School voucher support and demographics

[Meadmaker]

I’m an advocate for school vouchers, and I’ll support them in this thread, but, to the extent it is possible to do so, I would like to focus on one aspect of the school choice debate.

Why are people opposed to vouchers? And why do people support them? I’ve read all sorts of reasons, and different people have different motivations, but in researching the issue, something leapt out at me.

In analyzing voter patterns, something became clear. People without children, who own their own homes, and who live in poor neighborhoods, support vouchers. People without children, who own their own homes, and who live in wealthy neighborhoods, oppose vouchers.

It isn’t hard to figure out the difference here. People with no children have no specific self interest related to the education of their own children. However, they have a great interest in property values, and also in quality of life in general.

Apparently, people in all neighborhoods seem to think that school choice would make bad neighborhoods better, and good neighborhoods worse (or at least, less elite). I agree, and that has always been my primary motivation for supporting school choice. I think the public school system as it exists in the US is a major contributor to racial and economic segregation. On an anecdotal level, I have several friends who were middle class whites, and they lived in the city of Detroit, right up until their oldest child turned 4 years old. In fact, I did the same thing. (I didn’t live in Detroit, but I lived in a poor, mostly black, suburb, and when my child was four years old I moved to richer, lily white, suburb, and I did it for the quality of the schools.)

Here’s some discussion.

http://www.fordhaminstitute.org/institute/gadfly/comment_add.cfm?edition=&content_id=477

[Alt+F4]

People with no children have no specific self interest related to the education of their own children.

Huh? What point are you trying to make here or is this just another teacher bashing thread?

[Tricky]

The article you linked seems to be discussing only one single voucher program: the one in California. There are many different ways vouchers can operate and support for them among various economic groups is highly dependant upon what kind of vouchers are being discussed.

Many upper class people are in favor if vouchers IF the voucher simply means that everybody is given money for their child's schooling. Essentially, this means that they can send their child to a private school, which they were doing anyway, and have it subsidized. However, if the voucher program is based on proving "need", then upper and middle class people tend to oppose it because it will increase their taxes and lower their property values (if "lower class" students are infiltrating their private schools and frequenting their neighborhoods.)

What is almost universal is that everybody wants better education for their kids and nobody wants to pay anything extra in taxes for it.

I am opposed to almost any voucher program because I feel it will turn inner-city schools into little more than training grounds for juvenile delinquents, as all the good teachers and students move out. If education is required, then there must be some schools that are required to take students. Private schools are not. They can dump their problems on the poor schools. I feel this will lead to even greater and more dangerous social stratification.

Of course, depending on how the voucher program is structured, some of these problems can be mitigated. How much, I don't know.

[Alt+F4]

I for one don't want my tax dollars supporting Scientologist or Mormon fundamentalists schools.

[Tricky]

I for one don't want my tax dollars supporting Scientologist or Mormon fundamentalists schools.
I don't even want them supporting Catholic schools. I want a well defined curriculum with specific standards for teachers and for student advancement. I also want no religious dogma of any kind. In short, just like public schools.

[pgwenthold]

In analyzing voter patterns, something became clear. People without children, who own their own homes, and who live in poor neighborhoods, support vouchers. People without children, who own their own homes, and who live in wealthy neighborhoods, oppose vouchers.

It isn’t hard to figure out the difference here. People with no children have no specific self interest related to the education of their own children. However, they have a great interest in property values, and also in quality of life in general.



What other characteristics do they have? Are they more educated? Are they less religious? What are the statistics for those with children as opposed to without?

I am in the second group, and do not agree with your explanation.

I oppose school vouchers because I do not think that my taxes should be used to support religious schooling.

I think that this so-called analysis is missing a lot of correlating factors.

[pgwenthold]

Huh? What point are you trying to make here or is this just another teacher bashing thread?


I think the point is that childless couples do not base their opinions on doing something for "their" children, since they don't have any.

[Segnosaur]

I don't even want them supporting Catholic schools. I want a well defined curriculum with specific standards for teachers and for student advancement. I also want no religious dogma of any kind. In short, just like public schools.

I can certainly understand your point, and I kinda feel the same way. However, isn't the way the vouchers are set up important?

If we make funding of the private or religious education conditional on them teaching a certain cirriculum, it may be beneficial. After all, there will be some parents who send their kids to religous schools regardless of the cost. At least if we say "make sure they learn proper science and you'll get partial funding" there is at least some chance they'll get some actual knowledge mixed up with their dogma.

Here in Ontario (Canada), we don't have vouchers, but we have separate catholic boards which are publically funded. For some reason, the kids coming out of the catholic schools have a better understanding of science (including evolution) than those in the public system.

[Upchurch]

I'm opposed to school vouchers because I fail to see how taking money away from public schools helps the common good in any way.

[pgwenthold]

Many upper class people are in favor if vouchers IF the voucher simply means that everybody is given money for their child's schooling. Essentially, this means that they can send their child to a private school, which they were doing anyway, and have it subsidized. However, if the voucher program is based on proving "need", then upper and middle class people tend to oppose it because it will increase their taxes and lower their property values (if "lower class" students are infiltrating their private schools and frequenting their neighborhoods.)

Interestingly, if there is any voucher to be supported, I would prefer it be need-based. However, this is just a band-aid on the real problem. Instead of giving poor people money to get out, it would be much better to give the schools in poorer areas more of what they need to be successful. To do that without raising taxes, of course, would require re-routing money from more affluent areas (such as the one I live in) to other places, and I, personally, wouldn't have a problem with that. Then again, I think my neighbors with kids might have more of a problem with it.

[Alt+F4]

I don't even want them supporting Catholic schools. I want a well defined curriculum with specific standards for teachers and for student advancement. I also want no religious dogma of any kind. In short, just like public schools.

That's what we should be doing, forget about vouchers and make public schools better so all children can be well educated, not just those who have parents who are "education savvy".

[Meadmaker]

I think the point is that childless couples do not base their opinions on doing something for "their" children, since they don't have any.
Thanks. That was my point.

[pgwenthold]

Thanks. That was my point.

Just so it can be said that I do understand what you are saying, regardless of how much I vehemently disagree with it ;)

[Katana]

That's what we should be doing, forget about vouchers and make public schools better so all children can be well educated, not just those who have parents who are "education savvy".


That gets at my issues with vouchers somewhat.

If there are "bad" schools, then fix them.

And I completely agree with the concerns about tax dollars going to religiously-based schools. That should not be permitted.

[Segnosaur]

I'm opposed to school vouchers because I fail to see how taking money away from public schools helps the common good in any way.

I think at least part of the argument for vouchers is that by allowing parents to have more flexibility in where they place their kids, it will force schools to improve themselves (offer the best educational programs) to attract the best students they can get, as opposed to just warehousing kids because you're getting funded the same amount anyways.

In that case, the big question is whether a school's ability and desire to improve themselves would be greater or less than the loss of students from 'bad' schools.

[Billdave2]

There is a simple solution to the voucher plan. Parents who send their kids to private school get a voucher for 3/4 of the amount of money the school district has per child. Example, school district has 10,000 children with a budget of 10,000,000 dollars. If your child attends private school you get a voucher for 7,500 dollars. The amount of money per child in the public school increases by (2,500 X number of children in private school)/ number of children in public school. It is a win/win situation.

[Tricky]

Interestingly, if there is any voucher to be supported, I would prefer it be need-based. However, this is just a band-aid on the real problem. Instead of giving poor people money to get out, it would be much better to give the schools in poorer areas more of what they need to be successful. To do that without raising taxes, of course, would require re-routing money from more affluent areas (such as the one I live in) to other places, and I, personally, wouldn't have a problem with that. Then again, I think my neighbors with kids might have more of a problem with it.
My wife and I are childless, and I agree with you. I would be happy to see a restructuring of taxes, indeed, I'd even be willing to suffer a tax increase, if it was a real fix for our education problems. I consider education to be part of our infrastructure, and if we don't maintain it, it will collapse like an old bridge.

[tsg]

There is a simple solution to the voucher plan. Parents who send their kids to private school get a voucher for 3/4 of the amount of money the school district has per child. Example, school district has 10,000 children with a budget of 10,000,000 dollars. If your child attends private school you get a voucher for 7,500 dollars. The amount of money per child in the public school increases by (2,500 X number of children in private school)/ number of children in public school. It is a win/win situation.

Where does the $7500 come from?

[Tricky]

There is a simple solution to the voucher plan. Parents who send their kids to private school get a voucher for 3/4 of the amount of money the school district has per child. Example, school district has 10,000 children with a budget of 10,000,000 dollars. If your child attends private school you get a voucher for 7,500 dollars. The amount of money per child in the public school increases by (2,500 X number of children in private school)/ number of children in public school. It is a win/win situation.
Except you still have the problem that the public schools are left with

All the dregs that no private school will take
People who are so miserably poor that they can't even afford to make up the voucher gap.
Children of parents who don't care what kind of education they getWhile your plan might make economic sense, it doesn't make educational sense.

[Segnosaur]

Except you still have the problem that the public schools are left with

All the dregs that no private school will take
People who are so miserably poor that they can't even afford to make up the voucher gap.
Children of parents who don't care what kind of education they getWhile your plan might make economic sense, it doesn't make educational sense.


Well, it depends on what is done with the 'extra' money.

If, out of the $10,000 available for education, only $7,500 gets transfered to the new or private school, then that remaining $2,500 could be reinvested back into the 'poorer' school the student was originally supposed to go to. That increases the per-capita funding of students at poorer school (which can only help). Of course, I'm not sure if that's going to encourage schools to get rid of students (so they can get the remaining funding), but the idea has some merit... the parents who want a private education can afford it, middle income people may be able to afford private schools where they couldn't before, and any parents who still could not afford or did not wish to use private schools has their kid going to a school with more resources than they'd otherwise have.

