school choice and school vouchers

[galoisien]

<p>So ... whether you go to a private school or not does not affect the federal aid awarded for your tertiary education. Now considering that the per-pupil cost of private primary/secondary education is about half an order of magnitude less than private tertiary education, and that the per-pupil cost of private schooling is about half that of the per-pupil cost of public schooling, pray tell why we are letting unions of incompetent teachers and paranoid protectionists block the passage of school voucher bills? </p>

<p>(And not factoring of course, the financial aid that private schools tend to give out to needy students anyway.)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.connpost.com/ci_12098208%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.connpost.com/ci_12098208&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

[egolikestomach]

<p>i’m writing a paper on this for one of my classes, actually. </p>

<p>i’m opposed to school vouchers on absolute principle alone. i do not believe that the market can solve the problems with education because i do not believe that the market is a problem solver in general. i also believe very strongly in the importance of a public education that reinforces feelings of community, belonging, and support. </p>

<p>it’s also important to note that private schools will not be forced to accept vouchers, so a poor student from an inner-city might (read: probably will) find himself stuck in the even more underfunded public school filled with other poor inner-city students that the private schools rejected, leaving us in exactly the same position we’re in now.</p>

<p>but whatever, i’m a whoop-dee-do idealist socialist so no one on cc cares what i think.</p>

[galoisien]

<p>Eh, I’m a libertarian socialist.</p>

<p>

i also believe very strongly in the importance of a public education that reinforces feelings of community, belonging, and support.

</p>

<p>Yes, but is the government a suitable agent to do this? Let private associations do this. If parents want feelings of community, private schools can afford feelings of community. I mean, private schools aren’t any less capable of this, especially if you change the demographics of private schools by allowing lower-income kids to enroll there.</p>

<p>

so a poor student from an inner-city might (read: probably will)

</p>

<p>Uhh what? I find that private schools are usually (read: almost always) glad to accept lower-income kids if they still have the funds. The prestige of “helping the unfortunate” + still having the cash. [Win-win]. Otherwise … they wouldn’t offer financial aid. </p>

<p>And the other solution? Transfer regulation (better regulation), via equal opportunity legislation – if necessary. (I don’t think it’s necessary). Screw outdated states’ rights, nationalise the education system, including some supervisory control over the teachings of certified private schools.</p>

[egolikestomach]

<p>i’m basing my knowledge on two areas that i’ve experienced first hand: the suburban town where i grew up, and nyc, where i go to college. </p>

<p>in suburbia, often the only private school options are religious schools, and i am 150% not ok with any hypothetical child of mine suffering a conservative catholic education because the public schools are underfunded. i am also 150% not ok with tax dollars (which is what vouchers are, let’s not forget) going to support a religious group that i neither affiliate nor agree with. but this argument is moot because suburban public schools are doing just fine, because the property taxes of their towns are enough to sustain them. </p>

<p>so, people who call for vouchers and school choice generally turn to poor inner-city schools, like those of new york city, and bang on about how getting students out of failing publics and into private and charter schools will bring the successes that they need. however, when we’re talking about neighborhoods like those in the north bronx, which are suffering economically and have failing schools, we’re talking about neighborhoods where the only schools for miles are neighborhood schools, and where going to a private school means taking an hour train ride that takes them out of their neighborhood and their communities and puts them in a place where they feel uncomfortable and out of place. </p>

<p>all that aside, i do want to say that i can see and understand the argument for school vouchers. i understand that if the system worked perfectly as designed, it might work out. but systems never work perfectly, and uppity rich parents who pay big bucks for their children’s private education do and will complain when students of a lower class status or ethnic affiliation start attending “elite” schools. even if this is not always the case, it certainly is sometimes. i’ve seen it happen.</p>

<p>and, all of THAT aside, i am just opposed to privatization of public services in general. the rise of education-for-profit school models seems inherently wrong to me. this is probably an ideological disagreement that you and i will never convince one another to see the other side of.</p>

<p>eta: what i would like but what would never fly is the dismantling of the property taxes as the main source of funds for public schools, but that is way radical and probably never going to happen. alternate sources of funding for public schools, particularly failing public schools in poor neighborhoods, is key to improvement. but education is very out of sight, out of mind. no one worries about other people’s kids.</p>

[Vehicle]

<p>I strongly oppose the voucher system. Private schools have the right to be selective on their admissions and decline on offers based on grades and income. I don’t believe their rights should be negated simply because a students doesn’t want to attend their current public school.</p>

<p>If vouchers were instated, then any student could simply transfer to a higher-quality private school which would diminish the education of all students who are privileged enough to attend one by their own means–meaning, what would “private” actually mean if public school children would be allowed to attend at their leisure?</p>

<p>This is not detaining low-income students to a life of poor education. Private school have many opportunities to admit low-income students through scholarships, financial aid, and work-study agreements. My family makes roughly under $20k per year, which is below the national poverty line. Both my brother and I have attended private high schools with financial aid and scholarships. Out of pocket, the expenses per year are less then $1,000. If parents are ambitious enough to send their children to private institutions then they will find a way that is workable for them.</p>

<p>Private and public schools are not so segregated that the voucher system is needed. It would just waste money and education for all.</p>

[galoisien]

<p>

i am just opposed to privatization of public services in general. the rise of education-for-profit school models seems inherently wrong to me.

