
That is a red herring. I am retired and don't have any kids in school, why should I pay for other people's kids to go to school? Answer: Because is good for society to have an educated workforce and that educated people are less apt to be unemployed and live in poverty duh
I understand the purpose of funding schools out of general tax revenues, and I agree with it. I'm not saying that private school parents should be exempt from paying taxes. What I am saying is it's not fair for them to pay twice: once for their own kids, and then again for the overall general share of taxes going to public schools. There should be some mechanism in the tax code to recognize the fact that parents who send their kids to private schools are doing their part to achieve the societal benefit of an educated workforce, and thus not get "over-taxed" compared to everyone else.
I understand the purpose of funding schools out of general tax revenues, and I agree with it. I'm not saying that private school parents should be exempt from paying taxes. What I am saying is it's not fair for them to pay twice: once for their own kids, and then again for the overall general share of taxes going to public schools. There should be some mechanism in the tax code to recognize the fact that parents who send their kids to private schools are doing their part to achieve the societal benefit of an educated workforce, and thus not get "over-taxed" compared to everyone else.
Not to belabor the point but I just don't see the difference, their kids could be educated in a public school they made the choice not to send them there. If you want to give them a tax break, then give one to everyone who decides not to have children, or to those whose children are grown, and then throw in home schooled kids, pretty soon there will be no money to run public schools. I think tuition tax breaks are just vouchers in disguise, i.e. welfare for the rich. Isn't it sort of like the driver who opts to commute on private toll roads? Should they get a tax credit because they aren't using a public highway?
Not to belabor the point but I just don't see the difference, their kids could be educated in a public school they made the choice not to send them there. If you want to give them a tax break, then give one to everyone who decides not to have children, or to those whose children are grown, and then throw in home schooled kids, pretty soon there will be no money to run public schools. I think tuition tax breaks are just vouchers in disguise, i.e. welfare for the rich. Isn't it sort of like the driver who opts to commute on private toll roads? Should they get a tax credit because they aren't using a public highway?
As I said before, I do agree that everyone benefits from an educated, productive populace, and thus everyone should pay for it. This is why childless people should pay for schools, even though they themselves don't use them. The difference is, parents who send their kids to private schools are being "double-billed," once for their own kids and again for their share of the public system.
To me, it's the result that matters: that every child receive an education. And this is what we the taxpayers should be paying for. Whether that result is obtained through public schools, private schools, parochial schools, homeschooling, charter schools, online education, or any combination thereof, is of much less consequence (IMO) than the end result of achieving an educated, productive populace. But just like it's not fair that some people should pay less than their share (e.g. childless people, under the argument that those without kids should not pay taxes for schools), so too it's not fair that some should pay more than their share (e.g. parents of private-school students).
If all you end up with is public schools in poor areas the cost per student would be enormous, as it is now it's offset by 'other kids' attending those schools who would be drawn off to private schools under your plan. What then? Will the pro-privatization activists blame unions and teacher pensions for the even more dismal state of education in poor schools?
The other problem with your suggestion is isolating that 'core group of kids who need special attention' they did that in Nevada with their "zoom schools". The concept was well intended but it has not gone nearly as well as planned and while the state won't acknowledge it, it has led to discrimination against the kids attending those schools with lots of snickers and sneers about the 'short bus kids'.
It's complicated and I'm not against alternatives to public schools, there are good reasons to have options available. When my boys were in grade school one of them scored very high in tests and was considered 'gifted' the problem was that the gifted class was full so he was put on a waiting list and somehow never made it to the top of the list. I did everything I could to figure out a way to pay private school tuition for him because he was bored silly in public school but there was no way I could do it, and I was not sub class, or poverty stricken, or whatever you call poor people... I was divorced & worked full time- ZERO food stamps or other benefits and paid a mortgage on a house. I did not send my kids to school so that they could have 'free daycare', so don't go there please... What are you going to do about kids like mine, or will they just be a casualty because what we are going to do here is give the wealthy tuition breaks and put the poor in little special schools with CPS oversight because if they are poor they are probably abused
We don't see private schools in poor areas now because obviously private schools are going to built near people who can afford their tuition. Under a voucher program, they would be able to build anywhere, and if real estate is less expensive in poor areas, they'd probably find it cost effective, even losing part of the voucher money.
With regard to the Nevada zoom schools, it may take a little more time for the full impact to be apparent, since there is more of a focus on early learning, while the testing scores are from students in higher grades. The jury is still out on them, I'd say.
Snickers and short bus cracks aside, if the younger children now participating in these schools show much improved test scores by the time they get to 3rd grade, who will look like the stupid ones?
Many perfectly good public schools would remain outside of poorer areas, it's not like private schools are going to pop up like mushrooms all over the place supplanting all public schools except for the worst ones. Parents in good schools are probably going to leave them there for the most part - especially if they are the last ones to have the opportunity to change schools, i.e. if parents of students at poorly ranked schools have the first chance to choose new schools, then the students from better public schools are given the option.
Private schools would probably have loved to have had your gifted child, at no additional cost to you. Or you might have been able to find another public school that did have open spots in their gifted program.
I believe you misunderstood me with regard to my CPS comment. I wasn't saying poor kids are probably abused, but I wouldn't discount the possibility that parents who fail to take an interest in improving their child's education may be failing their children in other areas too. Parents of children in failing schools who leap at the chance to get their kids into better schools are probably the ones taking other steps to break the cycle of inter-generational poverty.
School choice might well have other impacts. In many areas, home buyers with children are very concerned about what schools their children would be zoned for, and homes zoned for good public schools fetch a premium. Often times parents stretch their budget to the max to move to areas zoned for better schools. Parents might be able to remain in affordable housing and still get their kids a quality education. Win-win.
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.
