How Children REALLY React To Control

toto wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:07:58 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:

Not in government schools. I just want families to be able to choose
schools where a prayer can be led someone, where the Ten Commandments can be
displayed on the wall, and so forth, without having to pay thousands of
dollars extra for a choice that in reality costs no more than it would cost
a government school to educate the children.

Here's a mainstream Jewish view:

http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edt..._vouchers.html

Your argument appears to be this one:

Parents whose religious conscience precludes them from using the
public schools are in effect taxed double when they also pay tuition
for their children's mandatory secular education in denominational
schools.

The counter is that:

In fact, all citizens, including single persons, childless couples,
and retired couples, pay taxes to support public schools, regardless
of use. No one is taxed to support a religious school any more than
one is taxed to support a church or synagogue.

In regards to education, the government taxes all citizens to provide
a benefit that is available to all citizens (or at least all citizens
with children). There is no corresponding government service that
provide, free of charge to all who wish to go, benefits that are
analogous to the benefits that one gets from attending a church or
synagogue. If there were (and thankfully there isn't), then this
would be a reasonable analogy. Since there is not, it isn't.

"Circe" wrote in message news:zaEEc.10202$Qj6.1748@fed1read05...
abacus wrote:
Banty wrote in message
...
In article , Nathan A. Barclay
says...
And don't most wealthy white families already send their children
to
different schools from where most of the poor minority children
attend even
within the current public school system?

Donna can answer for her own specific case, but I assure you not
all white
families are racist, and not all city school districts are
failures.

This doesn't address the question posed. In fact, most wealthy
white families, whether racist or not, send their children to different
(usually must better) schools than from where most of poor minority
children attend even though when they are all attending public
schools

But this is primarily because they don't live in the same neighborhoods
where the poor minority children live and therefore don't share the same
neighborhood schools. I will add that there are wealthy minority families,
though there are proportionately fewer of them, and their kids don't tend to
go to school with the poor minority kids, either. Ditto the poor white kids,
who usually don't go to the same schools as either the rich white or rich
minority kids.

IOW, the segregation we have now is based more on means than on race (though
means and race are certainly tightly intertwined in our society). The
difference between the current system and the one Nathan is advocating is
that the means to achieve school segregation would be coming from the
government instead of from individuals.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow how you go from the premise (current
segregation, which occurs just as much or more in the public school
sphere as the private school sphere, is based more on means than on
race) to the conclusion (a voucher system would allow school
segragation to come from the government rather than individuals).
Could you provide some justification for this?


--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 4), and the Rising Son (Julian, 6)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Dick Cheney: Putting the vice in the vice presidency"

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

On 1 Jul 2004 09:36:06 -0700, (abacus) wrote:

?The results suggest that students in P-5 schools [Milwaukee public
schools with small class sizes and supplemental funding] have math
test score gains similar to those in the choice schools, and that
students in the P-5 schools outperform students in the choice schools
in reading.? Rouse went on to explain: ?Given that the pupil-teacher
ratios in the P-5 and choice schools are significantly smaller than
those in the other public schools, one potential explanation for these
results is that students perform well in schools with smaller class
sizes [emphasis in original].?34 In other words, the gains in math for
voucher students may very well not be due to the fact that they were
in voucher or private schools, but to other factors such as class
size.

Doesn't really matter to me why the students with vouchers performed
better. The point is that the voucher schools took the same amount of
money (well, actually less) that the public schools would have
received for those students and provided an education as good or
better than that of the public schools. Why deny people choice when
the education is at least as good and the costs to taxpayers are no
higher than that of public schools?