</p>

<p>Uhh … why? Remember, every public service has a cost. It’s really all about the efficient allocation of resources. Education has a price. Surely price shouldn’t prevent poor students from attending good schools, so this is where the idea of public acid comes in. The government doesn’t build its own roads; it hires private contractors to build roads for it. It doesn’t build its own warplanes; it hires Lockheed to build F22’s. What’s the difference? </p>

<p>

i am also 150% not ok with tax dollars (which is what vouchers are, let’s not forget) going to support a religious group that i neither affiliate nor agree with.

</p>

<p>Okay, I’m atheist too. </p>

<p>For me – who cares? If socialist public policy is your thing, you can always enact legislation to regulate flow of funds. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong (no rights are violated) when the government pays an organisation (who just happens to be religious) to perform a secular service for them. Anti-establishment clause is really just a political compromise – the essential part of religious freedom is freedom to think, freedom to speak, freedom to assemble … as you wish. Not really threatened with funding a private school.</p>

[galoisien]

<p>

Private schools have the right to be selective on their admissions and decline on offers based on grades and income. I don’t believe their rights should be negated simply because a students doesn’t want to attend their current public school.

</p>

<p>What? It’ll be just like selecting colleges. </p>

<p>

meaning, what would “private” actually mean if public school children would be allowed to attend at their leisure?

</p>

<p>Private –> source of institutional funding, not source of customer funding</p>

<p>Why, private won’t be seen as upperclass anymore? Why is this a bad thing? </p>

<p>Not upperclass != not excellent. </p>

<p>

My family makes roughly under $20k per year, which is below the national poverty line. Both my brother and I have attended private high schools with financial aid and scholarships. Out of pocket, the expenses per year are less then $1,000. If parents are ambitious enough to send their children to private institutions then they will find a way that is workable for them.

</p>

<p>You are making two assumptions: that private school should only be available for the top 10% of lower-income kids good enough to be selected, meaning the other 90% should stay in their rut. (Now, in contrast, the lower 90% of higher-income kids aren’t in a rut cuz they can pay their way out.) </p>

<p>You’re assuming the education market will be the same as it is with vouchers as without. Supply of private schools will surely increase to meet increased demand, hence, more schools catering to the average, the masses. EFFICIENTLY.</p>

<p>And a well-educated public is a good thing, not just a well-educated top 10%.</p>

<p>Also, the other thing is INCENTIVE. Public school administrators have far less incentive to improve than public school administrators. In public schools especially, bad policies can remain for decades because parents only are concerned with the school for four years – no lobbying ever gets accomplished. Not the same with private schools.</p>

[egolikestomach]

<p>

Private schools have the right to be selective on their admissions and decline on offers based on grades and income. I don’t believe their rights should be negated simply because a students doesn’t want to attend their current public school.

</p>

<p>as i said above, vouchers don’t mean that private schools have to accept all applicants. they still reserve the right to be selective. this is why the “vouchers will save everyone” argument falls apart: vouchers will only “save” students who are able to get into private schools. </p>

<p>

What’s the difference?

</p>

<p>community involvement. if my hypothetical child is enrolled at a public school and an issue arises with a teacher, a policy, a curriculum, etc. etc., i can take it to my school board and try to enact change. if my child is enrolled at a private school where s/he is obviously not a member of the economic elite, i don’t have the clout to make any change at all, because i don’t have the money. it’s all about having a say. not to mention, in for-profit school models, making money becomes the number one goal. maybe i’m crazy, but i think that in education, actually providing the best education possible should be the number one goal. </p>

<p>and to “who cares” re: religious education, i obviously care. catholic schools are not a secular service by any stretch of the imagination, and i don’t want tax money that is supposed to get me what i think is best to instead get me a world of rhetoric i don’t agree with. but like i said, this is a mostly moot point because suburban public schools are functioning just fine, and vouchers are being touted mostly in inner cities.</p>

[Vehicle]

<p>"What? It’ll be just like selecting colleges. "</p>

<p>Because a private establishment should be forced to accept all students regardless of their private funding and values?</p>

<p>"Private –> source of institutional funding, not source of customer funding</p>

<p>Why, private won’t be seen as upperclass anymore? Why is this a bad thing?</p>

