NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your opinions on this issue? Should schools use vouchers?

This is my basic understanding of how vouchers work:
Every student living in a certain area is given a voucher for a certain amount of money. They can then take this voucher and use it to pay tuition for any school. State schools would charge exactly the value of the voucher, so if people wanted to, they could continue to go to state schools for free, just as they had always done. If they wanted to go to a private school, they could use the voucher to help pay for tuition.

Based on this information, I am in favor of vouchers.
1) They allow greater freedom of religion, as people who couldn't otherwise afford parochial schooling now can
2) In general, competition will lead to better education.
3) There is little or nothing to lose in a voucher system. If people want to keep going to state schools, they can.

Government money should never go to proseletyzing of any religion - it would be a violation of the first amendment.

Thus, any "voucher" program should only include a selected list of accredited private schools which are equal opportunity schools with no required religious participation.

I believe that if a student wants a private education then yes, they should be implemented. Is it fair to the students who want to learn but cannot because they are forced to go to some public school were slack-off assholes are pulling the education level down?

Private schools aren't private school if they receive funding from the government, now are they? Why should those private interest schools receive government money?

Another concern: wouldn't that mean the death of public schools? How could they compete with schools that would undoubtedly receive more funding than they did?That would then mean that the public money is going into private schools, and that there would be no control whatsoeve on HOW that money was spent, since it would be managed by private interests. And I do not trust all those private interests when it come to education: a few of them might be well intentionned and provide high-quality education, but I think most would rather try to make as many bucks as they can without giving a rat's ass about the future of their students.

I believe that if a student wants a private education then yes, they should be implemented. Is it fair to the students who want to learn but cannot because they are forced to go to some public school were slack-off assholes are pulling the education level down?

Wouldn't it make more sense to just build a few public schools for more gifted students? That certainly would be cheaper on the taxpayer's money.

Government money should never go to proseletyzing of any religion - it would be a violation of the first amendment.

Thus, any "voucher" program should only include a selected list of accredited private schools which are equal opportunity schools with no required religious participation.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

As long as the money isn't given to a certain religion over another, I don't see anything wrong with allowing vouchers to be used in parochial schools.


Another concern: wouldn't that mean the death of public schools? How could they compete with schools that would undoubtedly receive more funding than they did? That would then mean that the public money is going into private schools, and that there would be no control whatsoeve on HOW that money was spent, since it would be managed by private interests. And I do not trust all those private interests when it come to education: a few of them might be well intentionned and provide high-quality education, but I think most would rather try to make as many bucks as they can without giving a rat's ass about the future of their students.

If the situation is as you say it is, and private interests are just out to screw everyone, then very few people would attend private schools. The public school system would remain. Vouchers would simply be a test of public schools. If they failed, they would be replaced by private schools. If you don't want your kid to go to a private school, don't send him. That's your choice. Again, if the private interests didnt give a rat's ass about educating students, then people wouldn't go there. Competition between schools will result in a better product (education).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

As long as the money isn't given to a certain religion over another, I don't see anything wrong with allowing vouchers to be used in parochial schools.

If the school preaches a specific religion or only allows children/teachers/etc. of that particular religion in, giving government money to that school would be giving preference to that religion.

If the school preaches a specific religion or only allows children/teachers/etc. of that particular religion in, giving government money to that school would be giving preference to that religion.

Right, except the government gives the money to taxpayers, who can spend it however they want.

Right, except the government gives the money to taxpayers, who can spend it however they want.

It doesn't matter. It is *public* money and, as such, is not to be spent on proseletyzing.

Competition between schools will result in a better product (education).

It wouldn't be competition if private schools, on top of receiving exactly the same amount of funds from the government as public ones, charged extra money for all students. That would result in private schools having invariably more funding per student than public schools. I hardly find that fair competition.

Unless you're suggesting private schools could not charge more than the voucher they received from the government... in which case, I would not object. If they get the same amount of funds per students, fine. If they get to charge on top of the voucher, then it's disloyal competition.

Besides, why isn't anybody outraged by the fact that vouchers would cost a whole damn lot more than just funding properly public schools to acceptable levels? It'd be cheaper to rise the funding of public schools to the same levels than private schools.

