The State of Indiana recently passed a law allowing its citizens to use vouchers toward private education. The vouchers are approximately $4,500 which can be used as a credit toward tuition payments. The article which I saw discussing this noted that public schools in the State of Indiana spend approximately $9,000 per child per year on education.
This struck me as simply amazing. Why would anyone - particularly teachers' unions - object to such a credit? This is a huge savings for public schools, and creates smaller classes in those public schools while also creating a greater demand for teachers in general. Let's analyze this for a moment: For each student which leaves a public school to move to a private school of their choosing, the public schools will save a net of over $4,500 per student. In a school of 1,000 children, where 20% of the students leave the school, the school will save nearly $1 million in costs per year - savings which can be used for compensation, capital improvements, and improving the quality of materials and technology available to the school.
In addition, class sizes in those same public schools will now be 20% smaller. Teachers will be able to give better attention to students who need it, and won't feel as overwhelmed and overworked as they have in the past. On top of that, the movement of children to private schools will create a need for greater teachers and services in those private schools, particularly as those private schools are often competing with one another for students and need to keep class sizes low - and with the extra funds they're getting for every student in the school, they can pass their own cost savings to hiring those teachers and/or lowering tuition costs.
The bill is also brilliant in that it doesn't shift monies toward kids who were already going to go to private school - it restricts it to children who've spent one year in public school (not kindergarten), and it has income caps as well so money isn't being shifted to save tuition for richer kids who don't need the voucher away from public schools. While there are certainly some serious concerns with other facets of the bill (discussed here) in regards to the control it gives government over education, financially it is difficult to see what arguments could possibly be made against it.
While obviously vouchers are increasingly popular and various states are passing similar bills over the past few years, the basic outline of the Indiana bill as I understand it seems a wise one for all other states to follow.
I think there are two potential issues:
ReplyDelete1) Rich flight. Those who can afford to pay (tuition - 4500) are more likely to leave, which makes the population more disproportionately poor. That causes problems that probably outweigh the extra 4500. Besides, if the extra 4500 is so valuable, why aren't we already spending it? Hard to imagine a better investment than education.
2) Slippery slope. What happens as the voucher programs grow and more and more kids flee the public schools? What happens to those left behind? Many of the most motivated/rich parents are gone. So then the right pushes 100% vouchers. Well then we get crappy private schools spending the same money that crappy public schools used to spend. Why are they going to be better? Magic? Competition, you say? Well competition is limited due to geography, logistics, and the very very thin profit margins. The right pretends there will be dozens of choices available, but that's how the free market works in their minds, not in reality. In reality, we'll end up with a national chain of Edu*Marts, offering the bare minimum education for the bare minimum cost.
No, the poor kids will end up going to the worst private schools AND there will be no political will to improve them since anybody with money can afford to send their kids to better ones and money's what matters in politics.
1) It can't be "rich" flight, it only applies to people making 61K combined and under. And why would that cause "extra" problems? You now have the same number of staff (if not more) for less kids, which leads us to
ReplyDelete2) - the more kids who leave, the more money available to spend on improving the education of the remaining kids. If 30% of the kids leave, you've got 1.2+ million saved to spend for 700 kids. That's nearly 2K more per kid, or a total of 11K. That means again increasing your infrastructure, tech, and teacher quality.
According to your own example, why would the right push 100% vouchers? If they don't care about the poor kids, why would they want to give them the chance to join their schools? The same arguments you make against 100% vouchers are why not everyone will move and why an equilibrium of competition between private and public schools will exist. Those who are willing to chip in extra for a private education will have increasingly smaller returns on their extra dollars as public schools shrink and private schools swell. Everyone will be better off (except perhaps the very rich). I fail to see why you'd be against this.
On a similar note, my SIL just sent me this piece from PA:
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2011/05/vouchers_would_help_all_harris.html
It can't be "rich" flight, it only applies to people making 61K combined and under.
ReplyDelete61K is rich, relatively speaking. Not top 1% rich, but I'm pretty sure it's top 20%.
And why would that cause "extra" problems?
