The nations only statewide school voucher program faces legal showdown

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
In addition, economists point to the problem of "cream skimming," a variety of adverse selection in the "educational market." With a presumably greater pool of applicants, the private schools will be more selective over which students to admit, possibly excluding those who belong to the "wrong" religion or ethnicity, those with disabilities such as autism or multiple sclerosis, and those with disciplinary problems. On the other hand, by law the public schools have to educate everyone, so that they become a "dumping ground" for those students unwanted by the private schools. This further undermines the reputation of the public schools, leading to a vicious circle that tends toward the total abolition of the public schools and the end of universal education.

So again RIP, after you have gotten your way (not likely in this lifetime) and your kids are gone from the private school you have been funneling your tax money to, are you willingly going to give it back to the "failed public school system"? Or will the arguement and the reasons change AGAIN?

 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
The building of churchs and the paying for a private schools tution are hugely different. One is passed in a legal and democratic way, supported by the people, where as the other one will never be passed in any way shape or form.

Okay, so what if 55% of people succcessfully voted for the construction of churches and temples through government vouchers. You think that would be acceptable?

Are you basing your view of what is right based on how many people vote for it? Because right now that seems like the only distinction you have between the two situations.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Does your kids' private school teach science or religion in science class? My guess would be the latter. That's one reason why I oppose public school vouchers being used for religious schools.

Does your supermarket carry regular or organic vegetables? My guess would be the latter. That's one reason why I oppose state/federal fax return money being used in supermarkets.

Ridiculous? Of course it is...

HINT: Tax returns & public education are funded with YOUR OWN MONEY.

Why should I have any right dictating where you spend your tax return money?

Why should you have any right dictating where I spend my child's fair share of public education money?

Strawman. Supermarkets typically aren't funded with tax money, nor is the regular vs. organic issue equivalent to the secular vs. religious school debate.

On the whole tax issue - you don't get it. Its not MY money or YOUR money, it is OUR money. And we, as a community or a country, decide how to use it collectively. That's one of the purposes of government. In our governing document, it is written that the government shall not establish religion. Some argue, myself included, that giving money to religious schools is an endorsement of religion.

Anyway, if its MY money, why can't I tell the IRS to give my money to support alternative energy research and higher eduction funding, instead of funding this stupid war and the associated fat cats?

Read the constitution, because there is not a way to read it that makes vouchers unconstitutional, unless they are for one religion and not another.

All I can say there are some hypocritical people in this thread. Bitching about states right after todays early ruling on pot, and then saying no, the state doesnt have the right allow vouchers, because it funds religion. When there is nothing that says freedom from religion. Religion isnt mixing in government. Education isnt government. Government funds education. And in reality, unless you live in Florida you arent paying for vouchers so you really dont have a valid claim to this issue.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Originally posted by: zendari
The problem is the school's (for lack of a better term) marginal cost of a single student is slim. Much of the districts' costs are fixed. By not paying your property taxes, the district loses say $5000 of revenue. But (at least if they want to be a good district) they still have to hire the same number of teachers, maintain a similar busing system, and maintain the same sized building, only they have to do that with $5k less of money.

I agree with your interpretation of the cost structure. There is, of course, a fixed- and variable-cost component to the total cost of a student's education. Greatly simplified, the fixed costs would include the brick & mortar of the school itself. The variable costs are the teachers, buses, lunches, etc.

I wouldn't categorize buses as variable. Even with less students, a bus has to swing by your house to pick up neighbors. You can't have less buses and simply drive faster. And you need a minimum number of buses to cover the entire district in a short (say 30 min) period of time.

I submit that the fixed cost of a student's education, while substantial for each individual school, is a relatively SMALL part of the total cost of an individual student's education. The majority of each student's cost of education is the variable, "human cost" - the teachers, tutors, principal, staff, buses, lunches, etc. etc.