Frankly, those who can afford private schools don't need vouchers much, do they? The main reason behind vouchers would be to give access to everybody to a private-school quality education. By funding properly public schools, you achieve that goal. And those who went to private schools are not penalized because they can just choose a public school of equivalent level and not have to pay any fees.

heres why vouchers are bad

"wow that bandaid isn't healing that wound to well, lets take off the bandage and wrap this gauze around it, that should fix it"

ok lets see if i can make sense as to why i think vouchers are a bad idea if the money goes to private/religious schools

first of all, if government money is going to go to private schools then the government is going to expect a SAY in those schools. dont bother to argue it, you KNOW Its true. there is no such things as free money from the government it always comes with strings. mabye that idea bothers you, maybe it doesnt. but it will happen

maybe y'all come from areas where private/religious schools take in TONS of money and have way more than they need, but *I* don't. before the local catholic school closed here, they were charging the minimum they could. it was around $1000 a year i think (it might have been $2000 but it wasnt more)
i doubt any of the protestant private schools in town can charge more than that. but, the preliminary points are 1) everyone who goes there pays it, and 2) its less that what they really NEED to take in

so, the point i want to make is, if "johnny" pays $1000/ year NOW, and suddenly the state decides to go with vouchers and they give johnny a check for $1000, THE PRICE OF TUITION JUST WENT UP TO $2000. after all, they need the money and they know full well that johnny parents can afford that $1000. i dont care if you are going to a school that costs $10,000 a year. if the school is full, the tuition will go up by the amount of the voucher. the school administrators would be FOOLS to not do just that. my point? it doesnt improve access for ANYONE unless you require the school to take everyone who applies and that they can only charge the voucher amount. a possibility i suppose but not in the proposals ive seen

next, do you REALLY want your tax money to go to one of those radical moslem schools that preach hatred for western culture? how about the private schools run by mormon fundamentalist polygamists who marry their daughters off to old men at age 14? how about any other freaky deaky cult religion's schools? want to pay to send someone's kid to the moonie school? we think of religious schools as being that nice catholic or baptist school down the street. yes there are plenty of those but what about the FRINGE sects if you pay for the mainstream you have to pay for the eddies. id prefer to support NO religions schools. same with any experimental private school

i like the idea of letting kids go to ANY public school in their state. i like the idea of charter schools and magnet schools. i like the idea of going back to neighborhood schools so that parents can be more involved.

i dont think that vouchers will do what people hope it can do.

Private schools aren't private school if they receive funding from the government, now are they? Why should those private interest schools receive government money?

Another concern: wouldn't that mean the death of public schools? How could they compete with schools that would undoubtedly receive more funding than they did?That would then mean that the public money is going into private schools, and that there would be no control whatsoeve on HOW that money was spent, since it would be managed by private interests. And I do not trust all those private interests when it come to education: a few of them might be well intentionned and provide high-quality education, but I think most would rather try to make as many bucks as they can without giving a rat's ass about the future of their students.
This is exactly what has happened in Australia, where private schools receive government money. Whilst the majority of Australian kids are still educated in the public system, many public schools are severely starved of resources. The richest private schools have not lowered their fees or become more accessible to students from disadvantaged families as a result of increased public funding; they just use the money to build rifle ranges and swimming pools, and continue to increase their fees every year. Public schools have difficulty competing with this, and the end result is parents who can afford to do so defecting to the private system in increasing numbers, and the gradual erosion of the public system. In spite of all of this, I'm proud of the education that I received at a public school, and I am completely against government funding for private schools.

I am a teacher in a public school and I am definitly against public vouchers!
1)Yes! It does violate the 1st amendment which should in my opinion, destroy any further possiblity of this actually occuring.

2) This will totally upend public schools in the sense that they will lose students which will then have the public schools cut teachers, which will then not change anything because those teachers that lost their jobs in public education will now seek employment with those private schools which by the way pay significantly less to teachers due to the fact that they (private institutions) recieve no federal funding and very little to no state funding. If anything, this will furthur the mass exodus of highly qualified educators.

3) If you want to improve education, you must increase the quality of the educators coming into the profession. How do you do that? you pay them what they are worth( much more than they recieve now) and greatly increase the qualifications for teachers. It's like if you walk into a McDonald's that start their employess out and just a hair above minimum wage and recieve service and then walk into a Starbuck's which on average starts their employees out at over 7.00$ an hr and recieve service, where do you think nine times out of ten you will recieve the best service with the greatist chance of dealing with a somewhat intelligent person? The higher the pay, and unyielding demand for truly quality people is what makes an organisation more successfull. It really is like buisness 101: "You have to spend money to make money..but in the right places."

