A strong case for school vouchers.

Vyse · April 25, 2006, 8:01pm

I finally got around to reading the education section on one of my favorite sites, justfacts.com, and the evidence is overwhelming.

<a href=“http://justfacts.com/education.html[/url]”>http://justfacts.com/education.html</a>

Education

Citation

Web Page: "Education. By James Ruoco. Just Facts, 1998. Accessed at <a href=“http://justfacts.com/education.html[/url]”>http://justfacts.com/education.html</a>. Revised 12-30-05.

Costs / Performance

<ul>
<li>In 1997, 14% of all government resources in the United States went toward education. According to former Education Secretary, Lamar Alexander, one third of U.S. high school seniors can read proficiently, one quarter can barely read at all, and 80% are not proficient in math.</li>
<li>Between 1960 and 1998, the cost of education in the United States, in real dollars adjusted for inflation, has risen 200%. During that same time, SAT scores have declined over 60 points. </li>
<li>46% of private school budgets go to teacher pay. If public schools paid teachers the same percentage, the average public school teacher’s annual salary would jump from $38,509 to $54,421. (Figures are for 1998) (3) </li>
<li>On a test administered by the “Third International Math and Science Study,” U.S. high school seniors placed 18th out of 21 nations on a general test of math and science. Cypress, Lithuania and South Africa were the 3 nations who performed worse. Asian countries, which typically excel in math and science, did not participate. The report was released on February 24, 1998 by a team of researchers at Boston College. </li>
</ul>

School Choice / Vouchers

School choice is an initiative that gives people the option of selecting the school their child will attend. Money that is currently spent on the education of a student at a public school is provided to his/her parents in the form of a voucher that can be used at the public or private school of their choice. (1)

<ul>
<li>Teacher’s unions oppose school choice. As of June 1998, they are appealing a decision made by Wisconsin’s State Supreme Court that school vouchers are constitutional. (1) </li>
<li>In the following cities, the percentage of public school teachers who send their children to private school are:</li>
</ul>

Los Angeles - 18.9%
New York - 21.4%
Boston - 24.4%
Miami - 35.4% (3)

<ul>
<li>In a trial voucher program instituted in Cleveland, minorities from single parent households who used their vouchers at Catholic schools, had higher test scores and graduation rates than white children in the public school system. (2)</li>
<li>New private schools were formed in response to the introduction of the voucher program in Cleveland. The schools established and announced a policy of accepting every child who applied. The American Federation of Teachers (one of the 2 largest teacher’s unions) suggested these schools were inferior and criticized them because they had no “educational track record.” A study done at Harvard University found that within one year, students attending these schools made statistically significant improvements to their national percentile rankings in reading and math. (13) </li>
<li>Because most public school teachers are required to be members of teachers unions, vouchers would cause these unions to lose money. As of 1997:</li>
</ul>

a) The National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers (the two largest teacher’s unions) have about 3.2 million members, with combined dues in excess of 1.2 billion dollars. This does not include money from government grants.

b) The National Education Association has over 6,000 employees; 3,000 of which have salaries in excess of $100,000. Their president, Bob Chase, makes over $300,000 per year.

c) Sandra Feldman, president of American Federation of Teachers, makes over $300,000 per year. (2)(7)(8)

<ul>
<li>The NEA membership was the fourth highest contributor to federal candidates and parties in 1995-96 election cycle. They contributed $3,283,141 (96% to Democrats, 4% to Republicans). The AFT membership was the 16th highest contributor. They contributed $2,423,088 (99% to Democrats, 1% to Republicans). (9) </li>
<li>As of 1998, public school teachers make 52% more than private school teachers. (3) </li>
<li>According to a July 1996 Department of Education report, 36.2% of private school teachers are “Highly Satisfied” with their work, and 11.2% of public school teachers are. (3) </li>
<li>Public schools in Washington, D.C. cost $8,920 per student in the 1994-95 school year (among the highest in the U.S.) and ranked near the bottom on almost every level of performance. (4) </li>
<li>Upon entering the D.C. school system, students are shown to be average. (12)</li>
<li>There are 60 private schools in the D.C. area that cost $3,200 per year or less. (4) In 1998, Republicans in Congress passed a trial voucher program in D.C. that would have given vouchers (worth $3,200) to 2,000 schoolchildren from families with annual incomes of less than $16,000. Bill Clinton vetoed it. (11) </li>
<li>Bill Clinton sent his daughter to a private school in Washington, D.C. (11) </li>
<li>Al Gore is opposed to school choice. He has sent his children to private schools. (1)</li>
<li>As of 1998, most Republicans support school choice and most Democrats oppose it. (10)</li>
</ul>

