Florida Supreme Court Blocks School Vouchers

Parents Forum
1

<p>A quasi Procession of Echternach in Florida? Well, not quite, because this one is most definitely one step forward and two steps backwards. </p>

<p>Of course, what else can be expected from groups such as the two national teachers' unions - the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers - along with a coalition of other groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People that supported a few Florida parents in filing at the original suits against the voucher program. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In a ruling expected to reverberate through battles over school choice in many states, the Florida Supreme Court struck down a voucher program yesterday for students attending failing schools, saying the State Constitution bars Florida from using taxpayer money to finance a private alternative to the public system.</p>

<p>The 5-to-2 ruling orders state officials to end, at the close of this school year, a program that Gov. Jeb Bush has considered one of his chief accomplishments.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/national/06florida.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/national/06florida.html&lt;/a>

[/quote]
</p>

2

<p>"In its ruling, the Florida court cited an article in the State Constitution that says, "Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure and high quality system of free public schools."</p>

<p>Sounds like conservative, "non-activist" judges to me.</p>

3

<p>mini, you're right. Those are strict-constructionist justices at work preserving the Constitution against the revisionists.</p>

4

<p>In most instances school vouchers is merely a way to divert public money and subsidize private religious based schools. I have no problem with voucher if the following approach were taken.</p>

<p>1.Vouchers in the amount of the public school cost/pupil would cover the full tuition cost for private schools accepting vouchers.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>If there were more students applying for admission than the private school could admit, all voucher students would be accepted by random lottery. Non-voucher students would not have to enter the lottery.</p></li>
<li><p>Private schools would have an open admissions policy for its voucher students, no discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, physical handicap, etc.</p></li>
<li><p>Private schools would have to provide the same extra services for students with mental, emotional or physical needs.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>With these requirements, there would be a truly level playing field between the public schools and private schools accepting voucher students. I like that concept.</p>

<p>But how many private schools would be willing to be voucher funded and actually have to fairly compete with the challenges faced by their local public schools? Not many I would guess.</p>

5

<p>So true, mini. The answer to failing schools is not draining public funds away from public schools to private ones. Parents have the choice right now to put their children in private schools, and millions do.</p>

<p>In Florida, the majority of private schools are religious schools, which makes the issue one about separation of church and state, as well.</p>

6

<p>originaloog - In your scenario, I don't understand the difference between voucher and non/voucher students. Why wouldn't everyone want to apply for vouchers to private schools if they were planning to attend them? Would there be some sort of financial need placed on the voucher? Is that really a voucher, then, or just need-based subsidy?</p>

<p>Vouchers, as discussed in California, would apply to anyone wishing to atttend a private institution instead of the public ones in their district.</p>

7

<p>"high quality system of free public schools"</p>

<p>What does "high quality" mean in the context of the court decision, considering that only students from "failing schools" were eligible for vouchers?</p>

8

<p>ASAP, the concept is equity for all voucher students. For example, if 500 students want to attend St Johns Elementary School and it can only accomodate 300 students, I have no problem giving first choice families willing to pay the tuition for that privledge. However, if they wish to accept the publically funded voucher, their student would be competing for the limited slots equally with all other voucher students.</p>

<p>Now if there are less students than available slots in the school, of course it would be foolish to refuse the voucher.</p>

9

<p>The other requirement that I would like to add to originaloog's excellent list is that voucher schools must participate in all state mandated testing required under NCLB and the results must be made public in the same manner of the public schools.</p>

10

<p>I think your condition #4 (which is very important!) would eliminate most private schools from the voucher competition, according to your scenario. I don't think people realize the costs of special needs and how they figures in to the public school's budget and resource allocation. Private schools now can sort and deny any applicant as they choose. That's how they can stay financially viable.
My kid's private school doesn't accept students with any special educational needs, or any physical needs that they are not currrently set up to handle. They also expect families to donate to the school beyond the tuition, 98% of the families do. If they had to take anyone with a voucher, regardless of their educational background or special educational need, they simply would have to close their doors. I expect that this is the case for most privates around the country.</p>

11

<p>"So true, mini. The answer to failing schools is not draining public funds away from public schools to private ones."</p>

<p>What is the opposite of draining "public" funds away from public schools? Simple: it is the current system that drains private funds from private families which decide to send their children to private schools but still HAVE to pay for others. Why is so legitimate about protecting a system that is rotten to the core. Since when are competitive pressure so bad for customers? </p>