In closing, I also went to a private school from pre-k through 1st grade and hated every moment of it. It stifled the very essance of my being by trying to beat me down with the institution' stale and overbearing sense of discipline and way of thinking. I performed much better in a public school format because I could be free to communicate and interact with a vast array of different people. I know that is just my experiance but I am certaintly a public school success story when you compare my private school experiance.

Vouchers are incorrect--they do not change the coercive nature of government funding of education, only the "beneficiary".

Government should simply get out of the business of education altogether. Not only does it make it much too easy for one-sided brainwashing to be done, but (more importantly) the fact that government "education" is coercively funded makes it completely morally repugnant.

Vouchers are incorrect--they do not change the coercive nature of government funding of education, only the "beneficiary".

Government should simply get out of the business of education altogether. Not only does it make it much too easy for one-sided brainwashing to be done, but (more importantly) the fact that government "education" is coercively funded makes it completely morally repugnant.

You sound like a libertarian. Well I consider myself one too but this privatizing of schools would only lead to a battle of the have and have nots. Private education across the board is a nice thought but would never work. Can you imagine all the schools that would then have to be privatley funded? There are to many greed heads out there for that to ever work. If the gov should fund anything it should be education.

By the way, I do not "brainwash" my students. I teach them to be individual thinkers and observant people.

Oh please. The public schools are underfunded enough as it is. I don't want to go to some private school, but if this were put in place then hmm, let's see, public money to private schools means less money to public schools, less money to public schools means fewer people want to go there, fewer people want to go means they get shut down, if they get shut down I CAN'T GO. Keep public publicly funded, private privately funded, okay?

It wouldn't be competition if private schools, on top of receiving exactly the same amount of funds from the government as public ones, charged extra money for all students. That would result in private schools having invariably more funding per student than public schools. I hardly find that fair competition.

Unless you're suggesting private schools could not charge more than the voucher they received from the government... in which case, I would not object. If they get the same amount of funds per students, fine. If they get to charge on top of the voucher, then it's disloyal competition.

Well, the higher price will deter those who can't afford it. If a school's price is too high, nobody will go. Its fair in the sense that schools in the same area would be equally subsidized. I am not familiar with the idea of "disloyal competition." Did you hear of this in an economics course? Can you explain it to me?


Frankly, those who can afford private schools don't need vouchers much, do they? The main reason behind vouchers would be to give access to everybody to a private-school quality education. By funding properly public schools, you achieve that goal. And those who went to private schools are not penalized because they can just choose a public school of equivalent level and not have to pay any fees.

Right, but those who might go to a private school, but can't, because they don't have a voucher, do need vouchers. "Funding properly?" What do you mean? Do you think dumping more money into public schools is going to help anyone? They are inefficient compared to private schools.

ok lets see if i can make sense as to why i think vouchers are a bad idea if the money goes to private/religious schools

first of all, if government money is going to go to private schools then the government is going to expect a SAY in those schools. dont bother to argue it, you KNOW Its true. there is no such things as free money from the government it always comes with strings. mabye that idea bothers you, maybe it doesnt. but it will happen

maybe y'all come from areas where private/religious schools take in TONS of money and have way more than they need, but *I* don't. before the local catholic school closed here, they were charging the minimum they could. it was around $1000 a year i think (it might have been $2000 but it wasnt more)
i doubt any of the protestant private schools in town can charge more than that. but, the preliminary points are 1) everyone who goes there pays it, and 2) its less that what they really NEED to take in

so, the point i want to make is, if "johnny" pays $1000/ year NOW, and suddenly the state decides to go with vouchers and they give johnny a check for $1000, THE PRICE OF TUITION JUST WENT UP TO $2000. after all, they need the money and they know full well that johnny parents can afford that $1000. i dont care if you are going to a school that costs $10,000 a year. if the school is full, the tuition will go up by the amount of the voucher. the school administrators would be FOOLS to not do just that. my point? it doesnt improve access for ANYONE unless you require the school to take everyone who applies and that they can only charge the voucher amount. a possibility i suppose but not in the proposals ive seen

next, do you REALLY want your tax money to go to one of those radical moslem schools that preach hatred for western culture? how about the private schools run by mormon fundamentalist polygamists who marry their daughters off to old men at age 14? how about any other freaky deaky cult religion's schools? want to pay to send someone's kid to the moonie school? we think of religious schools as being that nice catholic or baptist school down the street. yes there are plenty of those but what about the FRINGE sects if you pay for the mainstream you have to pay for the eddies. id prefer to support NO religions schools. same with any experimental private school

i like the idea of letting kids go to ANY public school in their state. i like the idea of charter schools and magnet schools. i like the idea of going back to neighborhood schools so that parents can be more involved.

i dont think that vouchers will do what people hope it can do.

