Fruit of the Poisoned Tree - School Vouchers Scheme Worked

[Stinger2]

Fruit of the Poisoned Tree - School Vouchers Scheme Worked
Apr 5, 2002

"Vouchers are a pernicious, steal-from-the-poor-and-give-to-the-rich scheme. They take money from our public school students, give it instead to private schools, and abandon many of our children in the process" - NAACP executive director Kweisi Mfume

http://www.blackcommentator.com/poisoned_tree.html

[ulysses]

1. happy to k&r.

[marybourg]

2. Check out this story:

Arizona high court rejects private school vouchers

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/03/25/20090325vouchers.html?&wiredhttp

[Stinger2]

4. No Bush Left Behind - $1.9 billion-a-year instructional software industry.

No Bush Left Behind
The President's brother Neil is making hay from school reform

Across the country, some teachers complain that President George W. Bush's makeover of public education promotes "teaching to the test." The President's younger brother Neil takes a different tack: He's selling to the test. The No Child Left Behind Act compels schools to prove students' mastery of certain facts by means of standardized exams. Pressure to perform has energized the $1.9 billion-a-year instructional software industry.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_42/b4005059.htm

Greed Rules, you are only called a winner if you have money, no thanks, I remember the needle and camel before conservatives changed the meaning.

[imdjh]

6. How do you feel about Virtual School?

"Pressure to perform has energized the $1.9 billion-a-year instructional software industry."

Surely some of that money is going to establishing the Virtual Schools, as well as other resources since Virtual Classrooms have live public school teachers out there in cyberspace grading homework, helping with problems, and doing home voice checks. Virtual School is the next big thing, actually it's already big. It works great too. Kids can work at their own pace, within reason, without the peer danger, peer distraction, and peer corruption of public school classrooms.

[Sancho]

3. K & r

:dem:

[imdjh]

5. How does he figure that one?

"Vouchers are a pernicious, steal-from-the-poor-and-give-to-the-rich scheme. They take money from our public school students, give it instead to private schools, and abandon many of our children in the process" - NAACP executive director Kweisi Mfume


Ummmm, how does he figure that one?

[guruoo]

7. Welcome to DU

[imdjh]

8. Thanks

I think the quoted selection shows either a profound misunderstanding of how vouchers have, do, or will work as well as the support structure for the public schools. A voucher given to a student to attend a private school is considerably less than the per pupil expenditure in any given public school system. In most cases it's about half, so the public school is keeping half the tax money but getting rid of a whole student. I also find the "we" and "they" a bit convoluted. The kids at my local private schools are not rich. The schools are not rich. The tuitions are down to earth. The facilities are decidedly humble compared to public schools. The teachers make less than public school teachers. The parents pay taxes. So how is a voucher to them taking something away from someone else?

[procopia]

9. public schools keep half the tax money?

Public schools get no money for students who are not enrolled.

[imdjh]

10. Yeah

The public schools are funded through dedicated taxes, usually real estate tax, as well as other funding sources. So you're probably correct that they don't get to keep half, but their funding is not reduced by the full per pupil expenditure. Vouchers are a portion of the school budget in those places that have them.

I can honestly say that I don't understand the animosity towards vouchers. I used to think that I did, and I used to oppose them mostly on principle. But I found my position to be indefensible.

Why do you oppose them, assuming that you do?

I could oppose them in their current form, because they presently (in FL) require that you send your kid to a public school, a failing public school no less, before you can get a voucher. Another scheme requires that your kid have "special needs" not being met by the public school. Who are these politicians to decide what your child's special needs are? Perhaps your child's special need is to go to a school that has quiet classrooms full of well behaved children and parents who help out and keep their kids on track.

I think that vouchers ought to be available in a fixed amount to anyone. It's more than fair, since it means that people who pay little or no tax, people who pay less in taxes than it costs to send their kids to school, and people who pay an excess of taxes all get treated the same.

I asked above but no one has answered. How do you feel about Virtual School? It's like homeschooling with kids telecommuting to class.

[mbperrin]

11. In Texas, school districts get their money from the state based on attendance.

No student body in place that day, no money from Austin. In addition, local revenues from property taxes that exceed a given amount per pupil enrolled (and this amount varies) goes into the state fund to be redistributed to districts with low property values, bringing their student aid roughly into line with the richer districts.

