Vouchers? - Page 2

Scucca · 05-19-08, 06:23 AM

Another paper which derives rather negative conclusions about vouchers is Levin (1998, Educational Vouchers: Effectiveness, Choice, and Costs, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol 17, pp 373-392):

Most of the policy discussion on the effects of educational vouchers has been premised on theoretical or ideological positions rather than evidence. This article analyzes a substantial body of recent empirical evidence on achievement differences between public and private schools; on who chooses and its probable impact on educational equity; and on the comparative costs of public and private schools and an overall voucher system. The findings indicate that: (1) results among numerous studies suggest no difference or only a slight advantage for private schools over public schools in student achievement for a given student, but evidence of substantially higher rates of graduation, college attendance, and college graduation for Catholic high school students; (2) evidence is consistent that educational choice leads to greater socioeconomic (SES) and racial segregation of students; and (3) evidence does not support the contention that costs of private schools are considerably lower than those of public schools, but the costs of an overall voucher infrastructure appear to exceed those of the present system.

SouthernDemocrat · 05-19-08, 10:38 AM

On one hand, I would love to have a voucher system. That way we could move into the city limits, and use the vouchers to send our kids to private school. As it is, its much cheaper to live right outside the city limits in a close in suburb, and send our kids to the great public schools there.

That said, while it would be nice for us, it would do nothing to fix the problems with many urban school districts, or the issues with the inner city. You can't hand someone a voucher and expect that to take the place of all the life choices that others have to make to better themselves. The reason why the public school systems in many inner cities are failing is that many if not in some cases most, of the parents of the kids in them do not take an active role in their kids education. No schools can fix 15 year olds having kids and their grandparents being stuck raising them. A voucher program is not going to fix absentee fathers and worthless parents. We have tried vouchers in the public housing program, they don't work. All they do is take households that have made a litany of poor life choices, and move them in to neighborhoods where people made better choices. It doesn't accomplish anything, it just spreads the problem around.

The fact is, the problem is not public schools. The public schools our kids are in outperforms the vast majority of private schools. The problem is the parents, and giving them a voucher is not going to fix that.

RightinNYC · 05-19-08, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

On one hand, I would love to have a voucher system. That way we could move into the city limits, and use the vouchers to send our kids to private school. As it is, its much cheaper to live right outside the city limits in a close in suburb, and send our kids to the great public schools there.

That said, while it would be nice for us, it would do nothing to fix the problems with many urban school districts, or the issues with the inner city. You can't hand someone a voucher and expect that to take the place of all the life choices that others have to make to better themselves. The reason why the public school systems in many inner cities are failing is that many if not in some cases most, of the parents of the kids in them do not take an active role in their kids education. No schools can fix 15 year olds having kids and their grandparents being stuck raising them. A voucher program is not going to fix absentee fathers and worthless parents. We have tried vouchers in the public housing program, they don't work. All they do is take households that have made a litany of poor life choices, and move them in to neighborhoods where people made better choices. It doesn't accomplish anything, it just spreads the problem around.

The fact is, the problem is not public schools. The public schools our kids are in outperforms the vast majority of private schools. The problem is the parents, and giving them a voucher is not going to fix that.

Fantastic post.

RightinNYC · 05-19-08, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edify_Always_In_All_Ways

The 'better schools' are better because they have the ability to select their student body- if you switched the population of a public and a private school in kindergarten, I'm willing to wager that the public-school students would have better test scores than the others pretty soon.

I think there's a bit more to it than that - better teachers, better facilities, wider variety of programs, better guidance counselors, etc. All of these are incredibly important things that private schools offer that public schools often can't.

Scucca · 05-23-08, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

I think there's a bit more to it than that - better teachers, better facilities, wider variety of programs, better guidance counselors, etc. All of these are incredibly important things that private schools offer that public schools often can't.

I doubt private school's value added. They get a relatively homogeneous school population and merely get to press the same buttons of conformity.

I get to deal with the extremes though (i.e. Eton types) and that might have ensured bias. However, I do think the evidence available does tend to show greater value added from comprehensive public school education where choice is minimised.

Layla_Z · 05-23-08, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Don't vouchers allow students from poor schools to attend better ones? The whole premise seems to contradict that argument.

Vouchers might allow some poorer students to attend a private school. Here are the problems:
-really poor students can't afford the private school even with the voucher
-they also can't afford transportation to the school
-private schools aren't always better, they might seem better because they don't have to take everyone
-students with learning or behavior problems won't be accepted at the private school

So now the poorest students are left in the failing school. The failing school that now has less money because schools get state money according to how may students they have.

Layla_Z · 05-23-08, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

The fact is, the problem is not public schools. The public schools our kids are in outperforms the vast majority of private schools. The problem is the parents, and giving them a voucher is not going to fix that.

You are correct there. When parents don't think education is important, the kids won't either.

vvx · 05-24-08, 05:30 AM

The main thing that vouchers could do would be to break up the "one size fits all" style of the public school system.

So you could have schools that focus on teaching the smart kids/have strict entrance exams. You could then have schools that focus on teaching the dumb kids using special teaching methods that are more effective for that type of student.

The primary argument I've heard against such a system is that separating the children will result in unequal education. That somehow putting a stupid kid in a class full of smarter children will help the stupid kid to learn. While that could be true I suppose (though I think a specialized school focusing on that kind of student would be more successful and not less), that would also imply that putting a smart kid in a class full of stupider children would hurt the smart kid. That would seem to be true as well. When I went through school teachers tended to have a "move at the pace of the slowest learner" philosophy.

SouthernDemocrat · 05-24-08, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvx

The main thing that vouchers could do would be to break up the "one size fits all" style of the public school system.

So you could have schools that focus on teaching the smart kids/have strict entrance exams. You could then have schools that focus on teaching the dumb kids using special teaching methods that are more effective for that type of student.

The primary argument I've heard against such a system is that separating the children will result in unequal education. That somehow putting a stupid kid in a class full of smarter children will help the stupid kid to learn. While that could be true I suppose (though I think a specialized school focusing on that kind of student would be more successful and not less), that would also imply that putting a smart kid in a class full of stupider children would hurt the smart kid. That would seem to be true as well. When I went through school teachers tended to have a "move at the pace of the slowest learner" philosophy.

Public schools are not one size fits all though. There are vast differences in the teaching methods between districts. Moreover, public schools have programs for students with learning disabilities and gifted students.

Layla_Z · 05-24-08, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvx

The main thing that vouchers could do would be to break up the "one size fits all" style of the public school system.

So you could have schools that focus on teaching the smart kids/have strict entrance exams. You could then have schools that focus on teaching the dumb kids using special teaching methods that are more effective for that type of student.

The primary argument I've heard against such a system is that separating the children will result in unequal education. That somehow putting a stupid kid in a class full of smarter children will help the stupid kid to learn. While that could be true I suppose (though I think a specialized school focusing on that kind of student would be more successful and not less), that would also imply that putting a smart kid in a class full of stupider children would hurt the smart kid. That would seem to be true as well. When I went through school teachers tended to have a "move at the pace of the slowest learner" philosophy.

Ability grouping of students used to happen in reading in elementary school. It doesn't anymore. In junior high we were divided for all subjects and it was great for us. To some degree, high school students ability group themselves because the smarter students take adavanced classes. We do need to give up the idea that everyone is college bound and teach accordingly. This is one of the many problems with No Child Left Behind. When you hear someone talk about how test scores are higher in European countries, it's because they don't test everyone. Here everyone takes the test. That makes a big difference.