Talk:School voucher

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

SIGN YOUR POSTS ON THE TALK PAGE

There are a large number of unsigned posts as far as I can see. Sign posts with four tildas at the end: Alkrensel 07:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The right to dictate school's opperations?

Fundamentalists (who strongly oppose any government oversight of their operations) state that, if a church-run school accepts a government voucher, they have thus allowed the government the "right" to dictate the school's operation and, by extension, the church's operation as well. Therefore, the government could order the church to stop speaking against practices such as abortion and homosexuality, since it now "controls" the church through its acceptance of government funds.

Is this accurate? It's a private school, and the government has no right to decide what to put into the curriculum. Isn’t that what makes it constitutional to have a voucher program? Then shouldn't this be deleted or a comment about its validity made? --Aviper2k7 02:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The 1st amendment to the constitution suggests to most scholars that taxpayer funding of any institution be it a school, think tank, church, or knitting club that promotes a religion is prohibited. Funding is quite arguably a form of support. Institutions that further a set of morals not explicitly attributed to a religion might get away with it. I have not found a record of the number of such bodiies that exist.

In response to Aviper2k7, the above comment is accurate. However, it could be elaborated better. The concern is that Schools that accept students via vouchers (I am not aware as to how much power the school has to accept or reject the student) are receiving government funding, and because of that, the government may step in and dictate the school's policies. If the school requires students to attend a certain prayer service, the voucher-student could object and state that the school has no right to make him do that because it is government sponsored religion. Absent vouchers, the response would simply be "don't send your child to that school"; however, with vouchers, the student now has standing to make this claim.

Milton Friedman

Why does this guy get quoted twice? He seems to be just one particular thinker/theorist, and a radical one to boot.

• Radical? He won the Nobel prize for economics. He also hosted a 10 part miniseries on PBS called "Free to Choose" JettaMann 18:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• He is perhaps the most noted economist of the 20th century and one of the first proponents of a school-choice system. If there's anyone to quote about school vouchers, it's Milton Friedman.

---

What is the political impact of school vouchers in our government today, and why are they so much more important now than in the early 20th century? Are they really just another tax break for the wealthy? Or do they serve the lower classes as scholarly sources state?

How is it a tax break for the wealthy, when they already send their children to private schools without vouchers? And why should anyone who chooses to send their children to private school still be forced to pay for public education with their tax dollars when they get zero benefit?

I wouldn't say they get zero benefit. The positive externalities of education are well-demonstrated in economics, as that Stiglitz book in the references will show.--Ezadarque 14:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

--- Zero Benefit? The argument missing from this article is that public schools in America are financed by taxes on property, not by taxes on children. Everyone with property pays for public schools, regardless of the number of children they have (even if that number for their entire life is zero). On the other hand, people with no property do not pay for schools, even though they may have many children. This makes the argument that "the money should follow the child" fairly ridiculous.

What is a voucher then? Will we first refund the money to the citizens with no children because "they get zero benefit" apart from that intangible better society. Our current national debates on education, social security, and health care undoubtedly characterize us as a people who are unwilling to pay more taxes to have better society.

Anyone with an interest in this subject should read Milton Friedman's work on it. This goes especially to those interested in helping the poor. Money is power and a voucher for education (which we all agree should be funded by all of us via the government) gives poor people the power of their choice. Government run education denies them that, and it absolutely ironic that the left who claim to want to help the poor want to deny them the power that the more wealthy enjoy; to choose where their child is educated. Mr Friedman points out that the likely outcome of vouchers is increased innovation and efficiency in the public schools that are forced to compete or lose their students and thus better education for those that most need it. 68.198.96.26 00:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Impact in government

I think that the impact is nebulous and disputed. The article does a fine job of hinting at what the arguments on the many sides of the issue are. The 'establishment' of teachers unions and others assert that the net effect of voucher programs will be to severely weaken or even cripple school systems, especially those in Urban areas, which are (undoubtedly) most in need of proper funding and staffing. There are also claims, put forth in the article, that it constitutes a violation of church and state, and though the supreme court ruled on the issue, I do not expect it to die a quiet death just like that.

There are also those who are in favor of school vouchers for many of the same reasons - they see "urban blight" and "rotten schools" and think that religious intervention is the only solution. A good parelell is the 'faith based initiatives' - school vouchers, by the religous right, are a way to put "god back into government". --Colinahern 20:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the article, though still objective, covers far more of the critics' viewpoint than that of the proponents'. I added in some material.

I'm currently researching the topic and will add headers and more viewpoints/external data links after finishing. --ElAmericano 00:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Government regulations aimed at making the private schools act like "good citizens" threaten to make them be exactly like the public schools."