So yes, vouchers would take 100% of the money allowed for each student away from the local district.

That's not the worst, of course. Even if charter schools were any good (and data from the Texas Education Agency indicates they stink, based on the same tests given to public school students), no poor student can use a voucher to attend. Why?

Well, as you indicate, vouchers are typically 1/2 the student allowance. In my own area of Texas, that would mean a voucher of about $3800 per year, yet the only private high school in the area costs $30,000 per year in tuition. Poor parents are not going to come up with $26,200 a year for their student to attend, so he or she stays in public school.

On the other hand, for the prosperous folks who have kids already in private school, the $3800 makes for a nice little discount of a little over 12% on their current tuition. So the district bleeds out resource money, the private school current enrollees get a discount, and this is how the transfer of wealth occurs, from poor to wealthy.

[imdjh]

14. There are undoubtedly fixes which need to be made

No student body in place that day, no money from Austin. In addition, local revenues from property taxes that exceed a given amount per pupil enrolled (and this amount varies) goes into the state fund to be redistributed to districts with low property values, bringing their student aid roughly into line with the richer districts.

So yes, vouchers would take 100% of the money allowed for each student away from the local district.

Surely the school budget accounts for vouchers, and if it doesn't then it should. It would seem an easy fix. Budget the regular $8000/student/year for those in attendance, and whatever the voucher amount is per student per year for those attending private schools.

That's not the worst, of course. Even if charter schools were any good (and data from the Texas Education Agency indicates they stink, based on the same tests given to public school students), no poor student can use a voucher to attend. Why?

I don't know how charter schools work, it's always seemed like a work around on the surface, a sort of quasi private school. My support is for a straightforward voucher program.

Well, as you indicate, vouchers are typically 1/2 the student allowance. In my own area of Texas, that would mean a voucher of about $3800 per year, yet the only private high school in the area costs $30,000 per year in tuition. Poor parents are not going to come up with $26,200 a year for their student to attend, so he or she stays in public school.

Some private schools are priced to be exclusive. Others aren't. Just as you can't exclude the collective school which has a small tuition because the voucher would pay the whole thing, you can't exclude the ritzy school because it's expensive. The goal here is to facilitate choices in education, not to force the Krishna Day School and Snodgrass Prep into the same mold.

On the other hand, for the prosperous folks who have kids already in private school, the $3800 makes for a nice little discount of a little over 12% on their current tuition.

Why should the vouchers be means tested? Those people who have kids in a $30K/year school are presumably also the ones subsidizing the schools for everyone else. I know I don't pay enough in property tax for even one child to attend public school at the published expendture/student/yr/

So the district bleeds out resource money, the private school current enrollees get a discount, and this is how the transfer of wealth occurs, from poor to wealthy.
That makes no sense at all. First off, that "resource money" is tax money, paid by real people, some more than others. People not paying in taxes what they consume are being subsidized.

[Igel]

15. So, is this what you're saying.

If I'm in a school district that has more tax money than can be spent on the students, the excess goes to the state to help poor, underfunded districts. So if I take my kid out of school, part of "his" funding goes to the voucher and the rest becomes excess and increases the state funding available to poor districts.

If I'm in a poor district, since the local district gets some state money for my son they'd lose that money. But since the same pot of money is now divvied up over fewer students, the net effect is to increase statewide funding of poor district spending per pupil.

Now, if I did the algebra I'm sure I'd be able to find a scenario in which taking my kid out of public school has absolutely no effect, but that's immaterial.

The only problem is with the district's fixed expenses, since, after all, part of the money for my son went to pay fixed costs and overhead--administrators, school bond issues, etc. The expenses that aren't fixed are, well, not fixed and can be reduced.

[imdjh]

16. I wish I had said that

[mbperrin]

17. The amount per pupil is fixed by the legislature. Not divvied up, so the

fewer students, the more per pupil is available.

The "excess" would go to the general fund.

BUT as usual, the Texas Lege appropriated less than the amount required to actually cover it, so there is actually proportionally less for the "poor" districts, hence, inequalities still exist, although less than if no "Robin Hood" plan were in place.

Hope this helps.

If you live in Texas, you know why we only allow the Lege to meet every other year, and only for 140 days then. We just can't stand much more damage than that...

