Though I definitely see the potential advantages of vouchers. (see links) I mean how can anyone argue against Parents being given the freedom to spend their "kid's" education dollars at the best school. Also it would greatly weaken may motivate the incredibly change resistant Teacher's Union, and wouldn't that be a good thing? And for many kids and the system, it may bring about wonderful results. Unfortunately I think this gain would likely cause irreparable damage to the kids that are most at risk ... (at least for awhile)
Here are some paradigms that I believe are relevant to this argument:
- Different children come with significantly different starting points, capabilities, resources and challenges. Due to these differences the cost of teaching kids can vary from ~$7,000/yr to >$40,000/yr.
- The majority of ~$7,000 kids consist of "Lucky" and non-special ed students. These kids come to kindergarten ready to learn, they have parent's that are their advocate/tutor, their homes speak English fluently, they have funds for computers/school supplies/activities, etc.
- The majority of the expensive kids are the "Unlucky" and special ed students. They need a lot of services and additional support, this is why they are expensive !!!
- The outer surburban rings have far more "Lucky" kids than "Unlucky" kids, therefore their results are better and costs can be lower. The urban and first tier suburbs have many more "Unlucky" kids, therefore their costs are much much higher. I mean the schools are trying to help these kids "catch up" in academics, behavioral skills, etc (ie teaching) while trying to keep them fed, clothed, safe, etc. (ie social work) This is the burden we have placed upon the public schools. If you don't believe me... I have some sad stories for you of where the public school staff is serving as the last line of support for these kids with "deadbeat" or abusive parents. Besides we now feed the kids breakfast as well as lunch.
- The voucher would likely be a fixed value per student, and set at or below $7,000/yr. We would not want to pay above the minimum cost, otherwise Parents may pocket the extra and the voucher would not pressure the education costs down. Besides this is not a "tax refund" for the parent, this is funding to ensure their child gets a good education. Not to buy the parent a new TV, cigarettes, etc...
- The pro-voucher argument is that the Parents will be more responsible because "they" are spending $7,000 for their child's education. In my opinion this is unlikely because the voucher has no real financial value to them, it is just a ticket for admission. Only those that choose to add personal dollars to it would see it as money... (ie reduction in their cost)
- The public schools would still have to take all students that showed up at their door. (for a $7,000 voucher) Whereas the private schools would continue to be free to only take the students that meet their criteria. (ie grades, health, behavior, "active/good parents", etc) The private schools will therefore get even more of the low cost "lucky" students while the public schools will be burdened by even a higher percentage of "unlucky" students. As the public school cost per student increases, of course the Conservatives will use this to complain about those darn Unions and those terrible Public schools... As they do today with the high cost urban schools that have a higher percentage of "unlucky" kids, because the "lucky" families have already used their affluence to run.
- The funding would make it easier for parents and communitees to set up their own schools. These would include folks that do not want to be part of the American Melting Pot. It will promote segregation and separation instead of community and tolerance, be it for religious, political, racial, cultural or other reasons.
So people like myself leave the district to upgrade to a high end private. Which reduces the percentage of "lucky"/low cost students in RAS, therefore making those parents even more nervous. So these worried parents find the new group of lower end privates to escape to. And the private schools accept them because they are "lucky/low cost", and if they are not the school just expels them. (can't risk a financial "loss" on a student, we are in the business to make money...)
RAS Public is then left with the parents that can not or will not spend the money or time on their higher cost kids. And the kids whose parents lack the knowledge, ability or desire to do anything about it. When there are only "unlucky/expensive" kids left in the school, who will donate time and money? who will be the good role models in class? How will these kids succeed? Will we turn our backs on them, even though they are the children that need us the most?
Now Open Enrollment, Intradistrict Transfer, Charter Schools, Private Schools, Families Moving, etc already promote white/affluent flight and people deserting their communitees instead of fighting for them... Do we really want to make it easier and promote it? Do we want to promote separation. instead of community building through our schools? I think not...
By the way, it may work if kid's could be assigned a specific voucher amount based on their situation. And if most schools had to accept and keep the child for that reimbursal. However price setting seems hard to do, especially on something as challenging as this... Maybe schools could "bid" each student, we take the low bidder and then they have to deliver... How would the government hold them accountable? Because remember it is the tax payer's money that is being spent, not the parents.
