The very limited plan for school vouchers here in Texas which I've covered a couple of times before (Jan 05, March 05) has now gone down in defeat by a narrow 74-70 margin in the Texas State Legislature, defeated mainly because of intensive lobbying from teachers groups like the Texas Federation of Teachers, groups representing administrators like the Texas Association of School Boards and activist groups like the Texas Freedom Network.
This plan was deliberately designed to eliminate every reasonable objection to vouchers, but the forces of educational oppression aren't interested in being reasonable, they just want to keep their stranglehold on our kids futures. The plan limited vouchers only to kids from poor families in selected inner city areas who attended schools rated in the lowest category in state assessments. These were not vouchers for rich kids, they were specifically designed to help the most needy kids in the state escape from the educational system which has kept them disadvantaged from generation to generation, and give them a chance at a decent future.
In my opinion, the groups who opposed this voucher plan have done as much damage to minorities as any racist organization in recent memory, and have done as much real injury to these kids as a child abuser. Abuse and oppression which are institutionalized and funded by the state are still abuse and oppression. Any group which claims to represent teachers, but puts their interests ahead of the welfare of students doesn't deserve to exist. Any activist group which is willing to let kids continue to be held prisoner in failing schools because vouchers go against their political agenda has sacrificed any legitimacy it may have had.
Governor Perry promises another attempt at a voucher plan by 2007, but in the meantime hundreds of kids who could have had a decent education and possibly escaped a legacy of neglect and social injustice will be doomed to lives of failure and the blame falls firmly on the shoulders of groups like the Texas Federation of Teachers, the Texas Association of School Boards and the Texas Freedom Network. From this date forward I consider these to be criminal organizations who have formed a conspiracy against the most vulnerable in our state. They need to be stopped and frankly they need to be destroyed. Every legislator who voted against this bill - especially those from the cities where the plan would have been applied - is a traitor to his constituency and ought to be voted out of office immediately.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RealCon
Quote from the Houston Chronicle on the subject of vouchers:
"I don't understand why people are afraid of letting these children and their parents have a choice."
Could it be that a reason for the defeat of CHOICE -- i.e., vouchers -- is that parents can then send children to schools where they can -- (pardon the expression) -- pray?
It would seem that if there is a constitutional CHOICE as to whether or not an unborn child lives or dies -- there should be a constitutional CHOICE as to where a child (one of the survivors) goes to school…
2 - Dave Nalle
I'll take both choices, thank you. The more choice and the less government dictation the better.
Dave
3 - RealCon
So -- there is no difference between the ISSUE of killing an unborn child -- and whether education should be controlled by government or parents?
4 - sydney
REalcon,
Can you state your opinion a little more clearly. MAybe I'm slow, but I'm having trouble seeing where you stand, and what the connection is between abortion rights and education rights.
5 - RealCon
The simple answer is... CHOICE!
6 - bhw
Boy, RealCon, NOW and Planned Parenthood would be proud to have you on their side.
7 - sydney
Anyway choice can adversely effect other groups you realize?
Sometiems the ability to choose can adverssly effect teh population as a whole.
In any case I don't understand the issue that well. Can someone explain the whole voutures issues debate in a succinct paragraph. Explaining the the major pros and cons as objective people see it?
8 - Dave Nalle
>>So -- there is no difference between the ISSUE of killing an unborn child -- and whether education should be controlled by government or parents?<<
Hey, that's the way you presented it, RealCon, and I'm not going to argue with you.
Dave
9 - Dave Nalle
Sydney:"In any case I don't understand the issue that well. Can someone explain the whole voutures issues debate in a succinct paragraph. Explaining the the major pros and cons as objective people see it?"
Sure, but there are two different voucher issues. there's the general issue of vouchers and there's the specific voucher plan in this bill, which are two separate things.
Anyway, the general idea of vouchers is this:
Under the current system everyone pays taxes and some of those taxes go to the state which apportions them to school districts or in some states the taxes go right to the school district itself. This money is then used to pay the cost of educating the individual student in a local school in his area.