Not true. Why not simply allow the public schools to have the same
small class sizes that promoted the learning instead of handing
money to *new* schools that factor that in.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 1 Jul 2004 09:36:06 -0700, (abacus) wrote:

As far as the quality of public schools in poverty-stricken areas, I
do not share your opinion that vouchers would be a step backwards. To
date, that hasn't occurred in the places they have been tried. Until
there is some evidence supporting that contention, I'll continue to
believe that vouchers will lead to improvements in education for all
children included those living in poverty. That is, in fact, the main
reason I support them. I think they offer an avenue for improvement
that is currently lacking in our system of public education.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1436

From 1991 through 1998, the state appropriated more money
for its private schools ($1.1 billion) than it did to refurbish its
public schools ($1 billion). For Ohio to prioritize state funds in
this way is significant given that, until recently, federal officials
ranked the condition of school facilities in Ohio dead last among all
50 states.

Ma'am, this is a specious comparison. The money for refurbishing
schools typically (I don't know the particulars of the Cleveland
system, but I doubt it much different from the ones I am acquainted
with) comes from different funds that those allocated in the budget
per pupil. If the students using vouchers were all in public school
instead, the money spent on vouchers would have been spent on the
expenses of educating those children in pu

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=5446

Facts About Vouchers

Cleveland, OH Voucher Program
# Through 2001, the Cleveland voucher program has cost more than $28
million. When direct administrative costs are factored in, costs of
the voucher program increase to $33 million. In 2001-02, the Cleveland
program enrolled 4,266 voucher students and program costs were
estimated to exceed $8 million, with an additional $2 million or more
being spent by Cleveland public schools to provide transportation for
voucher students. In total, the voucher program cost more than $10
million in 2001-02. 100% of this money came from funding intended to
benefit all children in Cleveland’s public schools. The voucher
program is funded through Cleveland’s portion of the state’s
Disadvantaged Student Impact Aid (DPIA) program, thereby decreasing
funds available for Cleveland programs for disadvantaged public school
students.20

# The state of Ohio has spent more tax money per student on the
students in the voucher program than it has for the other nearly 90%
of Ohio’s school children in public schools.21 Since 1991, the state
has appropriated more money for its private schools ($1.1 billion)
than it did to refurbish its public schools ($1 billion).22 $140
million in the 1998-99 school year alone went to private schools for
textbooks, reading and math specialists, science equipment, and
more.23 This is in addition to already providing all of Ohio’s private
schools with about $600 per student in cash, supplies and services
from state taxpayers and local schools.24 In contrast, underfunded
Ohio public schools have been found to have among the worst facilities
and technology in the nation.25 Until recently, federal officials
ranked the conditions of school facilities in Ohio dead last among 50
states. As the 2000-01 school year began, a spokesman for the Ohio
School Boards Association called the state’s public school
infrastructure “a huge, huge problem.”26

# Additionally, Ohio relies heavily on local property taxes to fund
state education. Consequently, affluent, predominantly suburban
districts have much greater means to fund their public schools than do
poor inner city and rural districts. A recent Education Week analysis
ranked Ohio 44th out of 50 states in ensuring equitable funding. Three
times in the past decade, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled the state’s
school funding formula unconstitutional and has raised concerns about
the method used to calculate the cost of an adequate education. In the
most recent decision on September 6, 2001, the justices said they were
prepared to uphold the constitutionality of the funding system if the
legislature agreed to substantially raise expenditures on K-12
education. However, Senate President Richard Finan (R-Evendale) has
stated that he would not support either a tax increase or budget cuts
to meet the court order. Said a defiant Finan: “I say let the court
figure it out.”27

# As in Milwaukee, money is subtracted from public school funds in
Cleveland to pay for voucher students who were not attending public
school. In the program’s first year, $1.6 million—almost 25% of the
Ohio taxpayer cost for vouchers—went toward the tuition of students
who were already enrolled in private schools. In the 1999-00 school
year, less than one-third of the voucher students came from public
schools the year before.28 Similarly, a recent study conducted by the
Cleveland-based research institute Policy Matters Ohio, determined
that one in three students participating in the voucher program in
1999-00 was already enrolled in a private school prior to receiving a
voucher.29

# In its second year, the voucher program exceeded its budget by 41%.
This shortfall was covered with funds earmarked for public schools.30
At the same time, several public schools had to borrow against future
revenues to keep their doors open.31

