Voucher Programs

[DRSmith]

Most of the time I hear about vouchers being the answer to problems with government spending, but this seems to me to be a transfer of wealth because you are paying for profit institutions which means higher costs, this also seems like not wanting to reform or fix that which needs fixing through hard work.

[TimmySmith]

this also seems like not wanting to reform or fix that which needs fixing through hard work.

What incentive is there to fix anything without competition? Answer: Zero.

[PeterMP]

What incentive is there to fix anything without competition? Answer: Zero.

But there are different types of competition. Elected officials are in competition with one another to get elected.

I'm not sure I support vouchers to private schools, but there should be greater flexibility in choosing public schools.

[TimmySmith]

But there are different types of competition. Elected officials are in competition with one another to get elected.

Think of it this way. Suppose the same area had 2 totally different public school systems. Which one would you choose to send your child?

[shk75]

Concerning Ryan's plan for Medicare, it is just a giant form of cost shifting. Combined with ACOs it could potentially lead to even higher costs for subscribers and does nothing to control health care costs.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Here is a great article on the DC Voucher program, which the Democratic Congress killed in 2009

http://reason.com/blog/2010/07/06/the-death-of-the-dc-voucher-pr

We had several threads on it.

Needy students were better educated at a FRACTION of the cost of sending them to the DC public schools system, but the Administration and that Congress needed to pay back teachers unions and thus killed it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060802041.html

Creation of the fund in 2004 put the District at the forefront of the school-choice movement. At that time, the Republican-led federal government was taking steps to use the nation's capital -- with its ailing public school system -- as a showcase for educational reforms, which also included the country's most sweeping charter school law.

Parents of scholarship recipients offer high praise for the program, crediting it with changing the direction of their children's lives. Patricia William, whose son Fransoir, 11, is a sixth-grader at Sacred Heart, a Catholic school in Northwest, said his growth has been striking.

"He's been developed in many ways, intellectually, emotionally and in his values," she said. "I couldn't ask for anything better."

Wendy Cunningham said her daughter Jordan, who will be a senior, has thrived since entering Georgetown Day School two years ago and has had access to opportunities that likely would not be available otherwise. This summer, Cunningham said, Jordan will enter summer programs at Catholic University and San Francisco State.

"Other people should have the same opportunity and choices," said Cunningham, who supplements the voucher money with other funds to make the school's $26,000 tuition.

And one more Washington Post editorial on when the Democrats killed the program in 2009 (note its the Washington Post, not Times, nor "Faux News")

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/01/AR2009030101617.html?wpisrc=newsletter

'Potential' Disruption?

Ending D.C. school vouchers would dash the best hopes of hundreds of children

REP. DAVID R. Obey (Wis.) and other congressional Democrats should spare us their phony concern about the children participating in the District's school voucher program. If they cared for the future of these students, they wouldn't be so quick as to try to kill the program that affords low-income, minority children a chance at a better education. Their refusal to even give the program a fair hearing makes it critical that D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) seek help from voucher supporters in the Senate and, if need be, President Obama.

Last week, the Democrat-controlled House passed a spending bill that spells the end, after the 2009-10 school year, of the federally funded program that enables poor students to attend private schools with scholarships of up to $7,500. A statement signed by Mr. Obey as Appropriations Committee chairman that accompanied the $410 billion spending package directs D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee to "promptly take steps to minimize potential disruption and ensure smooth transition" for students forced back into the public schools.

We would like Mr. Obey and his colleagues to talk about possible "disruption" with Deborah Parker, mother of two children who attend Sidwell Friends School because of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. "The mere thought of returning to public school frightens me," Ms. Parker told us as she related the opportunities -- such as a trip to China for her son -- made possible by the program. Tell her, as critics claim, that vouchers don't work, and she'll list her children's improved test scores, feeling of safety and improved motivation.

But the debate unfolding on Capitol Hill isn't about facts. It's about politics and the stranglehold the teachers unions have on the Democratic Party. Why else has so much time and effort gone into trying to kill off what, in the grand scheme of government spending, is a tiny program? Why wouldn't Congress want to get the results of a carefully calibrated scientific study before pulling the plug on a program that has proved to be enormously popular? Could the real fear be that school vouchers might actually be shown to be effective in leveling the academic playing field?

This week, the Senate takes up the omnibus spending bill, and we hope that, with the help of supporters such as Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), the program gets the reprieve it deserves. If it doesn't, someone needs to tell Ms. Parker why a bunch of elected officials who can send their children to any school they choose are taking that option from her.

And here is a good thread discussing this back in 2009

[Darth Tater]

At its core, voucher programs are about giving the state the keys to the educational system.

[renaissance]

From what I've seen, students who use voucher programs see minimal gains in test scores over their public school counterparts. The biggest gains for the program(s) are actually parent opinions about the schools their kids are attending.

The biggest issue I have for vouchers is that while they may help the kids using them (again, evidence for this is still pretty slim), what about the kids who are still in public schools?

