School Voucher Program

[hifigator]

My question to you all is what do you think of voucher programs? Please analyze the potential benefits and any shortcomings and then decide.

Just in case some are unfamiliar with the term, in this context the term "voucher program" refers to a system which would allow a parent to select a school to send their children. They could redeem the voucher as part or all of the tuition expenses for enrollment. As it is now, we spend some ungodly amount per child. Most voucher models suggest that the programs could be done with no additional tax burden. For this argument, let's assume that to be the case. In other words, the monies which are being colleted in tax revenues now and being disbursed among the public school systems would be distributed among the parents of the same children who are currently in school.

Personally, I can certainly see a lot of growing pains in addition to start up costs along the way, but from everything I have read and heard the pros outweigh the cons. There are many different models but the one I would suggest would have a set amount per child. This amount could vary by age/grade as needed. Parents could select a school in which the voucher fully covers tuition or they could select a school which might offer more ameneties provided they cover the difference on their own.

The main complaint that I hear concerning a voucher program is that it would syphon off monies from the already strapped public school system. That is only true to a point. What it would do is syphon off funds from bad schools or ones that are at least inferior to their competitors. Accordingly people argue that teachers would get laid off because of the lack of funds. Well again the lesser teachers might have to find a new job, but in all honesty, is that such a bad thing? And any high quality teachers which fall victim to an inferior overall school would very quickly be snapped up by a "better" school.
The only other complaint I routinely hear concerning a voucher program is the age old "separation of church and state." It is argued that any "government money" cannot go to a "religious" institution. That is a very shallow way of looking at it. Initially, governments money is our money to start with. Now I know we have lost the rights to it once we elect those who write into law the ways they see fit to spend the money ... but still there should be a better solution here. Fundamentally, the monies are spent on the education of the children. The parents should be allowed to select the school they would prefer ... not just the one closest to their house. Of course with the bussing in place that isn't even technically correct anymore. The point is that most parents essentially have two options: either send their kid to the school they are zoned for or pay a complete second tuition and send them to a private school.

If we have got a budget of "x" dollars to spend on the education of "y" number of students, it just seems very reasonable to allow the parents to selelct which school best fits their child.

What would happen with a voucher system:

1. The increased competition for the money from vouchers would cause the schools to be more dilligent in selecting and maintaining the best teachers they can get. Some of the "lesser" teachers would doubtlessly be let go in the process. However many "high grade" teachers fall victim to an overall inferior school, would have little or no problem finding a job at a different school. Remember, the money spent and the number of students is a constant in any given year.
The net effect to teachers would be positive, with the exception of the "bad" teachers.
2. The parents would have the option to send their children to a school which is stronger in a specific area, whether it be cooking, woodworking/shop, mechanic, athletics or any other area. The net effect to the parents would be either positive or neutral at worst.
3. The children would be taught by teachers who had been selected in a competitive system. Definitively that results in "better" teachers. Therefore the education level of the students would go up. Furthermore, the students would have the opportunity to have schooling in their preferred field at an earlier date. Someone for a propensity for cooking for example, might choose Eastside because of their excellent cullinary program. Others might select a school especially strong in math or english. The net effect on the students would be positive.
4. From our society's standpoint, the net effect would have to be positive. The resulting students are more educated and further along in their chosen field by the time they graduate.

I know that many of these benefits are currently being tested with options like "dual enrollment" where students take some college classes while still in high school. Also there is a provision for being in Eastside's cullinary school while officially going to GHS or Bucholz but for many it is simply not practical to get from Bucholz to Eastside and back. Fundamentally, why must we mandate someone attend two different campuses anyway? If they elect to, it was their decision but we shouldn't force them.

Ideas ....

[hifigator]

The more I think about it, the more of a "no brainer" this looks like to me.

Under the current plan the parent/parents have basically three choices:

1. They could send their kids to the school zoned for the area.
2. They could pay for a second tuition and send their kids to their selected school.
3. They could move to an area zoned for a school they select.

