School vouchers

Discussion in 'Education and Academia' started by SLTF, Jun 14, 2006.

  1. SLTF

    SLTF New Member

    Jun 12, 2006
    What reasons are there to oppose school vouchers, other than the hope that public schools can be improved? How can we realistically expect that to happen?
     
  2. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Um, aren't school vouchers supposedly aimed at improving public schools?
     
  3. SLTF

    SLTF New Member

    Jun 12, 2006
    I thought school vouchers are usually opposed because supporting them means "giving up" on public schools.
     
  4. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It depends on what kind of voucher proposal you're talking about. You could conceivably have a voucher-type system in which parents can only spend their voucher at public schools. More commonly proposed voucher systems allow the voucher to be used at public or private schools. However, the ostensible aim of all voucher systems is to improve public education through competition.
     
  5. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    Aug 22, 2001
    Near the mountains.
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There are all sorts of studies out there examining the problems students have fitting and adjusting to schools that aren't in their "neighborhood." Imagine the difficulty a student, say from the barrio, would have going to a high school that meets their academic needs - typically this high school would be in a "white" and/or upper-middle class neighborhood. This student that was vouchered in would experience a culture shock, might find it difficult to make friends, and would likely struggle in the new setting for at least a year.
     
  6. dna77054

    dna77054 Member+

    Jun 28, 2003
    houston
    You just made a great argument against affirmative action getting minorities into certain colleges.

    But in the case of K-12, I would think that the students and their parents are capable of deciding which school is best for them.
     
  7. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Given that NCLB allows students who attend failing schools to transfer, yet few families avail themselves of that opportunity, your assertion above appears faulty.
     
  8. dj43

    dj43 New Member

    Aug 9, 2002
    Nor Cal
    Trying to compare vouchers and NCLB is a reach.
     
  9. Kung Fu Hamster

    Kung Fu Hamster New Member

    Jun 23, 2006
    Philadelphia
    The problem with competition is that someone always loses. Some students will win, i.e. get better educations at better schools, while those students who are unable to transfer (for whatever reason, even with the vouchers) will only have fewer resources devoted to them.

    My problem with vouchers is twofold:

    (A) If the vouchers are good for private schools, it's taking public money away from public schools (which are the reason for paying the taxes from which the public money is generated in the first place) and giving it to private schools, which inevitably means public money goes to fund religious education at religious private schools.

    (B) If the vouchers are only good for other public schools, some kids will move to better schools while the worst schools will just get worse. Meanwhile, unless the better schools are paying close attention, their quality will go down as they are forced to assimilate all the new students; presumably their original students won't have left since their school is one of the "good ones" to begin with, and they'll just have a net increase in students.

    Vouchers is, at best, a sideways move, not a real solution to creating quality public education.
     
  10. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well than I'm glad that I did no such thing.
     
  11. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    Aug 22, 2001
    Near the mountains.
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    See, this is where I have a serious conflict as a teacher. On one hand, I believe all students should be given the same opportunity to succeed. On the other hand, no matter what the setting is, some students will take better advantage of the opportunity given to them than others.

    Now, while I do believe that all students have the ability to succeed highly, the ones that are able grasp the opportunity better should be given the chance to attent the school/setting that will be more challenging to them.

    That being said, before a student is allowed to transfer schools, there needs to be some criteria met:
    1)The school that the student is transfering to should be required to fund the school the student came from for to the amount of 1 student. If a student from School A, in a poor neighborhood, vouchers to School B, in a wealthy neighborhood, the amount School B gets for a single student should be transfered to School A. (hmmm, a transfer fee?). In my mind, this is like a pass to attend more challenging school.
    2) The student with the voucher should be evaluated to determine the non-accademic problems that may occur (dress, language, culture, etc). This evaluation will be to see if the student will be ready, or with what hurdles that student may have the most difficulty.

    There are probably other criteria, but I'm thinking well right now...
     
  12. dj43

    dj43 New Member

    Aug 9, 2002
    Nor Cal
    That is looking at the hole instead of the donut.

