(09-25-2014 01:46 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:The government would do as it has always done and select some earnings threshold above which the voucher would disappear.

The bold is where you lose me. As I said, the middle class gets screwed. They do not qualify for the voucher. In the current system, they can take the subsidy they pay and go to government schools or they can decline and go to private school. In your scenario, they won't qualify for the voucher because they surpass the income threshold and now they have to pay for a private school. They may have more choice, but they still pay taxes and they still pay tuition on top of that. This is nothing but another redistribution scheme.

Then you didn't set your threshold appropriately.

Even so, why would they HAVE to pay for private school? The public option would always be available. They are no worse off than before, and arguably better off because the school they attend would cater to their needs, rather than have to cater to ALL needs. It would be full of other middle class people who didn't have other choices.

The government already takes advantage of the fact that many people 'opt out' of the education they pay for through taxes. You can't double-count that money. The middle class isn't paying a single dime more than they do now.

(09-25-2014 01:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:41 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  I'm not opposed to trying these systems out, I just don't want another program that the middle class pays for it but doesn't qualify for it.

Doesn't the solution seem obvious to this?

The schools would be the ones applying to the government to get paid. The government already has your 1040. I realize that they ask for it even when they have it, and a few people may have to provide 'proof', but you essentially exempt anyone who makes less than 100k... and slide the scale 10% for every 15k above that so that someone making 250 loses the exemption entirely and someone at 175 only gets 5k of their tuition paid by the government.

1) no cliffs.
2) make it simple
3) make the 'debate' be between the government and the school, not the student.

Well my wife and I make more than 100k and my child goes to public school so what you are proposing is a tax increase.

(09-25-2014 01:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:46 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:The government would do as it has always done and select some earnings threshold above which the voucher would disappear.

The bold is where you lose me. As I said, the middle class gets screwed. They do not qualify for the voucher. In the current system, they can take the subsidy they pay and go to government schools or they can decline and go to private school. In your scenario, they won't qualify for the voucher because they surpass the income threshold and now they have to pay for a private school. They may have more choice, but they still pay taxes and they still pay tuition on top of that. This is nothing but another redistribution scheme.

Then you didn't set your threshold appropriately.

Even so, why would they HAVE to pay for private school? The public option would always be available. They are no worse off than before, and arguably better off because the school they attend would cater to their needs, rather than have to cater to ALL needs. It would be full of other middle class people who didn't have other choices.

The government already takes advantage of the fact that many people 'opt out' of the education they pay for through taxes. You can't double-count that money. The middle class isn't paying a single dime more than they do now.

Wait, I thought we were talking about doing away with public schools and going to an entirely private system.

(09-25-2014 01:54 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:26 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  My question about a voucher system is this: if every parent were given a voucher equal to the current per student cost to attend private schools, would anything change? In other words, let's say the voucher is for $10,000. Wouldn't current $10,000 per year private schools simply up the tuition to $20,000 and pretty much maintain status quo while the new schools spinning off and offering the $10,000 tuition be the same crappy schools that the government system created? You will still have supply and demand. The other thing that scares me about vouchers is that I am sure many cities will only offer them based on income needs so what will happen is the middle class will get screwed and whereas before they needed to come up with $10,000 to send their child to a decent private school and after they will have to come up with substantially more.

You wrote this?

Who are you? Are you turning lib on me?

Turning lib? No. I am always for the average Joe and I am foreshadowing how the government could use this to screw him. I honestly think vouchers can do a lot of good for low income folks that want a better situation for their children, but I also see local governments using the "income threshold" as a weapon against average Joe and his family to raise taxes and redistribute wealth.

This would be my fear - somehow the government would use it to dig deeper in those that pay now pockets.

(09-25-2014 02:02 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:46 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:The government would do as it has always done and select some earnings threshold above which the voucher would disappear.

The bold is where you lose me. As I said, the middle class gets screwed. They do not qualify for the voucher. In the current system, they can take the subsidy they pay and go to government schools or they can decline and go to private school. In your scenario, they won't qualify for the voucher because they surpass the income threshold and now they have to pay for a private school. They may have more choice, but they still pay taxes and they still pay tuition on top of that. This is nothing but another redistribution scheme.

Then you didn't set your threshold appropriately.

Even so, why would they HAVE to pay for private school? The public option would always be available. They are no worse off than before, and arguably better off because the school they attend would cater to their needs, rather than have to cater to ALL needs. It would be full of other middle class people who didn't have other choices.

The government already takes advantage of the fact that many people 'opt out' of the education they pay for through taxes. You can't double-count that money. The middle class isn't paying a single dime more than they do now.