Some people aren't happy with this, because it limits their choice of school which they don't like either because their kids have special needs, or the school in their area doesn't offer courses they want their kids to have, or their local school lacks some facilities, or their local school is just awful.
The answer to this is to provide them with vouchers. These vouchers would be equivalent to the amount of money that would normally be spent by the school district to educate their child - in effect a tax refund for the child's tuition. But the voucher could only be used to pay for education, either at another public school or at a private or parochial school. The parent would also have the option of augmenting the value of the voucher if he wanted to send his child to a more expensive school - and that might be necessary both with private schools and with public schools in better funded areas.
What this means is that instead of only being able to send your kid to your local public school you could send him to the one in the next neighborhood over, or the one near your office, or the really good arts school across town. Or alternatively you could send him to the local Catholic school or pay a little extra over the voucher and send him to a fancier private school or use the voucher to at least reduce the cost of a really fancy private school by a little bit.
The pros of this type of system are that it gives the parents total and real control over their child's education, that it lifts a punitive tax from parents who are already sending their kids to private school even though they are forced to pay for public school as well, and that it makes education more competitive and will increase the quality of education as a result.
The argument against vouchers is basically that if you let all the motivated kids leave the local schools the local schools will get even worse and lose revenue and have to shut down, that without the tax money from private school students the remaining kids in the public schools would be under funded, and that it would be hard for the really needy to make use of the system because they wouldn't have the transportation to get to a far off school or the extra money to augment the voucher to get into a decent private school. The final negative argument is that vouchers take government funds and potentially give them to church schools.
Each of these arguments is easily countered. Many voucher plan proposals set the value of the voucher at about 80% of the actual amount spent on the student. So for every student who uses a voucher the school gets a couple of thousand dollars to use to help the kids that stay there. As for schools which everyone vouchers out of - maybe a school that bad needs to be shut down or redesigned. On the issue of whether vouchers are enough money to pay for a private school, studies have shown that in virtually every market, there are decent quality private and parochial schools which cost less per student than what is being spent at the typical public school in the area. Plus, vouchers would encourage the growth of the private school system and result in more reasonably priced school options becoming available. Finally, on the issue of church and state separation, the voucher money is NOT the state's money, it's the tax money of the citizen sending his kid to school. And if that money goes to a parochial school that should be the parent's choice. Plus there are already many welfare type programs which give grants to churches so the argument over tax money going to church-run organizations is spurious.
Various compromise voucher systems have been proposed, and the one in Texas discussed in this article is one of those. It was limited to families with $50K a year or less in income. They had to live in certain depressed urban areas, and their kids had to be attending one of the worst rated schools in the state. So no rich people get to benefit and only really needy kids get helped out. It's about as liberal-friendly a version of vouchers you're likely to see.
Sorry, just couldn't do it in one paragraph.
Dave
10 - sydney
Thanks very much for taking the time to explain it all.
As it turns out I knew much of what there was to know, except for the Texas specifics.
Reading your pros and cons I find I'm heavily in favour of NOT providing vouchers. Or at least I’m against allowing people to supplement this voucher with additional tuition payments. I believe in a system that taxes the wealthy more heavily in order to provide extra resources for poorer learners.
I'm opposed to private education for many reasons, but generally speaking, I am against it because I think it results in a poorer quality education for both the private and public students. I haven't got time to explain my logic right now but maybe later. Let me say that my logic is informed by a fair bit of reading that I’ve done on the subject. There are many economists who are in favour of private education, but very few education academics. This is because their priorities are different.
>>Education more competitive and will increase the quality of education as a result.<<
-- This isn't the case, as studies have shown us. Far and away the biggest determinant of a poorly rated school is socio-economic status of its students.
You can't punish schools who draw from poorer neighborhoods for having students that don't possess the various qualities which make a good learner. All you end up doing is exacerbating the problem.