[imdjh]

18. How do you feel about Virtual School? n/t

[mbperrin]

21. I teach English 1 and 2 in our district's Virtual High School.

It is just another school in the district. I also teach economics at one of the brick high schools.

The VHS here is used for dropout recovery. Many of our students are employed full-time, some with children to support, and so the 24/7 format that allows them to log in anywhere anytime is good for them to be able to complete their coursework.

There are also labs in each of the brick schools that are open until 9 each night for those without personal computer access to the Internet, as well as teaching assistants there to help with the mechanics of getting on and doing the work.

There's no reason for any VHS to be operated privately. Our district has had this in place for 5 years now, and enrollment expands each year. These are regular courses offered by our already accredited district, so the credits go directly onto a regular transcript, no need to reinvent the wheel.

And because of the asynchronous schedule, some brick school teachers teach just one or two classes as a supplement to their income, while giving students the benefit of a full time trained qualified teacher with a master's degree. The flexibility for both staff and students ensures maximum benefits to both.

[procopia]

12. I oppose vouchers for several reasons

First, they are a scheme to destroy public schools. They are deceptively promoted as a way to "improve" public education, but free market advocates and right wing religious leaders are not interested in improving public schools; they want to eliminate them. Some religious leaders have even stated their motivation:

"I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them."--Jerry Falwell

"They say vouchers would spell the end of public schools in America. To which we say, 'So what?'"--Pat Robertson

Second, they have not worked in any place they have been tried. Voucher advocates have twisted test scores attempting to claim success but close analysis has shown no significant improvement. The implementation of vouchers prompts opportunists to open "instant" schools, without any scrutiny of teaching credentials or safety of facilities.

Third, vouchers do harm public schools where most children attend. School funding is based on average daily attendance in most states. Just as importantly, vouchers distract from real reforms that have proven results. Voucher advocates have distorted and exaggerated the "failure" of public schools, destroying public confidence in them.

Fourth, vouchers violate separation of church and state. "Choice" is a misleading term regarding vouchers, because everyone has choice now. I certainly chose the schools for my own children when I chose my place of residence. I could have opted for private schools if religious instruction were important to me--but I would not expect taxpayers to provide it.

[imdjh]

13. The issue and support base has become broader

First, they are a scheme to destroy public schools. They are deceptively promoted as a way to "improve" public education, but free market advocates and right wing religious leaders are not interested in improving public schools;

I don't disagree that there have been voucher proponents whose aims and feeling are exactly as you have described them. However, they are not the whole of the support for vouchers at this point. There has been a shift, and the support base has grown with people who see voucher programs as a good idea and from a completely different perspective. That doesn't mean that the religious right doesn't still see them as useful in their designs. It's kind of like the tax exempt status of churches; yes, it helps the fundies and the RCC, but it also helps the modern Quakers, Unitarians, hip urban ministries, and cosmic new age communities as well.

Second, they have not worked in any place they have been tried.

That depends on how you define "worked". If vouchers shouldn't be funded because they didn't improve test scores, then neither should most of the public schools. My POV is that vouchers work if they allow parents to choose options outside the public schools, and allow small private schools a better chance of survival.

Third, vouchers do harm public schools where most children attend. School funding is based on average daily attendance in most states. Just as importantly, vouchers distract from real reforms that have proven results. Voucher advocates have distorted and exaggerated the "failure" of public schools, destroying public confidence in them.

Again, you're seeing voucher advocates as a single entity. I'll grant you that public schools are often portrayed as a single entity and a universal failure when that isn't the case. However, many public schools and public school systems are failing, systemically, due to a variety of factors. I don't claim that vouchers will fix those public schools, but neither will sending kids to them who need to be educated now rather than be a part of some long term plan or dream which will not benefit them when they need it.

Fourth, vouchers violate separation of church and state.

I'm a real stickler on Separation issues, but this isn't one of them. Vouchers don't just go to religious schools and to oppose them because some of them would go to religious schools smacks of hostility rather than indifference. The government is supposed to be indifferent to religion, not hostile to it.

"Choice" is a misleading term regarding vouchers, because everyone has choice now. I certainly chose the schools for my own children when I chose my place of residence.

LOL! You argue that vouchers are bad because they "take away" from the public schools. Exactly what does moving to the hunt country do if not remove your taxes and children from the city or county you find to be less desirable? And isn't it a bit elitist to reserve "good schools" for those who can afford them?