Wait, I thought we were talking about doing away with public schools and going to an entirely private system.

The only way the voucher could work on a large scale is if the public school system was abolished.

The states may try to try a system but it would have to be under the same rules as the private schools.

(09-25-2014 01:49 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Does this have to do with charter schools?

Nothing. Totally separate issues.

What you guys are proposing is a fairy tale. A politician that would support this would be slaughtered at the polls.

(09-25-2014 02:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What you guys are proposing is a fairy tale. A politician that would support this would be slaughtered at the polls.

And mach proves my point to gobluejon. Thanks!

My Plan: Regardless of income, everyone is given a voucher in the amount that the state says they spend on the pupil. Those parents can then take this voucher and use it at a public school OR any private/parochial school of their choice. Alternatively, they can use it on verifiable expenses for home schooling.

That would be fair. Public schools would have to compete for students just like every other school. Many of them would be fine under this scenario. However, if you are not a quality educational experience, you will close.

(09-25-2014 02:07 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 02:02 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:46 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:The government would do as it has always done and select some earnings threshold above which the voucher would disappear.

The bold is where you lose me. As I said, the middle class gets screwed. They do not qualify for the voucher. In the current system, they can take the subsidy they pay and go to government schools or they can decline and go to private school. In your scenario, they won't qualify for the voucher because they surpass the income threshold and now they have to pay for a private school. They may have more choice, but they still pay taxes and they still pay tuition on top of that. This is nothing but another redistribution scheme.

Then you didn't set your threshold appropriately.

Even so, why would they HAVE to pay for private school? The public option would always be available. They are no worse off than before, and arguably better off because the school they attend would cater to their needs, rather than have to cater to ALL needs. It would be full of other middle class people who didn't have other choices.

The government already takes advantage of the fact that many people 'opt out' of the education they pay for through taxes. You can't double-count that money. The middle class isn't paying a single dime more than they do now.

Wait, I thought we were talking about doing away with public schools and going to an entirely private system.

The only way the voucher could work on a large scale is if the public school system was abolished.

The states may try to try a system but it would have to be under the same rules as the private schools.

I may have missed that part. I don't believe in doing away with public education. I believe in offering choices. I think MOST people would choose something other than the one-size fits everyone except the wealthy ... based on where you live system where we are today.

Think of it this way...

The poor inner city neighborhhood school trying to educate 2,000 'mostly poor, frequently immigrant' students would become a private school catering to the specific needs of 1000 'mostly poor' ESL students... 500 would leave for numerous traditional private schools that they could now afford and the remaining 500 would be far more homogeneous and the school could concentrate its efforts on THAT population. Heck, maybe the district turns 5 area public schools into 3 unique focuses to address the remaining unmet needs of the district.... sell the other 2 campuses.

The bottom line is that the problem with public education is that it is a one-size fits all solution to millions of individuals. The private market will address the 'large' constituencies because that is where they can find economies of scale... and the smaller constituencies can focus on the differences.

No choice - No improvement

It's just that simple.

(09-25-2014 02:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What you guys are proposing is a fairy tale. A politician that would support this would be slaughtered at the polls.

So that makes it a reason not to do the right thing?

(09-25-2014 02:57 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  My Plan: Regardless of income, everyone is given a voucher in the amount that the state says they spend on the pupil. Those parents can then take this voucher and use it at a public school OR any private/parochial school of their choice. Alternatively, they can use it on verifiable expenses for home schooling.

That would be fair. Public schools would have to compete for students just like every other school. Many of them would be fine under this scenario. However, if you are not a quality educational experience, you will close.

Problem is that the state already spends money from wealthy people who send their kids to private schools on everyone else... so your math won't work. You have to somehow cut those people out. Income is the easiest way to do this, and I suspect the numbers will show that in MOST places, people who make above ' a certain amount' don't go to public school. That is where I would draw the lines.

(09-25-2014 03:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 02:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What you guys are proposing is a fairy tale. A politician that would support this would be slaughtered at the polls.

So that makes it a reason not to do the right thing?

(09-25-2014 02:57 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  My Plan: Regardless of income, everyone is given a voucher in the amount that the state says they spend on the pupil. Those parents can then take this voucher and use it at a public school OR any private/parochial school of their choice. Alternatively, they can use it on verifiable expenses for home schooling.

That would be fair. Public schools would have to compete for students just like every other school. Many of them would be fine under this scenario. However, if you are not a quality educational experience, you will close.

