I'm opposed to school vouchers because I feel like the most likely outcome is to move private schools from the 1% to the 10%, and as upper-middle class parents abandon public schools, the political will to improve them will decline.
I've seen cases where school choice was marginally improved, and what happened was that the parents who had the largest combination of motivation and time moved their kids, which caused what was left of the school to become ghettoized, because those were the same parents who would volunteer in the classroom, run the PTA, seek out donors for particular programs &c.
It's possible that larger changes would result in improvements even though smaller changes result in serious problems, but I don't see larger changes coming soon, and school voucher programs do not appear to be large enough to accomplish this goal.
We may be stuck in a very pessimal middle ground right now; it seems likely that significantly increasing school choice would improve things from where we are, but also seems likely that the exact opposite approach of banning private schools and assigning kids to public schools by lottery would also improve things, as that could motivate the wealthy and connected to improve schools that poor kids are equally likely to end up in.
One factor that gets buried in the abstract debate around school choice is the practical consideration of transportation. If you want to give families real choice in choosing among schools for their children, you have to remove transportation costs from the family's decision making. Otherwise, there is a “choice” of one or maybe two schools for the families who are ostensibly most in need of choosing a school other than the closest one.
We see this in my kids' focus option school. Families from anywhere in the city can enroll their children in a lottery for admission. The lottery is actually weighted to favor lower income families, yet the school is in the top tier for median income. There are a number of factors that play into why this is the case, but among the most frequently cited is that lower income families have fewer resources to get their kids to school and back. Yet these are the families that by and large live in areas where the neighborhood schools tend to fail to deliver quality education, the families who would benefit from having a real choice.
Unless a municipality is willing to convey a child from any home to any school and back (and in a timely manner), vouchers will never meaningfully address education quality. Rich families will send their kids to the handful of high performing schools, and everyone else gets stuck with the closest choice.
Yet these are the families that by and large live in areas where the neighborhood schools tend to fail to deliver quality education, the families who would benefit from having a real choice.
So you're of the view that a real choice is better than no choice?
Unless a municipality is willing to convey a child from any home to any school and back (and in a timely manner), vouchers will never meaningfully address education quality.
What of the cases where the charter schools are close to or essentially co-located with the public school? There are some charter schools which are in the same building as the public school.
For the record, I'm also of the view that a real choice is better than no choice. I just feel that vouchers tend to increase choices primarily for those who are already fairly well off.
Transportation is a big part of the issue; if transportation is not provided, then only those with both a reliable car and an adult available to transport the child can attend a school that isn't nearby.
For most proposed implementations I've seen of school voucher programs, money is also a big issue. If you give each kid say $8k in vouchers, the bottom 50% or so of families financially will choose between schools costing $8k per year. Middle class parents (particularly those with only 1 or 2 kids) will now have the option of sending their kids to schools that cost say $12k per year, which would not have been affordable before. Upper middle class parents now have many options of where to send their kids. Rich parents were already sending their kids to private schools, so they get a $8k per kid discount on the tuition. By increasing choice for the middle of the income bracket, you've decreased the wealth diversity of many schools, and that "urban kid in a crappy public school" is now an "urban kid in a crappy private school"
I just feel that vouchers tend to increase choices primarily for those who are already fairly well off.
Anything that increases choices tends to increase choices primarily for those who are already fairly well off. This also applies to Affirmative Action. The beneficiaries of Affirmative Action tend to be kids who are already in the Upper Middle or Upper classes.
For most proposed implementations I've seen of school voucher programs, money is also a big issue. If you give each kid say $8k in vouchers, the bottom 50% or so of families financially will choose between schools costing $8k per year.
That may well be $8k more choice than they would have had otherwise.
By increasing choice for the middle of the income bracket, you've decreased the wealth diversity of many schools, and that "urban kid in a crappy public school" is now an "urban kid in a crappy private school"
The difference being that the 2nd school can exclude troublemakers, so at least those kids aren't in a constantly disrupted environment.
>> I just feel that vouchers tend to increase choices primarily for those who are already fairly well off.
> Anything that increases choices tends to increase choices primarily for those who are already fairly well off. This also applies to Affirmative Action. The beneficiaries of Affirmative Action tend to be kids who are already in the Upper Middle or Upper classes.
School vouchers appear to be particularly bad by this measure though. For anyone already sending their kids to public school, it's subsidizing a behavior they already do. It's $8k per kid that could be spent on improving other schools.
For those who just-barely can't afford to send their kids to private schools better than the public schools, it's a huge gain, but I am of the opinion (though I admit without sufficient data) that this gain comes at the expense of the quality of the public schools (or in a zero-public-school, voucher scenario, the 0-added-tuition private schools) that those poorer will be relegated to.
[edit]
I guess my point is that I think vouchers are likely to be a net-loss for the poor, and even if I'm wrong about that, I'm struggling to think of ways in which they could be a net-gain.
Charter schools are first and foremost a tactic for weakening unions. There's nothing stopping experimental “sub-schools,” using public school teachers from developing within an existing public school. That's in fact how my kids' aforementioned school started. It was just a couple of classrooms within a larger K-8 public school. Eventually its program became so popular that it took over the building.
That does fit a certain limited notion of school choice, but it's not in my experience what most people have in mind when they talk about voucher programs. Choosing between two neighborhood schools isn't a marked improvement over being assigned to one. This is especially the case since demographic factors strongly tied to geography are prevailing influences in school success.
Charter schools are first and foremost a tactic for weakening unions.