# As in Milwaukee, Cleveland public schools are not saving money due
to the reduction of students. A study conducted by the consulting
company KPMG LLP found that the district’s operational costs continued
to increase even though the number of students was reduced by the
voucher program. The report found that voucher students were drawn
from throughout the large district making student reductions at the
school negligible, so that it “is not able to reduce administrative
costs or eliminate a teaching position….[Instead, the district] is
losing the DPIA without a change in their overall operating costs.”32

Florida Voucher Program
# Florida’s statewide voucher program, called the Opportunity
Scholarship Program, could cost more than a quarter of a billion
dollars a year in the future if all eligible students applied—and were
able to find seats at private schools willing to participate in the
program. Eligibility is determined by enrollment in a public school
deemed “failing” for two of the last four years. Seventy-eight schools
received an ‘F’ grade in 1999-00 and another 4 schools were graded ‘F’
a year later. These schools educate about 55,000 students. If all 82
schools were to receive a second ‘F’ within the four-year period, and
all eligible students applied—and were able to find seats at private
schools willing to participate in the program—the cost to taxpayers
would exceed $280 million annually by the 2003-04 school year.33 Even
if only 25% of these students opted to apply, the cost would be $71
million.

# In August 2002, a Leon County Circuit judge ruled that the statewide
voucher program violates the state constitution by using tax dollars
to aid private and religious schools. Specifically, Judge Kevin Davey
explained that the language in Article I, Section 3 of the Florida
constitution is unambiguous and clear: “No revenue of the state or any
political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the
public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect or
religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.”34 The
state is appealing the decision.

# In addition to its Opportunity Scholarship Program, a separate
voucher program, called the McKay Scholarship Program for Students
with Disabilities, has cost Florida $5.8 million prior to February
2001 to send 1,000 students to private schools, many of which are
religious.35 In 2001 alone, the McKay voucher program cost the state
$25 million and by 2001-02, nearly 5,000 students were receiving McKay
vouchers to attend private schools.36 Critics of the program are
concerned that while the program targets disabled students,
participating private schools are exempt from special education
requirements that public schools must meet which could result in
inadequate care of these students.37 Additionally, as of the 2001-02
school year, the Florida Statutes no longer limit enrollment in the
program. As a result, any of state’s estimated 350,000 students with
disabilities currently enrolled in public schools are now eligible to
apply for a voucher under the McKay scholarship program. But the law
also states that private schools do not have to accept all students
and can accept payments over and above the state’s voucher amount,
effectively ensuring that not all students with disabilities will be
able to use a voucher at a private school.38


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

toto wrote in message . ..
On 1 Jul 2004 09:36:06 -0700, (abacus) wrote:

?The results suggest that students in P-5 schools [Milwaukee public
schools with small class sizes and supplemental funding] have math
test score gains similar to those in the choice schools, and that
students in the P-5 schools outperform students in the choice schools
in reading.? Rouse went on to explain: ?Given that the pupil-teacher
ratios in the P-5 and choice schools are significantly smaller than
those in the other public schools, one potential explanation for these
results is that students perform well in schools with smaller class
sizes [emphasis in original].?34 In other words, the gains in math for
voucher students may very well not be due to the fact that they were
in voucher or private schools, but to other factors such as class
size.

Doesn't really matter to me why the students with vouchers performed
better. The point is that the voucher schools took the same amount of
money (well, actually less) that the public schools would have
received for those students and provided an education as good or
better than that of the public schools. Why deny people choice when
the education is at least as good and the costs to taxpayers are no
higher than that of public schools?

Not true.

What have I written that is not true?

Why not simply allow the public schools to have the same
small class sizes that promoted the learning instead of handing
money to *new* schools that factor that in.

