Do you support a voucher system for school choice?

[HowardBThiname]

The US has been employing the same system to improve the education of our children since we established the Department of Education almost 50 years ago.

During that time the outcomes of our system has moved our students from Number 1 to the middle of the pack.

Destroying this system and making a better one might be a good idea.

That does sound like a good idea. The Department of Education has catered so long to the Teacher's Union (read, the "me, me, me" union) that the actual education of students has suffered. It's time to fix that.

 

[radcen]

You are separating the economic aspects of education when it comes making a choice in regard to the education of a parent's child.

This seems to be irrational.

Quite the contrary. It's uncomfortably completely rational. Public services, which we all complicity agree to through our voting of representatives, is everybody's obligation. Equally (theoretically, at least). Anything you want to do beyond that for yourself is on you.

People who want to pull money back for their own choices... and that's what the word "choice" is all about... are simply being selfish, and would probably be the biggest critics when the public schools still didn't measure up, even though they're now part of the problem.

 

[code1211]

Because private schools aren't any better on average, they're just cherrypicking the best students.

In actual fact, private schools produce superior outcomes at lower costs.

Whatever system they use would seem to be beneficial to those who are admitted.

Restricting the choice of parents with lower incomes by not allowing the use of vouchers seems to seems to be outlandishly discriminatory. It also seems to endorse the maintenance of a permanent underclass.

 

[molten_dragon]

Um, no.

Students of all social classes can be either brilliant or dunces, your suggestion makes it sound as is smart kids only come from wealthy families.

Students who grow up in wealthy households have advantages that students who grow up in poverty lack. This is undeniable.

And the cherrypicking has less to do with wealth and more to do with private schools' ability to say no to students they don't want there. If you switch to a voucher system and start forcing private schools to accept anyone, you'll see there performance drop to average.

 

[code1211]

Quite the contrary. It's uncomfortably completely rational. Public services, which we all complicity agree to through our voting of representatives, is everybody's obligation. Equally (theoretically, at least). Anything you want to do beyond that for yourself is on you.

People who want to pull money back for their own choices... and that's what the word "choice" is all about... are simply being selfish, and would probably be the biggest critics when the public schools still didn't measure up, even though they're now part of the problem.

Self interest is the basis of all things that advance the society.

It is the only thing that can be depended upon to be consistently present in our actions.

IF enough people pull their children out of the public school system by their own choice to achieve their own goals, that calls to question the value of the public system.

As of now, the problems with the public model are amply demonstrated and the most expedient methods to redress the shortcomings exist in the voucher system.

Allowing the competition of ideas in the marketplace of ideas seems to have produced some good outcomes in the past.

Why do you endorse the forced restriction of ideas in this particular area of society?

 

[code1211]

Students who grow up in wealthy households have advantages that students who grow up in poverty lack. This is undeniable.

And the cherrypicking has less to do with wealth and more to do with private schools' ability to say no to students they don't want there. If you switch to a voucher system and start forcing private schools to accept anyone, you'll see there performance drop to average.

Why force the private schools into a paradigm that has already been shown to be lacking?

 

[HowardBThiname]

Students who grow up in wealthy households have advantages that students who grow up in poverty lack. This is undeniable.

And the cherrypicking has less to do with wealth and more to do with private schools' ability to say no to students they don't want there. If you switch to a voucher system and start forcing private schools to accept anyone, you'll see there performance drop to average.

Private schools (the vast majority) very rarely drop a student, unless it's for behavioral problems. There are "elitist" private schools who do pick and choose, but those are few and far between, and tuition is so high in those schools that a voucher would not make a significant difference. In other words, vouchers would not help students go to those schools.

But, it would make it possible for the majority of students to go to non-elitist private schools, where they would not be dismissed unless they could not behave. And, that happens in public schools, as well. Kids can be expelled there as well.

But, graduation rates are much higher in private schools, so even at-risk kids would have a better chance of improving their lot in life.

If we want to invest in the next generation, offering vouchers could be a significant help.