<p>Not upperclass != not excellent. "</p>

<p>Most private schools have smaller classrooms simply because they are selective. One of the problems with public schools is the teacher to student ratio due to overpopulation. Private schools do not have this problem because they are ALLOWED to be more selective where as public schools accept people unconditionally. Should private schools also be forced to accept delinquents and those with a record simply because of the voucher system? In other words you believe that private schools and public schools should be treated as equals? </p>

<p>“You are making two assumptions: that private school should only be available for the top 10% of lower-income kids good enough to be selected, meaning the other 90% should stay in their rut. (Now, in contrast, the lower 90% of higher-income kids aren’t in a rut cuz they can pay their way out.)”</p>

<p>If you’re a low-income student and want to get out of the public school system then it is your obligations to apply for aid and need-based scholarships. Most private schools accept them with the condition that you obtain satisfactory grades. Low-income students that are in the rut place themselves there because they are not willing to pick themselves up, apply for aid, and transfer into a better school. We shouldn’t make it easier for students that don’t give a damn about their education.</p>

<p>What’s to say that private or public institutions would raise their standards simply because of the voucher system? There is no congruency or evidence that would suggest standards be raised if children were allowed to choice their own schools. If anything, private schools would be overwhelmed by failing students thus having to cater towards ALL of their students, decreasing their higher standards. A private school would essentially become a public school in their downwards spiral to educational failure. Public schools wouldn’t do any justice because their brighter students would most likely leave and they’d be stuck with the low-achieving, bad-behavior students.</p>

[galoisien]

<p>

this is a mostly moot point because suburban public schools are functioning just fine

</p>

<p>Not really … you obviously do not know many suburban, richer parents who are disappointed with the richly-funded public schools with awful unionised teachers.</p>

<p>

if my child is enrolled at a private school where s/he is obviously not a member of the economic elite, i don’t have the clout to make any change at all, because i don’t have the money.

</p>

<p>Well, you are an individual. Seek a collective. Get a group of parents (customers) together. They will agree with you. Furthermore, you are no longer a slave to government policy, so convincing a sizeable majority (or even minority) of parents to agree with you will get policy to change, as opposed to a government that won’t budge even when consensus of the parents is clearly against them.</p>

<p>

in for-profit school models, making money becomes the number one goal. maybe i’m crazy, but i think that in education, actually providing the best education possible should be the number one goal.

</p>

<p>See: Economics 101. </p>

<p>Making money is kind of closely tied to a good education. It involves not being wasteful, and providing the best bang for one’s buck, and having a good reputation, educating kids well, making parents happy, giving children good careers, encouraging a good social environment (in order to keep students) … </p>

<p>I mean, why else are the Ivy League schools there?</p>

[galoisien]

<p>

Private schools do not have this problem because they are ALLOWED to be more selective where as public schools accept people unconditionally.

</p>

<p>Um no … the per-pupil cost is actually lower for each students in private schools.
Also, please remember that the market will <em>expand</em> with the provision of school vouchers. ==> no overcrowding</p>

<p>Gotta run to lab, brb.</p>

[egolikestomach]

<p>galoisien, i think you’ve missed every instance where i’ve said that i am opposed to education functioning like the market. i understand how economics works and i don’t think that high-risk financial practices that benefit a few at the expense of many have any place in what is supposed to be an equalizing factor in society.</p>

[Vehicle]

<p>“as i said above, vouchers don’t mean that private schools have to accept all applicants. they still reserve the right to be selective. this is why the “vouchers will save everyone” argument falls apart: vouchers will only “save” students who are able to get into private schools.”</p>

<p>Our system is already designed as such. Vouchers are not needed to achieve something that is already in place.</p>

<p>The argument about parental complains does not make sense to me because I’ve gone to a private school and I know that parents from any economic background have placed their students regards to the administration. Unless you’re going to a purely-profit oriented school, I cannot imagine why a private school would not hear the regards of their students. Many times they make individual changes for the student simply because the school is smaller and they have a more freedom to regulate their policies. I graduated with less credits that I was required from a public school simply because my private school worked with my needs to guarantee the best solution to my problem. A public school simply would not do that.</p>

<p>I don’t believe tax money should go towards parochial education, which is interesting because federal aid applies to religious schools.</p>

<p>Besides, education does lead to financial success in most cases otherwise no one would pay top dollar for ivies.</p>

[egolikestomach]

<p>i know vouchers are not needed, i am arguing against them.</p>

<p>there are several purely profit-oriented schools already in operation, and many more itching to set up shop in poorer neighborhoods should vouchers take effect. so, yes, it’s a valid concern. check out the edison schools as an example. </p>

<p>you and i both agree that vouchers are no bueno, we’re just coming at it from different sides of the issue.</p>