See, I don't think its that cut and dry. Let's assume a large school district, and that a given teacher teaches 100 students a day. You'd obviously need a minimum number of dissenters before you could downsize your staff. But this hurts the district in a different way. A good school will have a large variety of classes, such as different levels of math or AP classes. If you don't have enough instructers, you might not be able to offer the courseload that you could otherwise. I'd estimate that in a high school with less than 1000 kids, cutting down the faculty would do something like this.

Your ideas might work in an elementary or a middle school setting however.

For example, look at the sciences. You simply can't have less than 1 biology teacher.

In a school with 25 people, you could have just 1 teacher. But would it be efficient to have 1 teacher teach all subjects? He/she would be lacking in knowledge, if nothing else.

Poorer performing schools simply need to be mandated to join together to form larger districts. It's like a business, works better in larger volumes.


Your argument is valid in that when large numbers of students disenroll from a given school, the fixed costs of operating that school would increase to the point of making that school less effective than it otherwise would be. However, the majority of the variable "human costs" of running a school are quite easily altered - in fact, most schools adjust their bus routes, teachers, staff, etc. each school year, and some more frequently than that, to adapt to changing enrollment needs.
The majority of schools are expanding. It's not quite so easy to downsize.

Therefore, I'd have no objections to EXCLUDING the fixed costs of public education from the school voucher program.
I think that would be fine; though determining exactly what is the fixed cost would be rather difficult at best.

 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
And in reality, unless you live in Florida you arent paying for vouchers so you really dont have a valid claim to this issue.

Are you saying people from other states have no right to talk about it? Can't have anything correct to say about it? Should we all be screened before entering threads based on our jurisdiction of origin? If not, what is the point of you saying "you really dont have a valid claim to this issue."

I'm also interested in hearing a response to my previous post.
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
Originally posted by: zendari
I think that would be fine; though determining exactly what is the fixed cost would be rather difficult at best.
Agreed.

It would be difficult, but possible, for districts to come up with a number, even a conservative one, that most parents who desire to opt-out of the public education system would be happy with. :thumbsup::D
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
Originally posted by: zendari
I wouldn't categorize buses as variable. Even with less students, a bus has to swing by your house to pick up neighbors. You can't have less buses and simply drive faster. And you need a minimum number of buses to cover the entire district in a short (say 30 min) period of time.

Agreed. I'm not entirely sure how "most" K-12 districts handle transportation. I do know that some districts, and my former college campus, farm the task out to vendors. Routes are fixed, bus drivers simply keep a tally of the number of students boarding each bus. Schools are billed a fee that includes a variable cost of the number of riders + the fixed route cost.

Even assuming that districts maintain their own fleets, etc., looking at the total cost for educating an individual student for a single day, transport to-and-from the school itself can't possibly approach the cost of paying tenured, unionized, educators for 5-6 hours of daily instruction. For the sake of argument, though - I'll call transportation a fixed cost. :)

A good school will have a large variety of classes, such as different levels of math or AP classes. If you don't have enough instructers, you might not be able to offer the courseload that you could otherwise. I'd estimate that in a high school with less than 1000 kids, cutting down the faculty would do something like this.


This is true with or without a voucher system in-place. The fact that not all schools are the same size means that you will have some schools offering classes that other don't, in different quantities, etc. If a public K-12 school with <1000 enrollment exists, I highly doubt that a nearby private school would be able to successfully stay in business with or without a voucher system in-place. Just in-case, I'd support some kind of voucher program exemption for schools/districts of this small size.

In normal-size public schools: If parents pull enough students out of a school that is underperforming, sure, some classes and teachers will no longer be necessary. The specifics on which classes will be cut, of course will vary from school to school. I think these cuts would only be a serious problem for schools where there is clear evidence of lack of performance by the school itself, leading to mass numbers of parents who decide to pull their students out of that school.

In such a case, the underperforming school - by reducing the number of students, the number of classes, and the number of teachers, the idea is that the school itself will become "leaner and meaner". Any management problems which are causing the school to underperform its neighboring schools will become more readily apparent, and thus easier to solve, in a smaller setting.

