themistocles

It can't be stressed enough that my support for vouchers is strictly based on the assumption that mass-migrations to the private schools are not only a myth but should not be allowed. Therefore, this supposed great treasury of money that the public schools fear losing is not measurably threatened. If private schools retain private status with vouchers and such vouchers put specifically high hurdles to limit them to the economically indignent, then we are not "skimming" off the top percentile at the expense of the public school system. Ideally, the voucher system should have negligable effect on any system, and rather focus on simply giving a hand to a categorically very small number of students that are disadvantaged.



I don't know about that. Public schools may be more tight with the wallet when it comes to hiring teachers, but private school teachers I do believe tend to get paid less. Otherwise, the benefits for working for state and county (here in Nevada, we don't have school districts, you work for the state) tend to be far more secure and superior to private school benefits (where they even exist at all).

Patently true and a reason why I argue that private schools must retain their private status in order for vouchers to have any meaning. However, private schools sometimes actually do hold higher academic testing standards, on top of this fact. Most public schools have a ten point swing per grade, whereas there are plenty of private schools that have an eight point swing per grade, such as a 90 is an A in public schools but a B in some private schools.

But, yeah, while I think anyone in their right mind would rate public schools on absolute terms as inferior to private schools, no one is arguing that the public schools have to contend with more. But I think that's unrelated to the voucher debate.

But I think the rest of your arguments are kind of null and void as long as the conditions I stated are in place. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of fatalism towards the public school system which ironically seems endemic to anti-voucher positions.

While I understand that public schools must account for a wildly wide variety of children, I think its a mistake to lower school standards to give minimal education to everyone rather than a reasonable level of education to those who'll accept it. I don't believe we need to teach special relativity in the 2nd grade, but for christ sakes, it wouldn't kill anyone to bring back geography as a subject. More essays, less multiple choice. Maybe even tighten grades up, as I mentioned some private schools do. I don't think getting 60% on homework or a test should constitute a passing grade, really. Not unreasonable standards for the average student to make.

Calzaer

I'm not sure I quite understand your first paragraph. Just to clarify, is your position that allowing the private schools to remain selective (as well as giving vouchers only to the lower-income families) will prevent the mass-migration scenario?

If so:

Hmm. I suppose that's true. I can't seem to find anything to argue with there. The middle class gets bonked on the nose again, but that's nothing unusual (and in this case is probably what would prevent the demise of the public school altogether).

The rest of your post seems to be entering into a discussion of educational standards, on which I fully agree with you (but I won't actually admit to it until I'm out of college, since I much prefer multiple choice to essays).

dangin

Taking money from public schools really does not seem to be the answer. That said, don't let the schools be your children's primary source of education. Shitty public, excellent private or otherwise. If your "average" kid comes out of high school with only what he/she learned in school under their belt, then you failed as a parent.

keitht

Premise: Educating children to be functional and productive to the greatest extent possible is good. Not all children's families can afford to fund their children's education with the family resources*. Tax all adults in order to provide funding to subsidize the education of each child*.

Collectivist: Take all of the education funds and subsidize a single education system run as a government agency to educate the greatest number of children to an adequete level of knowledge.

Individualist: Provide the subsidy to each child (i.e., parent) to allow them to purchase the best education they can find that meets their individual needs.

It isn't a matter of X number of geniuses and X number of un-educated. Its a matter of efficiently using the money we're spending on education. Forcing parents to spend their education money on a government education bureaucracy (which is all we're doing with the public schools, now), is not a formula for efficiency. Bureaucracies are as self-interested as any individual. If you look at the statistics for the last 50 years and the change in the number of teachers, administrators and support workers in public education, you'll see where the money is going. Its going to the bureaucracy, not the classroom. If you want efficiency, then you have to get the power out of the bureaucrats' hands and into the customer's hands. Giving money directly to the bureaucracy only gaurantees that you'll have to give more money to the bureaucracy next time.

As long as we continue to think the public schools are the end all of education and that the education everybody gets in them is "good enough", then we will only get mediocrity. There is a level of "good enough", but what that level is is for me (or the parent of any child getting an education) to decide, not some bureaucrat, or even the populace as a whole.

Keith

* These sub-premises could be a whole other thread in themselves.

lisarea

True, but. remember that, regardless of whether they're learning anything or not, they're required to Sit There. By law. By law, kids who are bored and unchallenged are actually required to just learn to sit there. I was actually told this when my son was in kindergarten. Sure, the schools don't really have much to offer him academically, but he'll learn to sit still. For thirteen years, he'll learn to sit still. And from teachers throughout his school career, I've heard the argument that doing a bunch of menial busy work will be good preparation for the workplace. As though we should not only expect but actually PREPARE for him to end up in some mind-numbing job where the only prerequisite is to tolerate repetitiveness. Regardless of what I teach him at home, he shouldn't have to put up with that.

And on the main topic, vouchers would not have helped much, either. I have no interest in sending my child to school to learn "creation science" or whatever they call it, and to memorize bible verses, so a voucher option would be effectively moot in my case.

Aside from that, I thoroughly resent the notion that my tax dollars would go to support such a system.

1. Parents already get tax deductions for their children.
2. Everyone pays for the schools, regardless of whether they're going to use them.

As such, on the whole, non-parents shoulder a greater financial burden for the schools than parents do.

Why, then, should those parents who choose to send their kids to private schools be able to reallocate the taxes that others have paid to maintain the public school systems? It is in our better interests as a society to support school systems that do the best job possible educating the greatest numbers of children. If we allow a bunch of carefully selected children to opt out of that system, taking OUR tax dollars with them--not theirs, mind you--we're just creating a worse situation for those kids who are left behind.

As long as the private schools can continue to be choosy, requiring religious tests, reserving the right to refuse students, etc., a voucher system funnels funds out of the neediest of the schools, further ostracizing certain segments of society, and leaving the worst schools out there with only the neediest of students and fewer funds. Good grief. Maybe we should just toss those kids in prison preemptively.

themistocles

Totally agree with Keitht, but I should point out again, that I don't view, nor should vouchers be viewed as a solution to a problem. I even maintain for them to be most useful, they must have minimal effect on any educational system. They're there to enable families--individuals--go to school where they otherwise are unable. This doesn't mean cutting public school budgets to fund five kids to change schools (strawman, people, strawman), the source of these vouchers can be debated.

Meanwhile, we should figure out to fix the public schools on their own. The concern over vouchers with fears at their effect towards the public school system is only a sign of complacency. Our schools only seem underfunded because they're inefficient. You can't measure eductation level firstly and lastly by dollars spent. Nor can you measure academic levels reasonably by lowering the standards until everyone can make it.