[Meadmaker]

In the early discussion in this thread a lot of attention has been focused on the impact of school vouchers on the quality of the schools. That's understandable, and I certainly have opinions on that subject, but that isn't what I was emphasizing in this thread, nor is it my primary reason for supporting vouchers. My support stems from the impact on neighborhoods.

If you live in the City of Detroit and your kid attends public school, your child will be attending a school where drugs and violence are rampant. His classmates will, with few exceptions, be low achievers. Therefore, when your child turns four years old, you will go house shopping in the suburbs unless you can afford private school. I've seen it again and again, and I've done it myself. Thios leaves people who either can't solve their own problems, or don't care to. That won't result in a decent neighborhood. To improve the neighborhood, you have to keep families in it.

It wouldn't matter if you hired a private tutor for every child, gave them all spiffy laptops, and had desks made of gold. The schools would still be awful, because everyone who could afford to leave, did.

I have three main contentions.

1. The public school system in America contributes to the economic and racial segregation that is a feature of American cities.

2. School vouchers would help reduce that segregation.

3. There is no more effective way to address the problem.

What does everyone else think?

[Tricky]

If you live in the City of Detroit and your kid attends public school, your child will be attending a school where drugs and violence are rampant. His classmates will, with few exceptions, be low achievers. Therefore, when your child turns four years old, you will go house shopping in the suburbs unless you can afford private school. I've seen it again and again, and I've done it myself. Thios leaves people who either can't solve their own problems, or don't care to. That won't result in a decent neighborhood. To improve the neighborhood, you have to keep families in it.

It wouldn't matter if you hired a private tutor for every child, gave them all spiffy laptops, and had desks made of gold. The schools would still be awful, because everyone who could afford to leave, did.

I have three main contentions.

1. The public school system in America contributes to the economic and racial segregation that is a feature of American cities.

2. School vouchers would help reduce that segregation.

3. There is no more effective way to address the problem.

What does everyone else think?
1. Disagree. The public school system in America is the result of economic and racial segregation, not the cause.

2. Disagree. For vouchers to be effective, it would have to move all of the kids from "bad neighborhoods" into better schools or else it would be unfair to those left behind. In order to do this, you would have to force private schools to accept kids they didn't want. You would simply be moving the public school problem into the private schools.

3. Disagree. If you are going to enforce mixing of ethnic and economic classes in schools, you might as well do it in public schools. If not, you wind up with parallel systems which will be much more difficult to monitor and require twice the bureaucracy.

[Tricky]

Well, it depends on what is done with the 'extra' money.

If, out of the $10,000 available for education, only $7,500 gets transfered to the new or private school, then that remaining $2,500 could be reinvested back into the 'poorer' school the student was originally supposed to go to. That increases the per-capita funding of students at poorer school (which can only help). Of course, I'm not sure if that's going to encourage schools to get rid of students (so they can get the remaining funding), but the idea has some merit... the parents who want a private education can afford it, middle income people may be able to afford private schools where they couldn't before, and any parents who still could not afford or did not wish to use private schools has their kid going to a school with more resources than they'd otherwise have.
If education were a fungible commodity, that might make some sense, but it is not as if the school board saves a ton of money for every student it doesn't have to educate. Unless you are going to close a lot of schools (which can lead to other problems) you still have to rent buildings, pay teachers for each subject, provide heat and electricity etc.

Also I'm very unclear on the economics of what you propose. If you take a student out of public school and put him in private school, you are still removing (in your example) $7,500 from the public school system. I'm also unclear as to who receives these vouchers. Is it need based? If you make it universal, you are simply reimbursing rich people part of the cost of sending their kids to private school, which I strongly oppose.

I also see no solution in any of the voucher programs that deals with problem kids. Public schools have to take them. Unless you force private schools to take them as well, then you wind up with a concentration of almost nothing but problem kids in private schools. If you're going to do that, you might as well just save a step, put up razor wire and turn them into prisons because you're just making an underculture of undesirables in our public schools.

Yeah, that last bit is somewhat over the top, I admit, but it is an extreme extrapolation of a genuine problem with vouchers.

[rtalman]

I also see no solution in any of the voucher programs that deals with problem kids. Public schools have to take them.I don't know about the school system in Texas, but here in my school district "problem" kids are removed from the standard middle schools and high schools and placed in alternative schools. The public school system has to educate them, but the mainstream schools do not have to take them.

[Tricky]

I don't know about the school system in Texas, but here in my school district "problem" kids are removed from the standard middle schools and high schools and placed in alternative schools. The public school system has to educate them, but the mainstream schools do not have to take them.
Do you mean "reform schools"?

By problem kids, I mean dicipline problems, not necessarily learning disabled. From what I've heard of reform schools, they are little more than training grounds for criminals. I admit, the problem of what to do with such children is one that no school system has been able to solve, but most of the private schools do not even make an attempt.

[rtalman]

Do you mean "reform schools"?

By problem kids, I mean dicipline problems, not necessarily learning disabled. From what I've heard of reform schools, they are little more than training grounds for criminals. I admit, the problem of what to do with such children is one that no school system has been able to solve, but most of the private schools do not even make an attempt.In my day it was called the "continuation" school. Now they call it the "alternative learning" school. I was threatened with placement at continuation more than once for habitual truancy when I was in middle school. It is not nearly what is conjured up when you think of reform schools. Think more along the lines of a Voc-Tech school, with more emphasis on getting the students educated enough to hold a decent job, and less on traditional curricula.

Naturally, there are a lot of hard cases there, but it is not like something out of that Sean Penn movie Bad Boys.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If this thread is only about segregation, I hardly see how private schooling will change anything.

Statistically, the lower socio-economic status students will perform lower than those of higher socio-economic status. The better students will get into the top private schools, while the lower performing students will be left to the lower schools.

If you talk about actual school improvement, vouchers suck.

Statistically, once you control for socio-economic factors, private schools perform the same as public schools.

The people who support vouchers are upper-class a-holes who want to privatize everything. They don't give a damn about education.

See, I can make blanket statements too :p .

[Meadmaker]

1. Disagree. The public school system in America is the result of economic and racial segregation, not the cause.


When my friends left the city of Detroit rather than send their kids to school there, we could argue whether they were causing problems or fleeing from them. Either way, if they had stayed, there would be less segregation, but they didn't, and that isn't going to stop, no matter how much money is spent on an attempt to improve the schools.


2. Disagree. For vouchers to be effective, it would have to move all of the kids from "bad neighborhoods" into better schools or else it would be unfair to those left behind.


I think something can be effective, but "unfair". Besides, if they are "left behind", they are left behind by choice.


In order to do this, you would have to force private schools to accept kids they didn't want. You would simply be moving the public school problem into the private schools.

That's the way it is done in Milwaukee, and that didn't happen there. A voucher school in Milwaukee (the largest and longest running voucher program in America) can't pick and choose their kids, and all the schools got better in Milwaukee when vouchers were put it.

The largest voucher system is in Sweden. I don't know whether they are allowed to pick and choose among students there.


3. Disagree. If you are going to enforce mixing of ethnic and economic classes in schools, you might as well do it in public schools. If not, you wind up with parallel systems which will be much more difficult to monitor and require twice the bureaucracy.

"Enforce"? I think "enable" is a better term. Today, there is segregation because poor people can't afford my house in my neighborhood. They can afford the same house in their neighborhood. With vouchers, they would be able to send their kid to a school of their choice in their neighborhood, if one existed, or in my neighborhood, if not. They still couldn't afford my house just yet, but over time there would be less incentive for people to live in my neighborhood instead of theirs, which would tend to lower property values in my neighborhood, and raise them in theirs.

[Meadmaker]

If this thread is only about segregation, I hardly see how private schooling will change anything.[QUOTE]

The people who left the city of Detroit when their kids turned four did so because they didn't want their kids in the bad schools there. With vouchers, some of them would have stayed, making the neighborhood less segregated.

[QUOTE]
If you talk about actual school improvement, vouchers suck.

Statistically, once you control for socio-economic factors, private schools perform the same as public schools.

Let me summarize the statistics I've read.

Pro-voucher side: After vouchers went in, we measured the kids' performance. The public schools got better, but they didn't catch up to the private schools, which also improved.

Anti-voucher side: If you control for the proper variables the schools performed equally.

Even if you accept the statistical adjustments made by the anti-voucher side, there's still some explaining to do, isn't there?

[Tricky]

When my friends left the city of Detroit rather than send their kids to school there, we could argue whether they were causing problems or fleeing from them. Either way, if they had stayed, there would be less segregation, but they didn't, and that isn't going to stop, no matter how much money is spent on an attempt to improve the schools.
It seems you agree that the segregation of Detroit is not due to the schools, at least, not in the whole.

I think something can be effective, but "unfair". Besides, if they are "left behind", they are left behind by choice.
Sometimes it is by parental choice. Kids pay the price for having lazy parents. With public schools, this is less of a problem.

That's the way it is done in Milwaukee, and that didn't happen there. A voucher school in Milwaukee (the largest and longest running voucher program in America) can't pick and choose their kids, and all the schools got better in Milwaukee when vouchers were put it.
There is a great deal of controversy as to how effective the Milwaukee voucher program has been (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=333144). One thing is certain though. It is not just vouchers. There was a bit of a cash input as well.
the experiences of the nearly 14,000 students now served by choice schools at a cost this year to taxpayers of $83 million. If you spend more, you get better schools. This is not big news.