[Hubbs]

you are paying for profit institutions which means higher costs

Not necessarily. First, you're assuming that the costs of profit outweigh the costs of not having a profit incentive. That's very debatable. You might look at tuitions and say the costs are obvious, but let's dig deeper for a minute. Private schools can charge a lot for tuition because A) in most cases, they have a better product and they know it, and because they have a better product, there's inelastic demand for that product. You might say, "Well, with inelastic demand the for-profit schools will cost more." And if you were to take a particular geographic area - let's say the DC metro area - and hold everything static, you might be right. But let's change a couple variables. Imagine, for a moment, two major changes happened. One, most schools in the area were turned into for-profit institutions. (I know, I know, this would involve schools in two states and the District, we're just going through a thought experiment here.) Two, every kid had a certain amount of money attached to them not on a per-year basis, but rather a total sum for K-12 education. What you'd get is a system in which the profit incentive existed for all schools within said system, and also an incentive for parents to try to get the best "bang for the buck" every year, forcing schools to try to provide the best "education per dollar," so to speak, because if they drained a kid's entire voucher fund in, say, three years, a lot of parents would look elsewhere.

I hope that made sense, sometimes I'm not particularly good at describing ideas that bounce around in my head.

this also seems like not wanting to reform or fix that which needs fixing through hard work.

Really? We've complained about our education system for decades, and you think it's that simple?

But there are different types of competition. Elected officials are in competition with one another to get elected.

Yeah, that's been working out real well.

[PeterMP]

Yeah, that's been working out real well.

In many parts of the country, where people truly care about education and are willing to pay for it, it has worked out fine.

Nobody thinks the school districts in around Princeton, NJ aren't first class.

[Hubbs]

In many parts of the country, where people truly care about education and are willing to pay for it, it has worked out fine.

Nobody thinks the school districts in around Princeton, NJ aren't first class.

But your point was about competition amongst elected officials. Elected officials compete in both Princeton and Camden, correct?

[DRSmith]

Not necessarily. First, you're assuming that the costs of profit outweigh the costs of not having a profit incentive. That's very debatable. You might look at tuitions and say the costs are obvious, but let's dig deeper for a minute. Private schools can charge a lot for tuition because A) in most cases, they have a better product and they know it, and because they have a better product, there's inelastic demand for that product. You might say, "Well, with inelastic demand the for-profit schools will cost more." And if you were to take a particular geographic area - let's say the DC metro area - and hold everything static, you might be right. But let's change a couple variables. Imagine, for a moment, two major changes happened. One, most schools in the area were turned into for-profit institutions. (I know, I know, this would involve schools in two states and the District, we're just going through a thought experiment here.) Two, every kid had a certain amount of money attached to them not on a per-year basis, but rather a total sum for K-12 education. What you'd get is a system in which the profit incentive existed for all schools within said system, and also an incentive for parents to try to get the best "bang for the buck" every year, forcing schools to try to provide the best "education per dollar," so to speak, because if they drained a kid's entire voucher fund in, say, three years, a lot of parents would look elsewhere.

I hope that made sense, sometimes I'm not particularly good at describing ideas that bounce around in my head.

Really? We've complained about our education system for decades, and you think it's that simple?

Yeah, that's been working out real well.

First off let us examine if the product is better or are you paying for the label

And it is simple to fix but you have to the stones to do it and that means holding everyone accountable from the stundents parents to the teachers and for those who do not want to play ball a program set up where you basically provide daycare. Put those in classes that want to learn and put those that do not into a class and then you can put your teachers that are willing to do so along with needed security.

[PeterMP]

But your point was about competition amongst elected officials. Elected officials compete in both Princeton and Camden, correct?

Sure. And historically the people in Camden have chosen a different type of elected official

They've also chosen different types of restaurants, which is why you won't see the same type of restaurants in both places.

Is there any reason to believe they'd chose the same schools?

[The Sisko]

In general I support voucher programs, especially in cases where kids are trapped in subpar school districts. Contrary to popular opinion, overall students don't fare any better in private schools vs. public schools. It's just that the private schools get the same results for less money. Even so, I don't think the answer is to completely privatize the school system because private schools aren't a panacea. They sometimes suffer from problems of too little oversight and playing too much to the desires of the parents instead of teaching the skills students really need. I've seen that problem up close, firsthand. Instead I think the answer lies in reforming the truly worst public schools/districts.

[PeterMP]

It's just that the private schools get the same results for less money.

Do you (or anybody else) know if that is actually true if you factor in all students. I know the school district I am in costs about $13,000/student on average, but that number is very misleading because if you start looking at the numbers, it seems likely that some individual students costs over $20,000.

Are private school "cheaper" becuase they are taking a subset of students that are cheaper to educate than the total population?

I will say the other way that vouchers might make sense is to give up a percentage of what it actually is going to take to educate your kid. If it is going to take $10,000 to educate your kid, we'll give a voucher for $5,000.

That would seem to me to benefit the school (I guess there are some large capitial items and shared resources where that might not be the case, but over all, I'd think you could create a percentage where it would balance out. Just a matter of where that percentage is.)

[The Sisko]

Are private school "cheaper" becuase they are taking a subset of students that are cheaper to educate than the total population?

Agreed. I meant to mention something along those lines and got a bit sidetracked in my reply. I suspect that if public schools were abolished tomorrow, private schools would probably revert to the mean so to speak, and be a lot closer to public schools in overall quality and cost.

That's why I think the answer lies in reforming the very worst public schools/systems rather than going to a fully private system as some people would have us do.