Really? You don't see why skimming off the richest families and students would hurt the school even if the money stayed? You don't think there's a correlation between parent involvement and income? And parent involvement and student achievement? And parent involvement and quality of the school?
the more kids who leave, the more money available to spend on improving the education of the remaining kids.
Again, we should already be spending as much as reasonably possible on education, so this is a red herring. Either the extra 4500 has little benefit, in which case your argument is false, or it has a lot of benefit, in which case we should just pay it because it's obviously worth the investment.
According to your own example, why would the right push 100% vouchers? If they don't care about the poor kids, why would they want to give them the chance to join their schools?
Because they're ideologically opposed to public education. The rich ones won't have to worry about the poor attending their schools (as they don't today) and the non-rich ones will vote against their interests as they always do.
The only way this whole situation works is if private schools are magically better than public schools AT THE SAME PRICE. In reality, their incentives would be to meet the minimum standards possible while maximizing the students (and therefore vouchers) they take in. Best case scenario, the government regulates them so tightly that they are functionally identical to public schools. Likely case, they teach to the test, manipulate numbers, and cut every corner possible to turn a profit.
The only reason private schools are better now is because they can attract better teachers who can afford to work at lower salaries because of rich spouses or choose to because of religious calling. And because they can turn down kids who throw off the profit ratio (special needs kids, etc. You know that's a huge problem at many OJ schools.)
61K is rich, relatively speaking. Not top 1% rich, but I'm pretty sure it's top 20%.
ReplyDeleteIn combined income for a family of four? Pretty sure that's middle class - isn't median income mid-30s? Haven't checked in a while, but I'm pretty sure.
Really? You don't see why skimming off the richest families and students would hurt the school even if the money stayed? You don't think there's a correlation between parent involvement and income? And parent involvement and student achievement? And parent involvement and quality of the school?
I do think there's a correlation between involvement and quality - but you think that we should force kids to stay in schools to help out the other kids? Isn't that kind of sick? Also, I think there was a finding recently that the correlation was far weaker than originally thought. Moreover, I don't buy that "rich" kids are the automatically more involved ones. (Basically I agree with 2 and 3 but not sure about 1.)
Again, we should already be spending as much as reasonably possible on education, so this is a red herring. Either the extra 4500 has little benefit, in which case your argument is false, or it has a lot of benefit, in which case we should just pay it because it's obviously worth the investment.
That's horrible math. I'm taking the same money and spending it more efficiently while giving people freedom of choice; you want to ADD tax money and for ALL students while restricting choice. Your way would require an extra $4.5 million a year in taxes for those 1,000 students to benefit - and that's assuming you'd be able to create the same impacts with far more kids in the same school which is highly unlikely; mine requires an additional $0 and more easily has a strong impact.
It's like any economic decision - it's far easier to have an impact on many smaller scales that one huge one because of how percentages of the same dollar work. (I'm hoping this is more clear than I'm writing it.)
Put it this way: In our hypothetical school there's currently a $9M tax expense for 1,000 kids. By allowing vouchers, we're giving the private school $900K and keeping $8.1M for 800 kids (if 20% leave). The 200 kids who moved to private school are having the rest of their education subsidized by their "rich" parents - let's say the tuition is 14,500/year, then that's $10K from those parents (which in theory you should be in favor of) of their own choice (which I'm in favor of).
Because they're ideologically opposed to public education. The rich ones won't have to worry about the poor attending their schools (as they don't today) and the non-rich ones will vote against their interests as they always do.
That's completely ridiculous and makes insane assumptions about people based on class warfare ideals. Sick.
The only way this whole situation works is if private schools are magically better than public schools AT THE SAME PRICE.
No - they demand a premium and offer slightly more. That's fine and how everything in this country is successful. It's like having a Lexus over a Dodge, rather than everyone being stuck on bikes.
In reality, their incentives would be to meet the minimum standards possible while maximizing the students (and therefore vouchers) they take in.
Not at all - they want to remain smaller and more efficient while also providing an education that allows people to succeed - and give back.
The only reason private schools are better now is because they can attract better teachers who can afford to work at lower salaries because of rich spouses or choose to because of religious calling.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about?? Most good private schools pay better base salaries and attract far better talent, not to mention those who don't want to deal with overcrowded public schools.