This is especially disturbing though:
The amount of taxpayer money going to pay for religious education in Milwaukee has no parallel in the last century of American life. About 70% of the students in the program attend religious schools.
***
If any single factor distinguishes the families and parents at the choice schools from those in MPS, it is religion. Students in the choice program pray together in class. They read the Bible, the Qur'an or the Torah. They attend Mass. Most schools report that even students from families outside of their faith accept - and seek out - religion as part of education.
This amounts to government subsidization of religion. I don't mind paying for taxes for education. I don't want to pay for religious indoctrination.

"Enforce"? I think "enable" is a better term. Today, there is segregation because poor people can't afford my house in my neighborhood. They can afford the same house in their neighborhood. With vouchers, they would be able to send their kid to a school of their choice in their neighborhood, if one existed, or in my neighborhood, if not. They still couldn't afford my house just yet, but over time there would be less incentive for people to live in my neighborhood instead of theirs, which would tend to lower property values in my neighborhood, and raise them in theirs.
I don't see that this has anything to do with vouchers. If you give people money, they are able to move up socioeconomically. It matters little if you subsidize their education or their food. Actually, it does matter some. With vouchers, only families with children benefit from this influx of money into the family budget.

I give Milwaukee kudos for their willingness to plow so much money into education. I wish my state would do that. I would prefer a system that is more equitable. But living in Texas, that is simply not gonna happen. They hate taxes here. What I want is an example of a voucher program that works but costs the same as public education.

[Admiral]

Honest question to opponents of vouchers- do you believe we would have a better restaurant system if areas were sliced up into districts, and each one had a state-run food court that got the same amount of money whether or not people ate there, and therefore didn't care whether they had good quality at all?

[Tricky]

Honest question to opponents of vouchers- do you believe we would have a better restaurant system if areas were sliced up into districts, and each one had a state-run food court that got the same amount of money whether or not people ate there, and therefore didn't care whether they had good quality at all?
No.

Of course, that has nothing to do with public schools. If you think they don't care if they have good quality, you are maligining some of the most dedicated people in the world.

[Beth]

I for one don't want my tax dollars supporting Scientologist or Mormon fundamentalists schools.

I don't even want them supporting Catholic schools. I want a well defined curriculum with specific standards for teachers and for student advancement. I also want no religious dogma of any kind. In short, just like public schools.

I oppose school vouchers because I do not think that my taxes should be used to support religious schooling.


And I completely agree with the concerns about tax dollars going to religiously-based schools. That should not be permitted.

I understand that a lot of people on this forum do not like the idea of their tax dollars going to support religious education. My take on it is that my tax dollars are going to support education period. As long as the school is providing a good education and meeting all curriculum requirements, I don't think whether they add in religion is any of my business, as long as the parents of the children are aware of the religious aspects of the education they provide and have other options available to them if they don't like the religious aspects of it.

I see objections to tax dollars funding education at religious schools as being akin to objections to tax dollars funding medical care at religious hospitals. It is not the concern of those paying for the services (i.e. taxpayers) if such institutions provide religious services in addition to the medical or educational services taxpayers are funding.

I do understand and agree that there is a legimate concern in regards to taxing people and then spending the money to educate children in a way that people find morally objectionable. However, I place the same weight on atheists objections to religious training that I do to with the objections that young earth creationist believers have to their tax-dollars funding classes in evolution. The only way I can see to resolve such legimate concerns is to cease all public funding of education. I don't think that will improve our educational system and the reason I support vouchers is because I believe it has potential to improve our educational system.

[Meadmaker]

It seems you agree that the segregation of Detroit is not due to the schools, at least, not in the whole.

Not in the whole, but it can never end, or even get better, with the school system the way it is. People with four year old children who can afford to leave will keep leaving as long as the only choice they have is to go to public schools. They are leaving. They are leaving because of the schools. They aren't going to stop leaving unless there is an alternative.


Sometimes it is by parental choice. Kids pay the price for having lazy parents. With public schools, this is less of a problem.

I fully agree with the first two sentences, but that last one earns a :confused: .

It seems like you think equality is better than inequality, even if that means everything is equally bad. I would prefer to give the not so lazy ones an opportunity to change their situations, even if that's "unfair" to the ones "left behind". Moreover, if you have no choice, it's an incentive to not be lazy in the first place. If parents choose the school to which their youngsters go, they will feel more invested in that school.


There is a great deal of controversy as to how effective the Milwaukee voucher program has been (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=333144). One thing is certain though. It is not just vouchers. There was a bit of a cash input as well.

14,000 students. 83 million dollars. That's less than 6,000 bucks per student. That's less than a typical public school cost.


This is especially disturbing though:
This amounts to government subsidization of religion. I don't mind paying for taxes for education. I don't want to pay for religious indoctrination.

And that's the crux of the matter. (Pun intended) Who cares whether or not they are reading better? They are reading the Bible!!!!!

For my money, I don't care what they read as long as they read, but I understand this is a big issue for some. For me, I wouldn't care if religious schools were excluded. They were in Milwaukee when the program started, but a judge decided that was unconstitutional. Of course, this blatant judicial activism was oddly not met by storms of protest from the right wing.


I don't see that this has anything to do with vouchers. If you give people money, they are able to move up socioeconomically.

The parents don't get the money. The way vouchers affect the economic conditions is that I currently pay a premium for my house based on its location. The primary benefit of that location is that my kid doesn't have to attend school with the riff-raff. If I could live in my old neighborhood, but still send my kid to a school that I liked, I wouldn't be willing to pay 100,000 dollars more for my house. This would lower demand in my neighborhood, and raise it in the old neighborhood, without transferring any money to anyone.


With vouchers, only families with children benefit from this influx of money into the family budget.

Again, there is no influx of money. Now, public schools are free. With vouchers, public schools would be free and private schools would be free or cheaper, depending on how the rules are written. (In Sweden, a voucher school is not allowed to charge any amount above the cost of the voucher. I can't recall how Milwaukee does it. I believe they are allowed to charge parents.)

What I want is an example of a voucher program that works but costs the same as public education.

From your figures, Milwaukee is about the same. Cleveland is cheaper. Sweden is exactly equal, by law. I don't know of any other voucher programs currently operating.

[Tricky]

The way I read that article, the voucher was an $83 million additional input, not money that was taken out of school taxes. So it wasn't $6000 per student, it was an extra $6000 per student.

I could be wrong and will admit it if given evidence.

[Meadmaker]

The way I read that article, the voucher was an $83 million additional input, not money that was taken out of school taxes. So it wasn't $6000 per student, it was an extra $6000 per student.

I could be wrong and will admit it if given evidence.

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_03/Cash163.shtml

The schools' voucher payments are not based on tuition. Instead, a school's payment is determined based on reports it submits to the state that establish the per-pupil cost the school incurs in educating children. The state pays that amount for each voucher student to the private school, with the payment capped at what MPS received in per-pupil state aid. The maximum payment in 1998-99 was $4,894. It rose to $5,106 in 1999-2000 and $5,326 in 2000-01.


For those not interested in following the link, it's an anti-voucher article. The writers are distressed that some voucher schools are finding loopholes that let them get a voucher that ends up being less than or equal to the state portion of public school funding.

[Tricky]

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_03/Cash163.shtml


For those not interested in following the link, it's an anti-voucher article. The writers are distressed that some voucher schools are finding loopholes that let them get a voucher that ends up being less than or equal to the state portion of public school funding.
It does appear that some of the money comes from money that would otherwise be spent on public schools, but also that there are a lot of costs that require additional input. This is not surprising. They are essentially required to maintain two separate school systems. You cannot give vouchers without having measures in place that assure that the schools are doing a reasonable job. The voucher program does not appear to be "free". As I say, I commend Milwaukee for putting up extra cash for education. I have not seen any strong evidence that it was money well-spent.

[Meadmaker]

It does appear that some of the money comes from money that would otherwise be spent on public schools but also that there are a lot of costs that require additional input.


Did you read this somewhere, or are you just sure that it must be costing something somewhere?

And what about those parents who leave town rather than send their kids to public schools in large cities?

[Meadmaker]

What other characteristics do they have? Are they more educated? Are they less religious? What are the statistics for those with children as opposed to without?

I am in the second group, and do not agree with your explanation.

I oppose school vouchers because I do not think that my taxes should be used to support religious schooling.

I think that this so-called analysis is missing a lot of correlating factors.
Perhaps it's just coincidence that their principles are in line with their pocketbooks.

[pgwenthold]

Perhaps it's just coincidence that their principles are in line with their pocketbooks.


There are a LOT of things that "are in line" with our pocketbooks.

Amount of education, for example. Similarly, there is a correlation between amount of education and lack of religiousness, right? Hence, there will be a correlation between wealth and lack of religousness. Now, who is more likely to object to vouchers on grounds of not supporting religion: poor, religious people or wealthy, non-religious people?

And when it is the latter, why attribute it to the wealth as opposed to the obvious reason?

[Tricky]

Did you read this somewhere, or are you just sure that it must be costing something somewhere?
In one of the articles cited, one of the points the voucher opponents had was that it was a taxpayer burden. So yes, I did read it, but I can't say whether it was true or just partisan complaining. However, I find it highly unlikely that they could emplace a parallel school system without incurring some significant costs. As I mentioned earlier, education is not a fungible commodity.

And what about those parents who leave town rather than send their kids to public schools in large cities?
I cannot see that the voucher program would be any more effective in preventing suburban flight than simply improving the public schools. However, neither is free either in monetary value or effort spent. In my experiencing, outsourcing reduces accountability and often, quality. The free market is not a solution to all woes.

[Darth Rotor]

The people who support vouchers are upper-class a-holes who want to privatize everything. They don't give a damn about education.