Sources:

1) Editorial: “School choice wins big in Wisconsin.” Washington Times National Weekly Edition, June 15-21, 1998.

2) Kondracke, Morton. “Commentary: Learning to buck the education establishment.” Washington Times National Weekly Edition, August 18-24, 1997.

3) Murdock, Deroy. “Teachers warm to school choice.” Washington Times National Weekly Edition, May 25-31, 1998.

4) Dobson, James. “Family News from Focus on the Family.” April 1998. Sources cited: (a)U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (b)USA Today (c)The Heritage Foundation. (d)Washington Scholarship Foundation & Independent School Guide for Washington D.C. & Surrounding Areas.

6) Kronholz, June. “Proposed Merger of Two Big Teachers Unions Is Threatened by Split Among NEA’s members.” The Wall Street Journal, July 2, 1998.

7) Lieberman, Myron. “The Teacher Unions: How the NEA and the AFT Sabotage Reform & Hold Parents, Students, Teachers & Taxpayers Hostage to Bureaucracy.” Book Review by Martin Morse Wooster: “Teacher unions won’t release the system they hold hostage.” Washington Times National Weekly Edition, October 1997.

8) Fossedal, Greg & Pritchett, Kevin. “The out-of-touch teachers’ unions.” Washington Times National Weekly Edition, July 13-19, 1998.

9) Center for Responsive Politics Website (<a href=“http://www.crp.org%5B/url%5D”>www.crp.org</a>) August 28, 1998.

10) Project Vote Smart Website (<a href=“http://www.vote-smart.org%5B/url%5D”>www.vote-smart.org</a>) September 3, 1998.

11) Bedard, Paul. “GOP leaders decry Clinton’s veto of D.C. tuition vouchers.” Washington Times National Weekly Edition, May 25-31, 1998.

12) Editorial: “The PTA turns its back on poor children.” Washington Times National Weekly Edition, May 25-31, 1998.

13) Peterson, Paul E. & Howell, William G. & Greene, Jay P. “An Evaluation of the Cleveland Voucher Program After Two Years.” Harvard University, June 1999. Viewed at <a href=“http://www.edreform.com%5B/url%5D”>www.edreform.com</a> in June of 2000.

xiggi · April 25, 2006, 8:06pm

Better check that Teflon suit out of the closet … here come the teachers and union boosters. :)

PS Regarding Bill Clinton sending his daughter to a private school in Washington, D.C. and Al Gore being opposed to school choice plus sending his children to private schools … just check how the funding of the Department of Education fared under the eight years’ reign of the education dynamic duo.

kluge · April 25, 2006, 8:54pm

Without going into a full apples-and-oranges commentary, just a few points:
(1) public schools have to take all students, and are required by law to provide an “appropriate” education for every student, regardless of their physical, mental, or emotional abilities; must educate every student including those who don’t speak English, etc. Private schools don’t.
(2) All educational reforms work at first (it’s the novelty/placebo factor.) Few work over the long run. 
(3) Yes, vouchers would lower teachers’ pay overall. Yeah, their unions are opposed to that. Go figure.
(4) In poorer urban areas, more affluent parents often choose to send their children to private schools, due to the difficulties of the public school in dealing with the duties they have imposed upon them, coupled with (1). Oddly enough, some people in affluent suburbs with very good public school do too. (I honestly don’t understand that, but it’s true.)