Again, the government money is going to the people. The people choose where it goes, so they will have a say in what happens at private schools.

With vouchers, your Catholic school could be free.

With public schools, which now cost $0, yes, tuition will go up by the price of the voucher, so they will still effectively cost $0. For private schools, which receive less public funding, tuition will only go up by the amount of public funding they received before. Existing public schools would have to charge only the voucher amount.

I'm fine with this. I support the free exercise of religion. If people want to educate their kids in a school like this, they should get just as much money as someone who wants secular education.

This is exactly what has happened in Australia, where private schools receive government money. Whilst the majority of Australian kids are still educated in the public system, many public schools are severely starved of resources. The richest private schools have not lowered their fees or become more accessible to students from disadvantaged families as a result of increased public funding; they just use the money to build rifle ranges and swimming pools, and continue to increase their fees every year. Public schools have difficulty competing with this, and the end result is parents who can afford to do so defecting to the private system in increasing numbers, and the gradual erosion of the public system. In spite of all of this, I'm proud of the education that I received at a public school, and I am completely against government funding for private schools.

I didn't know parents in Australia believed riflery and swimming were such important parts of education, but i guess they are. I don't see how this is difficult to compete with. Parents who don't want a swimming pool at their kids' school or can't afford it just keep going to public schools.

I am a teacher in a public school and I am definitly against public vouchers!
1)Yes! It does violate the 1st amendment which should in my opinion, destroy any further possiblity of this actually occuring.

2) This will totally upend public schools in the sense that they will lose students which will then have the public schools cut teachers, which will then not change anything because those teachers that lost their jobs in public education will now seek employment with those private schools which by the way pay significantly less to teachers due to the fact that they (private institutions) recieve no federal funding and very little to no state funding. If anything, this will furthur the mass exodus of highly qualified educators.

3) If you want to improve education, you must increase the quality of the educators coming into the profession. How do you do that? you pay them what they are worth( much more than they recieve now) and greatly increase the qualifications for teachers. It's like if you walk into a McDonald's that start their employess out and just a hair above minimum wage and recieve service and then walk into a Starbuck's which on average starts their employees out at over 7.00$ an hr and recieve service, where do you think nine times out of ten you will recieve the best service with the greatist chance of dealing with a somewhat intelligent person? The higher the pay, and unyielding demand for truly quality people is what makes an organisation more successfull. It really is like buisness 101: "You have to spend money to make money..but in the right places."

In closing, I also went to a private school from pre-k through 1st grade and hated every moment of it. It stifled the very essance of my being by trying to beat me down with the institution' stale and overbearing sense of discipline and way of thinking. I performed much better in a public school format because I could be free to communicate and interact with a vast array of different people. I know that is just my experiance but I am certaintly a public school success story when you compare my private school experiance.

1) I don't see how it respects an establishment of religion. It distributes funds equally to everyone, who can then give it to any school.

2) With vouchers, private schools will receive at least the same amount of money that public schools do per student, so teachers would get paid more.

3) Private schools will pay teachers more, which will increase the quality of educators entering the profession.

If people still thought the public schools were better, they could keep going there.

Vouchers are incorrect--they do not change the coercive nature of government funding of education, only the "beneficiary".

Government should simply get out of the business of education altogether. Not only does it make it much too easy for one-sided brainwashing to be done, but (more importantly) the fact that government "education" is coercively funded makes it completely morally repugnant.

Yes, this would be nice, but I don't think it is possible in one huge jump. There would be chaos if the government just cut funding completely one day, you have to have some sort of transition, like vouchers.

With vouchers, your Catholic school could be free.

With public schools, which now cost $0, yes, tuition will go up by the price of the voucher, so they will still effectively cost $0. For private schools, which receive less public funding, tuition will only go up by the amount of public funding they received before. Existing public schools would have to charge only the voucher amount.

no it WONT be "free" they will raise the price of tuition by the amount of the voucher. unless it is specifically prohibited which ive never seen proposed. so the price to "johnny" will stay the same and the school will GET twice as much money. to require a private school to accept a voucher as full tution is impossible as private non religious schools cost WAY more than the voucher amounts would be.

i dont understand the public/private discussion above. in public schools, kids go for "free". vouchers wont affect that, they would only affect the total funding of each school if many many more students went somewhere else for their education. the per student amount that public school gets is much more than the voucher amount.