See, I can make blanket statements too :p .
Enforced bussing was hardly a solution, yet it received considerable support from altruists who thought something was gained by giving some people a leg up while at the same time screwing others with a leg down. I think you'll find that a lot of people who are supporters of vouchers are rabid opponents of bleeding heart "enforced bussing" policies. I agree with Tricky, in that treating education as some market product or good is a profound conceptual error. Education is a core societal asset, but I digress.

Both the bussing approach and the voucher approach attempts to deal with dissatisfaction with some public schools on the cheap. Neither is particularly effective in that aim. The correct, if resource intensive, solution is to invest the resources, and if need be arm the teachers and administrators with the authority and security guards, to raise the low performing schools up. Public schools should not be considered "operations on a minimum bid basis" as a rule, which far too often they seem to be. Tying the funding to property taxes is, IMO, a part of the problem.

DR

[Segnosaur]

If education were a fungible commodity, that might make some sense, but it is not as if the school board saves a ton of money for every student it doesn't have to educate. Unless you are going to close a lot of schools (which can lead to other problems) you still have to rent buildings, pay teachers for each subject, provide heat and electricity etc.

Some schools may have to be closed (and perhaps some teachers layed off), but it would not have to be anything wide spread (and lets face it, with the changes in population demographics now you already have schools being closed and reopened.) And, there are other places that savings would exist: fewer textbooks needed, fewer computers, etc. Some balance would have to be reached... making the value of the voucher high enough to give people more flexibility to choose their school, yet low enough so that we don't have a mass exodus out of various schools.

Also I'm very unclear on the economics of what you propose. If you take a student out of public school and put him in private school, you are still removing (in your example) $7,500 from the public school system.

Yes, you'd be removing $7,500 from the public school system, but you'd also be removing a student. That means fewer textbooks needed, fewer computers, and perhaps fewer teachers (assuming you were going to keep the same student/teacher ratio).

Removing funding from a school isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as the per-captita funding is kept stable or even increased.

I'm also unclear as to who receives these vouchers. Is it need based? If you make it universal, you are simply reimbursing rich people part of the cost of sending their kids to private school, which I strongly oppose.

Well, those 'rich' people were paying taxes that were going to something they didn't particularly have an interest in using.

But the thing is, the 'rich' people have always been able to send their kids to private schools. I see vouchers as being aimed more at middle class families more than the rich.

The advantage of the voucher system is that it gives more flexibility to middle-income families who may have wanted to send their kids to a better school, but did not have the financial resources to do so. Giving them a voucher for part of the education costs (costs that they've already paid into) means that they have more options as to where they send their kids.


I also see no solution in any of the voucher programs that deals with problem kids. Public schools have to take them. Unless you force private schools to take them as well, then you wind up with a concentration of almost nothing but problem kids in private schools. If you're going to do that, you might as well just save a step, put up razor wire and turn them into prisons because you're just making an underculture of undesirables in our public schools.

Yeah, that last bit is somewhat over the top, I admit, but it is an extreme extrapolation of a genuine problem with vouchers.

Problem kids are always going to be 'problem kids', regardless of the number of non-problem kids around them. There are a couple of ways that a voucher system would benefit even those kids:
- As I've suggested before, if only part of the money is used for the voucher (with the rest remaing with the school board), there will be more money per capita to deal with these students. (That's assuming that money is an issue in providing their education)
- If a parent had a 'problem child' (and they actually cared about their education), then they could, in theory, try to find a school specifically geared towards handling such cases (as opposed to dumping them into a generic public school where everyone is treated the same)

[Billdave2]

This link is to a report by John Stossel about school vouchers.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338

I live in South Carolina and this has been a major issue in the state, not just because of the issue with the govenor's kids in the article, but also the fact that we consistently rank at the bottom of all the states in education. I know that for my child to get a good education I will have to move to another part of town, or send him to private school. Both are very cost prohibitive. Don't get me wrong, I live in one of the better school districts in the state, but there are definate differences in the schools within the district and we just happen to live in a neighbor hood where one of the schools (middle school) that my son would have to attend is far below the standards of the rest of the district. The other two middle schools are much better, even though they have smaller budgets and higher teacher/student ratio's. One of the other middle schools is even closer to my house than the "bad" one, but I can't send my sone there. The fact is having an education monoply is bad for the consumer. So how do we fix it? If voucher's aren't the answer, and more money doesn't work, what else can we do?

[Magyar]

If you live in the City of Detroit and your kid attends public school, your child will be attending a school where drugs and violence are rampant. His classmates will, with few exceptions, be low achievers. Therefore, when your child turns four years old, you will go house shopping in the suburbs unless you can afford private school. I've seen it again and again, and I've done it myself. Thios leaves people who either can't solve their own problems, or don't care to. That won't result in a decent neighborhood. To improve the neighborhood, you have to keep families in it.

It wouldn't matter if you hired a private tutor for every child, gave them all spiffy laptops, and had desks made of gold. The schools would still be awful, because everyone who could afford to leave, did.

I have three main contentions.

1. The public school system in America contributes to the economic and racial segregation that is a feature of American cities.

2. School vouchers would help reduce that segregation.

3. There is no more effective way to address the problem.




Meadmaker,

I agree with pretty much everything you say, but what I don't see is how exactly you think vouchers will prevent or remedy the situation.

OK, I live in the City of Detroit, or Wats LA (or pick the inner city of your choice) I get my $7500 to send my kids to private school. The last time I looked these schools are NOT located in these neighborhoods (Ok, you can pick a few - very few exceptions but realistically they do not exist)

So,
1) how do I get my kids to these schools?
public transportation from the hood to the burbs doesn't exist. and the private school isn't going to send a limo.
2) What am I going to do with my kid after school?
Those bad elements you talk about don't vanish like a fart in the wind when school closes. They live in the neighborhood. Hang out on the corner etc. and unless you put your kid in total social isolation he's looking at social hell if not worse. Besides, if you don't want to send the kid to the school because of these kids you'll probably not want your child hanging out with them after school, right!?

So the way I see it, giving vouchers to inner city parents will only entice them even more to get the heck out of the city. Problem made worse.

[Beerina]

I'm opposed to school vouchers because I fail to see how taking money away from public schools helps the common good in any way.

Do you view public schools like they're a utility like water, that's always there?

But what it supplies may not be used by all the people -- some send their kids to private schools. Hence the public school needs less money since it doesn't have that student. Why provide for that student if that student isn't there?

So what do you do with that money? Spending it needlessly on an empty space is an unethical thing for government to do.

So do you refund it as taxes to everybody, reducing their tax burden a little bit? That would be OK.

Alternatively, you could just refund that family's school tax portion up to the maximum they paid for that year (given the amount of public schooling, dollar wise per student, a family "gets" sending the kid to public school is far greater than the amount that family pays in school tax per year.)

That would be OK.

Or you can do vouchers, where the money follows the pupil to other accredited schools. This would normally be an amount in excess of what the family pays. As a libertarian type, I would not be in favor of this. However, given the massive taxes that make it hard to go to a private school, it's probably better than forcing taxes into only a single public school.

We should also acknowledge that the whole sordid mess is oriented about reducing the teacher's unions. What's the hidden force politically? That bit right there.

That's hardly something new, though. Consider also the Flexible Spending Accounts, where you can, before the start of the year, have some amount of your salary set aside, pre-tax, to be used to pay for medical expenses. So far so good, but it has its downside -- any unspent money you have to just forfeit to the government at the end of the year. So ya better not set too much aside.

You also can't add or subtract amounts in the middle of the year, making it even more dangerous to use.

So why don't do this? It seems logical to let you add more to it from future pay checks, if you suddenly need it, or to stop contributing near the end of the year if it looks like you're gonna overshoot. Or better yet, just let it roll over into the next year.

But that logical step is opposed by Democrats. Why? Because that would make a FSA more useable, and thus take more pressure off the health care reform movement, and the Democrats want a massive dependency on government. FSAs thwart this. Therefore they must be hard to use and scary to use. What's the hidden agenda? That is.

[Meadmaker]

There are a LOT of things that "are in line" with our pocketbooks.

Amount of education, for example. Similarly, there is a correlation between amount of education and lack of religiousness, right? Hence, there will be a correlation between wealth and lack of religousness. Now, who is more likely to object to vouchers on grounds of not supporting religion: poor, religious people or wealthy, non-religious people?

And when it is the latter, why attribute it to the wealth as opposed to the obvious reason?

Did the California initiative, on which the analysis was based, include religious schools? I don't know.

Certainly some people are quite bent out of shape about the possibility of religious schools being subsidized via vouchers, and there probably is an income correlation involved. However, when economic interests happen to align with voting patterns, I think most people would say that there is an "obvious reason" that is not religious in nature.

I'm not saying that there is one, single, reason why people support vouchers or oppose them. Reasons vary from person to person. However, people who are well served by the status quo tend to want to keep it, and people not well served by the status quo tend to want to change it. That pattern shows up on this issue as well.

[pgwenthold]

I'm not saying that there is one, single, reason why people support vouchers or oppose them. Reasons vary from person to person. However, people who are well served by the status quo tend to want to keep it, and people not well served by the status quo tend to want to change it. That pattern shows up on this issue as well.


Perhaps you should actually read what I have written in this thread. In fact, I am all in favor of changing the status quo. For example, I have suggested funnelling money from my local school district to schools in poorer areas. The opposite of "no school vouchers" is not necessarily "status quo." You disservice yourself by assuming that is what people want.

In the more general sense, you have not shown anything that suggests that school vouchers will hurt my situation at all. Your assertions have been met with equally legitimate assertions that the main people to benefit from vouchers will be my wealthy neighbors, which ultimately would serve me well. Hence, I it seems to me that you are arguing from false premises in the first place.