<p>The main question is WHY are the organizations representing the teachers so adamant AGAINST any changes that could bring a few holes in their armor? Weren't they so opposed to homeschoolers that they sought to forbid homeschooled children to participate in EC activities despite the fact that the families HAS paid for the services. </p>

<p>This is not so much about money as it is about preventing any kind of erosion to a cozy and well protected system of mediocrity. What are teachers so afraid of? Should they not support a system that performs better, offer better working conditions, and find a much happier group of parents and children each morning? Again the answer is found in a group of people led by sclerotic buffoons who sole purpose is to protect the non-performing and mediocre whose sole chance of survival hinges on the presence of quasi feudal system aka an union. </p>

<p>Please do not advance that the groups fighting the vouchers are motivated by protecting the rights of children. That must be the dead last item on their abject agenda of self-preservation. </p>

<p>The reality is that our system of public education is broken beyond repair and that the responsibility for the current state falls squarely on school officials who have benefitted from the monopoly. The only good news is that it cannot get much worse and that ultimately we will see the end of the current system. The grandstanding against novel ideas will ultimately disappear when CUSTOMERS start to realize that visionaries such as Walton, Gates and Jobs know a thing or two about running organizations. Right now, schools are happy to grab their money but deride the ideas that are behind the agenda of the donors. </p>

<p>Changes WILL come and they day we will get rid of the last unionized teacher will be a victory for all students. I hope I'll see that day.</p>

12

<p>"Private schools now can sort and deny any applicant as they choose. That's how they can stay financially viable."</p>

<p>That is such a baseless fabrication. </p>

<p>Private schools remain viable because they value the contributions of families and are do build a huge administration to hide their operations. The cost of providing services to special students is an education expense and is listed as such on the financial statements. The same statements that show the percentage of expenses that flow to administrative expenses. In some districts, administrative expenses represent more than 50% of the budget. </p>

<p>Accounting for students with special needs is not very hard, even in a private school system. Would it be that hard to provide such students with double or triple vouchers? Allocate sufficient money and you will find the private sector developing BETTER and CHEAPER answers.</p>

<p>Public school systems are not bleeding red ink because of this very small percentage of students; they are simply encrusted in a deep layer of mismanagement and lack of accountability.</p>

13

<p>Xiggi - I admire you passion, but in this case I think it's obstructing your critical thinking. Are teachers unions an issue? Sure. But unionized teachers are present in the very best public schools as well as the very worst.</p>

14

<p>"I admire you passion, but in this case I think it's obstructing your critical thinking."</p>

<p>That is entirely possible, especially since this issue infuriates me like no other.</p>

15

<p>xiggi - I'm sure that some school districts do have a lot of fat in the system, but many do not. Districts are funded differently, and there is much disparity now in allocation of funds from the state.<br>
Special education is very expensive. In California, the state mandates that all public schools must provide whatever special needs a student requires. Psychologists, teachers, even private aides to go from class to class with students unable to do so on their own. If the school cannot provide the services required onsite, they must pay for the tuition at whatever institution provides for their care.
Local CA school districts are NOT reimbursed for the high costs of these services by the state. When my kids were in public schools, I used to go up to Sacramento with other PTA and school district officials to lobby for more state funding to reimburse school districts for these funds without success.
If your tax base is locked in due to Prop 13, and you have already pared down your administrative costs as much as is feasable, as our district has, the only way to cover increased educational expense is through bond measures and tax increases. Fortunately, our community understands the crunch that our school district is in and has passed a couple of increases in the last couple of years.</p>

<p>I truly do believe that private schools would be very hard pressed to fund the special educational expenses they would incur if they were to have to accept anyone who comes to their door.</p>

16

<p>I share your anger xiggi. And I'm disgusted and appalled that so many here smugly view this Florida decision as a "victory" for "the Cause." What's lost on the "progressive" ideological do-gooders is that there are real kids involved in this debacle. Real kids--300 of them--with real families, who jumped through a lot of hoops to get themselves out of "failing" public schools. And the judges, in the interest of "uniformity," have consigned them back to those failing public schools. Somehow "uniformity" (egalite?") is a more important value than all the other school bromides in the Florida constitution: Um, they would be "efficient, safe, secure and high quality." So, in the interest of "uniformity," we pretend that the other failed promises are less important, and stick these kids back in "failed" schools. Well done, folks, feel good about it. You might actually ponder how you would feel, were you the helpless parents of one of these kids.</p>