Option number 3 is really not that viable in the long run. I do know that people routinely consider the school zones when looking to buy or build a new house, but I think it is very unreasonable to ask people to "up and move" as schools get better or worse.

Option number 2 is really only a valid option for the more wealthy parents, and given that many of the "worse" schools are in the "poorer" areas, it would only make sense that people in that area are stuck in a repeating cycle. It sure looks like the policy we have now harms those who are in the toughest situations the most.

I just really don't see much in the way of "downside."

Fundamentally, who better than the parents to make the decision of where to send their children to school?

Ideas?

[HoyaSinceBirth]

from what i learned in intro sociology last year voucher systems tend to just make bad situations worse. making bad schools get worse. another common trend in voucher system is what's known as white flight where all the schools become essentially segregated as white students leave inner city schools for the subburbs. The main problem is it only helps a limitted number of people and doesn't address the real problem of school funding.

[SoCalHoya]

Aside from the huge constitutionality questions, empirical evidence is now showing that the voucher system ends up creating a great deal of inflation in private school tuition. So, if suddenly you are given $4500 a year for your child, then "Exclusive Private School" raises its tuition about that much. The "voucher" system is no panacea and still leaves a great deal of our most vulnerable students with little or no options.

And though I understand and appreciate the demand/supply arguments made by voucher supporters, please understand that we do not live in a "perfect information" society. So many of the pro-market force arguments for vouchers don't seem to materialize or worse, have the opposite effect.

[hifigator]

You both make some good points but the part of the equation that seems to always be disregarded is the shift from public school to public school. I honestly think that would be a significant chunk of the effect. I think that many who are zoned for the lower performing and more dangerous "inner city" schools would elect to send their kids to a different public school. Obviously some would choose a private or parochial school, but it's hard to say how many. The competition should only make all the schools better.

I agree that it is no panacea and our problems wouldn't "go away" they would merely changed into a different shape, but the bottom line should be that it would be an improvement overall. I understand that some areas would suffer but using that logic is flawed. Areas already suffer, the question is how many and how significantly?

[hifigator]

hoyasincebirth said:

from what i learned in intro sociology last year voucher systems tend to just make bad situations worse. making bad schools get worse. another common trend in voucher system is what's known as white flight where all the schools become essentially segregated as white students leave inner city schools for the subburbs. The main problem is it only helps a limitted number of people and doesn't address the real problem of school funding.

I agree that "bad" schools would probably get worse, but at what cost? The reasoning is that many of the "better" students would elect to leave the "bad" school leaving the "bad" school with a much higher percentage of "bad" students. But I can't help but think the net effect would be good overall. I think that parents of many of the so-called "bad" students would also take advantage of the vouchers and attend a different school. Presumably the "bad" school would be forced to improve or disband, either of which would be an improvement.

[hifigator]

socalhoya said:

Aside from the huge constitutionality questions, empirical evidence is now showing that the voucher system ends up creating a great deal of inflation in private school tuition. So, if suddenly you are given $4500 a year for your child, then "Exclusive Private School" raises its tuition about that much. The "voucher" system is no panacea and still leaves a great deal of our most vulnerable students with little or no options.

And though I understand and appreciate the demand/supply arguments made by voucher supporters, please understand that we do not live in a "perfect information" society. So many of the pro-market force arguments for vouchers don't seem to materialize or worse, have the opposite effect.

I agree that the "elitist" or "rich snobby" schools might do just what you suggest to control the level of their clientele' and I agree that would not be a good thing. But again I think that is a very small percentage of the equation.

Incidentally, the only country that I have read about with a universal voucher program was Belgium I think and the results are very good.

Florida started a more restiricted voucher program a few years ago. Basically the students are given the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Academic Test) and then both the students and the schools are graded. The schools are then given a letter grade. There are provisions for greater funding for the better schools as well as a mechanism for parents to select a different school if their school underachieves for a certain period.

Contrary to complaints by the teachers' union, who are generally against any kind of merit based system, the overall effect has been good. The test scores are universally on the rise on average.