Problem is that the state already spends money from wealthy people who send their kids to private schools on everyone else... so your math won't work. You have to somehow cut those people out. Income is the easiest way to do this, and I suspect the numbers will show that in MOST places, people who make above ' a certain amount' don't go to public school. That is where I would draw the lines.

Which is exactly why the public school system would have to be shut down. The entire school system should be privatized. That would be the quickest and easiest solution. It forces every school to either sink or swim.

(09-25-2014 02:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 02:07 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 02:02 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 01:46 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  The bold is where you lose me. As I said, the middle class gets screwed. They do not qualify for the voucher. In the current system, they can take the subsidy they pay and go to government schools or they can decline and go to private school. In your scenario, they won't qualify for the voucher because they surpass the income threshold and now they have to pay for a private school. They may have more choice, but they still pay taxes and they still pay tuition on top of that. This is nothing but another redistribution scheme.

Then you didn't set your threshold appropriately.

Even so, why would they HAVE to pay for private school? The public option would always be available. They are no worse off than before, and arguably better off because the school they attend would cater to their needs, rather than have to cater to ALL needs. It would be full of other middle class people who didn't have other choices.

The government already takes advantage of the fact that many people 'opt out' of the education they pay for through taxes. You can't double-count that money. The middle class isn't paying a single dime more than they do now.

Wait, I thought we were talking about doing away with public schools and going to an entirely private system.

The only way the voucher could work on a large scale is if the public school system was abolished.

The states may try to try a system but it would have to be under the same rules as the private schools.

I may have missed that part. I don't believe in doing away with public education. I believe in offering choices. I think MOST people would choose something other than the one-size fits everyone except the wealthy ... based on where you live system where we are today.

Think of it this way...

The poor inner city neighborhhood school trying to educate 2,000 'mostly poor, frequently immigrant' students would become a private school catering to the specific needs of 1000 'mostly poor' ESL students... 500 would leave for numerous traditional private schools that they could now afford and the remaining 500 would be far more homogeneous and the school could concentrate its efforts on THAT population. Heck, maybe the district turns 5 area public schools into 3 unique focuses to address the remaining unmet needs of the district.... sell the other 2 campuses.

The bottom line is that the problem with public education is that it is a one-size fits all solution to millions of individuals. The private market will address the 'large' constituencies because that is where they can find economies of scale... and the smaller constituencies can focus on the differences.

I missed this post when i replied to yours. i can see your points and i think that could work from a schooling perspective but i do not think it could work from an economic perspective. If the voucher system were to be implemented then i believe the public school system and the private school system could not cohabitate. The public schools would be run at to much of a deficit just as they are now. they would have the same bloated bureaucracy. the only way economically it could work is if all the schools were on the same playing field. now if the public schools could survive using only the voucher money and no additional funds from the government then it could work.

(09-25-2014 03:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 02:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What you guys are proposing is a fairy tale. A politician that would support this would be slaughtered at the polls.

So that makes it a reason not to do the right thing?

(09-25-2014 02:57 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  My Plan: Regardless of income, everyone is given a voucher in the amount that the state says they spend on the pupil. Those parents can then take this voucher and use it at a public school OR any private/parochial school of their choice. Alternatively, they can use it on verifiable expenses for home schooling.

That would be fair. Public schools would have to compete for students just like every other school. Many of them would be fine under this scenario. However, if you are not a quality educational experience, you will close.

Problem is that the state already spends money from wealthy people who send their kids to private schools on everyone else... so your math won't work. You have to somehow cut those people out. Income is the easiest way to do this, and I suspect the numbers will show that in MOST places, people who make above ' a certain amount' don't go to public school. That is where I would draw the lines.

They don't all send their kids to private school. It is about 50/50 here. Of course the term "wealthy" is relative. What is the rich or wealthy 10% here is probably smack in the middle in, say, the DC suburbs.

(09-25-2014 03:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 02:57 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  My Plan: Regardless of income, everyone is given a voucher in the amount that the state says they spend on the pupil. Those parents can then take this voucher and use it at a public school OR any private/parochial school of their choice. Alternatively, they can use it on verifiable expenses for home schooling.

That would be fair. Public schools would have to compete for students just like every other school. Many of them would be fine under this scenario. However, if you are not a quality educational experience, you will close.

Problem is that the state already spends money from wealthy people who send their kids to private schools on everyone else... so your math won't work. You have to somehow cut those people out. Income is the easiest way to do this, and I suspect the numbers will show that in MOST places, people who make above ' a certain amount' don't go to public school. That is where I would draw the lines.

