Let's start with BL who raised a couple of points:
1. As Marty indicated, suspension as you remember it (let alone
expulsion!), is VERY difficult to justify and requires a LOT of
documentation, time, etc. It isn't like the old days.
2. Does more money mean better education? It certainly may not, but less
money certainly means worse education. Here in NY, for example, we're
seeing increased class sizes, reduction in aides, etc. Not a good thing!
To Anthony Lapinski and Ze'ev Wurman, who would like to compare average
cost per student in public schools versus those in private schools, I would
respond that:
1. A disproportionate percentage of private schools are elementary grades
only (which is relatively cheap), and private schools on average have a
disproportionately lower population than public schools with regard to SE,
ESL, and troublemaking kids. I've heard it said that SE by itself accounts
for the difference in average cost per student.
2. Additionally, with more oversight, more mandates, etc, public schools
require additional staff simply for administrative purposes. These folks
are more pricey than teachers.
3. Many (most?) private schools have at least some support from religious
organizations, which, in the past at least, meant staffing that required
little or no remuneration. The Catholic private school in which I taught
had all administrative and half the teaching positions staffed by clergy.
Many Catholic private schools are closing in NY as they have had to hire
more and more secular staff, resulting in higher costs than can be
tolerated.
4. I suspect that alumni provide SOME financial support to their (private)
schools. Not something you generally see with public schools.
5. Public schools still have to transport private school students, adding
to costs.
Ze'ev presents most of the common arguments...
Voucher plans at 20-50% of the cost of public schools:
1. All the plans I've seen have been 100%, and that will surely be the
ultimate goal of most supporters. Once the foot is in the door; the door
is forever open.
2. Assuming we settled at 50%, very few 'poor' parents will find that
sufficient to fund education for their kids.
3. 'Poor' parents may have logistical problems with sending their kids;
distance/time issues, transportation issues, demands on their time as part
of the private school rules, etc.
4. ANY universal voucher plan negatively impacts funding of public schools.
5. Targetted voucher plans STILL overwhelmingly result in negative funding
consequences for public schools (See clarification at the bottom of this
'page').
I'm paying taxes to educate someone else's kids:
1. The standard response to this is that you are paying taxes to support
the programs that we as citizens feel the government, through taxes, should
provide. Some basic availability of education for all children being one
of them.
2. If it makes you feel better, you can think of it as paying for YOUR
education, not that of your kids.
Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Holland do it and it works:
1. Firstly, I'm used to a guy who always throws out Singapore, but the
response is the same: lower percentage of kids needing assistance, probably
less poverty, almost certainly less special needs students. Consequently,
less expensive to educate. We're also talking about something that EVOLVED
there, as our public school system evolved here. Making a changeover is
fraught with difficulties dangers, and (probably) costs.
2. Following up on 1 above, the population demographics are not truly
comparable.
3. The culture is different (more supportive to education).
4. Doesn't most of Europe have a 2-tier program with students who are not
academically inclined being trained for 'trades'? That's not an
option here (although it existed in the past).
Ok, some comments of my own not previously presented...
The 'cost per student' figure is pretty much useless in the context in
which it is being used. It doesn't cost ANYTHING to add a kid to a class
of 20 (well, maybe the cost of a book), and you don't SAVE anything by
removing 2 kids from a class of 24. For this reason, ANY voucher program
results in a net loss of funding at least 95% of the time. Unless you can
cut staff without significantly increasing class size, there will be a
negative impact on the remaining students. To be able to even come CLOSE
to breaking even, you would need an entire class to leave, and you would
need enough classes per grade to allow that to happen. So if 20% of
sixth-grade students take vouchers of, say, $5000, I would need five
sixth-grade classes (or more) to start with. If these are classes of 20
students (a low figure), I just removed $100k in funding and eliminated a
teacher. I would submit that this is unlikely in any but the very largest
of school systems... AND... You only broke even if the teacher's salary and
benefits totalled $100k. Lots of districts where that wouldn't be the
case. Make it a full 'cost per student' voucher, and the damage is worse,
and I doubt there would be ANY break-even scenarios.
There isn't enough capacity to allow much additional private school
enrollment anyway. You would need more private schools to spring up, and
it would be a crapshoot as to how these NEW private schools would compare
to the existing ones. I would forsee LOTS of problems, wasted money,
fraud, etc as this sytem came online.
What is the rationale behind parents seeking private schools in the FIRST
place? On average, the teachers aren't better; if anything the reverse is
true. The programs aren't better; in many/most cases they are more
limited. AP classes, for example, tend to be very rare in private
schools. The supposedly better education is an illusion based on comparing
populations which are not statistically comparable int he FIRST place! So
what's the draw?
Ultimately It comes down to two major reasons: An education with religious
underpinning (which brings in the whole separation of church and state
issue), or a wish to avoid 'those people'. Who 'those people' are depends
on one's point of view. Most benign case is that 'those people' are
students who are disruptive of the process of education and who interfere
with the education of others. Less acceptable is that 'those people' are
defined by the color of their skin, their (lack of) potential value as
future contacts (their economic circumstances), their religious beliefs,
etc, etc. So while I'm sympathetic to those who want a religious
underpinning and/or an atmosphere conducive to learning, I can't justify
public funds going to schools which, in one way of another, discriminate
against OTHER groups of citizens.
ANY universal voucher plan results in a net loss of funding. You
can't transfer existing public funding to existing private school parents
without doing serious damage to public schools. Any acceptable voucher
plan would have to result in no funding damage to public schools, be
GRADUALLY phased in, and exclude from consideration any private school
which discriminates either overtly or subtly. I have yet to see an
acceptable voucher plan.