SO when it was proposed here in new mexico, it was in effect a way of paying LESS for education, hoping that lots of kids would take the voucher and go out of the public system. local school costs oh lets say $6000/student (we are a poor state) the voucher was going to be somewhere between $1k and $2k thus saving the state ....$4k per student who uses the voucher.

the downside being that ALL students currently in private schools would suddenly go from costing the state $0 to costing the state $1-2k.

in any case it didnt pass.

and what about homeschoolers? would their parents get a check from the state for educating their children at home?

You sound like a libertarian. Well I consider myself one too but this privatizing of schools would only lead to a battle of the have and have nots. Private education across the board is a nice thought but would never work. Can you imagine all the schools that would then have to be privatley funded? There are to many greed heads out there for that to ever work

Why does that matter? Since when did the end justify the means?

If you acknowledge the moral superiority of something but then choose to oppose it on base pragmatics, you are committing an act of intellectual cowardice of the worst order.

-SNIP-

You are well spoken and have a good grasp of economics it seems. Which is why I am wondering about you. Do you not see the flaws and problems in your arguments? Is this a radical market-solution argument you are making to test the naivety of the forum? You sound like you should know this already...

"Well, the higher price will deter those who can't afford it. If a school's price is too high, nobody will go. Its fair in the sense that schools in the same area would be equally subsidized. I am not familiar with the idea of "disloyal competition." Did you hear of this in an economics course? Can you explain it to me?"

IF the school's price is too high nobody will go, the common argument for ANY market-based approach. However if the school is amazing, but the price is 100k a year, how many people will go into debt trying to send their kids there? How many people will spend every penny on famous, high-cost schools because the low-cost alternatives gain you no recognition in the business world? Look at the US University system for your answer. Everyone who can and many who can't.

Education is not a commodity that can be bought and sold easily. There IS no cut-off point in price for parents and their children; parents want the best for their kids and have shown conclusively that they will do idiotic and self-destructive things to ensure that their kids have a future. The prices could skyrocket a thousand fold and for every one hundred kids out in the cold there will be someone who would pay. There would be no empty schools in this system, just empty wallets.

As for "disloyal competition" it is related to this matter as well. Why compete when you can cooperate? Why work against your brother when you can work together an both reap rewards? Why, if the school next to you wants to raise the price of schooling by 15%, what's to stop you from raising yours? You only have so many seats in your classrooms, and there is no shortage of kids needing education, how many parents will change schools mid-year over price increases? You have a captive audience a captive consumer who's only option is to move or send their child elsewhere, uprooting them from friends, perhaps forcing them to commute many miles for the most basic of K-12 educations.

"Right, but those who might go to a private school, but can't, because they don't have a voucher, do need vouchers. "Funding properly?" What do you mean? Do you think dumping more money into public schools is going to help anyone? They are inefficient compared to private schools."

Dismissing public schooling as flatly inefficient compared to private schools is not honest. You should be well aware that public and private schools differ greatly from area to area, district to district in quality, funding, resources. An inner-city private school is just as likely to be ineffective as an inner-city public school at this point in time. The real needs of the children need to be met with quality programs within WHATEVER school they are in. Shifting to private schools will do nothing but shift the students bodies from one school to another. Nothing will change for them. Unless you are wrongly suggesting that private schools are just flat better than public schools across the board for no other reason than they are private...

"Again, the government money is going to the people. The people choose where it goes, so they will have a say in what happens at private schools."

And why pray tell, would the people have any more or less say in a private school than a public one? The public schools have shown themselves to be exceedingly open to parent imput in most areas, private schools would, if anything be harder to control, since they have a large base of monetary income from students; any induvidual voice can be ignored without consequence. The outcome of this might be parents forming coalitions within schools to combat reforms or programs they don't like, pressuring administators with threats of pulling out funding, while induvidual needs are not met.

"With public schools, which now cost $0, yes, tuition will go up by the price of the voucher, so they will still effectively cost $0. For private schools, which receive less public funding, tuition will only go up by the amount of public funding they received before. Existing public schools would have to charge only the voucher amount."

So in effect all public schools get is X, while private schools can collect X+Anything they want. You don't see a basic economic problem with this? Anyone who merely recieved X will languish behind those who can afford to go beyond, those with the most money will go father and father, and those children in the inner city schools, or in the rural schools without funding will get simply X.

This would be a MASSIVE inequality machine! The system would effective in shutting out anyone from poor areas from getting an education. Instead of having public schools to fall back on, and private schools to lavish money on, you would have private schools are you only option within a few years! You would be effectively creating a statist government program while simulatneously creating the market solution to replace it; then placing children in both and watching government schools fail with their children inside them getting shafted. Anyone with the misfortune of being in a public school under such a plan would be effectively useless in the modern workforce.