Fine by me. I honestly don't care. But why is it that the private
schools provided that smaller class size - if indeed that is the
reason for the improvement - while the public schools did not? And
why is it that you object to allowing parents more options for their
children's education?

toto wrote in message . ..
On 1 Jul 2004 09:36:06 -0700, (abacus) wrote:

As far as the quality of public schools in poverty-stricken areas, I
do not share your opinion that vouchers would be a step backwards. To
date, that hasn't occurred in the places they have been tried. Until
there is some evidence supporting that contention, I'll continue to
believe that vouchers will lead to improvements in education for all
children included those living in poverty. That is, in fact, the main
reason I support them. I think they offer an avenue for improvement
that is currently lacking in our system of public education.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1436

From 1991 through 1998, the state appropriated more money
for its private schools ($1.1 billion) than it did to refurbish its
public schools ($1 billion). For Ohio to prioritize state funds in
this way is significant given that, until recently, federal officials
ranked the condition of school facilities in Ohio dead last among all
50 states.

Ma'am, this is a specious comparison. The money for refurbishing
schools typically (I don't know the particulars of the Cleveland
system, but I doubt it much different from the ones I am acquainted
with) comes from different funds that those allocated in the budget
per pupil. If the students using vouchers were all in public school
instead, the money spent on vouchers would have been spent on the
expenses of educating those children in pu

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=5446

Facts About Vouchers

Cleveland, OH Voucher Program
# Through 2001, the Cleveland voucher program has cost more than $28
million. When direct administrative costs are factored in, costs of
the voucher program increase to $33 million. In 2001-02, the Cleveland
program enrolled 4,266 voucher students and program costs were
estimated to exceed $8 million, with an additional $2 million or more
being spent by Cleveland public schools to provide transportation for
voucher students. In total, the voucher program cost more than $10
million in 2001-02. 100% of this money came from funding intended to
benefit all children in Cleveland?s public schools. The voucher
program is funded through Cleveland?s portion of the state?s
Disadvantaged Student Impact Aid (DPIA) program, thereby decreasing
funds available for Cleveland programs for disadvantaged public school
students.20

My recollection is that the Cleveland voucher program is specifically
targetted to disadvantages public school students. Therefore, the
fund used were going to exactly the group of students they were
intended for. Why is that a problem?


# The state of Ohio has spent more tax money per student on the
students in the voucher program than it has for the other nearly 90%
of Ohio?s school children in public schools.21 Since 1991, the state
has appropriated more money for its private schools ($1.1 billion)
than it did to refurbish its public schools ($1 billion).22 $140
million in the 1998-99 school year alone went to private schools for
textbooks, reading and math specialists, science equipment, and
more.23 This is in addition to already providing all of Ohio?s private
schools with about $600 per student in cash, supplies and services
from state taxpayers and local schools.24 In contrast, underfunded
Ohio public schools have been found to have among the worst facilities
and technology in the nation.25 Until recently, federal officials
ranked the conditions of school facilities in Ohio dead last among 50
states. As the 2000-01 school year began, a spokesman for the Ohio
School Boards Association called the state?s public school
infrastructure ?a huge, huge problem.?26

As I pointed out previously, the funds spent per student are allocated
differently than the funds that go towards refurbishing the schools.
If the voucher program were not in place, would those funds have gone
to refurbish the schools? I don't think so. They would have gone to
educatate those students in the public school system.

# Additionally, Ohio relies heavily on local property taxes to fund
state education. Consequently, affluent, predominantly suburban
districts have much greater means to fund their public schools than do
poor inner city and rural districts. A recent Education Week analysis
ranked Ohio 44th out of 50 states in ensuring equitable funding. Three
times in the past decade, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled the state?s
school funding formula unconstitutional and has raised concerns about
the method used to calculate the cost of an adequate education. In the
most recent decision on September 6, 2001, the justices said they were
prepared to uphold the constitutionality of the funding system if the
legislature agreed to substantially raise expenditures on K-12
education. However, Senate President Richard Finan (R-Evendale) has
stated that he would not support either a tax increase or budget cuts
to meet the court order. Said a defiant Finan: ?I say let the court
figure it out.?27

What does this have to do with your argument?