[procopia]

22. I disagree...

However, they are not the whole of the support for vouchers at this point. There has been a shift, and the support base has grown with people who see voucher programs as a good idea and from a completely different perspective.

The support base has grown somewhat because the deception and propaganda used by free market advocates and the religious right has influenced more people. They have funneled millions of dollars into this issue and have framed vouchers as a "scholarship" for the poor and disadvantaged--"shouldn't poor children have a chance for a good education?"--which is all just a Trojan horse tactic because we know these people care nothing about the poor. The same people who are promoting vouchers "for the poor" would deny them health insurance.

neither will sending kids to them who need to be educated now rather than be a part of some long term plan or dream which will not benefit them when they need it.

Vouchers will not fix anything. Many studies have confirmed that private schools are no better than public schools when students' backgrounds are considered. Vouchers take money from public schools which could be used for special classes, smaller classes, better teachers, etc.--not in the long term, but now.

My POV is that vouchers work if they allow parents to choose options outside the public schools, and allow small private schools a better chance of survival.

There is nothing to keep parents from choosing private schools, now. Even poor parents have been known to make the personal sacrifices necessary to provide private education if they want it badly enough. As far as "allowing small private schools a better chance for survival," you are advocating subsidizing private schools, and that does cross the line of separation of church and state.

The government is supposed to be indifferent to religion, not hostile to it.

Is the government supposed to be hostile to public schools, because it has been, starting with the 1983 propaganda report, "A Nation at Risk".

http://www.america-tomorrow.com/bracey/EDDRA/EDDRA8.htm

Public schools have been denigrated, forced to test and meet arbitrary demands or be deemed a "failing school," resulting in losing funds to private schools which are not required to provide accountability to the public or even parents.

Furthermore, sectarian schools integrate religious values and doctrine throughout their curriculum, indoctrinating students on human sexuality, creationism and the role of women in society. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for the indoctrination of religious views they disagree with.

Exactly what does moving to the hunt country do if not remove your taxes and children from the city or county you find to be less desirable?

Students move in and out of school districts continually. It usually doesn't effect the total average enrollment. In fact, a family with ten children is now living in a house my family moved out of.

And isn't it a bit elitist to reserve "good schools" for those who can afford them?

No one wants to do that. We want to make all of the schools "good schools," and that can never be accomplished with vouchers.

[Hugin]

23. Vouchers and Privatization are their solution to every social ill.

"The same people who are promoting vouchers "for the poor" would deny them health insurance."

Just as they're proposing 'vouchers' for Health Insurance, as well.

Yay! Healthcare by Lottery! :eyes:

Yet, they cringe at using socialism to confront social problems. Maybe because there's no way to profit off of the flock.

[Tansy_Gold]

19. Vouchers are a means by which the right wing keeps the masses

in ignorance.

Rather than fixing the "failing" or "underperforming" schools, voucher give SOME children an alternative. Not all students, you understand. For some it's the lluck of the draw; a limited number of vouchers are available and they're doled out by lottery or some other "random" or "fair" system. How can it be fair if it leaves other children in the "failing" school?

In this country, though the details vary from state to state and within the states by school district, most public school systems are funded by property taxes. Well, it stands to reason then that rich districts get well-funded schools.

But it also stands to reason that the families in rich districts are more than likely higher income than the families in poor districts. They're the families more likely to have home computers, parents and siblings with better educations, but they're also the families more likely to have sufficient nutricious food on the table every day, adequate health and dental care, safe and secure and comfortable homes. How well do you think a six-year-old can learn to read and write, regardless what kind of school he's in, if his breakfast consists of a cold pop tart and a can of orange soda? or of nothing at all? How well do you think an eight-year-old can learn her multiplication tables if she's been taunted on the playground week after week after week because she has to wear the same five outfits in rotation?

What about the kids whose parents are homeless, who get shifted from one relative's house to another while the parents look for work?

Vouchers are a sop to the poor, like the lottery, that keep them in perpetual hope and perpetual poverty.

Giving a good education to one child who is unable to take full advantage of it is a waste, but "they" don't give a fat rat's ass about that. As long as they keep the rabble in line. . . . .



Tansy Gold, out of line and damn proud of it

[libodem]

20. Abso-fuckin'-lutely

absolutely!