"I didn't know parents in Australia believed riflery and swimming were such important parts of education, but i guess they are. I don't see how this is difficult to compete with. Parents who don't want a swimming pool at their kids' school or can't afford it just keep going to public schools."

Thus your comment here is particularly disturbing. You know that public schools would not be able to afford facilities for their students beyond the most standard and ill-equiped for change. Commited to only getting X dollars from each student, the public schools would be in dire straits for funding within years, who would pay for a new gym? A new roof? New textbooks? All would have to be factored into X...but X is mandated, and not every school gets a leaky roof, or a flooded gym floor. Public schools would quickly turn into disasters, people would flood into the market-friendly schools who can charge more...and will always charge more. There would be no alternative for parents, not more alternatives. You'd effectively replace a public monopoly with a private one.

You should be keenly aware of these facts. Why do you ignore them? I assume you either simply overlooked this basic and obvious problem, or you have a moral hazard on this subject...ie you have something to gain personally by people switching to school vouchers. I am sorry to question you motives like this, but your arguments are well constructed, utterly wrong, but well constructed. I could not take the chance of opinions being swayed by these ideas, as I firmly believe they would prove to be a disaster for our kids.

Having lived in a metro-area where the majority of children already attend private schools there is no way that I could endorse the idea of school vouchers. Recieving more money does not lead to private schools paying the teachers more. Schools in the area that charged up to $15K a year were still paying the teachers less than public schools. And while the private schools stil did a better job of educating than the public schools *in the area* (which were massively underfunded due to student flight) all but the most expensive of them suffered from the same problems seen in public schools in areas where private education was the exception rather than the rule. Once the private schools in a given area have enough of an student-population advantage, they will still be charging up to $6000, plus books, uniforms, activity fees, etc a year and have 30+ students in one class, not enough quality teachers, etc. In other words, the private schools become no better and in some cases worse than the public schools in areas where there is adequate public funding. The privatizing of the education system would eventually lead to *everyone* paying more for the same or even poorer quality education than that which exists in the public schools in most areas now.

It doesn't matter. It is *public* money and, as such, is not to be spent on proseletyzing.
What if it came in the form of a tax break … then the money was never *public* money at all rather stayed in the hands of the people who are sending their kid to private school

you know what the whoel of the guys post i was going to reply to was so stupid and blind i couldnt type enough to correct it and i twould be like banging my head against a brickwall, so im just going to tell how we can PREMANENTLY fix all problems with the education system

*drumroll*

fund all public schools to the same exact levels. the school with the least money coming in will get the difference between that level and the level of the school with the most money coming in. and schjools will be required ot distribute money equally to all programs, FUCK FOOTBALL



and private schools are PRIVATE, you choose to go to them, its your choice so you have no business getting government money to go to a private school, UNLESS a public education is not possible. but there is stil la public school system, until vouchers are implemented then guess what, EVERY school will be a private school because only they will have the money to support themselves

What if it came in the form of a tax break … then the money was never *public* money at all rather stayed in the hands of the people who are sending their kid to private school

Same difference. Only then you would get idiots who don't understand that taxes work for society rather than individuals asking why people who don't have kids should have to pay just as much money in taxes as people with kids in public schools....

Same difference. Only then you would get idiots who don't understand that taxes work for society rather than individuals asking why people who don't have kids should have to pay just as much money in taxes as people with kids in public schools....
yeah ... though the public school system would have 1 less person to educate so that should reduce their costs some (there will always be a minimum for building maint and such ... and that should be covered seperate) (oh also not saying I agree just running through the possibilities)

yeah ... though the public school system would have 1 less person to educate so that should reduce their costs some (there will always be a minimum for building maint and such ... and that should be covered seperate) (oh also not saying I agree just running through the possibilities)
it also reduces theor funding. less kids = less federal funding

it also reduces theor funding. less kids = less federal funding
but (again minus building costs) wouldn’t that also reduce the costs of the school? as in less students

(took the building costs out because they are static vs. the education costs)

As long as the vouchers are good for ANY accredited school, I don't think there is any constitutional separation problem. If Muslim or Jewish or Christian schools all have the same opportunity to receive the monies, then the government is not favoring one group over another.
The First Amendment provides freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Choice scholarship programs let parents choose where to direct their children’s education funds. The state is not imposing religion upon its citizens (which was a concern of the Founding Fathers), nor does the choice of religious education substantiate federal funding or religious institutions. As Clint Bolick, vice president and litigation director at the Institute for Justice in Washington, D.C., observes: all credible contemporary school choice proposals are constitutional.