    The advantage of competition is that it requires everyone to work hard to improve...and when that happens, someone wins...and that "someone" is the students.

    It is true that not every student who needs a chance at a better education will gain under a voucher offer, but it will allow more students to have better access. As we used to say back in my college debate days, "it's a comparative advantage case. We didn't say we would fix it for everyone, but we will make it better for more kids than we do now."

    You are making an unsubstantiated leap. Not all voucher kids will go to "religious" schools. There are other options.

    But even if they did, would you restrict their access to a better education because for 43 minutes/day they would learn why phrases like "David and Goliath" are part of our lexicon?

    Is your goal protecting poor performing schools, or allowing kids better access to a better education?


    That is only an issue if we are to judge the quality of the school strictly on test scores. Fortunately, the "best" schools achieve high test scores by emphasizing skill development not "how to take tests."

    Vouchers are not the complete answer but the are a mechanism to encourage more schools to do a better job.
     
  13. dj43

    dj43 New Member

    Aug 9, 2002
    Nor Cal
    Do any of those other criteria involve the parents of the student desiring to transfer?
     
  14. royalstilton

    royalstilton Member

    Aug 2, 2004
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There are lots of possible problems and lots of possible solutions, but a blanket solution to unconnected problems amounts to throwing money at a fan and hoping the money goes where it's needed.

    I have to assume that one problem is that there is a shortage of competent teachers. There are two possible solutions: a) train better, and b) pay better. having been thru a state university teacher ed program years and years ago, i can personally attest to the fact that some teacher ed programs are not likely to produce quality teachers. The problems associated with paying better are obvious: unless merit raises are the rule, all you do is raise the pay for nearly everyone, including the incompetent teachers. And who/what determines merit? Standardized test scores? oh, help!

    Then you have the problem of students who should not be part of a general education program. There is a real percentage of school age kids who do not profit from a broad-based public education. They are not interested in such an education, and it does not serve the public interest to have them mixed in with kids who are going to college. We need to do some kind of triage, perhaps after 6th or 7th grade, in order to determine which kids ought to be sent to specialized trade training, where they can learn how to make a decent living. I don't have any idea what the percentage is, whether 10% or 20%, but pushing kids to get a highschool diploma is pointless, unless a diploma has actual value, and it has to be earned thru academic achievement.

    I just concluded teaching pre-algebra to a group of students from a largely middle to lower middle socio-economic stratum, the second half of a 6 week summer session. Of the 34 kids in the class, only about a dozen were willing to consistently put forth the effort to pass the class. The 20 students who were there because they "had to" be there created enough disruption that it made teaching the other kids more difficult than was necessary. My personal opinion is that only about half of the class should ever have been enrolled in this subject matter. The need for the other half to master pre-algebra is not supportable by any objective standard.

    So what does all this have to do with vouchers? I think that we need to attack problems in public education from different angles. I think vouchers can function as a measure for some kids to have the opportunity to attend school programs that would be unavailable for them if vouchers were not utilized, but vouchers is not a blanket, one-size-fits-all fix.

    Where vouchers would be most effective, in my opinion, is where there is a wide range between the "best" and "worst" programs. Vouchers would have to be "earned", on the basis of some kind of measure, whether some kind of matriculation exam, or by grades + endorsements, but some system of selection that includes achievement.
     
  15. dj43

    dj43 New Member

    Aug 9, 2002
    Nor Cal
    Perhaps the best use of vouchers would be for children whose parents are interested enough in their children's education to realize that their current school is not getting the job done and there is an alternative. And the fewer fetters we put on those children having that opportunity the better. As we start adding qualifiers we only add bureacracy which only uses up $$$$$$$$$$$.

    If this country is to have the kind of future for which we should all hope, we need to begin putting more focus on the top 1/3 of students - those who will be the future leaders - those who will create the positive situations in which the rest of us can survive.