[SoCalHoya]

Wasn't part of the aim of the voucher programs to open the financial doors to these "elitist" or "rich snobby" (read: great) schools to those who could otherwise not afford? Sadly, it's not that small a percentage of the equation. And though I know little about the Belgian voucher system, I do know the country well, and let's just say things that work there will probably not work here in the same way. What we have is a major national problem, and though the states can help quite a bit, we may need national resources to tackle it.

That FCAT program sounds good. But why does poor performance lead to less funding? Doesn't that just create exacerbate some school's issues? And, though test scores are universally on the rise, I can hear my teacher friends saying, "window dressing." They are outraged at the mounds of testing they must do now, which they feel impedes their ability to teach to the best of their ability. They find "teaching to the test" to be horribly boring for the kids and that "good scores" are not indicative of actual learning/retention.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

you hit it on the head socal the problem with the grading systems is that schools that test poorly are usually those with the least amount of resources. they get bad schools and as punishment their funding gets slashed and they're told to imporve in order to get more funding. when a main reason they performed poorly was they didn't have enough money to start out with. meanwhile rich schools with plenty of resources get even richer.

[JimmyHoya]

From everything I heard in DC at least...the voucher programs are essentially useless because no voucher the district will ever give will ever pay for, or in many cases, pay for enough of, a private school tuition. Furthermore, while the public school suffers, so too does this family now because they are faced with what will still be a $8-15k bill a year to send their kid to a private school that they again may or may not even thrive in because of their Edited poor schooling from before. There's no win, really, and it truly sucks.

[hifigator]

I appreciate the sane logical discussion on this topic. It is a perfect reason of why I still visit your board. So many forums turn purely political when virtually any topic arises.

As for the funding related to the FCAT scores, I understood it to be incentive based not penalty based. I thought there was additional funding to those schools which excelled and therefore showed dilligence with their previous funds. The extra funds would then be used for additional programs like arts, music, athletics or a offerring specialized training programs like culinary training or the sort. I don't think it is directly penatly based, meaning that those that perform poorly lose specific funds. But obviously as parents exercise their rights to send their children elsewhere and enrollment at the underachieving school drops, their funding probably drops as well.

I don't think there is a "perfect" system out there but any system that is incentive based is on the right track.

As for the teachers complaints, they have mostly been silenced. There were concerns that the kids wouldn't actually learn as much real material because the teachers are so concerned with teaching to the test since it reflects directly on them. That hasn't been borne out as the both the FCAT as well as other standardized tests like SAT and ACT have all risen.


As far as whether or not the voucher is enough to give the poorest the same options as the more wealthy ... I think that is a totally bogus criticism. All we know for sure is that WITHOUT the vouchers, the poorest will NOT have the opportunity. With the vouchers at least some of the lower income bracket will have the choice. In other words, the complaint that there are still some who don't have the same opportunities is flawed in my mind, yet I have heard that complaint a bunch. Am I right here?

The bottom line in my mind should be the kids and what is best for them. Giving parents the option to choose a different school should only be positive shouldn't it?

Lastly, the discussion almost always turns into a public versus private school argument. I don't think that should be the point. All schools should get better as we increase competition and reward achievement. Additionally, as parents are free to choose a more suitable school in their own mind they would seemingly be more likely to take a larger role in their childrens schooling as well, right?

[HoyaSinceBirth]

yes more often then not poor performing schools lose out on new funds rather then have funds taken away but some times they are taken away often the same amount of money is given to public schools but redistributed so better performing school get more. in theory pooring schools will work harder and raise their grade but this just doesn't happen the few kids who were keeping the scorews as high as they were tend to leave with their vouchers leaving the school off worse than it was. its pretty much only the good students who leave bad schools bad students don't leave for better schools usually.

[hifigator]

hoyasincebirth said:

yes more often then not poor performing schools lose out on new funds rather then have funds taken away but some times they are taken away often the same amount of money is given to public schools but redistributed so better performing school get more. in theory pooring schools will work harder and raise their grade but this just doesn't happen the few kids who were keeping the scorews as high as they were tend to leave with their vouchers leaving the school off worse than it was. its pretty much only the good students who leave bad schools bad students don't leave for better schools usually.