-- This statement seems unfounded. I've left it in there, however, the original author should provide some evidence/study to support this.

Expansion request

I don't want to formally file an expansion request but I was hoping that people would continue to add to the list of proponents and opponents. As I was reading this article and the comments it seems like too many of the authors have had opinions. If we were to present a list of respected individuals and organizations that support and oppose the school voucher idea then I think that this article would be come much more useful and contain much less of our opinions and more of the well known figures in this debate. I started a short list, it's a sentence long for both but was hoping that if people had more information they could add to both. Thanks Wikifan5554 05:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

On the Pro side: Voucher programs are a viable alternative to overcrowded schools, see link: http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/article.asp?ID=1575 I think it's also very important to note that moving a child from public education to private education not only relieves overcrowding, it also increases the $ per student at the public school the student used to attend so long as the voucher amount is less than the current expenditure per student. For instance, let's say you've got a public high school that has 1,000 students and it receives $10,000 per student, $10,000,000 total. Now let's say 100 students are given vouchers for $2,000 that they spend at private schools, $200,000 total. The public school is left with $9,800,000 for 900 students, which translates to $10,888.88 per student. I fully realize that I'm talking about average cost and not the marginal costs of one more or one less student, but it's not possible to make generalizations about marginal cost because every school has different marginal costs. Essentially, I think a viable counter to the argument that vouchers will syphon funds away from public schools is this: you will have fewer students, and more money per student to provide a quality education.Housewar 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Movement between schools

Many public systems outside the US allow students to attend a school other than their local one. As such I've removed the reference to Los Angeles - it's far too localised and US-centric. El T 02:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Title of this article

My apologies if this is obvious to everyone else, but why is this article entitled "Education voucher" rather than "School voucher"? The latter is substantially more common and precise - "education voucher" could easily mean a voucher for continuing education rather than schools per se. El T 07:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, the article should be renamed to school vouchers to reflect what it is most commonly known by. -TAOW
• I assumed that "Education voucher" is the most common term in Commonwealth English; is that true? -- Beland 18:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• the name education voucher is probably used i imagine, as it is a) known by that phrase in the United Kingdom at least, but also because there is also teh possibility of application at higher education levels, namely university.
• The Department of Education covers all levels of education. This includes primary, secondary, and also work related eduation. Most times that we speak of an "education voucher" we are speaking of higher education such as graduate school. Most times we speak of a "school voucher" we are speaking of k-12. Just clear it up by specifying k-12 school voucher... and also, this is not an article about the voucher (this is not a title for a newspaper or journal... it does not need to catch attention but rather specify a discrete reference to the article)... i believe this article is about the program and not the voucher itself.

Expansion request

A comprehensive list of countries and states/provinces (where applicable, such as in the U.S.) that have approved voucher programs would be useful. -- Beland 18:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

References

Many of the claims made in the article aren't connected with any specific source mentioned in the references. Some of them are probably unsourced. The inline references should probably be made into footnotes. -- Beland 18:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

Horribly biased article. I'm not willing to get into a debate over it (I save those for RL), but the extreme POV is obvious. I'm disappointed in the authors. - ElAmericano (dímelo) 19:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. After a brief reading, I have to agree. This article requires serious POV editing.--Tiler 23:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

To what side do you think it is biased?--Ezadarque 03:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious??? The article has a blatant bias against school vouchers! I became more and more disgusted as I read on. Its not even questionable - the Proponents section is about one third the size of the opponents section! Certain instances are scrutinized while others are blithly covered. In the links section, there is a neutral link, and a negative link, but no positive links!

Well it certainly is not obvious now! It is quite clearly biased in favour of school vouchers (or money-off coupons). The suggestion that we are not dealing with a public good is ludicrous while the links section is filled with economically far-right links. SlaineMacRoth 11:04, 15 May 2007

The bias of this article is obvious and disgusting.

"Proponents assert" but "Critics of the voucher system note that it is possible"

A look at the links show you that the original author only looked for multiple sources to argue against vouchers and than threw in a couple from Friedman to pretend they are presenting both sides. In External links - 7 Anti-voucher 2 Friedman 1 showing the public doesn't understand vouchers (i.e The stupid public need the government to make decisions for them) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaos Klerik (talk • contribs) 15:26, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

So it's like this?

1. So basically parents can choose whatever school their kids want to go to except it is payed by the government? The school can charge whatever it wants on the resources they need as well as tuition, and the government pays for whatever the school charges. Is this correct?

OR

2. Is it: the government will the tuition for any child that cannot afford private school ONLY while letting rich people choose their own education. Is this correct?

Number 1 seems like it is correct, but maybe I misread.

