Let's discuss vouchers!

How do you adjust the voucher? I haven't seen any language that provides for that little bit. Mostly they seem to be fixed amounts. As a matter of fact, quite a number of parents in several cities have said that the amounts of their vouchers were unreal.

Of course it's not just about money, sozobe. And private schools - whatever fancy names they call them - are not about just educating children, they are about a way of life. They are about exclusivity. And I admire the way you put it - about Piney Ridge. I know someone whose desire it is to get a voucher so she can send her daughter to one of those Semester at Sea schools. She doesn't know a thing about them, but assures me they offer a better education because they cost so much. And that's part of a public understanding about the voucher system.

The right to a public education for all - what a grand idea. Why don't we insist on seeing that we get qualified teachers, principals, and superintendents, and require supervision of them? In the end, it's not the building or the size, it's the quality of the teaching.

If I remember the history of the fifties and sixties correctly, universal segregation in schools was an artifact of racist legislation in Southern states. There must have been many schools who wanted to be integrated, or else there wouldn't have been a "need" for this legislation from the racists' point of view. The same was true of busses by the way: When Rosa Parks refused to surrender that bus seat to this white guy, she broke an Alabama state law explicitly designed to segregate busses. (And we're all glad she did!) It is a matter of record that bus companies lobbied against this law at the time it was passed because they correctly anticipated it would be expensive to enforce and reduce the utilization of their busses. What happened in the fifties and sixties was that federal legislation began to overrule racist state legislation. Some states refused to enforce the new federal legislation, which made Johnson send the National Guard in.

My point is that racial integration of schools was mostly a fight between good guy legislators and bad guy legislators -- not a matter of government legislation vs. parental choice. Another point is that legislation is just as likely to create segregation as to create integration.


I admit I am not well enough informed about the history of students with disabilities to know whether this is true, and whether or not integration is on net a good thing. I am always happy to learn though.


If you remember cavfancier saying this, you must also remember my response to him. My response to you is the same: My assumption may well be false, but I expect it to work anyway because the legislators are no more likely to be tolerant than the legislated. After all they are all just people. Let me turn your point about my assumptions around and ask you this: Do you believe that people who work for the government are systematically more tolerant than people who work in the private sector? If so, why? How do you explain racist legislation to maintain segregation in the old South?

And how do you explain public school policies in the 19th and 20th century to go close to the point of torture to keep deaf pupils from learning sign language? My understanding, as gathered from books like Seeing voices and The mask of benevolence, is that parochial schools in the 18th and 19th centuries generally taught sign first, with impressive results for the students. It was mostly the public school system who messed things up later in the 19th century with a brutally enforced policy of force-feeding English as a first language. Are you honestly saying 19th century parents shouldn't have had the right to vouch out of a system that tortured their children?


It's funny you should say that. Just yesterday, I was talking with a friend in Saint Louis who volunteers as a teacher in a small parochial school, run by his Lutheran community. He tells me they make a big point of doing more than public schools to integrate handicapped children, and he tells me that this is a great selling point for them. They have to turn down lots of non-handicapped children. I admit this is only anecdotal evidence against your claim. But it is nevertheless evidence that your claim is not generally true, and that you need to work a bit harder on backing it up -- unless your intent is to preach to the converted.


I'm not saying it is just about money. I was responding to this list of questions you posted, and I said all items on this list can easily be fixed by endowing the vouchers of handicapped children with more money. I observe that you haven't cited even one item on that list and claimed it can't.

-- Thomas

Handicapped people already qualify for some kinds of support. This means there must be infrastructure in place to determine and certify whether a given individual is handicapped, and what the nature of the handicap is. Someone in the school system also knows what it costs to educate children with a specific level of a specific disability. Put the two together, and you have an infrastructure for certifying what disability, if any, a child has, and for determining the right amount of extra endowment. I am not saying that existing voucher programs do that, but I am saying it could be done adequately without too much effort.



Very possible. In this case I'm all for raising the endowments.


This is true today, because a private school providing average cost, average quality schooling would compete with public schools who have a $10000 subsidy per pupil, which it wouldn't have. This is prohibitive, so the only sector where private schools are currently profitable is the high end of the price spectrum. A voucher system would put an end to the unfair advantage public schools enjoy in average quality schooling, thereby ending the exclusivity problem.



I agree! But under the current system, schools can't even decide for themselves whether or not to let Coca Cola install a vending machine on their ground! I want them to not only have that choice, but also the choice to decide that they don't need that shiny new football field, and that the money is better invested in raising teachers' pay.

-- Thomas

You'd never believe this would happen, but here it is: A post from me that's actually short

I just wanted to repost Sozobe's link to Frontline: the battle over school choice, which is broken for me in Sozobe's post. Here's one point where I absolutely agree with her: This PBS page is a great resource -- no matter which side you're on!

T.

Just to clarify, Thomas. so many things sound good (mostly different) when stated in principle, but are so different in practise. Which is why we always have so many self-styled experts in all fields.