# As in Milwaukee, money is subtracted from public school funds in
Cleveland to pay for voucher students who were not attending public
school. In the program?s first year, $1.6 million?almost 25% of the
Ohio taxpayer cost for vouchers?went toward the tuition of students
who were already enrolled in private schools. In the 1999-00 school
year, less than one-third of the voucher students came from public
schools the year before.

Gosh, do you suppose some of the remaining two-thirds were voucher
students from the year before?

28 Similarly, a recent study conducted by the
Cleveland-based research institute Policy Matters Ohio, determined
that one in three students participating in the voucher program in
1999-00 was already enrolled in a private school prior to receiving a
voucher.29

Oh my, how awful. Families who were unhappy with the public school
system and willing to make the sacrifices necessary to send their kid
to private school were able to recieve some of the tax funding
allocated for educating ALL children. Remember, both of those
programs are means-based, so it isn't rich folks receiving the
subsidy, but hard-working caring parents who put education as a high
priority. Frankly, I'm glad to see that happen.

# In its second year, the voucher program exceeded its budget by 41%.
This shortfall was covered with funds earmarked for public schools.30
At the same time, several public schools had to borrow against future
revenues to keep their doors open.31

Budget problems are the responsibility of the administration, not an
inherent flaw of the concept of vouchers. Why aren't those
administrators doing their job more competently?

# As in Milwaukee, Cleveland public schools are not saving money due
to the reduction of students. A study conducted by the consulting
company KPMG LLP found that the district?s operational costs continued
to increase even though the number of students was reduced by the
voucher program. The report found that voucher students were drawn
from throughout the large district making student reductions at the
school negligible, so that it ?is not able to reduce administrative
costs or eliminate a teaching position?.[Instead, the district] is
losing the DPIA without a change in their overall operating costs.?32

Why is it that a reduction in students doesn't save money, but an
increase in students costs money? I don't understand this.
Personally, I think it's administrative incompetence and gives me one
more reason to feel that the public school system is often run poorly
and won't improve without major systemic changes of the sort that
vouchers might inspire.

Florida Voucher Program
# Florida?s statewide voucher program, called the Opportunity
Scholarship Program, could cost more than a quarter of a billion
dollars a year in the future if all eligible students applied?and were
able to find seats at private schools willing to participate in the
program. Eligibility is determined by enrollment in a public school
deemed ?failing? for two of the last four years. Seventy-eight schools
received an ?F? grade in 1999-00 and another 4 schools were graded ?F?
a year later. These schools educate about 55,000 students. If all 82
schools were to receive a second ?F? within the four-year period, and
all eligible students applied?and were able to find seats at private
schools willing to participate in the program?the cost to taxpayers
would exceed $280 million annually by the 2003-04 school year.33 Even
if only 25% of these students opted to apply, the cost would be $71
million.

Sigh. Why is it when the public schools want more money, the line is
"education is worth whatever it costs", but the idea of spending
additional funds elsewhere for education is somehow egregious and
should be dismissed immediately? I don't mind funding effective
education. I do object to funding failing schools.

# In August 2002, a Leon County Circuit judge ruled that the statewide
voucher program violates the state constitution by using tax dollars
to aid private and religious schools. Specifically, Judge Kevin Davey
explained that the language in Article I, Section 3 of the Florida
constitution is unambiguous and clear: ?No revenue of the state or any
political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the
public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect or
religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.?34 The
state is appealing the decision.

The constitutionality of various voucher programs is certainly subject
to a close evaluation on those grounds, but depending on the details
of the program it may or may not be considered to be unconstitutional.

# In addition to its Opportunity Scholarship Program, a separate
voucher program, called the McKay Scholarship Program for Students
with Disabilities, has cost Florida $5.8 million prior to February
2001 to send 1,000 students to private schools, many of which are
religious.

So? To me the relevant questions are if those students getting a good
education and is the funding for that education reasonable. Whether
or not the school is religious matters to their parents, not to me.

