School choice...for or against?

[Chris Cuilla]

I am curious about the opinions of the people on this board on the subject of school choice.

This is often a surprisingly contentious issue that, like many, becomes "sound-bitten" to radical simplicity and never truly debated. So I am curious (hopefully this will stay civilized...and GWB will not have to be drawn into the thread)...

I see a range of possibilities for educating children (I have made this a poll too), here's what I see them to be:

1. All children in a certain age range (say 5-16) are required to attend government-funded public schools...school determination made by geographic proximity to residence.

2. Parents receive "vouchers" to send their children to government-funded public schools.

3. Parents receive "vouchers" to send their children to any (private, home, religious, public, etc.) school (schools redeem vouncers with the gov't to receive $ compensation for the enrolled students).

4. Parents receive "vouchers" to send their children to any (school (schools redeem vouncers with the gov't to receive $ compensation for the enrolled students)...no government-funded public schools provided at all...it's all private...this method is used to simply ensure that parents send their kids to school.

5. No government intervention whatsoever.

P.S. If you don't mind, provide your rationale for your opinion.

[MarcUK]

6) Fundamentalist sponsored Creationist home-schools.

I voted for 6.

[thuh Freak]

Is 2 considered "vouchers" if the schools are "free" (ie, paid strictly by tax). Basically, I don't like the idea of refunding the tax so the child can go to a private school.

[BRussell]

You left out a huge option between 1 and 3, the option that we have now and the option that my guess is most people would pick: Parents have the choice to send their kids wherever they want, private or public (or to homeschool), but no vouchers.

Private schools are free to privately fund scholarships and the like, but no tax money gets sent to these private schools, aside from their already-existing tax-free status.

[shetline]

The way your choice (1) is worded, you make it sound like private schools are completely ruled out, instead of being optional but not tax-supported, as they are now -- a system I'm quite happy with.

I say this has someone who at 44 years old has no children, isn't likely to ever have any, and who still pays the same high property taxes as everyone else, a large portion of which is for public schools I won't ever directly benefit from.

The day parents start getting vouchers to spend on the schools of their choice I'd better be getting a big fat property tax refund for the complete lack of schooling my non-existent children are receiving.

[SDW2001]

You left out a huge option between 1 and 3, the option that we have now and the option that my guess is most people would pick: Parents have the choice to send their kids wherever they want, private or public (or to homeschool), but no vouchers.

Private schools are free to privately fund scholarships and the like, but no tax money gets sent to these private schools, aside from their already-existing tax-free status.

There ought to be public school choice as well. The quality of a child's education should not depend on where he or she lives.

[Chris Cuilla]

You left out a huge option between 1 and 3, the option that we have now and the option that my guess is most people would pick: Parents have the choice to send their kids wherever they want, private or public (or to homeschool), but no vouchers.

You are correct. That is a missing option. I don't think I can edit the poll. Sorry. EDIT: If a moderator sees this and would help add an option called: "Government provides public schools, parents free to choose other schools, no "vouchers" though"? Thanks.

Why would you assume that "most people would pick" that option?

[Chris Cuilla]

The way your choice (1) is worded, you make it sound like private schools are completely ruled out, instead of being optional but not tax-supported, as they are now -- a system I'm quite happy with.

That is correct. Option 1 doesn't provide for that. Intentionally.

[Chris Cuilla]

Is 2 considered "vouchers" if the schools are "free" (ie, paid strictly by tax).

Well, it is a wording issue I guess. You are probably right "vouchers" is not the right word there.

[BRussell]

There ought to be public school choice as well. The quality of a child's education should not depend on where he or she lives. I agree, and I don't think property taxes should pay for schools anyway. It should come out of a general state fund, IMO.

But I think most places have at least some public school choice. I know it's quite common in my town for students to get permission to switch to different schools for pretty mundane reasons (e.g., my friends all go to another school). Any given school has a limited number of space though, so just the capacity of the school is a limiting factor on choice.

[BRussell]

Why would you assume that "most people would pick" that option? Because it's the way things are now, and I haven't seen any great groundswell for change. I suppose people like tax cuts, and if you offer to give people tax cuts for sending their kid to a private school, the people with kids in private schools would like it (even if they're a small minority).

And if you use Republicenomics, tax cuts increase revenues, so you wouldn't have to raise taxes elsewhere to make up for the revenue loss. ;)

[skatman]

In a different country, this would be different.
In US, the school system is in such decay (both public and private) that it's tough to answer that question.
In the former USSR, for example, there was only one choice, and it was a damn good one!
So it really depends.

[SDW2001]

I agree, and I don't think property taxes should pay for schools anyway. It should come out of a general state fund, IMO.

But I think most places have at least some public school choice. I know it's quite common in my town for students to get permission to switch to different schools for pretty mundane reasons (e.g., my friends all go to another school). Any given school has a limited number of space though, so just the capacity of the school is a limiting factor on choice.

Not in PA...most districts won't allow it.

Also, I agree about the funding. Property taxes are absurd. At one point my property taxes were 12% of my gross salary!

[Chris Cuilla]

Because it's the way things are now, and I haven't seen any great groundswell for change.

Perhaps that is because a) people don't think it will change even if they'd desire it, or b) people haven't thought about the range of possibilities. That's possible isn't it? People do tend to "go with the flow" a lot...but it doesn't mean they wouldn't want a better set of options if they were presented.

I suppose people like tax cuts,

I suppose they do.


and if you offer to give people tax cuts for sending their kid to a private school, the people with kids in private schools would like it (even if they're a small minority).

Wouldn't opening the option (through tax breaks or vouchers or whatever) enable a wider group of people to make the choice of things like private school? Is that a good thing or a bad thing in your opinion? Why?

[Chris Cuilla]

Voucher programs further impoverish poor school districts and lower the quality of education by removing its best students.

Do you have something to support those assertions?

[Chris Cuilla]

Not especially. Just throwing it out there.

OK. Thanks. Appreciate the honesty.

[SDW2001]

Voucher programs further impoverish poor school districts and lower the quality of education by removing its best students. We need systemic changes in education, but vouchers aren't one of them.

I too appreciate you being honest. As a former school board member and current teacher, I disagree though.

Fewer students in a district is actually beneficial. More students cost more money than the lost tax dollars vouchers take from the system. For example, it may cost $10,000 a year to educate a student, yet the tax dollars paid might be $2,500 a year.

Secondly, you state that the quality of eduation is reduced by "removing [the district's] best students." How is that exactly? And furthermore, is the end goal to service the entity (the district) or the student?

Now don't get me wrong...my first choice is to better fund our public schools at a national level. The federal government should be subsidizing education far more than it is. In many districts, the feds contribute about 2% of the annual budget, and that's after huge increases in the education budget since this administration came into office (about 50% since 2001). That said, I don't think a child should be locked into a failing school just because he lives in a certain neighborhood. We need to have a mechanism that allows parents to get their children out of such a system. I don't know that it has to be "vouchers" per se...but it needs to happen nonetheless.