I disagree. I think you need a fair system where everyone gets the same for their children. If so-called wealthy people can move their kids into public schools at any time for free, they should be able to take their portion of that money and go to a school of their choice, just like everyone else. Moreover, we cannot have people creating arbitrary income guidelines that punish people that make more but cannot afford more. Additionally, this system creates more honesty at schools, in that their poor performance isn't just rewarded with subsidization due to nonparticipation of other parents that forego their allocation to pay to send their kids to a better school. If school X has $Y, then that's what it has. Maybe that school will need to rethink the union due surcharge or wasteful spending or create an environment that is competitive with private schools.

(09-25-2014 02:49 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 02:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What you guys are proposing is a fairy tale. A politician that would support this would be slaughtered at the polls.

And mach proves my point to gobluejon. Thanks!

I am not exactly sure how that proves that all conservatives care about education and no liberals do, but I will take your word for it.

(09-25-2014 03:18 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  I missed this post when i replied to yours. i can see your points and i think that could work from a schooling perspective but i do not think it could work from an economic perspective. If the voucher system were to be implemented then i believe the public school system and the private school system could not cohabitate. The public schools would be run at to much of a deficit just as they are now. they would have the same bloated bureaucracy. the only way economically it could work is if all the schools were on the same playing field. now if the public schools could survive using only the voucher money and no additional funds from the government then it could work.

Using simple math... I think it takes $12,000 to educate someone in the public system, but the voucher would only be for $10,000. I think the private sector could do it for that amount, and it would provide excess funding for the public system to cover the 'things' that nobody else will do.

I don't think you can shovel it all off on the private system because there are certain sectors in certain communities where it wouldn't be cost-effective to provide the necessary services... and I wouldn't want the government coming in and forcing the private schools to be non-economic. You could perhaps replace these public schools with charter schools where the public determines what that charter would be (to fill in the holes left by the private schools) and that would be okay, but because you're almost by definition providing services that other people can't or won't, you can't expect it to be economic. If it were, somebody would do it.

I think we have an obligation to educate everyone as best we can... I just don't want our 'brightest' and 'hardest working' being held back by the limitations of others. AT the risk of being too blunt, I think you set the government up to provide services for those who are the most difficult and most expensive to serve. They will by definition cost more and return less.

(09-25-2014 03:20 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  They don't all send their kids to private school. It is about 50/50 here. Of course the term "wealthy" is relative. What is the rich or wealthy 10% here is probably smack in the middle in, say, the DC suburbs.

I'm trying to describe a generic, and of course every district will be unique... but if you COULD send your child to private school and you don't, the obvious implication is that you're happy with your public school, so you have no need for a voucher anyway, right? There wouldn't really be much demand for more private schools so nothing would have to change where things are working. (and I'm defining 'working' by the fact that despite having the resources to do so, many aren't opting out of public school).

The states already apportion public funds (both state and federal) to the schools based on enrollment. All we're doing is requiring them to put that payment under the control of the parents rather than the government. In the simplest example, and using round numbers... they have a $12mm budget and 1,000 students ($12,000 per student)... and they apportion $2mm of that budget to overhead not directly attributable to student education (the overhead we wish they'd control) leaving 10,000 per student as a voucher. If 100 or 900 students leave, the budget does not change. $2mm for overhead and $10,000 per student. The more who leave, actually the more overhead money (per remaining student) is left to focus on their needs. This might mean they sell off assets they no longer need, or reduce overhead for departments they no longer need or perhaps they just have large classrooms only being occupied by 10 students, but they have the overhead to not let it fall into disrepair... and if they close off, rent out or even sell off part of the remaining school (maybe even to that new private school) then they can focus even more resources on those kids who have no better choices.

The government and the courts see to it that the formula for apportioning funds to overhead and education is 'fair'... and in a perfect world, the biggest arguments for or against raising taxes would be a) that the $10,000 voucher is appropriate or not as evidenced by the willingness of private companies to 'do the job' for that amount and b) the overhead allocation is appropriate or not as evidenced by the effectiveness of those private companies who are exceeding or falling short of the public schools, despite having fewer resources.

I hope that last paragraph makes sense. It's really the key point of my argument.

(09-24-2014 09:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I've seen this pop up in a variety of threads. One poster keeps repeating that statement. It will never happen and they keep pushing and antagonizing. They are going to wake a sleeping giant.

You're welcome!

But I can't believe you threw this party and didn't invite me

I readily admit that Separation of School and State is not -- For Now -- a politically-mainstream concept. I don't really expect to see it in my lifetime. But I still contend it would benefit the overwhelming majority of students, and as years go by I think the concept will grow in acceptance. Time will tell.