I think Charters provide enough competion in Minnesota. The question is how do we get them access to vacant public buildings in our local communities? Therefore help them thrive.
NELRC Voucher Pro/Con
Balanced Politics Voucher Pro/Con
Essortment Voucher Pro/Con
Educationbug Voucher Pro/Con
Askville Voucher Pro/Con
SarahBarrett Pro/Con
19 comments:
I'm not seeing the problem, but I think I see solutions for you. Let's start by simply denying your fundamental assumption that it costs some given amount of dollars to educate a student of any sort, when we know for a fact that it isn't true. In fact, the first though perhaps least obvious of the results will be that we will finally start to see how much it DOES cost to educate a child on average, and by exception.
I do like your assumption that the voucher would be "universal," given to every parent and acceptable at any school, including public. If alternative schools were required to accept the voucher, there would be no "white flight," but merely "flight" and that would be good-- closing down failing public schools is a grand idea. Fixing them might be better but no one seems able to do that, even were they willing which they are not.
On the other hand I dislike the idea of telling private or parochial schools how much THEY require to teach any given student. That is what competition is all about, and competition is what will drive success. To that end, I propose two changes to the universal voucher idea. First, the voucher should be for the average amount that the local school district would spend if the student enrolled in the public school. Second, the parent would keep the difference between the voucher and the actual tuition cost. This latter would avoid the prospect that private schools would simply jack up tuition, eliminating competitive price pressures, as well as avoiding the flight to other public school districts. Flight to better schools in the same district would still (and should) take place.
The best solution for the problem of setting the amount of the voucher for all students, in my opinion, would be for the local public school district's average cost to be used as a starting point [by the way, this amount is chosen so that the local public school can fairly compete for the voucher. anything less is unfair]. IF, however, the school were to break down their costs for "normal" students, "remedial" students, and various categories (if not individual) special ed students, then the voucher could be further adjusted accordingly, and let the competition commence. The only drawback I see to this approach is the frequently noted situation in which a "remedial" (or special ed) student, under proper tutelage, suddenly gains three grade levels and comes up to grade level with his "normal" peers. Do we then knock down the amount of the voucher?
By the way, the term "white flight," while well understood, is to me highly offensive, implying that black kids can't learn and that is the big problem we have, I think, with urban schools today. That poor children, many of whom are black, may require more effort or better techniques to teach effectively, shouldn't be an excuse for not attempting it at all. And that is why we must find a way-- vouchers chief among them-- to get all children away from these schools as quickly and effectively as possible. It's the great civil rights issue of our time.
J. Ewing
Of course I use the term "White Flight" to draw a little controversy and readership. Where as this is definitely an income, priorities and attitude topic more than anything else. If you can afford choice and see it as necessary, you run... No matter your race, religion, etc.
FYI. I just tweaked my original post now that I am awake and could proof read better.
Same old question... What do we do with the kid's of the irresponsible, not so bright or abusive parents?
John,
If there are "abusive parents", those children should be IMMEDIATELY removed from "abusive parents"!! I believe this is not an issue related to education.
An issue that is related to this issue is, What costs should be paid under EDUCATION? I would say that there are items that are currently in the education bucket, that should be paid for out of the health care &/or human services. Examples, full time care of a student while at a school. If a person needs 24 hour care that is NOT AN EDUCATION expense, but is currently a SPECIAL EDUCATION expense. All the expenses related to social services that have been determined to be best delivered in schools SHOULD BE PAID FOR FROM THE HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES BUDGET. This is to point out we need to determine the ACTUAL COST OF EDUCATION not the COST OF RUNNING A SCHOOL. Those are two different questions.
Once this TRULY is done for each School District, the actual cost will be known and the VOUCHER or TAX CREDIT amounts can be set. Comments on this are welcome.
Though I agree with you.