"I am a teacher in a public school and I am definitly against public vouchers!
1)Yes! It does violate the 1st amendment which should in my opinion, destroy any further possiblity of this actually occuring."

If the government provides funding for catholic, baptist, mormon, jewish, muslim and agnostic schools then how has it established a state religion. If it has established a state religion, then which religion has it established?
To say the government cannot give money to a religious organisation would be like saying it cannot hire a religious person.

snip...
Very good post there btw.

For my two cents worth, I'm against voucher systems. For one thing, where's the proof it works? Other than one example of it working in Harlem several years ago (and being heavily subsidised to boot, in order for it to suceed) I haven't seen any other examples of it's success.

As for the comments about Private schools vs Public schools. Private Schools have so many benefits and advantages, you can't compare them. There's too many differences, that it becomes asinine to do so.

I taught at a Public school in NZ.
At the Public school, we had two computers for the entire Maths Department. This was for a school of 900. At the better Private schools (fees $5000 per term - 4 term year), it is compulsory for the students to have their own laptop (and it has to be a current model - so at least $3000NZ). We had a pass rate of around 50%. They had one on excess of 90%.
Know why? First off they only allowed top students in (and there was a waiting list), they taught til 5pm (legally public schools have to end at 3.20pm) and on Saturdays (legally public schools can't) and most importantly, if they thought a student would fail, they weren't allowed to sit the exam. Any trouble-makers could be immediately expelled, while legally Public schools can only suspend a student if they can find another school to take them. Also legally Public schools are not allowed to stand a student down for more than 5 days a term. Public schools can do what they like.
And this is the lot that's demanding vouchers.
In otherwords, the Private schools would delibrately skew their results to show the nation how wonderful their school is, which made it more desirable for parents to send their children to.
And vouchers will probably result in Public schools following suit - preventing low-ability students from sitting so their pass rates look good in order to get more students.

I was at a very poor school where the majority of students came broken homes. They had horrific stories about what went on at home. I can give you examples if you want, but they're very depressing. Things that private schools and their students would never have any connection with. Their parents are committed and interested in their child's education and future. So of course their results are going to be better (bit of a no-brainer really). I found that the best indicator of a student's ability was whether their parents turned up at Parent-Teachers meetings.

Another example of their wealth: One of the private schools replaces their rowing skiffs every 3-4 years with brand new ones. An eight costs $50 000NZ fully set-up, minimum. They replace their entire boat shed - eights, fours, doubles, singles, quads, pairs. The lot. We're talking in excess of $1 mill here. For one School sports club. Know where they get the money? From parental and ex-student donations. Can you imagine a public school, anywhere in the world, raising that much money every four years?
Yet they want funding from the Government via vouchers.

As for it raising the quality of teaching. It doesn't. If that was true, then simply having private schools would have done this. All it will do is probably allow Private schools to pay even more for quality teachers and Public school teachers will be faced with less pay and worse conditions as the vouchers won't cover basic costs. So Public schools will have the worst teachers who are going through the motions of teaching. Which will only exacerbate the current dictonomy between the better off schools and the worst schools.
Here's another idea: How about raising the salary of teachers to encourage better ppl into teaching? Considering it takes 4 years of university to become a teacher, it would only be fair. Compare what teachers get to anyone else who needs to undertake 4 years of tertiary education for their profession (lawyers, engineers, accountants etc). Then say they overpaid.

For my two cents worth, I'm against voucher systems. For one thing, where's the proof it works? Other than one example of it working in Harlem several years ago (and being heavily subsidised to boot, in order for it to suceed) I haven't seen any other examples of it's success.

Here's an example of the effect a well-thought-out, properly managed school choice program can have on the educational futures of children who would otherwise be trapped in failing public schools. Excerpt from a column I wrote for the Houston (Texas) Chronicle:

Consider the public schools in the Edgewood Independent School District in San Antonio. In 1998, private philanthropists offered every student in the district the option to attend a private school of their choice. Critics of the program claimed that Edgewood would plunge into a financial death spiral, and that test scores of those students remaining in the public system would suffer. Years later, we find that the Edgewood district is spending more money than ever (both in absolute dollars and per pupil) and district students have substantially improved their performance on the TAAS exam. Manhattan Institute scholars found that after statistically controlling for student demographics (including race and poverty), public schools in Edgewood outperformed 85 percent of all Texas public school districts in the improvement they made on the state's TAAS test from 1998 to 2001.