Zachorious 02:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the government pays a fixed amount, which may or may not be enough to cover the cost of tuition at a private school. AFAIK charter schools will generally if not always accept the voucher at face value, so even the poorest students can get in. —Traal 20:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, that's how the concept of vouchers work. The government already pays x number of dollars per pupil to the public schools. The voucher, in effect, would be giving that money directly to parents to give to the school of their choice, instead of having it go directly to the local public institution. In theory, this would allow a poor kid from a bad neighborhood to go to a swanky prep school (the public school money is pretty significant), but it doesn't take into account matters like transit, incidental expenses, and so on. 216.236.252.234 16:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Meet their taxes?

The Criticism section includes the following sentence, "Further criticism comes from various rich and poor people, assuming their vouchers will actually meet their taxes." I do not know if "meet their taxes" is a typo, or if it has a meaning I am not familiar with. What does it mean for a voucher to "meet their taxes"? Any ideas? --Mikebrand 17:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The writing in this article is not very clear

I'm going to try to improve this very clunky sentence: "Those who favor school choice argue that they should be permitted to spend their tax dollars at the educational facility of their choosing, allowing parents to be able to choose which school they want their children to attend."

Another one: "Parents can only choose those non-profit making will yearly fee less than $24000." I'd edit this sentence, but I no idea what the author was trying to say. Re-write, please.

removed a bunch of text

I removed a large section which was introduced in the August 19th edits, it was really bad. --Xyzzyplugh 19:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Public/private goods POV

The paragraph in "economics" that explained why education is a private good, with many positive externalities was removed because it was supposedly POV. However, it only makes assertions about economic theory, available in several manuals, including Stiglitz's book in the reference. Before it was removed, it had been changed to a true POV, since it then said that education was both a public and a private good (no citations), and made several remarks about American legislation (thereby hurting worldwide view) that do not pertain to economic theory matters. I'm bringing it back, and am willing to discuss it.

Excellent idea. Economic theory is as neutral as you can get. Its based on theory, there is no way it in itself can be biased. If used improperly yes, so that must be watched, but otherwise agreed.

About the nature of education

Is education really a rivalrous good ? I mean, if you have 21 pupils instead of 20 in a classroom, there is almost no change... And if i can say that, then someone else probably thought about it before. So, can this argument be included in some kind of a "criticism of the criticism" section, even if additionnal citations would be needed ?

I think education is pretty much a rivalrous good, but if you find any citation...--Ezadarque 01:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The article states that education a rivalrous good, but then it says that the number of seats are limited and students could only be place if there was room. That implies that it is a scarce good. It assumes that the amount of schools are fixed; that schools cannot be expanded and new private schools cannot be built. Barney Gumble 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Every economic good is scarce. If it were abundant, like air, there would no reason for trade to occur. --201.51.250.20 13:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Scarce does not mean it cannot be expanded. Scarce means that it has a cost of any sort. A scarce good is something with a cost that you would rather have some of than none of. So basically everything falls under this category with some markable exceptions (such as any bad) but generally speaking it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Difference in quality between public and private schools

Someone wrote "a belief found to be without merit in a 2006 Bush Administration Dept. of Education study"

When I checked the study available at [1], the conclusion was different from the above quote. It stated that students at private schools achieved at higher level than students at public schools, but when adjusting the comparisons for student characteristics (Race, gender, english as a first language, computer at home, etc...), the difference was insignificant. Now let's see, most private school students are white, middle/upper class, and from stable families. While most students in urban public schools are ethnic minorities, immigrants, and from low income families. So I see this "adjusting the comparisons for student characteristics" laughable, as it's obvious private school students and public school beneficiaries, don't share the same characteristics. So instead of misleading the reader, the author should have examined closely the study, to understand that the conclusion was that, private schools have better results because they attract priviledged students, not because they offer better education.

Vincent Shooter 10:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Both versions are wrong! I checked the study out too and it does not support any of the conclusions being thrown around. In some cases private schools may have performed better, and other times not so. Then there is the issue of 'adjusting' which certainly changes things up a bit, but not in the simplistic way suggested by Vincent Shooter. Besides, the whole conclusion about the private schools only doing better because they attract certain students and not because of the education, is not supported by the article. It is not cited. It is biased. It is not a statement of accepted fact. Its just some partisan claim. Its even original research. It should not go in there, nor should the original stay. I'm not even sure the study proves anything worth generalizing. The article should not be about making original arguments or parsing data. 147.4.185.127 01:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is terribly biased

This article clearly shows a bias against school vouchers.

- The proponents section is a tiny compared to the opponents section - Some claims are critically evaluated, while others are not - The references section has one article against vouchers, on neutral one, but no articles in support of it. This is terribly unbalanced.