I wouldn't necessarily argue any of those points, but all that does is beg the question: is that a good thing or a bad thing?

If the "good" students move on to a more stimulating or aggressive school that is a good thing. Presumably their departure will only lower the lesser school further which would be a bad thing. But is it better to keep those higher students suppressed to secondarily assist the others? And, are we really assisting the "lesser" students in doing so? I am not sure.

[hifigator]

Incidentally, have any of you clicked on the "ad link" above called "Florida Vouchers" ... It links to edstimes site and has some good discussion concerning vouchers. One story it details is a lawsuit brought by parents of a large group of NJ High School students who basically learned nothing. I am not sure how the lawsuit will do and ironically, a win by the plaintiffs would only sap away precious funds. On the other hand, they obviously aren't using those funds very well anyway.

[SoCalHoya]

I think one of our most pressing issues right now is that the financially disadvantaged continually get bad news. The current voucher systems don't seem to help, and in fact tend to hurt them. I can conceive that certain voucher systems could work well in the future, but they would demand quite a bit of faith (not the religious type) and cooperation between different segments of the population. And sadly, I think we are moving away from that possibility.

[EasyEd]

Two comments: First, I served in the Korean War and received the GI Bill allotment for education. I, and all the other veterans of that and other wars, were free to use that allotment at any school, public, private or religious. There was no consideration of separation of church and state.

Second, I believe the main reason many schools are failing has nothing to do with the number of $s spent (see DC which has the highest $s per student in the country) but the family situation. I cannot absolutely prove this but I would wager that the so-called worst performing schools exist where there is a disproportionately high percent of single parents.

[SoCalHoya]

The GI Bill is (was!) one of the most important pieces of education legislation ever written. But just as there is a difference between primary school and university-level students, there is--and should be--a constitutional distinction between primary and university education.

You are dead on with the second point being very important. I wouldn't say it is the "main reason," but the stereotypical married/involved parents do a lot, and keep struggling students/schools afloat. However, tying school funds to local housing taxes has created such an awful, race-to-the-bottom type mechanism schools, and since that is something we can control, I think it best to focus on that.

Though, I suppose we could help promote marriage more, too. Last I checked, there were quite a few gay couples asking to be married (many with children), but for some reason people keep stopping them.

[hifigator]

ed said:

Two comments: First, I served in the Korean War and received the GI Bill allotment for education. I, and all the other veterans of that and other wars, were free to use that allotment at any school, public, private or religious. There was no consideration of separation of church and state.

Second, I believe the main reason many schools are failing has nothing to do with the number of $s spent (see DC which has the highest $s per student in the country) but the family situation. I cannot absolutely prove this but I would wager that the so-called worst performing schools exist where there is a disproportionately high percent of single parents.

You are absolutely dead on ed and you really bring up a great point.

We can argue about which is the cause and which are the effects ... essentially a modern day chicken egg debate. But a very high percentage of dropouts are in the inner city. Obviously a very high percentage are minority, specifically black. There are also a very high number of single parent homes. Of these, there are an astonishingly high number of children raised without a father ...not just a divorced family, but rather those who never had a father figure.

i have to run now, but about six months ago, both conservative columninst Thomas Sowell and liberal columnist William Rasberry wrote strikingly similar articles that were both excellent. They crediited the blame of the inner city predominantly on the lack of the black father in so many homes. THe fact that both these columnists are african-American is even more poignant.

[hoyaboy1]

I am against vouchers for high school - at that point people are basically already "formed" as students and evidence suggests that going from a bad school to a good school won't help them at all.

It could very well be helpful for younger students though. Might it hurt the left behind schools and students? Yea, but the fact is they likely weren't going to achieve highly anyway. I'd rather put money into the more talented/motivated students.

[TigerHoya]

Against vouchers because with government money will come government pressure (control, strings, regulations) that will probably go into areas they don't belong at some point.