If those unions are presiding over schools that are catastrophically failing, I don't see what's wrong with that.
There's nothing stopping experimental “sub-schools,” using public school teachers from developing within an existing public school. That's in fact how my kids' aforementioned school started. It was just a couple of classrooms within a larger K-8 public school. Eventually its program became so popular that it took over the building.
Also sounds good to me.
That does fit a certain limited notion of school choice, but it's not in my experience what most people have in mind when they talk about voucher programs. Choosing between two neighborhood schools isn't a marked improvement over being assigned to one. This is especially the case since demographic factors strongly tied to geography are prevailing influences in school success.
If one school can exclude troublemakers, then this is one tool to help create a positive learning environment in spite of geographic and demographic factors. Some choice may well be better than none. It's the situations where there's no choices, where corruption comes in.
Saying "not everyone can give their children better opportunities, so no one can give their children better opportunities" is one of the crappiest arguments against charter schools. It's pure and simple envy and a desire to hurt those more fortunate.
Not wanting to subsidize a wealthy parent's child's tuition is a desire to hurt them?
Not wanting to subsidize a poor parent's child's education just because a wealthy parent's child might exploit it seems either spiteful, or desiring of too much perfection in a complex system.
The entire goal of basic schooling is to ensure all children are given equal opportunity and resources to grow into good citizens.
Separating out people into haves and have-nots at the lowest level is a great way to grow economic stratification and further fuel discontent among the general population.
Except the reason why no one has an opportunity when put together is because of groups fleeing school systems (see: white flight) due to other issues like racism or religious reasons.
The solution isn't to further punish the poor by essentially defunding public schools. It's to increase the quality of public schools and increase opportunity for people to go to school. And make no mistake, the entire point of school vouchers is to punish the poor.
Except the reason why no one has an opportunity when put together is because of groups fleeing school systems (see: white flight) due to other issues like racism or religious reasons.
That makes no sense, given there are charter school successes located in those neighborhoods. There are also other initiatives that have focused on the whole environment of the children. The problem isn't racism. The problem is a self-perpetuating cycle of an environment that prevents good education.
And make no mistake, the entire point of school vouchers is to punish the poor.
When I put myself in the shoes of that woman who approached me about her son, I find that I would want that school voucher! The entire point of opposing school vouchers is to preserve the urban bureaucratic status quo. Why not give those parents a choice? Do they currently trust the public school to provide their children a good education? My impression is that a lot of them don't.
The entire point of opposing school vouchers is that the people pushing them and their implementation of school vouchers would devastate local school systems. There are some charter school successes, but that also ignores the many charter school failures [1] and the fact that again, they are barely beholden to any scrutiny. Charter schools also have a financial incentive to expel underperforming students in order to raise their average test scores rather than accommodate and improve their curriculum.
And again, the problem is racism. White flight exists. It is why public schooling in those neighborhoods is so bad to begin with and to ignore the history of racism in the public schooling system does a disservice to your argument.
The entire point of opposing school vouchers is that the people pushing them and their implementation of school vouchers would devastate local school systems
Just because particular schools close, doesn't mean something bad is happening. In a market that actually works, no one is too big to fail.
And again, the problem is racism. White flight exists. It is why public schooling in those neighborhoods is so bad to begin with
Thomas Sowell remembers attending a very good school in Harlem, and that the neighborhood was safe enough for him to sleep outside on the fire escape, if it was too hot on a summer evening. The key difference has been effect of the welfare state on those neighborhoods, and the resulting degradation of the social fabric there, not the flight of white people.
but also seems likely that the exact opposite approach of banning private schools and assigning kids to public schools by lottery would also improve things
Arguing over the morality (or even constitutionality) of such a measure was not the point of me bringing it up. It's obviously a complete political non-starter in the US (it's within the Overton Window in Britain, but still highly unlikely).
The point was that there are compelling arguments to make that both greatly liberalizing school choice and greatly eliminating school choice would improve things for those who are economically disadvantaged. That says a lot about how badly things are working now.
Arguing over the morality (or even constitutionality) of such a measure was not the point of me bringing it up.
So what? I was asking how you would feel.
The point was that there are compelling arguments to make that both greatly liberalizing school choice and greatly eliminating school choice would improve things for those who are economically disadvantaged.
Eliminating choice is generally about centralizing control.
>> Arguing over the morality (or even constitutionality) of such a measure was not the point of me bringing it up.
> So what? I was asking how you would feel.
To me how I feel about it is tied directly to the morality of it.
>> The point was that there are compelling arguments to make that both greatly liberalizing school choice and greatly eliminating school choice would improve things for those who are economically disadvantaged.
> Eliminating choice is generally about centralizing control.
I disagree with this. Eliminating choice generally causes a centralizing of control, but that does not mean it's generally the motivation for it.
I've seen cases where school choice was marginally improved, and what happened was that the parents who had the largest combination of motivation and time moved their kids, which caused what was left of the school to become ghettoized, because those were the same parents who would volunteer in the classroom, run the PTA, seek out donors for particular programs &c.
It's possible that larger changes would result in improvements even though smaller changes result in serious problems, but I don't see larger changes coming soon, and school voucher programs do not appear to be large enough to accomplish this goal.
We may be stuck in a very pessimal middle ground right now; it seems likely that significantly increasing school choice would improve things from where we are, but also seems likely that the exact opposite approach of banning private schools and assigning kids to public schools by lottery would also improve things, as that could motivate the wealthy and connected to improve schools that poor kids are equally likely to end up in.