(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.