As new policies are introduced, and new teachers/administrators whip the school into shape, as the students become more willing to aspire to the expectations of the school, it will become a more desirable campus for parents to send their children.

Neighboring schools, may have become overconfident in their success. They may not be increasing performance at a rate they once were, and now may be threatened by the renewed energy of the formerly-underperforming school. The two will strive to compete with each other, in order to retain their share of public education dollars.

Schools that are unable to resolve their internal problems leading to underperformance, will ultimately be forced to close. In my opinion - this is a good thing. :thumbsup::D
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Riprorin
What's there to justify?

Government expenditures on religion are wrong.

Forcing religious people to pay taxes for schools which are against their religious beliefs is also wrong.. Tax money is not the governments money, its the TAXPAYERS money.. giving it back to them is not funding ANYTHING.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Riprorin
What's there to justify?

Government expenditures on religion are wrong.

Forcing religious people to pay taxes for schools which are against their religious beliefs is also wrong.. Tax money is not the governments money, its the TAXPAYERS money.. giving it back to them is not funding ANYTHING.

No it is not wrong. It is life, get over it. Forcing people without children to pay for public schools is wrong. I don't hear them bitching. Get a clue zealots. You aren't special. In our eyes OR Gods eyes.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: Riprorin
In Florida, the vouchers can be used at any accredited school in the state. In 2003 - 2004, 25% of the vouchers were used at schools with religious affiliations.
Rip -- I should have known better than to believe your bullsh8 stats without checking! :p FromThe Miami Herald:
(Sorry, the link won't work without subscribing so here's the relevant section of the article)
'FEAR-MONGERING'

The union's lawyer, Ron Meyer, says Bush is "fear-mongering with this parade of horribles."

Meyer said Bush is ignoring one essential fact: "The hospitals they're talking about don't promote religion. These religious schools teach religion. They inculcate religion. They promote religion. That's why they're religious schools."

The union's court filings are replete with testimony from the principal of Pensacola's St. Michael Interparochial School, which received a third of the first scholarships in 1999, where teachers "provide a Christ-centered and gospel-based education" that forms the basis for "why we exist."

Bush has argued in court papers that the benefit to any religion is "incidental."

About 75 percent of the 1,200 schools that accept vouchers are religious schools, which accept nearly 90 percent of the money.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Private schools are supposed to be better because they are market driven. Doesn't this mean that the best schools will just get more expensive as they are able to distinguish themselves?

Would vouchers increase to account for the higher cost of better performing schools, or would parents have to send their kids to school based on what they can afford?

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
I do not want my tax dolllars going to help anybody gain a religious education. As it is the Religious institutions get a free pass on taxes as it is.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Originally posted by: zendari
I think that would be fine; though determining exactly what is the fixed cost would be rather difficult at best.
Agreed.

It would be difficult, but possible, for districts to come up with a number, even a conservative one, that most parents who desire to opt-out of the public education system would be happy with. :thumbsup::D

:):thumbsup:

I'll leave the actual numbers to the district officials.

I like what the NCLB has done in that regard, pumping more money into failing public schools is a bad idea. Poorer districts neighboring mine get a lot of state funding, but still perform badly.

Originally posted by: Harvey

About 75 percent of the 1,200 schools that accept vouchers are religious schools, which accept nearly 90 percent of the money.
[/quote]
Blame the other private schools for not accepting vouchers.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: zendari
Blame the other private schools for not accepting vouchers.
That isn't the point, is it? The Florida state constitution prohibits public funds from being used to support the work of religious institutions, but that is exactly what is happening.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I dont see why they have to do things state wide just pick a couple of cities and use that as a test pilot to investigate the pros and the cons.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Infohawk
School vouchers should not apply to religious institutions. The government shouldn't pay for religion.
The government is not paying the religious institutions, they are paying money to the parents. The parents are paying the religious schools as is their right of choice. Are you saying that choice should be removed from those parents?

I'm not religious by any means, but it seems mighty knee-jerkish to jump to the conclusion that the government is giving money to religious institutions.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Infohawk
School vouchers should not apply to religious institutions. The government shouldn't pay for religion.
The government is not paying the religious institutions, they are paying money to the parents.