You apparently don't have religiousocity data, but you can't ignore it. You see the pattern based on wealth. But there are so many other possibilities. My argument on religion still stands. There is another: perhaps wealthier people are more likely to expect to have to pay for things, whereas poor people would love to get government support to pay for things they cannot currently afford?

How's this for an analogy: the government subsidizes public transportation, so it should give vouchers that can be used to buy an SUV, provided they never use public transportation again.

[Meadmaker]

Yes, you'd be removing $7,500 from the public school system, but you'd also be removing a student. That means fewer textbooks needed, fewer computers, and perhaps fewer teachers (assuming you were going to keep the same student/teacher ratio).

And to see this, all we have to do is look at places where they've been implemented. I've read a lot about Milwaukee schools, and all the anti-voucher web sites talk about money leaving the public school, but I have yet to see any numbers that have anything other than, "If it weren't for vouchers, we would have more money."

- If a parent had a 'problem child' (and they actually cared about their education), then they could, in theory, try to find a school specifically geared towards handling such cases (as opposed to dumping them into a generic public school where everyone is treated the same)

Exactly. It helps deal with the "one size fits all" model of centralized education. Of course, it isn't the only way to deal with it, but it is one way.

[Billdave2]

How's this for an analogy: the government subsidizes public transportation, so it should give vouchers that can be used to buy an SUV, provided they never use public transportation again.

The last time I checked I was not required by law to use public transportation (or any transportation for that matter).

[Meadmaker]

So,
1) how do I get my kids to these schools?
public transportation from the hood to the burbs doesn't exist. and the private school isn't going to send a limo.


That's a legitimate issue. I do see that as the one down side to the idea. On the other hand, schools will spring up to meet demand to some extent. However, on average, kids will travel farther, and no matter how you distribute the cost, it still means extra expense.


2) What am I going to do with my kid after school?
Those bad elements you talk about don't vanish like a fart in the wind when school closes. They live in the neighborhood. Hang out on the corner etc.

Certainly there's some truth to that. If you live in a bad neighborhood, it won't become good just because your kid isn't in it during the school day. However, it might be the difference between staying and going. For example, there will be some parents that like their street, but not their school. There will be others that don't like either, but they know that the kid's primary social contacts will be through school, not neighborhoods, and they figure it's worth staying for whatever reason, as long as their kid is in a place they find safe. Some will still leave, but some that would have left will stay.

Vouchers aren't some sort of panacea for problems. Milwaukee didn't become a paradise, and the schools didn't become perfect. On the other hand, nothing bad happened, either, unless you cound spending money on religious schools as "bad", and that wasn't even part of the original plan.

I think it is telling that, once implemented, no voucher plan has ever been repealed through initiatives or legislative actions. Judges have shut them down, but voters have not.

So the way I see it, giving vouchers to inner city parents will only entice them even more to get the heck out of the city. Problem made worse.

I'm not following your reasoning. I can see how it doesn't solve the problem, but I can't see how it makes it worse.

[Admiral]

No.

Of course, that has nothing to do with public schools. If you think they don't care if they have good quality, you are maligining some of the most dedicated people in the world.

Could you please provide evidence that public school teachers care more than private school teachers? After all, you seem to think they'll be more dedicated than teachers would under a voucher system.

[Tricky]

Could you please provide evidence that public school teachers care more than private school teachers? After all, you seem to think they'll be more dedicated than teachers would under a voucher system.
I said no such thing. I merely responded to when you said: ...do you believe we would have a better restaurant system if areas were sliced up into districts, and each one had a state-run food court that got the same amount of money whether or not people ate there, and therefore didn't care whether they had good quality at all?Your inference (intentional or otherwise) is that public schools are like this and teachers don't care about quality. I'm not maligning anyone. I know a lot of teachers both public and private school (and some who are both) and, for the most part, they are all dedicated.

[Tricky]

I'm not following your reasoning. I can see how it doesn't solve the problem, but I can't see how it makes it worse.
I think the implication is that by making vouchers available, it adds incintive to those who would like to flee the inner city. Actually, that's fairly logical.

[GodMark2]

Honest question to opponents of vouchers- do you believe we would have a better restaurant system if areas were sliced up into districts, and each one had a state-run food court that got the same amount of money whether or not people ate there, and therefore didn't care whether they had good quality at all?

No.

Of course, that has nothing to do with public schools. If you think they don't care if they have good quality, you are maligining some of the most dedicated people in the world.

I have to disagree with you, Tricky. But only if we include a few more requirement for these 'State Run Food Dispensaries", to make them operate more like public schools:

1) They give the food away for free.
2) They can't turn anyone away, unless they're a danger to the other customers.

Then we call them "Local Soup Kitchens" or "Food Banks".

Admiral, do you think food banks should be required to give money to patrons so they can go eat at the local McDonalds?

[Tailgater]

I have to disagree with you, Tricky. But only if we include a few more requirement for these 'State Run Food Dispensaries", to make them operate more like public schools:

1) They give the food away for free.
2) They can't turn anyone away, unless they're a danger to the other customers.

Then we call them "Local Soup Kitchens" or "Food Banks".

Admiral, do you think food banks should be required to give money to patrons so they can go eat at the local McDonalds?

Well, the food bank is receiving the patrons tax dollars based on the fact that the patron in question will be eating at that particular food bank. If the patron no longer eats there, why should the food bank keep the money? Also, the food cannot be free. The patrons would have to spend money, but highly discounted. I still spend alot of money throughout the school year on my kids. No where near dollar for dollar value of an education, but parents still spend money having their kids in school on top of tax dollars.

[Admiral]

Your inference (intentional or otherwise) is that public schools are like this and teachers don't care about quality. I'm not maligning anyone. I know a lot of teachers both public and private school (and some who are both) and, for the most part, they are all dedicated.

"Don't care" probably was too nasty a thing to say, and I don't mean to malign public school teachers in general (and certainly don't want to malign all of them- my experience at public school was almost entirely positive).

What I meant is that it seems incredibly naive to trust a system on the fact that people have good hearts. No matter how well-intentioned teachers and school administrators are (and they certainly aren't all well-intentioned), the fact is that the system doesn't hold them accountable, meaning that the education of students is at the mercy of how generous the school board and teachers are.

When public schools are held accountable, they're held accountable to attendance (which leads to perverse incentives, like failing students after only a few absences) or test scores (and I hardly need to say how badly that fails, considering NCLB). Why can't they be held accountable the way that any private service provider- a restaurant, a supermarket, a gardening service- is held accountable: through the choice of the people using their services? (In this case, the parents).

I think the implication is that by making vouchers available, it adds incentive to those who would like to flee the inner city. Actually, that's fairly logical.

For starters, I don't understand why that would be a bad thing. Why do you see a problem with parents moving their children to better areas? That makes the children better off.

The only problem you could claim is that this makes the kids that stayed worse off. There are many things wrong with this claim- for starters, why does it make them worse off? The school gets less money and has fewer students- they'd start firing the bad teachers.

Secondly, anywhere where there is an enormous amount of demand for private schools (in the form of parents in a lousy school district, each with a $10,000 voucher in their hand), people will start them. Private schools don't have to be elite academies, the only reason they are that way is that the current system ensures that only the rich can send their kids to private school (since if poor or middle-class people send their kids there, they have to pay double- both in taxes for the public school and with their money for the private school). A private school could be nothing more than a small building with a couple of dozen students. However, demand for these schools is currently suppressed by the fact that the money instead flows to the lousy unaccountable school in that district.

Thirdly, doesn't it show you that something is wrong with the system that you claim the only way it survives is by trapping people that would otherwise want to go to other schools? It's as though someone argued that East Berlin might be bad, but that if we took down the Berlin Wall people would leave to West Berlin and make the problem worse.

[Tricky]

Well, the food bank is receiving the patrons tax dollars based on the fact that the patron in question will be eating at that particular food bank. If the patron no longer eats there, why should the food bank keep the money? Also, the food cannot be free. The patrons would have to spend money, but highly discounted.
This is going to get really convoluted. Can we agree that the restaurant/food bank thing is an unnecessary and wretched analogy and stick with talking about schools? Really, it doesn't need an analogy. If you're talking about apples, you need not make an analogy to oranges, in spite of the fact that they share some characteristics.

I still spend alot of money throughout the school year on my kids. No where near dollar for dollar value of an education, but parents still spend money having their kids in school on top of tax dollars.
Indeed you do, especially if your child dares to do anything extracurricular. This at least should help quiet those who complain that they shouldn't have to pay school taxes since they don't have kids.

[WildCat]

In analyzing voter patterns, something became clear. People without children, who own their own homes, and who live in poor neighborhoods, support vouchers. People without children, who own their own homes, and who live in wealthy neighborhoods, oppose vouchers.

It isn’t hard to figure out the difference here. People with no children have no specific self interest related to the education of their own children. However, they have a great interest in property values, and also in quality of life in general.
People who have children and aren't poor have already moved to a neighborhood with a good school district and so support the status quo. People without kids hope that they'll have vouchers available so they don't have to move to some god-forsaken suburb in order for their children to get a decent education.

[Admiral]

I have to disagree with you, Tricky. But only if we include a few more requirement for these 'State Run Food Dispensaries", to make them operate more like public schools:

1) They give the food away for free.

Hold on, that doesn't make any sense. Public schools aren't "free," they're paid for with tax dollars. The whole point of vouchers is to let the parents choose how that money is spent. I'm not sure what you mean here.


2) They can't turn anyone away, unless they're a danger to the other customers.