Most striking, is that people seem to be using this article like its some sort of research project. This is not the place to do original research, or make your own presentation of vouchers. This article reads like it is someones personal take on the issue, or reflects their opinion, based on research, of vouchers in general. Who could think that this article is encyclopedic? Whether one thinks vouchers are good or bad, succesful or unsuccesful, does not matter. The article should just present a straightfoward, objective, summary of what vouchers are, with equal devotion to arguments for and against. For those who want to explore the issue further, and perhaps take a side on the issue, external links should be provided, featuring both pro-voucher, anti-voucher, and neutral articles.

Here is a great template:

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/school_vouchers.htm

I say we follow it. 147.4.185.127 01:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The link is much better than the article. The article reads like a 5th grade editorial. It's choppy poorly written, and loaded with original research. Barney Gumble 20:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

State, Public and Private Schools

In Australia, New Zealand and the UK, the term "Public School" can in fact mean "Private School"; while the distinction between public and private is fairly clear in this article, it should be clearer. I won't do anything without some kind of consensus, but wouldn't it be better to use the terms "State" and "Public", which, as far as I know, aren't ambiguous? User:Wozocoxonoy 13:54, 30 November 2006 (GMT)

Or rather, "State" and "Private" should be completely unambiguous. Also I'm Australian and not aware of the usage of "public" school in this way... but regardless. Any complaints to this? Alkrensel 07:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"State" and "Public" are the exact same thing. Think about it, if something is owned by the State, and the State is not private, it has to be Public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Education Voucher in Belgium?

Is it true? Is there any Education Voucher Programme being run in Belgium? I have never heard of it.

Completely biased in favor of vouchers/Neutrality Dispute!

It seems that this article went from being against vouchers to being for vouchers. Here are a couple of examples:

1). The "Opponents" section is supposed to contain arguments against vouchers, but it contains this sentence, "Many school choice proponents believe the NEA's and AFT's opposition to vouchers is really just a self interested attempt to block any competition to the union dominated public school system." Why is this mentioned here and not in the "Proponents" section? Why did the author feel that it was necessary to place a derogatory statement against the opponents of school vouchers in the section that was supposed to list the beliefs of those opponents?

2). The "Economics" section lists nothing but supporting arguments for school vouchers, so why was this not placed in the "Proponents" section? Just take a look at the concluding sentence (Italics are mine), "By subsidizing the consumer, proponents of school choice believe that vouchers will foster competition and allow the consumer to purchase higher quality education." Enough said.

This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Economic theory has no bias, it is a lens you look at something through. How can a theory based on generalities and non-specific observation be biased? The concluding statement is what Economic theory would imply, but not explicitly state. Perhaps that would make it more neutral if that distinction were made? At least economic theory isnt independent research. Unless you count Mr. Adam Smith as a poor source.

In addition, the "Proponents" section is nearly twice as long as the "Opponents section." When someone complains about ideological bias, I believe they have a valid point that should be addressed. However, it is hypocritical to replace one bias with another. Nevertheless, I will not edit this article because I know little about the school choice controversy, and I want others to look upon this article and make their own opinions. 72.200.78.83 (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Outdated. The "Opponents" section is now twice as long, though this may be due to poor sentence structure. It needs to be made more concise.

I have to agree, I'd like to at a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" Label on this, but I don't know how. I've noticed that the opponents section has counter arguments in it.

I'd prefer to build up the opponents section, rather than edit the proponents section as the proponents section is well done.

Hm, I'm going to dig through this articles history to see if their are better arguments that got deleted in order to "balance out" the two side, back when it was biased it the other direction.

Kairos 10:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK I found some older arguments that were cut, I'll assume, way back when the article was biased against Vouchers. I've tried to add them back in.Kairos 11:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Grade Inflation?"

Some support school vouchers only when coupled with standard tests. They reason that if there are no standard tests, the schools in the school voucher system may be tempted to give more students passing grades or "lower their bars" in order to attract students.

This is said twice word for word in both the "opponents" and "grade inflation?" sections, which are right next to each other. I think that the "grade inflation?" section should be taken out as it is not needed, it is very short, and it makes the article seem even more biased than it already is. Nasakebukai 12:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Voucher bias

It seems the article is biased against vouchers. The section on vouchers is significantly shorter. Places where vouchers have suceeded are simply listed as a fact (which is good) but places where vouchers have lost have been heralded as a good thing (definitely not good). Furthermore, the Opponents section could be significantly shortened and given more credibility if all the statements starting with "Some beleive..." "Some support..." were removed. Who are these "some"? Cite said sources, or remove the statements. It would add credibility and objectivity to the opposing side if this were done.

Edit: Added "citation needed" tags to anywhere where "Some economists...", "Some people...." etc. is mentioned.