 

[GDViking]

If the goal of eduction is help the students, how are your restrictions essential to achieving that goal?

When all the money goes to education fine.

As soon as the Vatican takes their gold on their ceilings and use it to feed and educate the poor I will support them receiving tax payers dollars, until then I do not want one penny removed from public education going to for profit organizations, religious or otherwise.

 

[Helix]

In what way is a expanding choice a weapon?

If there is only a mandated limited variety of choices, you end up with what is is beneficial to those who provide the limited choices.

When there is a wide selection of choices, you end up with what is beneficial to the shoppers.

Expanded choice is what has moved Amazon near the top of retailers in the world with no stores to walk inside of.

New approaches are not always bad ideas.

ok, i'll pretend like you don't already know. basically, Republicans use the voucher system to suck money away from public schools. then the public schools fail, and the Republicans point at this and say, "look, they're failing!" and pull even more money away from public schools.

 

[radcen]

Self interest is the basis of all things that advance the society.

It is the only thing that can be depended upon to be consistently present in our actions.

IF enough people pull their children out of the public school system by their own choice to achieve their own goals, that calls to question the value of the public system.

As of now, the problems with the public model are amply demonstrated and the most expedient methods to redress the shortcomings exist in the voucher system.

Allowing the competition of ideas in the marketplace of ideas seems to have produced some good outcomes in the past.

Why do you endorse the forced restriction of ideas in this particular area of society?

Did you make up that hyperbole to try and bolster your argument? I said absolutely nothing, nor did I even imply, anything even remotely resembling "forced restriction" of anything. What I did advocate, was a balance of self-interest and collective responsibility. Said type of balance is actually what has benefited societies most in the past, not one over the other. !00% pure self-interest results in competition crushing corporate monopolies, and 100% collectivism results in competition crushing government monopolies. You're advocating taking from one to give to the other (sounds like a form of welfare, really) while forcing the other one of the two to operate at a restricted level. I'm advocating allowing each to do their own thing... fully.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

"The Taxpayers" are not "footing the Bill".

The money belongs to the parents. Those parents that choose to send their children to private schools and are afforded the use of vouchers are choosing to not "foot the bill" for the failed systems they wish to avoid.

Vouchers provide expanded choice and additional freedom.

This is not different than choosing a particular car model over another. Why, if I prefer to buy a Chevy, should I be forced to subsidize a Ford used by others and that I will never use?

By the same logic, why can't the street in front of my house be gravel, why I am not given that choice? The government just chooses to have an asphalt road there. It is my tax money, and I want the 75 feet of street in front of my house to be gravel regardless of the fact it is blacktop for the rest of it.

Similarly, why does the government not give me the "choice" of hiring my own police protection? Why can I not have a voucher so that I can hire my own private police protection? Like you say, I prefer a Chevy (private police protection), so why do I have to pay for everyone else's Ford (municipal police)?

You have a choice to put your kid in any school you want. You have no entitlement to a taxpayer funded voucher for that. I am fine with giving parents a voucher if their kids are in a failing school. However, if you are in a good school district, but you want to send your kids to a private school anyway, then that is your choice, but don't expect me to pay for it.

 

[Nap]

One of the primary issues with the Singapore education system (and indeed the education system of most Southeast Asian countries) is it very strongly teaches to the test, so it's unsurprising that it does feature better test outcomes than education systems that are also excellent but opt for a more unconventional, diverse and fully encompassing approach to education such as say Finland or Canada. That having been said, I do think they have absolutely phenomenal system in place that can be learned from, but it is certainly not the end all/be all.

As to the US education system, it does have serious problems, and though I think culture is likely a substantial component of the issue, many of those problems are likely structural in nature.

Strong teachers unions likely aren't problematic; virtually all of the countries that surpass the US have stronger teachers unions, and teachers that enjoy roundly better pay and benefits.




Sure; my point is that in lieu of vouchers (which is likely to make public education even worse by diverting resources from it), we try to fix the fundamental issues with public education by studying other countries and integrating the things that work there and are workable here.