In 2001 alone, the McKay voucher program cost the state
$25 million and by 2001-02, nearly 5,000 students were receiving McKay
vouchers to attend private schools.36 Critics of the program are
concerned that while the program targets disabled students,
participating private schools are exempt from special education
requirements that public schools must meet which could result in
inadequate care of these students.37 Additionally, as of the 2001-02
school year, the Florida Statutes no longer limit enrollment in the
program. As a result, any of state?s estimated 350,000 students with
disabilities currently enrolled in public schools are now eligible to
apply for a voucher under the McKay scholarship program. But the law
also states that private schools do not have to accept all students
and can accept payments over and above the state?s voucher amount,
effectively ensuring that not all students with disabilities will be
able to use a voucher at a private school.38

I'm sorry, but what exactly is the problem here? That some disabled
students won't be able to find a private school to take them? Gosh,
when you're focused on how the glass is half empty, it can be
difficult to appreciate the half that's full. How about celebrating
the fact that some disabled students are able to find better
educational opportunities rather than how some disabled students are
still stuck in the public schools. Heck, maybe some of the public
schools have excellent programs and they won't even want to use
vouchers. BTW, my city has been using private schools to educate
seriously disabled students for decades. Seems it's less expensive
than trying to meet their needs within the public school system.

abacus wrote:
"Circe" wrote in message
news:zaEEc.10202$Qj6.1748@fed1read05...
This doesn't address the question posed. In fact, most wealthy
white families, whether racist or not, send their children to
different (usually must better) schools than from where most of
poor minority
children attend even though when they are all attending public
schools

But this is primarily because they don't live in the same
neighborhoods
where the poor minority children live and therefore don't share
the same neighborhood schools. I will add that there are wealthy
minority families,
though there are proportionately fewer of them, and their kids
don't tend to
go to school with the poor minority kids, either. Ditto the poor
white kids,
who usually don't go to the same schools as either the rich white
or rich minority kids.

IOW, the segregation we have now is based more on means than on
race (though means and race are certainly tightly intertwined in our
society).
The difference between the current system and the one Nathan is
advocating is that the means to achieve school segregation would be
coming from the government instead of from individuals.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow how you go from the premise (current
segregation, which occurs just as much or more in the public school
sphere as the private school sphere, is based more on means than on
race) to the conclusion (a voucher system would allow school
segragation to come from the government rather than individuals).
Could you provide some justification for this?

Because if the government gives me money that allows me to put my children
in a segregated private (and whether it's segregated by race, religion,
culture, or some other measure isn't really material to me) school, it's
subsidizing and supporting that segregation in a way that it's not when the
reason my school is segregated is because of the demographic make-up of the
neighborhood in which I live. The demographic make-up of my neighborhood is
based not on government interference (at least, not any more), but on the
type/cost of housing available in my area and the relative economic
well-being of the people who live there. There's nothing to STOP a minority
family (whether it's minority on the basis of race or the basis of religion
doesn't matter) from moving into my neighborhood and attending my public
school, because my public school accepts all comers provided they live
within its boundaries. By comparison, if the schools are segregated by
choice supported by a governmental voucher system, then a private school can
and probably *will* tell me to take my children elsewhere if they don't meet
the school's entry requirements (whatever they're based on), even if I'd
*like* to send them there.

Put another way, my kids *are* minorities in my neighborhood. I'm white, but
their father is of Mexican descent. Moreover, we're Unitarian-Universalists
with an atheist bent in a neighborhood where virtually everyone is a
Christian of one stripe or another. But no one can keep my kids out of our
wonderful public school. Is the population of the school mostly white and
Christian? You betcha! But my kids can go there and their rights are not
trampled by its curriculum because it's not just for whites or just for
Christians. And that's the way schools supported by taxpayers *ought* to be
(at least IMO).