My bottom line take? Vouchers would indeed succeed in lowering average teacher’s pay, and evolve over a fairly short period of time into another mechanism for taxing the poor and middle class though “fees.” Other than that, you’d see no significant overall change in education in America. I mean, you think this is a magic wand? You wave vouchers and suddenly there would be different teachers teaching different students, with different parents? Uh, no. You’d still have the same universe of kids, with the same problems and aptitudes coming into the classroom, being taught by pretty much the same teachers (except that the lower pay may drive out some of those with the initiative and opportunity to go elsewhere) who will be required to comply with the same governmental regulations about what they can and must teach (not to mention the multi-day testing which will still be required two or three times a year.)

No magic wand solutions. My watchword for the 21st Century!

Vyse · April 25, 2006, 9:14pm

oops, wrong post.

UsuallyLurking · April 25, 2006, 9:14pm

church …state

xiggi · April 25, 2006, 9:22pm

Kluge, there are no magic wands, but some “novel” experiences are worth pursuing. There are many opponents to an expanded voucher system, but a lot of the resistance is anchored by mere turf protection. In a nutshell, teachers’ unions will remain opposed to EVERYTHING that remotely undermines their stronghold on public education. They will remain opposed until the public opinion will become so vocal to threaten to boot them from their feudal fiefdom of power. They will remain oposed even in spite of evidence that voucher system do in fact ameliorate the performance of public schools where competition has been introduced.

This issue is far too complex to properly address on College Confidential. The good news is that there are many sites and studies that go a long to debunk a few hard-to-die myths. For instance, the fact that public schools have to accept EVERY student is not necessarily true, as evidenced by the difficulty for special-ed families to sign up their children in Milwaukee. A lot of this dialogue is hopelessly mired into half-truths and is more a battle of political and religious principles than a true comparison of the merits of the various systems. Despite the secular foundation of our country, it may be time to consider that education would be better served by a reevaluation of the dangers of a looser separation of state and church. Some countries have easily survived the coexistence AND competition of secular and religious education. The leading country of the world should be able to overcome the negativism of political and religious zealots.

Without a complete overhaul, the biggest losers will remain the students who are prisoners of a system that cynically fails them.

hereshoping · April 25, 2006, 9:56pm

xiggi: Are you a writer? That was very well put (and I, for one, totally agree).

“prisoners of a system that cynically fails them” - absolutely.

poetsheart · April 25, 2006, 11:02pm

I honestly don’t see the supposed conflict of “Church and State” in vouchers. The concept (please correct me if I’m mistaken) is that families with school aged children are awarded a tax dollar allowance to educate their offspring. Each family then decides whether these funds will be spent at public or private (either secular or parochial) schools. These dollars are governmentally nuetral, in that the choice is left entirely up to the tax payers from whom the money originated. The government is not “establishing a state religion” by these actions. Will someone please explain the constitutional conflict supposedly inherent in this idea?

mootmom · April 25, 2006, 11:05pm

Suzie’s high-bracket tax dollars going to support Patty’s decision to send her child to a religious school which Suzie opposes?

xiggi · April 25, 2006, 11:10pm

This one version used by opponents of the voucher system:

<a href=“http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/vouch3.htm[/url]”>http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/vouch3.htm</a>

And another:

<a href=“http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/Private_School_Vouchers.pdf?docID=155[/url]”>http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/Private_School_Vouchers.pdf?docID=155</a>

poetsheart · April 25, 2006, 11:24pm

“Suzie’s high-bracket tax dollars going to support Patty’s decision to send her child to a religious school which Suzie opposes?”

Please forgive me for saying this, but that rational is simply ridiculous. Let’s consider the greater likelihood that any-number-of -someone’s "high -bracket tax dollars are already going to secular public schools whose teachings offend their religious beliefs? Tax dollars in the untold billions and even trillions are alreadly being spent in support of projects and programs that many of us find extremely offensive.

Not many vegans that I know of approve of their tax dollars being spent to bolster the beef and poultry industries. How do you feel about corporate welfare? Yet and still, none of these programs constitute the government establishing a “state religion”. School vouchers constitute no greater danger.

mootmom · April 26, 2006, 12:28am

Boy, you sure are testy about this.

I personally don’t want to contribute my money in any way to anything religious, period. I wouldn’t want my tax money to help pay for anyone to send their kids to a religious school, but maybe you would. Whatever.

