The "Private Option" for Schools

[guido911]

One issue I think merits discussion is the concept of the public option and why it is so important in just the health care debate. As I understand it, the public option's purposes are to save money and create competition for private insurance companies. With that understanding, then why does the government object so vehemently against to giving tax breaks, tax credits or even vouchers to parents of school age children that want to send their kids to private school? The public school system in general sucks. The World just ran the story that 15 Tulsa area schools made "Oklahoma state improvement list."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=19&articleid=20090828_19_A1_OKLAHO508181

So, why not extend the cost saving and competition concept to the "private option" to education? Here's an article that discusses the costs for public v. private education:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402921.html

[USRufnex]

We have the opposite problems in education compared to the problems of healthcare.
We have achieved free UNIVERSAL public education for our children.
If this "public option" were not available, where would we be?
Would getting a high school education become a privilege and not a right?

I would compare public schools to "single payer" in that parents don't see the blizzard of bills and paperwork present in the current employer-based healthcare system.  In public schools, there is no deductible, there are no co-pays, and it is paid for by mandatory taxes for those who have children and those who do not.  If you lose your job, your kids still get to go to school.  There are no "pre-existing conditions."  And there is a "private option" available to parents who have the financial means to do so.

I can support some reform efforts that include programs to allow for more powerful neighborhood private charter schools in DC, Chicago, LA, etc.... but the Cato Institute is being foolish or naive or both... or just playing Grover Nordquist-style games to dismantle public education in this country.  Could the Catholic school system or other private schools be able to better educate the huge influx of not-necessarily-smart students coming their way?  Or would their scores go down once they find themselves no longer in a position to choose who they would educate?

I am not a fan of Arnie Duncan and do not agree with Obama's politically savvy and PC decision to make this guy Secretary of Education.  Here's a few reasons why....

Perspectives and Urban Prep charter schools dump 'failing' students back into public high schools?
Jackson Potter - September, 2008
http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=560&section=Article

Some private school teachers work for less money because they count it as a contribution to their church.... some work for less because they would rather not have to deal with the discipline problems you can run into working at a public school.

TPS has an open transfer policy; if vouchers or extra tax breaks are offered to subsidize private education, guess who loses?

Hale?  Rogers?  East Central?

No.  They would continue to have the same student body with socio-economic problems and language barriers that will contribute to sub-standard test scores....

The losers would be schools like Edison and Memorial... and Booker T.
Schools that aren't even on the state's list.

The golden boy and the blob
May 7th 2009
Is Barack Obama's education secretary too good to be true?
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13610905

[guido911]

We have the opposite problems in education compared to the problems of healthcare.
We have achieved free UNIVERSAL public education for our children.
If this "public option" were not available, where would we be?
Would getting a high school education become a privilege and not a right?

I would compare public schools to "single payer" in that parents don't see the blizzard of bills and paperwork present in the current employer-based healthcare system.  In public schools, there is no deductible, there are no co-pays, and it is paid for by mandatory taxes for those who have children and those who do not.  If you lose your job, your kids still get to go to school.  There are no "pre-existing conditions."  And there is a "private option" available to parents who have the financial means to do so.

I can support some reform efforts that include programs to allow for more powerful neighborhood private charter schools in DC, Chicago, LA, etc.... but the Cato Institute is being foolish or naive or both... or just playing Grover Nordquist-style games to dismantle public education in this country.  Could the Catholic school system or other private schools be able to house and educate the huge influx of not-necessarily-smart students coming their way?  Or would their schools scores go down once they find themselves no longer in a position to choose who they would educate?

I am not a fan of Arnie Duncan and do not agree with Obama's politically savvy and PC decision to make this guy Secretary of Education.  Here's a few reasons why....

Perspectives and Urban Prep charter schools dump 'failing' students back into public high schools?
Jackson Potter - September, 2008
http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=560&section=Article

Some private school teachers work for less money because they count it as a contribution to their church.... some work for less because they would rather not have to deal with the discipline problems you can run into working at a public school.

TPS has an open transfer policy; if vouchers or extra tax breaks are offered to subsidize private education, guess who loses?

Hale?  Rogers?  East Central?

No.  They would continue to have the same student body with its socio-economic problems and language barriers which will contribute to sub-standard test scores....