Removing kids would be easy if the bad parents wore black hats... Unfortunately there is a huge continuum between abusive parents and incredible parents. And ironically most people score themselves at or above average...(ie you know, I am great compared to my daddy, or Bob in 4B...) I mean who is intentionally a terrible parent? (ie abusive, neglectful, etc)
And do the Conservatives really want the Government to decide if a parent is poor, abusive or just stern? Isn't this governmental social engineering? How much documentation and proof is needed?Also, will they really want to fund the social services personnel that are required? And then what do they want to do with the kids?
The reality is that the Teacher's are required to report all suspicious situations of a given degree. They do this and often end up in a messy time consuming situation for the above reasons. (ie spending time & money) Then there is the possibility of law suits, etc. And this is just to get them into social services care...
By the way... after 2 years I set my time zone to CST. Thanks
"I mean who is intentionally a terrible parent? (ie abusive, neglectful, etc)"
Exactly. How about we solve the problem for the 99% of students who can be better educated in a competitive environment, and then concern ourselves with the few parents who are actually preventing their own kids from getting an education? Right now, whenever (ref. "Waiting for Superman") there is a lottery for a way out, dozens if not hundreds or thousands of parents turn out to apply for each voucher. Those parents WANT something better for their kids and the current public school system denies it to them. If vouchers promote white flight, then they also promote black flight and poor flight, and as far as I'm concerned that is as it should be. We need an immediate end to unworking and uncaring monopoly education. If we had universal vouchers tomorrow, the good public schools would continue, the mediocre ones would have time to improve before alternatives became available, and the poor ones would have to change very quickly or "die." And what's wrong with that?
J. Ewing
I think your 1% is way understating the problem. That is what is wrong.
If 99% of the parents were truly dedicated to raising their kids right and fixing their local public schools. We would not be discussing this, because the public schools would be doing great !!!
Remember the comment I hear from all teachers... "Typically only the good student's parents come in for conferences." These are not the Parents that need to work closely with the teacher/student, because the Parent's early and continued efforts have already paid off.
The parent's that do not read to their kids, do not teach them their ABC's, do not show up for conferences, do not enforce homework completion, do not enforce treating teachers with respect, do not enforce good behavior, do not volunteer some at their kid's school, do not keep up with the PTA actions, do not model the desired behaviors, etc truly think they are good parents. Unfortunately they are not, they are just parents with a screwed up perception of themselves and/or a total lack of knowledge regarding what is expected of a good parent.
They are "unintentionally" screwing up their kids, and somehow think the school will "fix it". I have known a few of them and it is sad to watch. The kids drift/fail, the parents complain/blame, and the cycle continues.
By the way, what is the number? My guess is 1% to 30% depending on the demographics of the district. (ie pure guess)
While the numbers could be characterized as "white flight" what would actually be happening is the flight of the discerning. A significant number of them would see vouchers as a way to avoid the follies of fools, like what we're seeing in Eden Prairie. Some of the fools to be avoided are other parents, like those gullible enough to buy into language immersion programs.
To All,
I will presume that no one agrees or disagrees with my earlier post on finding the true cost of education without the social & health/human services expenses?
I guess the "White Flight" is more interesting, but does it solve anything?
I don't disagree that finding the real cost is important. I just have no idea how one would do that with any accuracy. There are so many shared facilities, personnel, programs, overhead absorption, etc.
Where does one activity start and another end? What is the cross system impact of cutting in one area? When does teaching shift to social work?
I believe the theoretical concept is Activity Based Costing. Unfortunately I have never been at a company that could ever pull it off in reality. And companies seem to be much more clear cut than Public Education.
Then if we have the "exact cost per type" of kid, what do we do with it?
Lots of questions being raised. The most important, IMO, is the percentage of "bad parents." This is the classic argument of the monopolists, that if not for the public schools spending gobs of money, including social work, that these kids would get no education at all. Well, I hate to break it to you, but these kids are getting no education at all, and one of the reasons for it is that the public schools have claimed the ability to "fix" these kids and, when the truth becomes obvious, parents get just plain discouraged because they CAN'T change the system by themselves any more than a light bulb can be changed by itself. Not even 12 psychiatrists can change a light bulb unless the bulb really, really wants to change and most of the dim bulbs in charge of our public schools are burnt out and won't budge.