I'm not sure about something here- what about scarcity? In your analogy, should the private schools be required to expand their class to fit everyone that wants to come in until they're forced to shut down? Or am I misinterpreting your analogy?


Then we call them "Local Soup Kitchens" or "Food Banks".

Admiral, do you think food banks should be required to give money to patrons so they can go eat at the local McDonalds?

You mean government-funded food banks? (Private soup kitchens, shelters, churches etc would be free to do what they want. Claiming that private charities give vouchers to patrons would be the equivalent of claiming that private schools should give vouchers to students instead of teaching them). I do think that giving "vouchers" that could be spent on food in other places would be much more effective than having a government-run food providing service.

If this idea sounds radical and silly to you, then you do realize we're talking about food stamps?

[Meadmaker]

Admiral, do you think food banks should be required to give money to patrons so they can go eat at the local McDonalds?

To the extent that the analogy makes any sense at all, it already happened. They are called "food stamps", and they came about because the government decided it was more efficient to let people choose their own food, with some restrictions, instead of picking the food for them.

ETA: I see admiral already pointed that out.

[WildCat]

I said no such thing. I merely responded to when you said:Your inference (intentional or otherwise) is that public schools are like this and teachers don't care about quality. I'm not maligning anyone. I know a lot of teachers both public and private school (and some who are both) and, for the most part, they are all dedicated.
But do not confuse "dedicated" with "competent" or "effective".

[Meadmaker]

I think the implication is that by making vouchers available, it adds incintive to those who would like to flee the inner city. Actually, that's fairly logical.

I'm not following. Today, they can't afford any private school anywhere, so if they live in the inner city and want to go to a good school, they have to move. With vouchers, they would have to move, or drive, or pick a good local school if one is available. (If vouchers fund religious schools, and the parents don't object to the religion, it's a safe bet one will be available. Otherwise, it might not be easy to find one.)

So, vouchers add two new options that aren't moving. They can still move if they want, but they don't have to. I can't see how that adds incentive.

[Meadmaker]

For starters, I don't understand why that would be a bad thing. Why do you see a problem with parents moving their children to better areas? That makes the children better off.

He's responding to me, and my contention that the current public school system contributes to urban blight by encouraging families with children to move, if they can. That leaves behind only people who can't afford to leave, or don't care.

But I can't see how vouchers make the problem worse. It seems to me that it creates an opportunity to stay, thus improving the neighborhood, without subjecting their children to lousy schools.

If anyone could convince me that it would make the problem of middle class flight worse, I would drop my support of vouchers like a hot rock.

[Tricky]

I'm not following. Today, they can't afford any private school anywhere, so if they live in the inner city and want to go to a good school, they have to move. With vouchers, they would have to move, or drive, or pick a good local school if one is available. (If vouchers fund religious schools, and the parents don't object to the religion, it's a safe bet one will be available. Otherwise, it might not be easy to find one.)

So, vouchers add two new options that aren't moving. They can still move if they want, but they don't have to. I can't see how that adds incentive.
I see what you are saying, but I think that scenario is less likely than this one:

Without vouchers they can't afford private school anyway, so they wouldn't be making a big improvement by moving. With vouchers, they can afford private school, but there are few if any good private schools near where they live (even religious ones) and so moving has greatly added appeal.

You can make a case for either scenario, so maybe we should call it a push and say that vouchers make little difference regarding suburban flight.

[Tailgater]

This is going to get really convoluted. Can we agree that the restaurant/food bank thing is an unnecessary and wretched analogy and stick with talking about schools? Really, it doesn't need an analogy. If you're talking about apples, you need not make an analogy to oranges, in spite of the fact that they share some characteristics.

Yes please. I was throwing in a successful monkey wrench.

Indeed you do, especially if your child dares to do anything extracurricular. This at least should help quiet those who complain that they shouldn't have to pay school taxes since they don't have kids.

I don't want to derail, but I look at the system a little wider. While I pay alot for my kids in school, I receive tax benefits for those kids, and I really feel like I shouldn't. It was my decision to have children and while I think there should be a base tax for everyone to support the schools, I also don't think there should be any kind of tax credits for families and that extra money should also go to the schools. I have a problem with the tax system in general concerning children in that it is designed to reward people for having more children. IMO, if you can't afford children on your after-tax money, stop having them.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

[QUOTE=Tsukasa Buddha;2864658]If this thread is only about segregation, I hardly see how private schooling will change anything.[QUOTE]

The people who left the city of Detroit when their kids turned four did so because they didn't want their kids in the bad schools there. With vouchers, some of them would have stayed, making the neighborhood less segregated.



Let me summarize the statistics I've read.

Pro-voucher side: After vouchers went in, we measured the kids' performance. The public schools got better, but they didn't catch up to the private schools, which also improved.

Anti-voucher side: If you control for the proper variables the schools performed equally.

Even if you accept the statistical adjustments made by the anti-voucher side, there's still some explaining to do, isn't there?

I have yet to see any such statistics.

Also, it is presumptuous to label people into two groups.

ETA: Oh, yes, and also strawmantuous. You are taking arguments out of context.

[Tricky]

I don't want to derail, but I look at the system a little wider. While I pay alot for my kids in school, I receive tax benefits for those kids, and I really feel like I shouldn't. It was my decision to have children and while I think there should be a base tax for everyone to support the schools, I also don't think there should be any kind of tax credits for families and that extra money should also go to the schools. I have a problem with the tax system in general concerning children in that it is designed to reward people for having more children. IMO, if you can't afford children on your after-tax money, stop having them.
I strongly disagree. (And I find it amusing that both of us are taking the positions that should logically be the other's if we were both selfish wankers.)

I consider education to be a part of the infrastructure of this country. I don't want just my kids educated. I want to walk into a shop and know that the shopkeeper can do basic math. I want people to know how diseases are transmitted so they won't let their kids go around un-vaccinated. I want EVERYBODY to be able to read signs. And I'm willing to pay for the privilege of living in a country with universal (nearly) education.

I agree with the "too many kids" thing though, but I can't seem to get anyone to agree with my suggestion of forcible birth control (including abortion) for people who can't support the kids they have.

[WildCat]

I consider education to be a part of the infrastructure of this country. I don't want just my kids educated. I want to walk into a shop and know that the shopkeeper can do basic math. I want people to know how diseases are transmitted so they won't let their kids go around un-vaccinated. I want EVERYBODY to be able to read signs. And I'm willing to pay for the privilege of living in a country with universal (nearly) education.
If you lived in Chicago all your fears would come to fruition, but from those who went to public school. I find it curious that you somehow associate "literate" with "product of a public school", because it isn't the case here!

[Admiral]

I consider education to be a part of the infrastructure of this country. I don't want just my kids educated. I want to walk into a shop and know that the shopkeeper can do basic math. I want people to know how diseases are transmitted so they won't let their kids go around un-vaccinated. I want EVERYBODY to be able to read signs. And I'm willing to pay for the privilege of living in a country with universal (nearly) education.

You don't see why removing inter-school competition works AGAINST your goal?

[Admiral]

I agree with the "too many kids" thing though, but I can't seem to get anyone to agree with my suggestion of forcible birth control (including abortion) for people who can't support the kids they have.

I personally find that incredibly scary and intrusive.

[Tailgater]

I strongly disagree. (And I find it amusing that both of us are taking the positions that should logically be the other's if we were both selfish wankers.)

:D

I consider education to be a part of the infrastructure of this country. I don't want just my kids educated. I want to walk into a shop and know that the shopkeeper can do basic math. I want people to know how diseases are transmitted so they won't let their kids go around un-vaccinated. I want EVERYBODY to be able to read signs. And I'm willing to pay for the privilege of living in a country with universal (nearly) education.

I agree with the "too many kids" thing though, but I can't seem to get anyone to agree with my suggestion of forcible birth control (including abortion) for people who can't support the kids they have.

I think you might have missed something in my post or I don't understand what you disagree with. I agree everyone should have to pay a base tax for school. No doubt about that. My problem is that the people who are using that system are the same ones who get tax credits at the end of the year. I have three kids (one step and two of my own). It's a sweet credit. But that credit should be put toward the very benefit that I am using by sending my kids to public school. People who pay the base tax for public schools and don't have children, get no credit for it. My point being, drop the child credits and put them back into the schools along with the base tax everyone pays. Also use those credits as the bargaining chips for vouchers. The base tax still pays for public schools and the credits can be transferred to go toward the parents school of choice.

[Tricky]

I personally find that incredibly scary and intrusive.
So you like the present system whereby people can have as many kids as they want and the government will take care of them, or would you prefer they were turned loose to forage and live by survival of the fittest? Yeah, it's scary all right, but so is China-like overpopulation (where they have enforced birth control).

[Meadmaker]

[QUOTE=Meadmaker;2864748][QUOTE=Tsukasa Buddha;2864658]If this thread is only about segregation, I hardly see how private schooling will change anything.

I have yet to see any such statistics.

Also, it is presumptuous to label people into two groups.

ETA: Oh, yes, and also strawmantuous. You are taking arguments out of context.


The most often cited study was by Caroline Hoxby. Plenty of statistics there. I'm not inclined to look them up at the moment, but I've seen them, in context.

[Tricky]

If you lived in Chicago all your fears would come to fruition, but from those who went to public school. I find it curious that you somehow associate "literate" with "product of a public school", because it isn't the case here!
What is your solution to this?

[Meadmaker]

I see what you are saying, but I think that scenario is less likely than this one:

Without vouchers they can't afford private school anyway, so they wouldn't be making a big improvement by moving. With vouchers, they can afford private school, but there are few if any good private schools near where they live (even religious ones) and so moving has greatly added appeal.

