Get Schooled

By catlady

December 17, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

Thanks for your article today, Bridgett. I would really like to know how many of the 4700+ who did not get/use the scholarship actually were awarded it but could not find a place for their child, and how many were those who applied who were not eligible, perhaps due to the rule you cite above that the student had to be at least a year-long student in a public school. Could you please find this out, because it makes a big difference in terms of planning and evaluation of the program. I wonder if you will be given the information?

As to your blog question: EVERYONE benefits by a strong public school system, even those opting for private school. I must point out that private school is a choice parents make, knowing the cost. To complain afterwards is a bit disingeneous, to say the least. It is like buying a Hummer instead of a Chevy and then complaining about the cost.

As to fairness, look at the proposed bailout of the subprime market. Those who are already foreclosed upon are USC, while those who are in the throes now may not lose their houses. How “fair” is that?

The program seems to me to be targeted toward mostly (65%) middle and upper class parents (they vote!) who live in cities, where private schools could be a reasonable option. In my area, the nearest private school participating is 2 counties away! The low percentage of disadvantaged students who are able to take advantage of the program is a real “tell”, IMHO.

By Sharon

December 17, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

Any thoughts on if the legislature would ever, ever offer special needs scholarships to gifted students?

I know, it will never happen. Public schools desperately need gifted students to make them look good, but they treat them with unbridled disdain. If gifted kids could get vouchers, public schools would actually have to pay attention to them and we can’t have that!!!! ;)

By Lee

December 17, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Who didn’t see this coming? Raise your hand.

As a parent who sends their child to private school, let me say that the issue is not that we have to pay for private school tuition AND taxes to support the public schools, it’s because we now see how a school SHOULD be run and when we compare our public school to the private sector, we realize what a load of crap the public school systems have been feeding us all these years.

Maybe the answer is for the public to fund the construction of the buildings and infrastructure and require parents of public school students to pay a “service fee” for the direct costs [teachers, textbooks, etc].

That is how we do the landfill. Taxpayers pay for the facility and everytime I take a load to the landfill, I have to pay a nominal fee.

Apt analogy, If I say so myself…

By Lee

December 17, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

Catlady, the program has succeeded in it’s intent. That is, to get the idea of publicly funded vouchers ingrained into our subconscious.

After all, who can argue about a “special needs” student whose needs are not being met by the public school? It tugs at our heartstrings and we open our wallets.

Now, we are talking about grandfathering this legislation. Next comes another group wanting consideration until finally, we have a full blown voucher system in place with so much red tape and regulations that you would have to be a lawyer to figure it all out.

By Bridget Gutierrez

December 17, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

catlady: Unfortunately, the State Department of Education did not keep track of how many families were ineligible, so that figure (whatever it is) had to be included in my calculations.

However, I think the application process may be changed next year so as to weed out those families before they apply. If that happens, we’ll get a better sense of whether the supply meets the demand.

By gttim

December 17, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Private school parents frequently complain about paying school taxes and not having their own children benefit from those dollars.

If this is their argument, then the adults who choose not to have children, like me, should get all their school taxes refunded to them. I support the public school system and paying taxes into it. But if parents who choose to send their kids to private school can get their money back, then adults with no children should get theirs back as well. Vouchers for all tax payers who are not sending kids into the public school system?

By fed up

December 17, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

Well, the only solution is universal school choice - even if that choice is only among public schools. Like I said the other day, I have served in several leadership roles in a relatively highly performing district, and I can tell you that the administration does not give one tiny, itty bitty, miniscule rip about what parents/families want.

Teachers whine and moan all the time that their work is sooo hard and they need all these breaks and waaaah, waaaaaah waaaaah. They ALWAYS get their way in our district even at the expense of kids. I don’t know of many businesses that cater to employees at the expense of client satisfaction.

Second on the list to be accommodated by administrators are the bottom 20% of the students… you know, the ones who have little chance of contributing meaningfully to the success of this country or to mankind in general. Once the teachers are happy, then administrators look the the lowest performers. Often these are also the students/families that contribute the least in time, talent and taxes to the school system.

Bottom of the list for consideration - high/mid performers and their parents who often are the ones contributing the most in time and money(taxes). Administrators consider them a pain in the behind and virtually never give them any consideration. I have actually heard administrators make insulting jokes about concerned parents. I wish I had been wearing a wire at the time!

Imagine if businesses were run this way… to first cater to employees, then to their least lucrative customers and finally, if they must….. to their most lucrative customers.

The only way to fix this is with school choice. Then the administrators would actually have to pay attention to the folks who keep the school running.

By jim d

December 17, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

And a HUGE AMEN to fed ups comment.