The real solution is to have an evenly funded system across the board and letting each school try different educational philosophies as they see fit. Also rating schools is a load of crap that indicates nothing about the quality of the educational facility.
11 - bhw
Finally, on the issue of church and state separation, the voucher money is NOT the state's money, it's the tax money of the citizen sending his kid to school. And if that money goes to a parochial school that should be the parent's choice.
Well, it's not entirely the money of the citizen sending his kid to school, especially if that person earns less than $50K/year. It's a little bit of that citizen's money -- the rest comes from the other citizens in that particular tax-paying pool, including people who don't have children at all or school-age children.
Plus there are already many welfare type programs which give grants to churches so the argument over tax money going to church-run organizations is spurious.
But that money does not go toward religious instruction, but social services provided by the religious organization. There's a big difference between the two.
So my opposition to vouchers has mostly to do with the religious schools being included, which I know the Supreme Court has already ruled is okay. But it doesn't seem right that my tax dollars, for example, can be used to send my neighbor's kid to a Catholic school where that child will receive teaching on how to be a Catholic. So it's not that the "church" is getting the money as much as it is that "public" money is paying for a kid to receive religious instruction, or preaching.
Now, all of that said, it sounds like the Texas plan was as good as it can get in terms of directing the vouchers toward the population that needs them the most ... for the right reasons. I'm one of the few liberals, I think, who supports school choice. I would put more limitations on vouchers. I say no religious schools and no for-profit schools. Ideally I'd like to see vouchers limited to public schools so that the public schools improve and offer more variety rather than waste away.
But in the real world, public schools in depressed areas aren't getting better, at least not fast enough. How many more generations of poor kids have to wait for improvement? How can we tell them, "Too bad"? I think we need a short-term solution for them, and this particular voucher plan in Texas sounded pretty good.
And for me to say ANYthing positive about Texas is a pretty big deal!
12 - Dave Nalle
>>Reading your pros and cons I find I'm heavily in favour of NOT providing vouchers. Or at least I’m against allowing people to supplement this voucher with additional tuition payments. I believe in a system that taxes the wealthy more heavily in order to provide extra resources for poorer learners.<<
That's pretty much the system we have now in Texas. Since taxes are based on property value, the more your house is worth the more you pay into the system. But the people who really suffer under this system are those who can afford - sometimes just barely - to escape from the system and send their kids to private school. They end up paying their full share into the public school system and get nothing from it in return.
>>I'm opposed to private education for many reasons, but generally speaking, I am against it because I think it results in a poorer quality education for both the private and public students. <<
Having been had kids in both kinds of schools and having been on the campus advisory council for a public school and the board of a private school, I have an intimate knowledge of how both kinds of schools work, and the system as it is set up here in Texas literally makes it impossible for a public school to provide an education of comparable quality to a private school for the same amount of money. The bureaucratic and administrative overhead of a system where 50% of the employees are not teachers just sucks money away from education with an inevitable lowering of quality. There's just no comparison.
>> I haven't got time to explain my logic right now but maybe later. Let me say that my logic is informed by a fair bit of reading that I’ve done on the subject. There are many economists who are in favour of private education, but very few education academics. This is because their priorities are different. <<
This is because the education academics have a vested interest in the existing system which is a disastrous failure. If they were to admit that the current system has failed they'd have to take some of the blame.
>>-- This isn't the case, as studies have shown us. Far and away the biggest determinant of a poorly rated school is socio-economic status of its students. <<
Which is not one of the factors which can be controlled. The voucher system proposed here in Texas was designed specifically to address this factor, by making it possible for underpriveleged kids to get out of the poor neighborhoods and go to better schools with wealthier kids and a more successful educational environment. And I know that doing this works, having been involved with a private school which offered many scholarships to inner city kids who blossomed as a result.
>>You can't punish schools who draw from poorer neighborhoods for having students that don't possess the various qualities which make a good learner. All you end up doing is exacerbating the problem. <<
Which is the primary concern here, the school or the students?