And because they can turn down kids who throw off the profit ratio (special needs kids, etc. You know that's a huge problem at many OJ schools.)
I don't know what you're talking about: Most places subsidize such kids heavily (particularly in Orthodox areas) and it's almost a mint for those schools because they take the government funding. It's better than vouchers.
>61K is rich, relatively speaking.
ReplyDelete61K is rich now????? I guess we have more people to tax now.
Sonofa. Comment lost.
ReplyDeleteYou know nothing about special ed or special needs kids, apparently. You probably know adorable little Jewish children who need a little OT or resource room - nothing about real special needs.
ReplyDeleteHuh? I don't see how true special needs kids are relevant to this topic. By definition what's needed for them is in a completely different category.
ReplyDeleteI'll try again.
ReplyDelete1) Good point on special ed. I guess it's the non-special ed kids who score poorly on tests that the private schools would discriminate against. Much easier to keep your averages up if you can do that.
2) If "rich" strikes you as wrong, why don't we just go with "richer than 80% of American families?"
3) I don't dispute that this saves money (at least in the short term.) My point is that if the extra money has a big benefit, we should be spending it already. I am in favor of raising taxes on the top 1-2% back to Clinton-era levels, but we wouldn't even need to. We could just take some money from corn subsidies, the "defense" budget, etc.
That's completely ridiculous and makes insane assumptions about people based on class warfare ideals. Sick.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing against here. What's sick? It's a matter of fact that poor and middle class Republicans have consistently voted for politicians who cut taxes on the rich, which ultimately will be (and is being) balanced out in large part by cutting services that help them and theirs.
See:
ReplyDeletehttp://matzav.com/jaaci-and-agudath-israel-testify-on-indiana-school-choice-bill
Dr. Bartky and many of the other movers within JAACI, both Democrats and Republicans, are members of our shul (Congregation Bnai Torah, Indianapolis).
Also see:
http://jaaci.org/challenging_the_leftist-domination
1) That's what I mean about making ridiculous assumptions.
ReplyDelete2) What are you talking about? Most of the people who use vouchers are below the median, I believe.
Quick Google search:
What are the characteristics of students who participate in voucher programs?
Students who participate in vouchers tend to be:
Low income: Most voucher programs are designed for students from families at 185% of poverty or less. Ethnic and racial minorities: Most voucher programs exist in districts with high proportions of African American and Latino students. From large urban school districts: Most vouchers programs exist in urban school districts, and are therefore utilized by urban students. From families with higher levels of parental education: Among those who qualify for vouchers, families at the high end of the income scale are more likely to participate than those at the lowest ends.2
Voucher programs reporting demographic data:
Washington, D.C.: More than 94% of students in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program were African American, compared to 85% in the public schools, and the average family income was $18,652.3 Milwaukee: African Americans and Latinos are slightly underrepresented in the voucher program (61% of African Americans participating vs. 62% in the public schools; 12.8% of Latinos participating vs. 19.1% in the public schools.4 New York City: Families using vouchers were 48% African American and 45% Hispanic. Families receiving welfare represented 59% of recipients, while the average family income was $9,983.
You're just wrong here.
3) If you don't dispute it saves money, what's the issue? It frees up the same monies for the students who remain in public schools, and it's not just short-term but continuing every single year! Why raise taxes to accomplish less when you can keep them the same or even lower them to accomplish more?
In this scenario, you've got "the rich" (in your view) paying more out of pocket toward education, and by their own choice, than they would in increased taxes, and without forcing other tax monies to be spent on their children instead of poor ones. I mean the math here is really straightforward.
Huh. Well #2 pretty much does crush most of my original argument. :-) I wonder how a family at 175% of poverty affords the rest of the private school tuition? Scholarships?
ReplyDeleteAs for #3 we're not disagreeing on any of the facts. I'm just saying we ought to be spending this money regardless of whether we can create what amounts to a stealth, voluntary tax to pay for it.
{triumphantly raises hands}
ReplyDelete:)
I'm guessing they get financial aid for a chunk of the rest, which means the truly rich are truly paying more. :)
ReplyDelete