I will add that I think the best way to attack the problem of failing
schools is not to give parents vouchers to use for school tuition, but to
give them the equivalent amount in funds for housing so that they can afford
to live in a neighborhood with better public schools.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 4), and the Rising Son (Julian, 6)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Dick Cheney: Putting the vice in the vice presidency"

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

"toto" wrote in message
...

Not true. Why not simply allow the public schools to have the same
small class sizes that promoted the learning instead of handing
money to *new* schools that factor that in.

Because it would cost more - at least in an "apples and apples" comparison
where the same number of students are educated using public money either
way.

"toto" wrote in message
...

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=5446

Facts About Vouchers

Cleveland, OH Voucher Program
# Through 2001, the Cleveland voucher program has cost more than $28
million. When direct administrative costs are factored in, costs of
the voucher program increase to $33 million. In 2001-02, the Cleveland
program enrolled 4,266 voucher students and program costs were
estimated to exceed $8 million, with an additional $2 million or more
being spent by Cleveland public schools to provide transportation for
voucher students. In total, the voucher program cost more than $10
million in 2001-02. 100% of this money came from funding intended to
benefit all children in Cleveland's public schools.

This is one of the dirtiest tricks anti-choice people use: they pretend that
children who receive vouchers aren't children. The money was intended to
help educate Cleveland's schoolchildren, and it did help to educate
Cleveland's schoolchildren. The statistics provided here do not provide a
single shred of evidence that the school system lost money compared with if
it had had to educate the children in city schools and pay the costs
associated with doing so.

# The state of Ohio has spent more tax money per student on the
students in the voucher program than it has for the other nearly 90%
of Ohio's school children in public schools.21

I smell a shell game here. The ratio of $8 million for vouchers compared
with $2 million for transportation implies that transportation costs would
push the cost up from a maximum of $2250 per student to maybe around $2800
per student. Add in any reasonable oversight costs and the cost is still
far below what the Cleveland public schools average spending per student -
and probably below half what they average spending per student.

But wait. The writer says, "the state of Ohio has spent." If the voucher
money comes entirely from the state level, while public schools get most of
their money from local taxes, the claim could be technically true - even
while the impression it is intended to create is a clear, deliberate lie.

Of course now we get into another problem. Didn't the author just say that
the money spent on vouchers was money that was "intended to benefit all
children in Cleveland's public schools"? But how could that be if it was
state money rather than local money? It would seem that the author uses
words differently in different paragraphs depending on what is most
effective for distorting facts to create the desired impression.

Since 1991, the state
has appropriated more money for its private schools ($1.1 billion)
than it did to refurbish its public schools ($1 billion).22 $140
million in the 1998-99 school year alone went to private schools for
textbooks, reading and math specialists, science equipment, and
more.23 This is in addition to already providing all of Ohio's private
schools with about $600 per student in cash, supplies and services
from state taxpayers and local schools.24

And the cost of educating the same children in the public schools would have
been??? Probably a whole lot higher, in which case the money would not have
been available for school refurbishment and such at all.

# Additionally, Ohio relies heavily on local property taxes to fund
state education.

Thought so. :-) Remember what I said about the shell game?

# As in Milwaukee, money is subtracted from public school funds in
Cleveland to pay for voucher students who were not attending public
school. In the program's first year, $1.6 million-almost 25% of the
Ohio taxpayer cost for vouchers-went toward the tuition of students
who were already enrolled in private schools. In the 1999-00 school
year, less than one-third of the voucher students came from public
schools the year before.28 Similarly, a recent study conducted by the
Cleveland-based research institute Policy Matters Ohio, determined
that one in three students participating in the voucher program in
1999-00 was already enrolled in a private school prior to receiving a
voucher.29

So now we go up from about $2800 per student (including transportation) to
about $4200 for each student not previously enrolled in a private school.
(Actually a bit less because not all students are eligible for the $2250
maximum amount.) That's still less than two thirds of Cleveland's average
spending per student in public schools. So students who hadn't had their
education funded previously get it funded, and the cost to the taxpayers
still probably isn't higher than it would have been if the students had
attended public schools. (The reason I say "probably" is that overall
averages include kids with special needs that drive the cost of educating
them way up.)