>>The real solution is to have an evenly funded system across the board and letting each school try different educational philosophies as they see fit. Also rating schools is a load of crap that indicates nothing about the quality of the educational facility.<<
But this clearly doesn't work. Equal funding isn't the answer because of the factors you noted earlier. To compensate for the better educational environment of schools in wealthier areas you really need to spend much more on the schools in depressed areas, which is fundamentally unfair to the wealthier communities. As for trying different educational philosophies, that almost always works out badly for the kids. Most of these 'philosophies' are utter crap - I know, I had to send a kid to tutors to make up for the results of an experimental curriculum. Plus, if each school is different, then parents need to be able to get their kids out and move them to a school of their choice even more. If just by living where I do I find my kid being made into a test subject for educational experimentation I want the ability to move her to a school which teaches by reliable, traditional methods.
The answer to the problem in public schools today is to gut the current system and empower parents to find educational alternatives. The public school as it now exists needs to be completely reimagined and redesigned. The first step in doing this is to break the back of the teachers unions which are the most destructive lobbying force in America today.
Dave
13 - RJ
"Can you state your opinion a little more clearly. MAybe I'm slow"
Yep.
14 - RJ
"In any case I don't understand the issue that well."
You're a friggin' TEACHER and you don;t know what vouchers are???
GEE-ZUZ...
15 - RJ
The US consistently ranks among the lowest of industrialized nations with regards to student performance.
This is because the public schools most kids attend are garbage.
Any reform that attempts to fix this is a positive reform. Vouchers are one example.
The Teachers' Unions are one of the most evil lobbying groups in the country, right along with the Trial Lawyers' lobby.
If an incredibly narrow-scope voucher plan in the Red State of Texas can't pass, we are all doomed...
16 - sydney
>>This is because the education academics have a vested interest in the existing system which is a disastrous failure. <<
-- Not so... these academics are made up of two types of people in my opinion. Firstly; those who have taught for years in the system (public or private) and have moved on to universities to do research and teach. Secondly; of people who never taught in the elementary or secondary system at all, but were interested in education at the university level. So I don’t see any vested interest. It's not like teachers have an emotional tie to the system they worked in, and there is certainly no economic interest.
Besides, teachers are in favour of change, but they want to see equality for all students. They don't want two tiers of education, one for the rich and one for the poor.
>> As it is set up here in Texas literally makes it impossible for a public school to provide an education of comparable quality to a private school for the same amount of money.<<
I taught in a private school for one year and another year in a public school. Your right, the resources in the private school are phenomenal. So, yes I agree that in terms of academics the private schools have an advantage, but only when dealing with students with learning disabilities. These are the students who benefit from the extra resources.
The average student can learn just fine in a public school. Remember, it is creating that spark, that interest in learning that makes a student excel. Public classrooms can be a great place to learn, debating amongst people of different backgrounds and experiences.
Also, statistically speaking, graduates from public education progress farther in post-secondary education than do private school students. The problem is, fewer of them graduate highschool (note: the socio-economic factors and the lack of ambition). This is why teachers almost always enroll their own children in public schools. They see it as a better experience, and they know that it’s not the crazy nightmare that the media tries to depict it as. Public schooling isn’t the problem, private schooling is!
However, as a socializing process, the private schools are a disgrace. The materialistic attitudes, the bigotry, and the homogenous groupings of children in these schools makes it a horrible place to get an education. On top of that these schools so often have this phony self-righteous attitude that stirs up this pathetic sympathy for the poor and the ethnically diverse, despite the fact their school’s mere existence is adding to the problem. Their is no real attempt to bridge difference in these schools, rather it is a rat race atmosphere designed to help people get ahead, get power, get money. It’s just really , really depressing in my view.