Vouchers, on the other hand, offer every individual parent a way to change "the system" for their child. I have long said that the greatest effect of vouchers may be in gaining parental involvement. I can easily imagine that, on signing over a check for $10,000 to the local public school, a formerly discouraged (aka "bad") parent is going to be suddenly interested in what the school is doing for that kind of money, and at least equally interested in what the kid is doing to take advantage of that huge expense.
As for determining costs, I'm not so concerned about the details of the cost for every kid as I am making sure that competition starts to set that cost. Some parents, for example, might choose a lower cost school without all the social services or sports, while others might want the whole magilla. The only place I think it necessary to alter the voucher amount would be for special ed kids, and I would want a rather thorough re-examination of the wisdom of the whole special education idea before doing it. The problems I know exist are: 1) kids are sometimes classified as special ed because of a teacher's inability to teach the kid rather than the kid's ability to learn, 2) kids are classified SE because there are slots available, i.e as job protection, 3) there are kids who are never going to function beyond a certain grade level, taking an inordinate and unfair share of resources, and 4) There are kids who, with a little coaching, could overcome a minor learning disability and return to the normal classroom after a year or two, which is where I would focus (the quite modest) SE resources.
J. Ewing
I still believe it will be "just another piece of paper" to the parents of the at risk kids... Just like the other government benefits they may receive monthly. If you don't work for it and you can not use it elsewhere, it has no value. My teenager does not appreciate or contemplate anything I pay for nearly as much as that which she has to make the money to buy.
Taking another tack, we have a very active competitive schooling system in place already. These are the private schools. You will note that their tuitions are well above the Public School's avg $10,000, and I can guarantee they have very few "high cost" kids... Why so high if the "competitive" cost should be so much lower and the Publics are so wasteful?
Providence Academy
Blake School
Breck School
Interesting thought...
You may be correct, but that's the beauty of the universal voucher. The parent actually has to go down to the school and sign over the check, and that would, for a few, be a big improvement. And it is a big advantage for the public schools that they will be the ONLY competitor for some period of time, and for these "bad" parents for a long time. But again, the number of such parents has got to be small enough that we shouldn't be penalizing the vast majority just because the few will continue to be handicapped just as always.
Now, about those costs. The best private schools charge quite a bit because they CAN, and because they MUST in order to keep their applicants to a manageable number. They are rationing by price, just as any free market does. On the other hand, there are many parochial and other schools which charge considerably less, and limit their market both by price (many parents cannot afford even these low prices) and by simply limiting which applicants they take. Current vouchers are often distributed by lottery-- another way of limiting participation-- and that is an absolute outrage IMO. We ought to offer every parent the right to do the best they can for their child, regardless of their financial circumstance.
One other thing. Under my proposal, poor parents might look for a no-frills school so that they could supplement the family income with the excess voucher funds, while others would pay extra, beyond the voucher, to attend Breck. Or Breck might expand and lower their prices; who knows? Either way, every kid wins in some way. Is that a problem?
J. Ewing
I'd further make the vouchers conditional on "adequate yearly progress." Parents that don't push their kids don't really want vouchers, just better babysitters.
Whose adequate yearly progress? I hope you're talking about the school's, because right now it isn't the kid's fault. At least we have to have enough competition to separate out how much of it is a problem of bad educators before we intrude on parents' rights.
J. Ewing
J,
So let me summarize... You would like to give all Parents $10,000 per student. Then you would like to allow them to keep all the cash that they can save by enrolling their kids in a low tuition school. Then you do not want the parent's held accountable for their kid's low "yearly progress".
As a fellow tax payer whose money you are trying to invest, have you lost your mind? I would swear you have left the Conservative ranks and become an enabler of "Welfare Moms". Maybe it is true that if one goes far enough to the right, you come out on the Left...
Speed,
I like the accountability idea. Hopefully we will have better luck with the Parents than we have had with the schools. Though I truly believe Parent's can be much much more influential in their children's success than the school. That is why I am typically more critical of Parents than schools.
Someone who is much smarter and more sensitive than me mentioned that my attempt to have fun with the topic (and pick on J) may be perceived as inappropriate and insulting by some. Though they figured J will handle it well...