My point on the teachers unions was less about pay and more to the fact that it is next to impossible to get rid of terrible teachers. No matter what system we get if we don't solve our cultural issues and being able to fire horrible teachers, we would likely only be wasting time and money on changing anything.

 

[molten_dragon]

Whatever system they use would seem to be beneficial to those who are admitted.

Herein lies the key point.

 

[molten_dragon]

Why force the private schools into a paradigm that has already been shown to be lacking?

So we give everyone vouchers and let the schools pick and choose who they'll accept? Sure, how could that possibly end badly?

 

[molten_dragon]

Private schools (the vast majority) very rarely drop a student, unless it's for behavioral problems.

They don't have to drop students when they can pick and choose who they admit in the first place.

Unless we're talking about charter schools, which don't perform significantly better than public schools.

 

[Rocket66]

Why not use the money to improve the local schools. There is a reason the local schools are struggling.

 

[HowardBThiname]

They don't have to drop students when they can pick and choose who they admit in the first place.

Unless we're talking about charter schools, which don't perform significantly better than public schools.

The vast majority of private schools do not "pick and choose." As I explained, that's mostly only elitist schools which are relatively rare and would not be a factor in the voucher plan.

Charter schools actually score much higher than public schools as well.

This comes on the heels of the new, 2017 US News and World Report rankings of the country’s best public high schools.

And guess what? Charter schools dominated that list, too.

For the first time ever, the majority of the top 10 public high schools are charter public schools. Equally impressive is the fact that 60 percent of the top 100 high schools are public schools of choice – either charter or magnet.

That’s it folks; the debate is over. Charter high schools are equal to or better than their traditional peers. That’s a fact.

Proof Positive that Charter Schools Are Better

 

[HowardBThiname]

Why not use the money to improve the local schools. There is a reason the local schools are struggling.

That's a nice sentiment, but public schools already cost more, per pupil, than private schools, on average, and they're still behind. Sometimes, it really doesn't help to throw more money at something that is flawed.

 

[Fenton Lum]

America's public education system has received plenty of slack for being lackluster. Many have criticized it for falling behind other countries, dumbing down generations, and generally being inferior in quality to private schools. The problem with private schools is that parents have to pay $7,770 on average to send their kids there in contrast to public school which is funded by government (but cots $10,615 per student on average). The solution which many conservatives and libertarians support is school choice. In school choice, there are charter schools which act independently from the government but are still taxpayer funded.

What are your thoughts on school choice?

Gee, the capitalists can't keep up with all those "socialist" societies in healthcare, education, infrastucture, public safety, etc. because we haven't privatized enough. Brilliant.

 

[radcen]

Why not use the money to improve the local schools. There is a reason the local schools are struggling.

Not sure what you mean. What money? You mean the money that's already there?

 

[Surrealistik]

Why do you assert that we do not study the processes used in the local private schools as a model?

It seems that whatever obstacles are present and overcome by the private schools' approaches might be a good model to use to overcome the same local obstacles encountered by the public school counterparts.

Because the best performing education systems in the world feature a strong/dominant public component, and the 'superiority' of local private schools is largely a consequence of selection bias: i.e. they take only accept the best, brightest and most motivated as well as the wealthiest (wealth being strongly associated with academic success).

Why is diverting resources from a detested system to a preferred system a bad thing?

Because it is likely to guarantee the failure of public education, and there is a better alternative: reforms that move the public education system in the direction of foreign public schools that outperform American private ones.

If the Finnish System is producing very good results, why have the systems/procedures used there not been adopted by their American Counterparts?

It seems like we should be examining success and spreading the Best Practices.

What is it that our educators are trying to achieve?

Well sure, that's the point I'm making: we have a lot to learn from other countries, and that is the preferable solution to malaise with public education, not diverting public funds to private education.

If the test is a well designed and effective one, how is teaching to the test a bad thing?

If students do well on the test, they have mastered the needed knowledge.