Private schools and exclusivity - this existed back when I was in school, which was a long time ago, since I now have grandchildren, all of whom are in varying grades in schools. And that exclusivity was the reason for the private schools. It separated the rich from the poor; the haves from the have-nots. A voucher system, no matter how it's worded, is so that the poor can have access to how the rich live, and then learn the hard way that it doesn't get them accepted to the educational or social systems they aspire to. In the end, the George Bushes don't need the grades or anything else - they automatically go to the schools with the reputation for higher learning (and even that quite often is a myth). While the people with vouchers may have a brief learning experience, but their opportunities afterwards have the same limitations. In Philadelphia, after several years and tests, what they found was that the school purporting to offer better advantages ((the Edison schools) actually did not produce results that were any better than the public school system, and were costing more per pupil than first estimated.

The answer lies in giving the same serious thought and attention to the existing structure, and actively working at it, but probably from a different angle of thought. What made our system work in the first place? How have we gotten away from it? Did the start of the loss of respect come from the reduction of some kind of dress code for the students and teachers? In calling teachers by their first names? How can a student respect a teacher who dresses in jeans and says "call me Max?" There must always be a distance between pupil and teacher.

What I'm trying to say is, vouchers are an easy fix-it answer, an American answer based on "you can buy anything." There are underlying basics here, which can be worked on, if we want to, rather than just throwing money at the problem. It involves working with teachers and administrators, parents and students, and making them understand that everybody has a role to play, but that the one necessary end must be the education of our children.

Just breezing through -- this article is very interesting and I encourage you to read it, Thomas.

http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/cerai-01-17.pdf

Will be back with more later.

I did. I also surfed the website of this "Education Policy Research Unit". Based on the surfing, and on those parts of the study I am competent to judge, I get the impression that this paper is the work of cranks who systematically misrepresent the historical and judical record, as well as the body of evidence, to fit their theory.

There's a long list of details, and I'll be happy to provide them on request. But for now I'll spare you because I get the funny impression I'm steamrolling everybody, and that nobody is reading my posts anymore. So many people appear to have left this thread -- I hope I didn't scare them away!

Hope to see you back!

-- Thomas

Thomas - just a word. And steamrolling isn't it. It's a big beach, and you're not the only pebble on it.

Thomas sent me a PM which I will not reproduce without his permission. It went further into the url I gave in my last post. This is my reply, which I decided to post here as well since it is really just a continuation of this discussion:

Oh come on.

Yesterday, I spent maybe an hour total at the computer. In that time, I spent 5 minutes looking for the Henry Levin article about Europe. This article was one of the hits on Google when I did that search, and it had some good points. Yes, some good points. Everything impeccable, no. Some good points.

So, I copied and pasted it. Call the psuedoscience cops.

I AM NOT SEEKING TO "WIN" THIS DEBATE. And I am getting impatient with the terms you are setting. I have not said anything like "vouchers are horrible and will never work." I have said something much more equivocal -- as of 1996, when I thoroughly researched this issue, I was against them. I will expand on that -- I was against them as they were being proposed and/or implemented in 1996. As of 2003, I am still against them as they are being proposed and/or implemented. I am not saying these problems can't be fixed. I am merely saying that there are a lot of them, and am attempting to focus on one, disability issues, for the sake of clarity.

You mention Dag -- her last response, that I have seen, was along the lines of "oh, yes, that's a problem." She doesn't say "that would be simple to fix", as you have persisted in doing.

It would not be simple to fix. I have laid some of the reasons why. You have brushed off those reasons as being unreasonable. I say it's not just about money. You say, of course it's not just about money, it's about money:



As mamajuana went into in her next post, and as I had already said in my previous post, endowing vouchers with more money won't do it. The point is that, by law, currently, they don't HAVE to accept students with disabilities. And so a lot of them won't. All of them? No. Exceptions like your friend's nice little parochial school (religious, by the way -- what about non-Lutheran, Muslim, Jewish, agnostic disabled kids?) do exist. But I have dealt with many, many, many, MANY institutions in my life, on my own behalf and professionally, and the vast majority will accommodate people with disabilities only under legal duress. My program provided free interpreting for clients looking for jobs (ADA requires that the hiring company pay) and information about tax breaks that more than covered the cost of future interpreting that might be needed. Hiring a deaf applicant was PROFITABLE. Yet, it was hell to try to get them hired. Employers would see the application, get all excited (our students were well-prepared), call for an interview, we would set up the time, then mention that there would be an interpreter present, and the most ridiculous excuses you can imagine surfaced. Oh, they just remembered, the boss had a funeral to go to that day. Another day? We'll see ... we'll get back to you.

That's for employers. As president of a deaf charter school initiative X 2, I've seen that in the schools, too, over and over and over and over. They will get away with what legally can. Some kind thoughtful souls will do what's right, regardless of the law. Others... many... won't.

So... is it simple to change those laws? Will private schools submit meekly to being told that they have to adhere to exactly the same laws and regulations as public schools? No sirree bob.

This is a problem. A big problem. One of many.

Sure, go ahead and post it. You can post my response to your message too -- just make sure to remove the couple of sentences that are actually private. (You'll know which.)