Therefore I apologize to all people who are on welfare or support welfare. I picked the term "welfare mom" to refer to a specific abuse that is often discussed. The situation where a woman makes a conscious decision to have more children in order to get more government assistance. It seems relevant to the topic of getting money/kid and keeping the leftovers.
I support the concept of the USA having a safety net for folks when things just don't work out right. Though I prefer the the idea of a trampoline where they fall into it, it cushions the fall and throws them back into the game. As compared to a big air bag where it cushions the fall and leaves them stuck there.
I hope this clarifies my intent.
Your beliefs about welfare recipients and about bad parenting are very similar. You seem to assume that:
1) there are large numbers of people in both categories.
2) That they have voluntarily placed themselves in both categories, and
3) That they voluntarily remain there.
I think you are wrong on all counts. There is such a thing as "the welfare trap" and, since it has been operating for so long, there are some people who have never known anything else, despite welfare reform. Education COULD lift their children out of that poor economic and social condition, but it would have to be real education, and thus the education system fails those who most need it, and whom we taxpayers most need it to serve. Again, it's the major civil rights issue of our time and I don't care what color these people are. In other words, bad life choices can get you into the trap, but good choices cannot necessarily get you out, and a lack of choices will keep your children there as well.
There is simply no excuse, IMHO, for not permitting parents the one choice that they ought to have to make life better for their children. I simply cannot imagine that the few parents who would NOT want something better for their child, if they had any opportunity to get it, would so overwhelm the decision for the huge number that DO that you would continue to condemn 100% of all children to that horrible fate. School choice shouldn't be about the few whom it will not help, but about the very large number of REAL children that WILL be helped. How can we stand by while this tragedy continues?
OK, so we agree on universal vouchers. I do not agree that every parent gets the same amount, and have suggested that the amount be based on local public school spending per pupil and adjusted, in some fashion, by any "special needs" spending for an individual (or group). I will further agree that schools may make and enforce "contracts" with parents for a certain level of involvement (as many non-public schools do today) as a condition of enrollment, if that helps you. Since the public schools under this plan now become "optional," I would grant them that same contracting ability AND I would add that disruptive students could have their voucher refunded and told to go elsewhere, putting even more pressure on parents to control their kids. Finally, in the best nanny-state tradition, I would have these schools, or the welfare agency, or government of some kind, offer "parenting classes" with a particular eye for how to select a school, how to support your chosen school (what the contract requires)and your kid in it, and even educational activities that can be done at home. Pay parents to take these classes if necessary.
Blaming the parents, and poverty, etc. is the oldest dodge in the educrat arsenal, and we've got to get past the public school monopolist talking points and actually solve the problem. I don't give a tinker's dam about white flight until we first remove the reasons for the flight, from everybody.
J. Ewing
That's where our paradigms collide as usual. You believe they are running from the schools. Whereas I believe they are running from the portion of the student body that disrupts the school and classroom that they were very happy with.
It is an interesting chicken or the egg puzzle. Did the school fail the students, or did the students fail the school?
Most people I know that ran from RAS, left for a more stable and "interested in learning" student body. They were perfectly happy with the schools and teachers.
By the way, I don't believe what you assume in 1-3. However maybe we can discuss the welfare trap in a future post. Cycle of Poverty It looks complicated enough to warrant its own space.
Anyone else have thoughts on this? Sam and BH, it is pretty quiet on 281EE. Please feel free to join in here.
I don't believer our "paradigms collide" at all. First, there is a question as to whether undisciplined kids disrupt education, or whether a deficient educational system creates disruptive students. In my experience it tends to be the latter, actually, but either way the result is the same: nobody is getting an education in the current setting. The reasonable conclusion from that simple fact is that the public schools can NOT educate these kids-- the disruptive or non-disruptive-- in the current system. Some radical change is required, and the introduction of true competition, along the lines we have discussed, would be that kind of change.
The beauty of this particular change is that both those who escape and those that stay behind should find better schools. Competition betters all competitors. There may need to be some changes to the law to allow the public schools to truly compete, but these details are incidental to getting over the huge political hurdle of union/educrat resistance. And a big part of that is denying that the old excuses of "white flight" or "black kids can't learn" or "poor parents" are insurmountable obstacles.
Post a Comment