By Ernest

December 17, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

Good answer, gttim! Yes, we saw this coming and if we allow it, we will never see the end of ‘special interests’ requesting tax rebates due to their circumstances.

Catlady is right, everyone benefits from a strong public education system. Could you imagine is residents that live in areas where there have not been fires asking for ‘tax rebates’ of monies towards fire departments? How about those in low crime areas asking for rebates for monies towards police departments? It would never end if this door is opened.

By TiedToTheWhippingPost

December 17, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

A small thought experiment: Two restaurants sit near each other; both serve lunch. Restaurant A serves all comers for free. Restaurant B charges $10 for an entree, $4 for an appetizer, and $2 for a glass of iced tea. There is seating available immediately at Restaurant A, and a line out the door with a 45 minute wait at Restaurant B. What can you infer about the quality of the A vs. B?

The clear benefits of having a strong public education system need to be balanced against the accountability that the free market brings. A reasonable compromise is half. Half of the money allocated to a child should stay with the public school the child is zoned for (benefiting public education) while half should follow the child. As more kids opt out of public schools, their per-pupil expenditures would rise. As the quality of the public schools improves, the demand for non-free alternatives would fall.

Honestly, if there’s a line of people ponying $5,000 to $15,000 a year for what you give away for free, there’s some room for improvement. Certainly teachers who leave public education jobs for private school positions which pay less think so.

By Lisa B.

December 17, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

I agree that school choice would help the situation. Competition is a GOOD thing. Public schools shouldn’t be so afraid of giving it a shot.

By Ernest

December 17, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

Interesting proposal, TTTWP! One thing that would definitely have to change is that the dollars would stay with the school ‘district’ not the school ‘zone’. That would really start class warfare if implemented as you suggested. Another reality, taxes would probably increase somewhat to replace the revenues lost. That’s my observation of the system.

Back to Bridgett’s question again, do you want your tax dollars going to public transportation is you never use it? Do you want it going to medicaid/medicare even though you may not qualify? How about the FAA if you never fly? I contend going down the road of ‘a la carte’ taxation based on the individual’s preferences will be our undoing.

There should be accountability and that’s what NCLB is attempting to do. Unfortunately because of many unrealistic and unattainable measures, most can’t see some of the good aspects of this legislation. If Congress is sincere, they will look at possibly using a ‘growth model’ for each student as a measure in lieu of some of the group measures.

By TiedToTheWhippingPost

December 17, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this

going down the road of ‘a la carte’ taxation based on the individual’s preferences has nothing to do with what I proposed.

I wrote only of how the money is spent, not how it’s raised. Indeed, to avoid self-dealing and fraud, the actual money need not pass through a parent’s hands. They could be given some sort of coupon that the education provider could redeem for money. I don’t like ‘coupon’ though; ‘purchase order’? There’s gotta be a better word …

By Ernest

December 17, 2007 3:18 PM | Link to this

Sorry for the misunderstanding, TTTWP. When I said ‘you’, I didn’t mean you specifically. After re-reading what I typed, it could be interpreted that way. I was referring to ‘you’ in general with regards my response to Bridgett’s question.

BTW, voucher is probably the best word to use. If I understand your proposal, it would be transferred to the ‘approved’ institution conducting the education. Obviously, there would be an indentifier/taxid/ssn associated with the dollars to help eliminate fraud. This would be interesting for ‘illegals’ because legally we must provide an education but they would not be able to go to private school unless they had a taxid.

By jim d

December 17, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

TiedToTheWhippingPost,

I’d take it one step further. Allowing state and federal funding to follow the kid and the county keeping what they collect in property taxes for education.

To me that would be fare.

By JustMe

December 17, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

So then, let me understand and rephrase….

Private school parents want vouchers because they want their tax dollars to support their child’s education, right?

Well then, I am an adult with no children. That means that I shouldn’t have to pay any taxes at all, right? Why should I have to pay, if you agree with that private school parent????

Someone that believes that the private school parent is right - please explain to me why I am wrong!!!!

By jim d

December 17, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

JM,

Neither side of this issue is 100% correct or incorrect.

My point is simply if a student isn’t in a public school the school recieves no state or federal funding for the kid so that money should follow the student to wherever they go to school.

From what I’ve read and been told, The bulk of funding comes from local property taxes. So that money should remain in the system. But I would have little reason to complain about state and federal funding since it does not affect the schools ability to function in any way since they don’t get it anyway if the child isn’t there.

Would you agree?

By TiedToTheWhippingPost

December 17, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this

JustMe, You’re confouding (I suspect intentionally) raising money to provide for the education of all children with spending money to provide for the education of all.