Vyse · April 26, 2006, 1:14am

^ So you’re okay paying for the food and utilities of child rapists and murderers, but the idea of your tax dollars indirectly supporting someone’s decision to seek an education affiliated with a religion deplores you?

kluge · April 26, 2006, 1:47am

uh, Vyse, do ya think that’s maybe just a little over the top? Where did the “child rapists and murderers”, come into this, what do they have to so with Mootmom, and just what does that particular subject have to do with school vouchers? And while we’re at it, what does “deplores you” mean?

poetsheart · April 26, 2006, 4:11am

The feeding and housing of each convicted rapist, murderer, and child molester in the United States requires roughly 45 thousand tax dollars per year. A bed, three squares and complete health coverage to boot. It isn’t the Ritz, but I’ll bet that on some nights, when the temps drop well below zero, some homeless guy in his cardboard box might be more than willing to trade accommodations with the convicted killer for the night. …At least I think that’s the point Vyse was trying to make. Mootmom stated that she didn’t want “her” tax dollars (as if she’s the only one who pays taxes) to go toward supporting someone’s decision to send their child to a church affiliated school. Vyse was merely pointing out that everyday “her” tax dollars go toward what many people view as a far less worthy endeavour. How interesting it is, that the same people who are offended by tax funded religious education, and indeed by God/god and all his/her organized manifestations are not adverse to the funneling of staggering numbers tax dollars to the feeding and housing the most depraved members of our society. It’s a head-scratcher. Catholic school is an egregious expenditure, but using tax dollars to treat the most depraved members of society with greater respect than we do our mentally ill and homeless is not a problem.:rolleyes:

FountainSiren · April 26, 2006, 5:18am

Reminds me of those religious fanatics in Saudi Arabia who would rather allow their girls to die in a school fire than to save them and have them seen without their Veils on–it’s a matter of principle; many would sooner allow Americas poor children to remain inadequately educated than make any allowance for the poor children who would *choose<a href=“there%C2%92s%20a%20word%20for%20you”>/i</a> parochial schools given a choice (that word again).

The same thinking and meannessdifferent perspectives.

let them burn, you say? Out of principle?

xiggi · April 26, 2006, 10:37am

Don’t some of our federal dollars already support the tuition of students at schools that have a strong religious affiliation? Should Marquette, Boston University or Notre Dame lose their federal aid and students’ financial aid because we do not want to support religious organizations with tax dollars?

Isn’t it remarkable that our tertiary education where private funding and competition are more abundant does not seem to generate the same fear. Isn’t it also remarkable that the tertiary education is the envy of the world, but earn derision for a resoundly lackluster secondary system?

Could it be that we fear the possible success of a “different” system so much that we prefer a failing status-quo?

driver · April 26, 2006, 11:15am

I think Xiggi is confusing BU with BC, but the point remains the same. An even stronger argument: the GI Bill, in which taxpayer funds were used to provide veterans with college educations of their choice, including those offered at religiously-based institutions. As anyone who has ever attended a “religious” school knows, the religious component is only a small part of the rest of the package. The goal should be to ensure a sound education for all. The idea that we would throw that baby out because there is a little religion mixed in with the bathwater makes no sense at all.

kluge · April 26, 2006, 12:14pm

Driver’s point is valid, in my opinion - that is, if you’re going to have vouchers, I don’t see why a religiously-affiliated school should be excluded as long as it meets objective educational standards. On the other hand, reading the bizarre nonsequiturs of Vyse and Fountainsiren – which they seem to think constitute an argument for taxpayer support of parochial education – has to give a person pause.

fundingfather · April 26, 2006, 1:40pm

Mootmom’s argument is along the lines of people not wanting their tax dollars to pay for a military that they don’t want. It is their right to object to military spending just as it would be their right to not want their tax money to pay for someone’s education which may espouse a belief system other then their own.

However, to extend this argument to a constitutional one is ridiculous. Since a person would be free to use the voucher to go to a Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Wiccan, atheist or non-secular school, it would be very hard for someone to paint that as an “establishment” of religion.

A strong case for school vouchers.

CONNECT WITH US