Who are then using government money to pay for religious education. Your semantic games aren't going to work. In the financial transaction, the govermnet is present. They are in the equation whether or not you put it off to one side.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Infohawk
School vouchers should not apply to religious institutions. The government shouldn't pay for religion.
The government is not paying the religious institutions, they are paying money to the parents.

Who are then using government money to pay for religious education. Your semantic games aren't going to work. In the financial transaction, the govermnet is present. They are in the equation whether or not you put it off to one side.
It's not a semantic's game. The government is not directing where the money goes, the parents are. The governmetn is merely providing the funds through the parents. If a parent decides they want to send their kid to a religious school instead of a public school using vouchers, they have every right to do so. Your red herring of a claim doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The governmetn is merely providing the funds through the parents.

Yes. That's the problem. Government shouldn't be in the picture when it comes to religious schools. Your attempt to focus on only one portion of the transaction is silly. Look at the WHOLE transaction and you will see money is going from state to religion.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The governmetn is merely providing the funds through the parents.

Yes. That's the problem. Government shouldn't be in the picture when it comes to religious schools. Your attempt to focus on only one portion of the transaction is silly. Look at the WHOLE transaction and you will see money is going from state to religion.
Well damn. You better tell the Christians that their tax refund better not be used for tithes then too. I mean, in the whole transaction scheme of things that money is going straight from the state to religion. Hey, what about people who work government jobs and get paid by the government? Well we better tell them that they can't send their kids to religious school because that means government money is going to religion.

Now whose attempt to focus on what is silly?

You're making a poor excuse to ignore a truth you don't want to acknowledge.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Riprorin
If you're opposed to religious schools then don't send your child to one.

That's not the issue. THe issue is the tax dollars being spent on religion.

No, the issue is choice. A woman should have the right to decide what decision is best for her body, not the government.

Fixed.

Do i smell a bit of hypocrisy here?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Well damn. You better tell the Christians that their tax refund better not be used for tithes then too. I mean, in the whole transaction scheme of things that money is going straight from the state to religion. Hey, what about people who work government jobs and get paid by the government? Well we better tell them that they can't send their kids to religious school because that means government money is going to religion.

Now whose attempt to focus on what is silly?

You're making a poor excuse to ignore a truth you don't want to acknowledge.

Now you are going from one extreme to the other and that's still silly. These are government handouts. As opposed to temporarily held taxes or worked-for salary. With vouchers, the parents give it to the school and the government pays the school.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Would you want the government authorizing funds to go to a school that taught athiest beliefs upto and including that God is a fallacy? I am not asking if you would send your child there, but if that was the absolute BEST school in every town, would you still be willing to say that they deserve to get money from the fed?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Well damn. You better tell the Christians that their tax refund better not be used for tithes then too. I mean, in the whole transaction scheme of things that money is going straight from the state to religion. Hey, what about people who work government jobs and get paid by the government? Well we better tell them that they can't send their kids to religious school because that means government money is going to religion.

Now whose attempt to focus on what is silly?

You're making a poor excuse to ignore a truth you don't want to acknowledge.

Now you are going from one extreme to the other and that's still silly. These are government handouts. As opposed to temporarily held taxes or worked-for salary. With vouchers, the parents give it to the school and the government pays the school.
Would it make you anny happier if the government gave the money to the parents and they paid the schools instead? The many would still be going to religion. It would just be a matter of the financial flow. And it would make zero difference (except that some parents would pull scams to keep the money and screw their kids out of an education and/or screw the taxpayers in the process).

The govenment is merely acting as a payment proxy for the parents. This is not any comingling of church and state.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Would you want the government authorizing funds to go to a school that taught athiest beliefs upto and including that God is a fallacy? I am not asking if you would send your child there, but if that was the absolute BEST school in every town, would you still be willing to say that they deserve to get money from the fed?
I personally think God is a fallacy, so I wouldn't mind it a bit. YMMV.