17

<p>"I truly do believe that private schools would be very hard pressed to fund the special educational expenses they would incur if they were to have to accept anyone who comes to their door."</p>

<p>A.S.A.P, one of the issues that muddy any type of debates about school choice is the tendency to think that changes (abandonment of public schools) would be immediate and drastic. The reality -based on several studies- is that the "cream-skimming" appears to be a lot less important than feared . On the other hand, studies reveal that districts that have offered school choices have witnessed improvements in the ... public schools because of increased competition. Also, no studies reported decreases in school performance. </p>

<p>Regarding the issue of meeting the needs of special education students, I invite you to read the research paper, "IDEAL VOUCHERS by CAROLINE M. HOXBY." The document is available at <a href="http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/idealvouchers_jul01.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/idealvouchers_jul01.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Here is the abstract:<br>

[quote]

School access for disabled, poor, minority, or other groups of students are essentially externality problems. Such problems generically plague schools (not just choice programs), but school choice discussions often run aground on such issues. This paper argues that it is inherently easier to address such issues with vouchers than with the traditional public school system because vouchers are prices that can be set so as to internalize externalities, thereby inducing families and schools to make self-interested decisions that remedy externality-based problems. I describe a market-market mechanism for obtaining "externalityinternalizing" vouchers and show how students with such vouchers can be given maximum choice among schools. The mechanism rewards schools that, given the same resources and access to students, do a
better job of attracting parents. I consider passive parents who do not make choices for their children, optimal school composition, rewards for schools that follow state guidelines, and allowing vouchers to be topped up."

[/quote]
</p>

18

<p>driver- there are a lot more than 300 real students with real families who find themselves in public schools that you or I would move mountains to keep our kids from having to attend. There are thousands of students in poorly performing public schools.
I don't view this ruling smugly or with any satisfaction other than the hope that perhaps the judges realized that so many of their schools need more funding in order to be adequate, and that the answer isn't diverting public tax money to private and religious schools. No one is pretending that these kids are in schools of high quality. That's just the point.
What can we do, as a country, to make sure that all kids have access to the safe, secure and high quality education that the state is to provide for, according to their constitution? Some think it's better to take the money from public education and give it to the private sector.Others see this as abandoning public education. This is something we should be debating rationally, as there are good arguments on both sides. I don't think sarcastic
remarks insinuating that those who promote the public approach are not caring about the kids is very helpful to the debate. I think we all care about the kids. The question is how to best serve all of them, and determining what the government's responsibilty is in serving all of them.</p>

19

<p>My mom was a teacher, special ed and she was union</p>

<p>How dare you denegrate union teachers</p>

<p>She worked her (*% off and unless you are a teacher you have NO IDEA how hard a job it is</p>

<p>To say its al lthe teacher's fault is ludicrus</p>

<p>If you look at many of the teachers in these "charter schools"- their credentials aren't always there</p>

<p>I can not take anyone seriouslly who think that teachers </p>

<p>As a parent, I volunteered hundreds of hours yearly in my Ds public and parochial school, and its is stressful, and i admire anyone who goes into a class room.</p>

<p>Please, don't blame the teacher. Blame the people that don't fund the schools.</p>

<p>Prop 13 desimated our schools here in California, but going voucher is absurd. Do I want to fund a private Catholic school with public money? No, even though it would have benefitted me.</p>

<p>I find it scary that public money is spent on religious schools. If that is what the parents wnat, let the churches, which, believe me, have the money, but choose to put it elsewhere</p>

<p>For instance, if religious schooling is so important, those mega churches with ten of thousands of members, let them support the schools.</p>

<p>Not my tax dollars</p>

20

<p>if people didn't care about public schools in this country years ago, well, where would we be. Only the elite and rich would have had an education.</p>

<p>My mother would never have been able to become a teacher. Is that what you want? </p>

<p>Pulbic education is essential to our future and or standing in the world.</p>

<p>it must be funded as well as we can. Not prisons. Schools.</p>

<p>And what infuriates you, Xiggi, teachers? Sorry, I take offense to that.</p>

<p>My mom, as i stated was a teacher, my brother-in-law is a teacher and I have many friends who are teachers.</p>

<p>Sure, there is burnout among teachers, but i saw what my mom did, and if wasn't for her unions, I think she would have quit and not stuck with it and done such a good job.</p>

<p>Oh, yeah, she taught special ed kids and mainstream and elementary through high school.</p>