    One of the biggest problems in public education at present is that the biggest share of money is spent on the bottom 1/3 of students. You are correct in stating that most of those kids are not learning because they do not WANT to learn. And it is usually the case that the #1 reason for that is a home situation where there is no emphasis placed on education, and nothing the education system can do will change that fact. Sad but true. :(
     
  16. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think that's a ridiculously callous attitude. I refuse to allow children to fail because of some misfortune of birth. Perhaps there is "nothing the education system can do" to change the facts of the child's circumstances. However, there are scores of things that the education system can do to compensate. If you dismiss the possibility of helping children who aren't lucky enough to have appropriate parental support, then right off the bat you have discriminated against the nation's poorest children. So they will be poor, just like their parents, and will fail their own children, just like their parents failed them. I think schools have the ability and the responsiblity to intervene.
     
  17. royalstilton

    royalstilton Member

    Aug 2, 2004
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    if you have a limited number of slots for kids to enter enriched programs that can elevate their long-term potential for economic productivity ( and slots are limited -- make no mistake ), who do you grant those opportunities to? a lottery? or kids that have worked to earn those slots? if parents are disinterested in the education of their children, it would not be right or fair or moral to deny those kids the opportunity, but if the kid doesn't put forth the effort, and there are limits on how many kids you can invest in, on what basis would you make the investment? it's simply not responsible stewardship of limited resources to pass them out willy-nilly. there must be a measuring rod to determine who is the most "deserving".

    you can argue that our nation should invest in the "most needy", but there are precious few guarantees that such a strategy will produce better results than the current system.
     
  18. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I disagree that there should be such "enriched programs."

    Every school should have the capacity to accomodate the needs of gifted students, which most currently don't.

    But all schools should offer the same quality of education. I think it's totally immoral to focus on certain schools for "deserving" children and just give up any hope for the "undeserving."

    You talk about kids who have worked to earn the privilege of a quality education. Maybe you're drawing on experience with middle schoolers. It's hard not to get frustrated with a 12 or 13-year-old who refuses to put in the work to succeed. But those students didn't start out that way. Can you criticize a first- or second-grader for "not putting in the effort?" Those middle schoolers' academic problems and lack of motivation started long before they got to middle school. It is absolutely morally wrong to deny children real opportunities because they were born into the wrong family.
     
  19. dj43

    dj43 New Member

    Aug 9, 2002
    Nor Cal
    We agree the educational system should, and is, improving their plight.

    My statement was that the home environment (something education cannot change) puts limits on how much the teacher can do to change it.

    The problem comes from schools run by administrators who are "processing" not educating children. This attitude gushes, not trickles, down to classroom teachers. The result is kids get the process, and nothing more.

    Let me give you an example of a school that processes, not educates, kids:

    My wife teaches 8th grade Language Arts in a K-8 school. The principle is absent over 50% of the time, and when he is there he will not be bothered with disciplinary actions. No where is this more obvious than in the area of ADD/ADHD kids. He has instructed his assistant that any kid that comes in as the result of a focus-related disciplinary action should be sent to the nurse first for evaluation of what medication might eliminate the issue. No counseling, just meds. The result is that 17% of the kids in the school are now on meds.

    One teacher's first response, when facing a disruptive child, is to ask if "they have taken their meds today." If they have, she will send them back to the nurse for more because her default position is that the kid is lying to her. And the teacher is doing this at the recommendation of the principle.

    True story.

    That is an example of a school that should be avoided if a parent were given the option.
     
  20. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Believe me, I am familiar with incompetent school administrators on a level that most people would find shocking.

    I still don't accept that school choice is the answer to this problem. On the individual level, it sounds very appealing. An individual student should have the right to leave a school that doesn't meet his/her needs. On the other hand, individual students can and do transfer schools all the time. On a system-wide level it does not make sense. It won't help the neediest kids and it will probably do damage to the more successful schools while further harming the less successful ones.
     
  21. dj43

    dj43 New Member

    Aug 9, 2002
    Nor Cal
    I'm not suggesting that "choice" is the only answer. Rather that it is AN answer.

