School Vouchers

Well I have no voucher for police or firefighters! Originally Posted by WTF

Ahh. I see. I'll have to think about that. Might be a plan.

please King RK! Originally Posted by WTF

Wow!. That kind of has a nice ring to it, doesn't it.

What are you going to run for, King? Originally Posted by WTF

Vote Atlcomedy for President! Originally Posted by Nicolette Morgandy

So who will have more power? I want to make sure I'm stroking the proper ego.

WTF for court jester!

You know the real power is the woman in the bedroom.

You know the real power is the woman in the bedroom. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Ain't it the truth.

You know the real power is the woman in the bedroom. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Why limit it to the bedroom? Use your imagination

Why limit it to the bedroom? Use your imagination Originally Posted by discreetgent

OK, in your case the kitchen counter.

Well of course they are. Is that a news event? Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Apparently, it is.

And firemen are a subsidy at the expense of taxpayers, expecially those that don't have fires.

And parks are a subsidy at the expense of taxpayers, expecially those that don't go to parks.

Last time I checked, no one was proposing to offer vouchers for people who wanted to use private fire departments or to go to private parks.

For whatever reason, our society has determined that the education of its youth is something worthy of a societal cost...and should be shared among all of us.

Hold that thought, since I intend to reference this sentence a few times.

If society has determined that it is willing to spend $2k per year for the education of its youth...why shouldn't it allow the parent to spend it as wisely as he or she sees fit?

Parents can spemd as much as they want to educate their children. They just shouldn't be subsidized to exempt themselves from the sharimg among all of us to which you alluded above.

You want to tell me how to educate my child?

As a matter of fact, no. I just don't want to subsidize your choice of how to raise your kid. As you noted above, the concept of educating youth is based on the premise of sharing the cost amoung all of us. That is totally seperate from whether or not you have a kid to educate. If you do have a kid (or many kids) to educate, then you are free to take advantage of that sharing of the cost with those of us who have no kids. to educate your kid(s) . If you don't wish to do that, it's your choice to do otherwise, but not at my expense.

Strange npita? You speak of "cost" as if it is some nebulous thing other than money.

Frankly, I did send my kids to public schools...and to state universities...and I went to public school and state university myself. But that doesn't mean I don't see the merit in a private school education. And I'm not sure why the fact that someone is willing to foot the bill for the excess costs, mean they forgo the cost being provided by society.

Strange npita? You speak of "cost" as if it is some nebulous thing other than money. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Not true. See below.

Frankly, I did send my kids to public schools...and to state universities...and I went to public school and state university myself.

My brothers and I did as well (except for one brother who decided to attend a private university for his last two years and for his MBA and who footed the bill himself).

But that doesn't mean I don't see the merit in a private school education.

We aren't discussing merit here. I think that might be an interesting topic, especially at the university level where there are a number of tier 1 public universities with top 10 departments (Berkeley and UT are two examples), but that is a different issue.

And I'm not sure why the fact that someone is willing to foot the bill for the excess costs, mean they forgo the cost being provided by society.

For reasons I have mentioned before. The public school system has to have the facilities to educate every potential student in the school district, including those who are attending private schools, but then decide to revert to public schools for whatever reason. (My niece and nephew attended private schools for several years, but then decided they wanted to go to the same schools their friends attended and did just that),

If half of the kids in the school district attended private schools, the cost for the public schools would not be reduced, since any or all of those privately schooled kids could, at any time, decide to enroll in the public school system and the public schools would have to be prepared to accept them. Sending your kids to a private school would only change the student to teacher ratio in the public schools.

You can clearly see this at the university level. Private universities have a fixed enrollment and always fill the number of spots that are open. Public universities have to take everyone who meets some criteria. When I attended a (public) university for undergratuate and graduate school, the enrollment over that span of time rose from 25,000 to over 40,000. New facilities had to be constructed by anticipating the increase in the student population. When I taught at a (public) university, what changed was the number of students in my classes.

Except for updating labs and making a few additions like buildings to house computers and address other technological changes, private universities remain much as they were when originally constructed because the enrollment is capped. Cal Tech, for example states they had 3952 applicants for the class of 2012 (i.e., enrolled in 2008). They accepted 688 students, which is much the same as it was 30+ years ago when a friend of mine went to Cal Tech. Had he decided to transfer to a public university in Texas, the public university would have to be prepared to accept him, since he obviously met the requirements.

In the elementary and secondary school system, the situation is worse, since every potential student meets the requirements to attend public schools.

I did some research when this was a hot issue back in 2001(?). These were my conclusions which are based on the assumption that we need more competition;

My local school district received about $7500 per student in revenue.
If they gave out vouchers for $5000, this would still leave them with about $2500 in revenue that could then be applied to helping the other students. At some point, the extra revenue per student would result in the education quality in the public schools rising to where people would not think it worthwhile to switch to a private school.

Private schools would see a huge increase in demand initially spurring construction (good for the economy). Demand for teachers would increase along with salaries therefore attracting better quality.

I know that $5000 is a small fraction of the yearly cost for elite private schools but there is a good number of schools (and this would create more) that are in that $10000 or less yearly price range.

To limit the wealthy who are already sending their kids to private school from taking advantage of this, there would need to be a stepped income cap for the voucher program.

Public schools do not budget with the assumption that every eligible child will enroll. This became abundantly evident in NYC when a large enough group of parents in districts with good schools chose public school instead of private school when the economy tanked. Some school districts had to send some of the kids to other school districts for lack of space and it created a budget headache for the schools.

Public schools do not budget with the assumption that every eligible child will enroll. This became abundantly evident in NYC when a large enough group of parents in districts with good schools chose public school instead of private school when the economy tanked. Originally Posted by discreetgent

That only means the NYC school district in question was already underfunded and vouchers would have only made the situation worse.

Not true. See below.

My brothers and I did as well (except for one brother who decided to attend a private university for his last two years and for his MBA and who footed the bill himself).
We aren't discussing merit here. I think that might be an interesting topic, especially at the university level where there are a number of tier 1 public universities with top 10 departments (Berkeley and UT are two examples), but that is a different issue.
For reasons I have mentioned before. The public school system has to have the facilities to educate every potential student in the school district, including those who are attending private schools, but then decide to revert to public schools for whatever reason. (My niece and nephew attended private schools for several years, but then decided they wanted to go to the same schools their friends attended and did just that), Originally Posted by npita

Such is the problem with casting judgment based on cocktail talk rather than hands on experience. I have been involved in leadership roles at both the local school level and at the university level.

Your premise is simply false. Schools do in fact estimate the population of the children within their district, factoring those that will not attend public schools, and size their instructor staffing, facilities, supplies, etc to meet those estimates. There are not a whole bunch of empty desks sitting their fallow because the little Johnnys & Marys didn't show up this year.

The university makes similar judgment also. My alma matter actually accepts some 35% more students, each year, than they expect will ever attend.

I am not saying there should not be some discounting in a voucher program for a flexibility factor and the transfer of some estimation risk to society. But to reject the concept out of hand based on your premise is...well, not based on what happens on the real world. It is an outcome based justification rather than looking at the facts and coming to a proper outcome.

Based on the 2008–09 school year, IBO found:• Per student general education spending at traditional public schools totaled $16,678 (NYC)







http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/...olsfeb2010.pdf

That only means the NYC school district in question was already underfunded and vouchers would have only made the situation worse. Originally Posted by npita

NYC doesn't have vouchers.