I could go on for hours about the attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, that come out of these schools (I also, did my practicum in two private schools in Australia and went to a private school in high school for 2 years). Let me tell you, they can ruin a person as fast as you can snap your fingers. It's unbelievable the sickening attitudes they inherit from their wealthy parents. What is even scarier is the fact that they go on to inherit the power in this country (NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR EDUCATION, CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELEIF, BUT BECAUSE OF THEIR FAMILY/CULTURAL TIES AND THE CULTURAL CAPITAL THEY WERE BORN INTO).
Students should be forced to grownup and socialize with students of various ethnic, religious, economic, cultural backgrounds. This is the MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THEIR EDUCATION. Everything else is secondary.
Robbing kids of this opportunity leads to division in our country and leads to a class of people who don't understand the nature of the problems in our society.
17 - RJ
"Students should be forced to grownup and socialize with students of various ethnic, religious, economic, cultural backgrounds."
Aww, how cute. Kids should be FORCED by the State to do this, even if they and their parents don't want to...
18 - RJ
"This is the MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THEIR EDUCATION. Everything else is secondary."
Riiight. That's all more important that, say, learning how to read or write or do simple math. That stuff is SECONDARY...
GEE-ZUZ...
19 - sydney
You see RJ, I'd want my kids to go to school with a guy like you, despite the obvious drawbacks. I'd want them to understand what makes you tick, to see that you can't be all bad.
And yes, the state should force them to go to public schools.
OR...
To put it another way, there shouldn't be a system funded by public money which adds to the social problems of the country.
20 - RealCon
Dave is 100% right here…
“The answer to the problem in public schools today is to gut the current system and empower parents to find educational alternatives. The public school as it now exists needs to be completely reimagined and redesigned. The first step in doing this is to break the back of the teachers unions which are the most destructive lobbying force in America today.”
And the best way to do this is to move aggressively to privatize the school system. If we as a country are spending X dollars to educate Y students -- we simply provide each student with Z dollars -- (X divided by Y) -- to pay his or her own way… For those who are mathematically challenged -- suppose we are spending $140 billion a year to educate 20 million students (some wild guesses) -- then each student would get $7,000 a year to go out and get educated privately…
That will introduce COMPETITION into the system … and eliminate such problems as janitors making more money than teachers -- and more “featherbedding’ than ever went on in the railroads…
All the rest of the discussion here is nice -- but chipping away at the edges without any real improvement is not a solution…
21 - Steve S
The only problem I see with dishing out money to Americans to spend on education as they see fit, is that there are already a lot of unscrupulous schools out there. I mean those who offer you a degree in a few short months online, or have Sally Struthers hawking it, etc.
While I do support parents having absolute say in where their child learns, I do not think that allowing the free market to dictate the flow of education is a good thing. The free market is very unscrupulous and deceiving.
I would prefer to find a way where parents get 100% choice and there is much better control of the distribution of the money (i.e. not giving the parent a check). Then we can know the school is more likely to want to educate the child rather than be motivated by only number of students.
22 - RealCon
Re: Comment 21
Here we go again -- we need big brother to “protect us” -- and that kills what would otherwise bail us out of our “education quagmire”…???
But…if big brother has to be involved -- then let it certify the schools…
There are ways to keep Sally Struthers (or whomever) out of scamming anybody…
23 - Steve S
No, it doesn't have to be 'big brother'. However if you look at Windows vs. Linux or the Mac, if you look at the big auto makers vs. smaller ones, you can see that bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. It has more to do with marketing than with quality of product.
Putting that philosophy into our educational system is a disaster if you ask me.
24 - RJ
"eliminate such problems as janitors making more money than teachers"
Yup. A unionized public school janitor (high school drop-out) in New York can easily make over 40 grand a year. While a public school teacher in Florida with a Masters degree will likely start out in the area of 30 grand.
Fair? Nope...
25 - RJ
"there are already a lot of unscrupulous schools out there. I mean those who offer you a degree in a few short months online, or have Sally Struthers hawking it, etc."
The free market decides the value of an education.
If I held a PhD from "Chuck's Doctor Skool," I doubt it would help me much...