    I don't know about your area but around here the one thing that REALLY get the attention of admin is the sight of money. Money either coming their way, or going away. They will chase money for absolutely stupid things and ideas. Hence, I believe that the THREAT of vouchers, and the transfer of funds that would result, would cause such a panic that they would finally get serious about making substantive changes.

    In the meantime, they, along with the union that actually sides with admin more than teachers around here, continue to spew out these strawmen like how it will ruin both good and bad schools, and how it will lead to overcrowding of good schools and ruining ones that are already ruined, and there is just no indication that anything of the sort will happen. It is just hyperbole.

    The problem is that everyone sees the schools that are failing yet the only solution they have is "more of the same." Ridiculous.
     
  22. royalstilton

    royalstilton Member

    Aug 2, 2004
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    it sounds like you think that all kids are equally motivated to learn. they aren't. some kids are lazy. some kids find academic pursuits unsatisfying. i was blessed to have been born into a family where i was taught to read before i started school. but even if i hadn't been, learning has always been something i was willing to work for.

    i am not convinced that the 4th grader who doesn't want to learn times tables is the victim of parental neglect in all cases. sometimes it's a matter of disinterest.

    and what makes you say that i am suggesting that we deny children opportunities arbitrarily. do you think it's immoral to prevent someone from attending a publicly funded medical school? no. there is a reason to only allow selected persons to attend such a program. the reason is obvious. the school is investing its resources into every student who attends. the same is true in high schools and jr highs. if a kid doesn't demonstrate an interest in competing for the best possible education, then they get the kind of education that they have worked for.

    the tricky part here is to sort out the kids early enough that you aren't discarding kids who would profit from the best possible education. you cannot tell me that you think a kid who works up to his potential and gets "C" grades should be in the same class as a kid who works up to his potential and gets "A" grades, once these kids get to the level where they are preparing for entrance into a University. what is the reasoning? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not being withheld. the kid had the chance to prove that investing the extra money in him was a good decision. being created equal doesn't mean that you don't have to earn your way.
     
  23. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I have news for you. Your love of learning is not 100% innate. With the wrong upbringing, you might easily have been one of those unmotivated students.

    What you are talking about is tracking all kids in the united states based on their academic potential AND motivation to learn. How on earth do you suppose you will measure those things? Do you think that white upper middle class families will tolerate their children being labelled as "no hope, go to trade school?" The comparison to medical school is so preposterous that it's not worth addressing. The purpose of public school is to provide an excellent free education to every single student - regardless of innate intelligence or economic background.

    And you know what? KIDS ARE NOT LAZY. Period. They're not. Every kid - every single kid in the entire world - wants to learn. Every child wants praise from adults, wants good grades, wants a feeling of accomplishment. If children appear unmotivated, it's because they have already decided that putting work into school does not yeild those rewards for them. And they've decided that based on real experiences.

    It is the simplest matter in the world to intervene before the child reaches that point of giving up. Schools do have the ability to do that.
     
  24. royalstilton

    royalstilton Member

    Aug 2, 2004
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    all kids don't want to learn what adults want them to learn, or what they need to learn to be able to pass on to more complex kinds of learning. many kids who don't want to learn those things can be motivated, but not all can because they have differing levels of interest. their internal motivation cannot be tapped by intrinsic or extrinsic means. i'm sorry, but i think you're naive about the nature of the beast.

    and i don't think you are in any position to evaluate my innate or developed interest in learning. it's a bit presumptuous of you to surmise simply from these discussions.
     
  25. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm surmising based on experience. I know I can't say it for sure, but none of us can say for sure who we would be if the circumstances of our lives were different.

    I am far from naive about children. On the contrary, I work with extremely difficult children every day, children who on the surface appear to lack any interest or motivation whatsoever. I have never encountered a child whose motivation cannot be tapped enough to teach that child up to an objective, universal standard.

    What I do see, every day, are children who have been cheated by circumstances. I see parents who desperately want more for their children, but don't know how to deliver it. I see children with innate ability who have the misfortune of being raised by incapable parents. I think that to leave the children's educational future entirely in the hands of those parents is nothing less than discriminatory.
     

Share This Page