You can make a case for either scenario, so maybe we should call it a push and say that vouchers make little difference regarding suburban flight.

No way on the push. Here's why.

Not only can the inner city people not afford private school today, they also can't afford good public schools. If they could buy my house in my suburb, they wouldn't have to send their kids to lousy, inner city public schools. They could send them to good, suburban, public schools.

So, give them a voucher. Now, they can afford to send them to private schools in the suburbs, but they still can't afford to live in the suburbs. No one gave them any money for the house. Those people stuck in the ghetto are still stuck in the ghetto, but their kids might be able to have better schools.

Meanwhile, there are some parents who might be willing to stay in the city, except for the schools, and have the means to escape to the suburbs. With vouchers, they can still move to the suburbs, and then they can go to public or private schools, but they don't have to move in order to go to good schools. They now have an option that includes living in the city, and good schools.

[Meadmaker]

In the more general sense, you have not shown anything that suggests that school vouchers will hurt my situation at all.

Are you denying the connection between school quality and property values? If so, I suggest you pick up a real estate listing brochure and ask why the homes in good school districts have things like "Grosse Pointe Schools" in the listing.

Once school attendance is divorced from geography, there won't be much point in adding those lines to the listing.

P.S. I'm not asserting that it is the only factor, and that the ones you cited are irrelevant, but it would be naive to think that some people are not voting based on pocketbook issues.

[Billdave2]

I did a little research last night about the budgets of my local schools and tuition at the private (christian) school in town.

My local school district has a budget of over 78 million dollars. They serve slightly over 12,000 students. Average class size is ranges from 20 in elementary to 27 in high school. Average teacher salery is 43K/year. Some quick math shows that this budget works out to about $6,500 per student which means each class represents $130,000 to $175,000 by the budget. In comparison the private school tuition is $2,600 per year.

So if parents who pulled out there kids to send to private school got a voucher for the whole amount of the tuition it would be less than half what is in the budget. I have a hard time understanding why the public schools need twice as much money to function even if you consider that the public school has a more extensive bus system (which is the only difference I know of between the two).

[pgwenthold]

Are you denying the connection between school quality and property values?

Not at all. I just think it goes the other direction.

Schools in wealthy areas are better because they are in wealthy areas.

This is a consequence of basing funding on local property taxes. Schools in wealthy areas, where property tax revenue is high, get a lot more funding.

There is also the fact that wealthier people are more educated on average, and therefore, the kids come from more educated parents. Do you think it is a coincidence that college towns tend to have pretty good high schools? It's because they're loaded with professors' kids.

[Segnosaur]

I have a hard time understanding why the public schools need twice as much money to function even if you consider that the public school has a more extensive bus system (which is the only difference I know of between the two).

I can think of a couple of possibilties that may come into play here:

- The public system may be using unionized staff, whereas the private (or christian) school may get by with non-unionized staff

- Did the private school have a wide range of after school activites (such as sports teams)? If its a small school, it may not have had enough students to bother with such luxaries

- Its also possible that tuition at the private school only covers part of the cost of education, and that money is obtained in different ways (for example, if its a christian school, is it affiliated with a church that might be providing some resources?)

[pgwenthold]

- Public schools have to take everyone, and therefore have to spend more on things like special programs.

[Meadmaker]

There is also the fact that wealthier people are more educated on average, and therefore, the kids come from more educated parents. Do you think it is a coincidence that college towns tend to have pretty good high schools? It's because they're loaded with professors' kids.

I think this is, in fact, the key element. What I'm saying is that people are willing to pay a premium, in the form of higher house prices, in order to have their kids be guaranteed a chance to go to school with all those other kids of educated parents. Of course, they can only do this if they, themselves are wealthy, which probably means that they are educated.

I can't blame anyone for wanting that. I know I did, which is why I bought a house in an expensive suburb so that my kid could go to school with all those other kids of educated parents. If I were poor, I couldn't have done that. The houses would have been out of my price range.


I understand why parents would want that sort of economic segregation. I just can't understand why the government ought to perpetuate it.


Thought for the day. We actually already have school vouchers, on a national level. When I bought my house in my expensive suburb so that my kid could go to a high quality public school, I took out a mortgage that was a lot higher than the one in the neighborhood across the freeway. That means higher interest payments. The government gives me a tax break on the interest I pay. Thank you, taxpayers, for subsidizing my decision to send my kid to a high quality public school.




(Full disclosure statement. After a year in public school, my wife decided it still wasn't good enough for our kid, so now he attends a private school, and I'm flat broke. On the other hand, the administration at the private school is vehemently opposed to vouchers. They don't want the strings that would be attached.)

[pgwenthold]

I understand why parents would want that sort of economic segregation. I just can't understand why the government ought to perpetuate it.


Who says the government should perpetuate it? Go back and read my responses from early in the thread. There are ways to address the problem that do not require providing government funding to religious schools. The opposite of vouchers does not have to be "status quo."

[Billdave2]

I can think of a couple of possibilties that may come into play here:

- The public system may be using unionized staff, whereas the private (or christian) school may get by with non-unionized staff

- Did the private school have a wide range of after school activites (such as sports teams)? If its a small school, it may not have had enough students to bother with such luxaries

- Its also possible that tuition at the private school only covers part of the cost of education, and that money is obtained in different ways (for example, if its a christian school, is it affiliated with a church that might be providing some resources?)


1. I am in South Carolina, unions are not involved.
2. The private school doesn't have a football team but competes in all other sports.
3. It is a baptist church but gets no subsidy from SBC.

They do only have one or two busses, but if you take busses out of public budget it still comes out to over $6,000 per student.

[Billdave2]

- Public schools have to take everyone, and therefore have to spend more on things like special programs.

But what percentage of students in public school are in special programs? Lets say 10% (which I would think would be very high number). Do special programs for that 10% cost as much as the other 90%? Does that seem reasonable? Do you think the parents of those kids who need special programs would like to be able to send them to private schools that would better meet those special needs?

If a parent takes a kid out of public school and puts him in a private school (or even homeschools) giving them a voucher for some (but not all) of the money that is budgeted per child would result in more money per child for those that are left. Win-Win!

[pgwenthold]

But what percentage of students in public school are in special programs? Lets say 10% (which I would think would be very high number). Do special programs for that 10% cost as much as the other 90%?


Special programs are far more costly than regular programs. For example, the teacher/student ratio has to be much, much higher. Whereas a teacher in a good class could easily handle 25 - 30, in special programs that might go to 5 or even less of highly specialized teachers. They could easily be making twice the pay of a regular teacher at a private school.

Good students don't need a lot to learn.

[pgwenthold]

1. I am in South Carolina, unions are not involved.
2. The private school doesn't have a football team but competes in all other sports.
3. It is a baptist church but gets no subsidy from SBC.



Does it get money from the local church at all?

When I went to catholic school, the school was supported I assume some by the dioscese but a lot by the church (through church donations). Then again, I don't think church members paid tuition (none that I knew of). I just know that "school expenditures" were part of the church budget.

[Billdave2]

Special programs are far more costly than regular programs. For example, the teacher/student ratio has to be much, much higher. Whereas a teacher in a good class could easily handle 25 - 30, in special programs that might go to 5 or even less of highly specialized teachers. They could easily be making twice the pay of a regular teacher at a private school.

Good students don't need a lot to learn.

Using my local school as an example (see numbers on page 2). If 10% of the kids are in special programs (1,200 out of 12,000) and you put them in classes of 5, that would be 240 "extra" teachers. Actually it would be only 200 extra because the 1,200 in classes of 20-27 would have still needed 50teachers, but lets use 240 for this example. The average salery is $43,000 so double it to $86,000 per year. That comes to just over $20 million per year (The actual total teacher's saleries for the year are $40 million before fringes are added in). So subtract $20 Million from the budget and 1,200 kids and the per student dollar value is $5,370, still more than double what the private school cost and we have removed special needs kids at an extremly conservative amount.

Private school still costs much less in "real" dollars, for the same thing.

[Billdave2]

Does it get money from the local church at all?

When I went to catholic school, the school was supported I assume some by the dioscese but a lot by the church (through church donations). Then again, I don't think church members paid tuition (none that I knew of). I just know that "school expenditures" were part of the church budget.

This I don't know, but the tuition is for a student who is not a member of the church.

[Mycroft]

My problem with voucher programs is that they seem to be a plot to undermine the public school system by pulling funding from it one kid at a time. The backers seem to be predominantly religious conservatives who want their kids out of the public school system for religious reasons.

[Segnosaur]

This I don't know, but the tuition is for a student who is not a member of the church.

The local church may still be giving money to the school, even if its not allocated on a per student (or per church member) basis.

Just wondering, does this church belong to any sort of 'school board'? Not sure how your budget is calculated, but some public school money does get spent on head office administration. (Not that administation costs aren't excessive in some cases.)

[Billdave2]

My problem with voucher programs is that they seem to be a plot to undermine the public school system by pulling funding from it one kid at a time. The backers seem to be predominantly religious conservatives who want their kids out of the public school system for religious reasons.

I can't speak for others but in my case it has to do with quality of education. The schools in my local district (from my posts above) are actually some of the best in the state, and although South Carolina has a bad reputation in general, the two high schools in my district are both top notch. Most of the 9 elementary schools are very good also. Two of the three middle schools are in line with the two high schools, but the third is dreadful. I live just inside its area and will have to move in order to send my son to one of the other schools. That is the problem. I don't have any choices. I can't afford private school tuition. I would love to be able to send my son to the best schools in town. When it comes down to it, the people that are really screwed by all this are the poor and middle class who can't afford the better schools. Rich people will send their kids to private school anyway or move into "good" public school areas. The problem, is money isn't the answer to better schools and there are problems with schools in this country in general. There is no one size fits all school that all students can thrive in, and public schools cannot meet those needs completly. There needs to be a healthy mix of school types, and these types should be available to all, not just the rich. The best way to acheive this is with some way for everyone to have access to different types of schools. And if religous types want to send their kids to religous schools, and those schools meet standards, what is wrong with that? If you want to send your kid to a school for the arts, or a school for future scientists or whatever, as long as the kids get a good education they should have those options.