Here's more evidence from a research project I participated in:

CHILDREN “LEFT BEHIND” IN GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS
Opponents of choice express concern about children “left behind” in government schools, and conjure dark visions of the poorest of the poor stuck in schools that no longer have enough money to educate them properly. Defenders of the education status-quo claim that choice programs will “drain public schools of badly needed funds” leading to the “destruction of public education.” Supporters of school choice believe that competition for students will also create powerful incentives for all schools to improve.
If the fears of opponents have any basis in reality, we should find evidence of such terrible outcomes in the Edgewood Independent School District (EISD) in San Antonio.
The CEO Horizon Program has provided the option of a school voucher to almost the entire population of the Edgewood district starting in 1998, providing an empirical test of both positive and negative theories of the effect of choice on public schools.
The Horizon program is the only school choice program devoted to an entire school district. The program has no academic qualifying crit eria, and is open to all permanent residents of EISD currently attending a public school (unless entering kindergarten). No lottery system was employed since all eligible students who apply have been provided with a voucher. Figure 11 above presents the participation in the Horizon program.
Enrollment in EISD declined from 14,142 students during the 1997-8 school year to
12,500 students in the 2000-2001 school year.7 Several factors impacted EISD enrollment during this period other than the Horizon program, including the relocation of a public housing project out of the district (costing the district 500 students), students otherwise moving into and out of the district, dropout rates, etc. After the announcement of the Horizon program, Edgewood became one of the few districts in Texas to accept transfers under a public school choice law. Figure 12 below gives an impression of the size of the dropout problem in Edgewood. These data, taken during the period immediately before the advent of the Horizon program, tracks the size of the Class of 1997 from their freshman to their senior years. The senior class has declined by 54% from the freshman figure. In short, EISD enrollment fluctuations have many sources besides the Horizon program.

RENAISSANCE OR DESTRUCTION IN EDGEWOOD?
How has EISD fared since the Horizon program began? Some claim that the program has harmed the district. For instance, the Dallas Morning News ran the following quote from Edgewood Superintendent Noe Sauceda "We estimate the CEO program has cost the district $5 million over the past few years...with that kind of decrease, we can't attract and retain quality staff." It must be noted, however, that while Edgewood receives fewer funds, it also has fewer students to educate as a result of the Horizon program, and loses none of the local funding despite enrollment fluctuations. Average teacher pay was
$4994 per year higher in 1999-2000 than in 1997-8, and the average number of teachers per pupil fell from 14.8 to 13.6 during this same period.
Total expenditures by the district have increased since the advent of the Horizon program. Rather than decreasing, the Edgewood district has continued to spend more money than in the previous year since the advent of the Horizon program, despite a substantially lower enrollment. Figure 14 shows that total Edgewood spending increased after the advent of Horizon, and as seen in Figure 15 below, spending per pupil increased substantially.
Total district expenditure in 1997-98 was $85,695,522 (with 14,142 students) but was
$88,505,665 in the 1999-2000-school year, with 12,982 students enrolled. Best of all, the Texas Education Agency awarded EISD with a “Recognized” status in the 2000 accountability rankings for the first time, due to improvements in passing rates on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) tests.

1) They allow greater freedom of religion, as people who couldn't otherwise afford parochial schooling now can

Not likely. The vouchers only cover a fraction of the tuition of most private schools... which means that wealthy parents who already send their kids to private school will get some extra money in the bank. Perhaps on the margins there may be a small minority for whom the "break" will make the difference between going to private school or not... but generally speaking it will not have a large impact, other than to drain money from public schools and give it to families that didn't need it. If the goal were really to provide greater freedom of religion and/or stimulate competition, the money would be directed only at students who would like to go to private school, but cannot--more like a scholarship.

2) In general, competition will lead to better education.

Did competition with the post office lead to better mail service? No... You used to be able to mail a letter in the morning, and it would be delivered in the afternoon. In certain kinds of markets, competition reduces overall quality, because the most quality-conscious consumers just pay a higher price for high-quality service... draining funds from the general supplier, and forcing everyone else to settle for even less than they had before. There's a good book on this called Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States by Albert O. Hirschman.

3) There is little or nothing to lose in a voucher system. If people want to keep going to state schools, they can.

Right. But it still drains funds from the public system, ultimately making it worse off than it is now. (See above.)