Because while teaching to the test is unsurprisingly great for determining outcomes on academic tests, it's less so for the more diverse and abstract real life situations/applicability, or engendering say critical thinking and problem solving abilities for such situations. To its credit, Singapore is now trying to diversify from a vigourous emphasis on rote and drills and test focus to more encompassing instruction.

My point on the teachers unions was less about pay and more to the fact that it is next to impossible to get rid of terrible teachers. No matter what system we get if we don't solve our cultural issues and being able to fire horrible teachers, we would likely only be wasting time and money on changing anything.

I definitely hear you; what I'm saying is that I can't imagine this is actually a major issue given how strong teachers unions are in these other countries. It is certainly possible that their public education systems have greater power to fire underperforming/incapable teachers, but that just seems unlikely for most of them, and it's definitely not the case for Canada.

 

[Cephus]

Sure; my point is that in lieu of vouchers (which is likely to make public education even worse by diverting resources from it), we try to fix the fundamental issues with public education by studying other countries and integrating the things that work there and are workable here.

Which we should. The problem is, a lot of the problems with public education are not fixable by funneling money into education. A lot of the problems are social. A lot of the problems are cultural. When you've got poor children whose parents are uneducated and who actively try to discourage them from getting an education, when these children live in a subculture which not only does not appreciate an education but actively acts to undermine it, throwing money at the schools won't change a thing. You have to change the culture and nobody wants to do that.

 

[Cephus]

I feel you are trying to pick up all of the factors that doom this system and then apply those factors onto the alternative choices.

Why not apply the factors that make private schools successful onto the public alternatives?

If there are factors that diminish the outcomes for the majority of students, like "taking all comers", those factors need to be removed from the mainstream.

If the outcomes are based only on the make up of the students instructed as you seem to assert, then we need to change the student body to conform to what will create success. This notion also calls to question the need for higher teacher salaries.

This will certainly create a multiple tiered system and the students on the lower tiers could earn their way up or down based on their actions and academics.

Competition would demand that the lower tiered placements would want to improve their standing.

I FEEL that blaming the outcomes on the students in the classes is an easy out.

Our Public School educators and administrators claim that they are credentialed professionals with excellent skills and unique abilities AND that they cannot do any better because the students are just stupid.

Isn't it their job to make the students smarter? How can failing at your job be the justification for failing at your job. Circular Reference?

Because we need to offer education to all. Society crumbles when we leave large swaths of poor people uneducated and unable to work. Educators can teach all they want, they cannot force anyone to learn. They cannot force anyone to care about what's being taught. It simply isn't possible and for far too many people, especially far too many poor people, they live in a sub culture which not only doesn't value education, it actively despises it. Educators can't fix that and far too many people, especially on the far left, want nothing to do with telling people their culture is garbage because it might hurt their feelings.

Find a solution because I sure don't have one.

 

[Cephus]

Pretty much agree with this. IMO, public schools need more ability to toss the troublemakers. Opponents of that scream about every kid's right to an education. BS. If your kid is causing the school to consume so much in resources just to babysit their disruptive ass, then your kid is actively denying my kid their education. My kid has just as much right to a proper education as anyone else, and your kid shouldn't have the right to take that away.

Disclaimer (to all): This is not a Constitutional discussion, don't waste your time going off on a tangent about the definition of "right".

Except they don't. You can't just ignore large swaths of American children because they don't care about an education. We have to change their culture and right now, nobody on either side of the political divide wants any part in that.

 

[Waddy]

News flash; you're not going to reform American public education. People have been trying that for the past 50 years. The vested interests are too strong and too entrenched. So if you're not going to give parents any choice you are stuck with what we have now.

In this technological age it's possible to have good home schooling, distance education, and we even have online degrees (from some very good institutions). Public K-12 fights every one of these advances. It's about protecting turf and jobs. It's not now, nor ever was, about what's best for students.

Americans like choice; whether it's what car you buy, what grocery store you frequent, or anything else, Americans like choice; which is competition. K-12 public school is more of a monopoly; it will never be first rate. And it was designed to produce good, reliable factory workers, not world class thinkers. It's a poor match for what the world needs now.