-- Thomas

The vouchers are offered as part of an overall program. They don't just say "who wants vouchers", then throw open the cash drawer. Vouchers are offered as part of an overall program intended first to fix problem schools but also to let parents move their kids out of problem schools that don't get fixed.

Okay. So you're acknowledging there was a great deal of pseudoscience in it, and I'm acknowledging that you posted it as a result of sloppiness, not intention. I've been known to be sloppy sometimes myself, so I'd suggest we leave it at that.


Believe it or not: so am I! But being against vouchers as currently implemented can cut both ways. You can be unsatisfied with them because you think they shouldn't exist at all, or because you think the existing implementations are too half-hearted. In my opinion, the currently implemented programs are a step in the right direction, but way too half-hearted. Instead of paying for less than 50% of a child's schooling, the voucher for any given child should cover whatever it takes public schools to educate that child. This includes higher -- possibly much higher -- endowments for handicapped kids. From what you posted, I get the impression that you're unhappy with currently implemented voucher programs because you doubt they're a step in the right direction to begin with. Would you say my perception is wrong?


You misrepresent what I said. I said the problem of disabled kids is not just about money, but the items on the specific list you posted are. Unless you claim that this list contains all problems vouchers raise with regard to disabled kids, that's a big difference -- and I don't think you're claiming that.


After a little timeout from this thread, I can think of a reason why you and I disagree about this: you are looking at a shorter term than I am. When deaf applicants you assist need a job, they need it now. Throwing money at the problem will do nothing to change the prejudices employers, principals, etc. have until next week, and that's why you need legislation to make them hire handicapped employees and accept handicapped pupils.

But that's the short run. In the long run, people's prejudices do change, and employers and principals will stop discriminating in unprofitable ways once they find out they're unprofitable. And in the long run, prohibiting discrimination will tend to preserve the prejudices that caused it in the first place. I take the long view at such things, so I prefer voluntary solutions. For what it's worth, the Supreme Court, in its verdict on the Cleveland voucher program, ruled that voucher programs are constitutional only if they make sure everyone has adequate options, including non-religious options, according to the Cato institute's analysis of the ruling. The criteria laid out by the Court look like a workable compromise to me.

-- Thomas

Should vouchers be issue to these parent?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/education/28ADVI.html?th:lol:

If the state of New York decides to offer vouchers to parents and the children of these parents qualify for vouchers under the terms of the voucher program the state of New York institutes, then YES.

Thanks for this link! As it happens, it makes for a good rebuttal of an argument the voucher skeptics haven't made in this thread yet: the argument that parents aren't competent at deciding what the right school for their child is. This New York Times article describes some very incompetent partents. But these parents are nevertheless highly motivated to find the right school, so they hire counselors for multiple hundred bucks per hour.

Of course, poor parents can't afford this. But I'm sure they'll find journals and books with advice about these matters once vouchers take off -- just as they'll find books and journals with dietary advice now.

-- Thomas

These parents are not highly motivated to find the right schools for their children in the same spirit as a lot of other parents are. These parents are highly motivated in being able to get their children into a series of schools that are monied and present the right class affiliations for them. These are the very parents who concern for the scholastic requirements is not as great as the concern for the social acceptance. And most of the time it is not just the children they think of but themselves, because having a child at Choat, at a Friends Select Acadmey, and then on to Harvard or Princeton reflects well upon the parents position in society and financial means. This kind of application at such a young age has nothing to do with looking at a student's abilities or dispositions.

Where does a voucher fit into any of this? The voucher idea originally proposed was supposed to offer an alternative source to the student who was in a particularly bad school environment. Like so many thing, it was meant well but not thought out. Prohibiting discrimination is like prohibiting alcohol.

Legislation to let all qualified people be eligible for jobs does not really trickle down to a voucher system, and voluntary solutions, while well intended, quite often do not work out in the long run.

And what is so terrible or un-American about trying to fix a situation in place? So much of the problem lies in re-thinking values, goals, situations. Years ago there was great excitement about the teaching of the "new Math." Much money was spent on new textbooks, educational classes for teachers and parents. There was a great deal of confusion, and some skepticism, but the decision was made to teach the new math. What hadn't been figured in was just how this study was actually going to be a help in student's lives; whether everyday living problems having to do with things like addition, subtraction and the like could be dealt with. It didn't work. The teaching of the binary system was not geared for all this, and was not workable for ordinary people. But it was new. And after it was over, damn all remembered anything they had been taught about this, a great deal of money had been spent on useless paper and texts, and a lot of time was lost. Because most people do not think in terms of computer language. That was a simple thought, but it got lost.

MY OPINION:

When all is said and done -- if vouchers gain a significant momentum -- the net result will be negative rather than positive for education, for teachers, and for children.

As far as I am informed, the private colleges with the highest prestige are also the ones with the highest scholarly standards. Harvard, Stanford, and Georgetown come to mind. Are you saying prestige and excellence are less correlated with regard to private K-12 schools?


As someone who lives in Germany, and who is familiar with its history, I can assure you that involuntary solutions, while well intended, work even less often, and fail much more catastrophically when they don't.


I suspect you're beating a strawman here. At least I don't remember anybody in this thread who said it's un-American or terrible.



... because ..... ?

[delete]