# As in Milwaukee, Cleveland public schools are not saving money due
to the reduction of students. A study conducted by the consulting
company KPMG LLP found that the district's operational costs continued
to increase even though the number of students was reduced by the
voucher program. The report found that voucher students were drawn
from throughout the large district making student reductions at the
school negligible, so that it "is not able to reduce administrative
costs or eliminate a teaching position..[Instead, the district] is
losing the DPIA without a change in their overall operating costs."32

Could this be another shell game? Mathematically, what would be expected is
that a majority of situations where pulling out a couple students does not
allow a reduction in the number of teachers would be counterbalanced by a
minority of situations where pulling out one or two students would allow a
reduction because the numbers had been just one or two students over the "We
need another teacher" threshold before the voucher program kicked in.
Mathematically, it should balance - *IF* the threshold at which an
additional teacher is "necessary" remains constant.

But suppose (gasp!) some of the schools were overcrowded when the voucher
program started? Then the public school system might have taken advantage
of the vouchers to reduce overcrowding instead of keeping the same average
level of overcrowding and cutting teaching positions. My bet is that
Cleveland did get its benefit from vouchers, but chose to take the benefit
in the form of reduced overcrowding instead of in the form of saving money.

Florida Voucher Program
# Florida's statewide voucher program, called the Opportunity
Scholarship Program, could cost more than a quarter of a billion
dollars a year in the future if all eligible students applied-and were
able to find seats at private schools willing to participate in the
program. Eligibility is determined by enrollment in a public school
deemed "failing" for two of the last four years. Seventy-eight schools
received an 'F' grade in 1999-00 and another 4 schools were graded 'F'
a year later. These schools educate about 55,000 students. If all 82
schools were to receive a second 'F' within the four-year period, and
all eligible students applied-and were able to find seats at private
schools willing to participate in the program-the cost to taxpayers
would exceed $280 million annually by the 2003-04 school year.33 Even
if only 25% of these students opted to apply, the cost would be $71
million.

More smoke and mirrors, since if all the children eligible took advantage of
the program, the failing public schools could be closed and their operating
costs saved. No effort is made to show how that savings would compare with
the cost of the vouchers.

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:34:38 -0500, "Donna Metler"
wrote:

And the costs for starting up a school are immense. Which is why charter
schools generally require corporate or charitable start-up money. Only
fairly rich organizations can do it. IE-big, established churches.

Well, not exactly, depending on how small a school you start, but the
amount to *keep* a school running is immense and such schools are
often operating on the donations of the founder or others.

For example, take Westside Prep founded by Marva Collins. It's a
very successful school, but it wouldn't have survived without it's
founders willingness to put her lecture money into the school and
it was finally rescued by Prince with large donations of funds.

http://www.startribune.com/viewers/s...hp?story=40693

Quoting from the article,

--- Despite its founder's acclaim, Westside Prep has usually
--- operated on a budget as cramped as its quarters. Until
--- Prince stepped forward, most of the school's funds
--- came from $200 a month tuition from those parents
--- who could pay. "But we've got a lot of kids who
--- don't - over half," said Westside Prep's administrator,
--- Carol Braxton. "A lot (of the school's money) comes
--- from Mrs. Collins going on the lecture circuit. Many a
--- night Mrs. Collins and I have sat there looking at each
--- other over the checkbook with a very low balance. If
--- there'd been $50 in there, we'd have been rich. We'd say,
--- `What do we do now?' She politely gets up, goes to her
--- checkbook, writes a check and goes off on another
--- speaking engagement. I can't tell you how many
--- times we've made payroll that way."

I'm not seeing anything that looks like the school is all that expensive to
operate - except that when you're serving poor children and you don't get
tax funding, just about anything is expensive. Just think, though, what
people who try to follow Mrs. Collins' example might be able to do with
vouchers.