[Billdave2]

The local church may still be giving money to the school, even if its not allocated on a per student (or per church member) basis.

Just wondering, does this church belong to any sort of 'school board'? Not sure how your budget is calculated, but some public school money does get spent on head office administration. (Not that administation costs aren't excessive in some cases.)

The church school is acredited by the state. The budget numbers I am showing do include administration and all costs, but the private school has administration also. It is a fairly large school, the high school is a 2A school for competing in state sports which is not big put not the smallest either.

[Segnosaur]

The church school is acredited by the state. The budget numbers I am showing do include administration and all costs, but the private school has administration also. It is a fairly large school, the high school is a 2A school for competing in state sports which is not big put not the smallest either.
I know the school itself will need administrative staff (principal, secretaries, school nurse or leaches to bleed the student's wounds, etc.) I'm talking about central administration. (For example, I assume the public school is controlled by some sort of elected trustees, in which case the cost of their meetings must be factored in.) Does the religious school have similar administration outside of the school.

[Billdave2]

I know the school itself will need administrative staff (principal, secretaries, school nurse or leaches to bleed the student's wounds, etc.) I'm talking about central administration. (For example, I assume the public school is controlled by some sort of elected trustees, in which case the cost of their meetings must be factored in.) Does the religious school have similar administration outside of the school.

I don't know about the private school, but the school district's budget for Trustee expense is less than $15,000 or 0.019% of the budget.

[Segnosaur]

I don't know about the private school, but the school district's budget for Trustee expense is less than $15,000 or 0.019% of the budget.
Trustees were only one example of the cost of administering a group of schools. You also need secretaries at the head office, infrastructure (e.g. computers) to handle recordkeeping and to handle things like transfers within the board, etc. If the private school is stand-alone, it won't have any of those types of expenses. Those types of costs could account for the extra expenses. (Especially if the board itself is wasteful.)

[Billdave2]

Trustees were only one example of the cost of administering a group of schools. You also need secretaries at the head office, infrastructure (e.g. computers) to handle recordkeeping and to handle things like transfers within the board, etc. If the private school is stand-alone, it won't have any of those types of expenses. Those types of costs could account for the extra expenses. (Especially if the board itself is wasteful.)

I will be the first to admit a large school district has more overhead than a small private school. I don't question why they have more stuff in total, but why does it cost more per student. The small private school still has to keep records, handle the transfer of new students in/old students out, and computers and such.I t is the porpotionality of the situation. Also, there should be at least some economies of scale somewhere to help mitigate the additional requirements at least to some extent.

[Segnosaur]

I will be the first to admit a large school district has more overhead than a small private school. I don't question why they have more stuff in total, but why does it cost more per student. The small private school still has to keep records, handle the transfer of new students in/old students out, and computers and such.I t is the porpotionality of the situation. Also, there should be at least some economies of scale somewhere to help mitigate the additional requirements at least to some extent.

Although the private schools may have to worry about things like recordkeeping (as well as individual public schools under a board), there are things that the board schools would have to worry about

Not that I'm saying its correct, or that thre isn't waste, just that the waste may not be at the school level; it may be with the board administration.

[Billdave2]

Although the private schools may have to worry about things like recordkeeping (as well as individual public schools under a board), there are things that the board schools would have to worry about

Not that I'm saying its correct, or that thre isn't waste, just that the waste may not be at the school level; it may be with the board administration.

I would agree with that. I am saying that vouchers/more school choice is a better way to go than throwing more money at the current system. I am using the schools in my town as my examples, because I was able to get data, but with the one exception (the middle school from my earlier posts) I think the rest of the schools are as good or better than the private school in my town. There is private catholic elementary that I would rank near the top of the list of elementary schools, but I have no idea how much the tuition is, so I didn't include it in my calculations. Once again our local district is one of the top ten in the state. Some districts in the lower part of the state are dreadful, and if I lived there sending my child to private school would be more urgent. I just don't think everybody (or even the majority of people) in favor of some type of voucher/school choice is a raging fundamentalist christian who would rather have the government subsidise sending thier kids to inferior christian schools for religous reasons, or rich people who want to destroy public schools to spite poor people.

[pgwenthold]

I would agree with that. I am saying that vouchers/more school choice is a better way to go than throwing more money at the current system.


I point out again that this is a false dichotomy. The opposite of vouchers does not have to be the status quo (or more like the same)

[Meadmaker]

I live just inside its area and will have to move in order to send my son to one of the other schools.

And that, in a nutshell, is what our school system has created. Does anyone think it ought to be that way? That people should move in order to attend a school that suits their fancy? Or, if they can't afford to move, that they are stuck with what they've got?

That is the reality today. There's no denying it. BD is like me, and my friends, and countless others. He will move, because he can, away from a neighborhood which will be left with others who did not move, because they could not. Segregation is the inevitable consequence of our current system.

So, how to change it?

We could provide school choice, in which case no one would be forced by geographical circumstances to attend a bad school.

However, some will say, a better choice would be to fix the poor schools. Make them better.

I see two problems with that. First, does anyone want bad schools? I think the answer is no. Despite that, there are bad schools. Why? Lack of money is often cited, but you will find that the worst schools often have very high spending per pupil. It certainly isn't as simple as spending money. I don't have the answer, but my point is that no one does. If they did, they would fix the problem. Obviously, they can't.

Second, I suspect that I understand the problem. The problem is not the schools, or the teachers, the facilities or administrators. Bad schools are bad because there are bad students, just like pwengthold noted that good schools are good because they are filled with children of highly educated parents. It isn't hard to figure out. If you base the school attendance on geography, there will always be an incentive to move to an area where more high achievers live, and since those areas will be more desirable, there will always be a financial premium to live there, which will perpetuate the economic segregation we have today.

So it has been ever since the invention of the automobile allowed people to live one place and work another. Before then, the laborers and managers and merchants had to live close to each other and all except the richest had to go to the same schools. Our ability to commute to work ended that. Now, the elite can live in one place, and drive to work, where they will meet the not so elite, and at the end of the day, they will drive their separate ways. I don't see any way of ending that completely, but I don't see any reason we should aggravate the situation by demanding that you attend the same school as your neighbors.

[Mycroft]

I see two problems with that. First, does anyone want bad schools? I think the answer is no. Despite that, there are bad schools. Why? Lack of money is often cited, but you will find that the worst schools often have very high spending per pupil. It certainly isn't as simple as spending money. I don't have the answer, but my point is that no one does. If they did, they would fix the problem. Obviously, they can't.

One of the reason private schools are as successful as they are is they have the option of turning away the bad students. The public school, where my daughter attends, is required to accommodate everyone, from the discipline problem to the severely disabled who needs special care.

Vouchers don't address these people, they just make it easier for the wealthy to insulate their kids from them.

Sure, I chose my house because of the school district it's in. Without that consideration, I'd be living somewhere much more urban and much less expensive.


So it has been ever since the invention of the automobile allowed people to live one place and work another. Before then, the laborers and managers and merchants had to live close to each other and all except the richest had to go to the same schools. Our ability to commute to work ended that. Now, the elite can live in one place, and drive to work, where they will meet the not so elite, and at the end of the day, they will drive their separate ways. I don't see any way of ending that completely, but I don't see any reason we should aggravate the situation by demanding that you attend the same school as your neighbors.

I know people who struggle just to pay the additional fees having a kid in school requires. These are not people who would be able to come up with thousands of extra dollars to cover the gap between their voucher and private school tuition every semester. Under a voucher program, their kids would be left behind in public schools made worse by the diversion of funds to private schools and the concentration of the problem students. It seems to me that would create a greater stratification of society.

[quixotecoyote]

I applaud Meadmaker for pointing out the issue with bad students. My parents are/were teachers and I've had a fair bit of involvement with various school systems in different capacities.

The school system is only as good as the students going to it. I know some students who simply do not care. In some student populations hatred of authority is rampant and failing scores are a mark of status/credibility.

In others, parents have explicitly told their children to give up. A teacher friend of mine recounted the battles she lost with a parent who refused to let his child do homework because he should be working in the family business. The kid wanted to go to college, but after a few grades of his parents telling him college was for liberals and not honest working people, he gave up. It was typical for the area (yay red states).

To figure out why a school performs the way it does the first thing to look at is the culture it exists in. Does the district as a whole have a culture focused on education? athleticism? anti-intellectualism? apathy?

This is the baseline that all other factors build upon, from the teachers to the funding to the administrators. All have an effect on the running of the school, but the students, parents and community are all products of the local culture and are the base material for them to work with.

As others noted before, private schools have an advantage as they can filter out the students who retain aspects of the culture counter-productive to education. Public schools have very limited options in that regard. What needs to happen is that the public schools need to be strengthened so that they can overcome their disadvantages, ideally serving even those children whose parents wouldn't care enough to use a voucher to send them to a better school.

I've got some ideas on that nature as far as multi-track curriculum based on periodic testing, with the focus shifted from school years to quarters in order to facilitate movement between different tracks.

[Meadmaker]

One of the reason private schools are as successful as they are is they have the option of turning away the bad students. The public school, where my daughter attends, is required to accommodate everyone, from the discipline