To say that the two are the same is analogous to saying that the program which provides health insurance for kids (PeachCare) is no good unless the kids go to a government-run health clinic or hospital to receive care.

By fed up

December 17, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this

Well, I’m totally comfortable having school choice only within the public system. You get to choose whatever dern public school you want to go to in whatever district and that school gets your money.

That way public schools still get public money but the ones who don’t give a rip about high achieving kids/parents will lose them and their money. It would take about 2 years for that model to nearly completely fix public education - no more need for testing/AYP/NCLB. … well perhaps some nationally normed testing like the ITBS or the NAEP given at reasonable intervals (every 2-3 years) - but none of this NCLB every year cr_p.

So, if I am president/governor I will make this happen… vote for me!

By jim d

December 17, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

Fed up,

Michigan choice schools already do this. With great sucess, I’m told.

By SET

December 17, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

No vouchers, and no state funding for private schools whatsoever. The Public School System in the USA is an integral part of the socialization of people into the US as a whole. It’s proper function is everybody’s job and everybody’s concern. Any scheme that balkanizes education so that each special interest group is encouraged and financed to go to separate education systems would be the death knell for a united society.

On top of that we’d see more loony tunes special schools financed with public money. We need to fix the public school system we have so that the students it produces are fully qualified to participate as citizens.

We need to return the public schools from the proletariat failure factories they have become since the civil rights & “free speech” movement of the 1960’s - to the Socialization and Educational system we enjoyed previously.

By JustMe

December 17, 2007 5:35 PM | Link to this

jd and others….

No, I am not confounding anything. It was clearly stated that the REASON the private school parent wanted school vouchers was because they wanted THEIR tax dollars to pay for their child’s education.

If that is the reason, then hey - I am all for that. And, because I have no children, then I would have no taxes.

HOWEVER, do NOT come at me and say that I MUST pay so that OTHER parents can take my money and do as they see fit. In my world, that is the definition of robbery!

IMHO, you all are confounding the funding of education with revitalizing education.

By mindy

December 17, 2007 6:47 PM | Link to this

I have to think about the kids in my 88% free and reduced lunch school. If these parents take there tax dollars and use them to pay for a private school??…..? WAIT! These parents don’t pay taxes! I guess that pretty much explains why people like me who have no children will still have to pay school taxes. Here’s a thought, Instead of people getting tax breaks for having kids, why the heck don’t they get taxed extra for these babies they keep having?

Naaa, that would make to much SENSE!

If the dumb people would stop multiplying faster that anyone else, public schools wouldn’t be in the shape they are today. That my friends, is the basic root of the problem with education in America. RAW MATERIAL.

By catlady

December 17, 2007 8:58 PM | Link to this

Mindy: Ever been in the checkout line at Walmart? Did you ever see a separate line for poor folks, so they don’t have to pay taxes? How about the other places you shop? Is there a special line there, either? And what about other taxes? Do you think, through rent payments, that those folks do not pay property taxes? You can bet the landlord passes those along, too.

Now, it is true some folks do not pay (or they get back) income taxes. Some of them qualify for EIC, which is basically a redistribution of money, I grant. I doubt if any of them pay capital gains taxes, corporate income taxes, or inheritance taxes, so actually you are right that many poor miss some of the taxes. I personally miss those myself (except income taxes, which I pay out the ying yang).

But of the average, run of the mill taxes, the poor pay two of the three. So please drop the “they don’t pay taxes litany.” Illegal immigrants pay those taxes also, by the way.

By mindy

December 17, 2007 10:28 PM | Link to this

I see her use her WIC card and food stamaps in the check out line. How do they figure what part of the sales tax is her responsibility? She pays $120 dollars for her section 8 apartment to house her 5 kids. How much of that is taxes? How can she actually be paying income taxes herself when her income is coming from public assistance? Get real!.. Ok, she pays taxes on her cigarrettes!

By Lisa B.

December 18, 2007 12:31 AM | Link to this

Fed Up, I like you 4:17 post. I’ll vote for you! Oops. We have one primary, one elementary, one middle and one high school in my county. So much for school choice for us!

I still like your idea though.

And SET, I have the same concern you mentioned about state funded looney tune schools. As upset as some are about the performance of some public schools, I am still reluctant to freely hand out tax money to private schools.

By TiedToTheWhippingPost

December 18, 2007 6:43 AM | Link to this

Justme, Sorry, I’m a little slow - I went back to the beginning of the blog to review nonsensical way that Bridget framed the question of vouchers: Some people think their tax dollars should be spent for their own good. Others believe tax dollars are meant to pay for the so-called greater good.

In that context, I’ll leave you to knock her straw man down. I need to selfishly go kick some puppies. TTFN!