The losers would be schools like Edison and Memorial... and Booker T.
Schools that aren't even on the state's list.

The golden boy and the blob
May 7th 2009
Is Barack Obama's education secretary too good to be true?
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13610905

I agree with you on the D.C. voucher school model; however I thought this program was ended by Obama (who sends his kids to private school--I will not go there any further because we've had that debate). Here is a abject scathing article from Juan Williams: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/20/williams_obama_dc/

I think it's no secret that my kids do not go to public school, and that my position on tax credits and/or vouchers is somewhat skewed. Although I would like a financial break of some kind since my kids are not enrolled in a public school but I pay taxes as if they were, I would prefer that every child have access to the same educational opportunities as mine. Surprising, huh? You might recall that I felt the same about getting quality health care for children. I guess I am "liberal" when it comes to children because they are in whatever financial condition they are in through no fault of their own. When it comes to kids, money should not be a factor. It's those people who are grown up but behave like children with an entitlement mentality that sets me off. here's a often viewed example:

First, I started this "private option" thread to see how folks would look at how government essentially has a monopoly over a product, education, and your "single payer" analogy sort of confirms my position. The problem with your UNIVERSAL public education statement is actually a reason for a viable private option. To begin, these are some of the reasons for the public option:  1) reduce medical care costs, 2) improve access, 3) increase competition. Indeed, Obama has commented that: "[A] 'public option' would improve the functioning of the market because it would 'force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest.'"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0716chapmanjul16,0,4615447.column

The exact same thing could be said in the context of education. Let's change the above quote a bit: "[A] '[private option]' would improve the functioning of the [education system] because it would 'force the [public school systems]' to compete and keep them honest.'"

Another issue I have with your UNIVERSAL public education is your assumption that public education would disappear if there was the private option. First, this is the exact argument insurance companies and those opposed to Obamacare are advancing with respect to the public option, except they believe private health insurance would disappear. Perhaps that is what Obamacare supporters really want to see happen, who knows. Second, and perhaps this is why I disagree with you and others in this forum, is how you throw the word "right" around so loosely and "matter of fact". In my opinion, there are very few "rights" that each of us have equally without exception. Education, health care, a job, housing (except for of course racial preferences), etc. are not "rights" simply because there is no constitutional amendment that creates these rights. Curiously, under the Constitution, it appears that the only group of people having a "right" to health care would be to prisoners under the cruel and unusual punishment provision in the Eighth Amendment.

Public schools are essentially competition free with a steady revenue stream through taxation, which private schools (not just religious-based) do not. Healthy competition is a good thing, which is the biggest argument advanced by public option proponents. Why not extend it to education?

[buck]

I agree that it would be the higher end public schools that would be hurt by vouchers. I don't think that Holland Hall or Cascia Hall would start opening their doors to kids that go to McClain or Rogers. Instead you would have a bunch of fly by night private schools opening up that are just looking to take money but would provide an even worse education then what is offered now. When Jabar Shumate tried to push through a voucher plan before I read a quote from a pastor at a church in North Tulsa who said they had classroom space and were ready to open their doors. This type of a school would have no accountability and the teachers no training.

[nathanm]

Although I would like a financial break of some kind since my kids are not enrolled in a public school but I pay taxes as if they were,

And so do I, despite not having children and never planning to have any.

Similarly, despite up to this juncture only having ever required a few doctor's visits, I would be more than happy to pay taxes for a single payer health care plan. And just as there are private schools today, I'd be perfectly happy if there were private insurance providers providing supplemental insurance for whatever the public plan doesn't cover. (private rooms, for instance)

Given that the purpose of insurance is to spread risk amongst a large pool, what practical argument is there against the largest possible risk pool?

[we vs us]

I think local control makes any sort of "fair" competition system unworkable.  School funding in our country varies so much by locality that there's no way for counties to compete on an apples to apples basis across the whole country.  Unless, of course, you like federal subsidies.  And I don't think you do.

Privatization doesn't come without baggage in our country.  Our free-marketers also tend to be laissez-fairers.  I can see getting a school market system put into place and then let to run without adequate oversight or regulation.  And when oversight and regulation break down you have what's happened in the financial industry . . . or even better, what's happened in the armed forces, where billions and billions have flowed into private industry with almost no accounting controls. 

In the end you'd either have a system with cutthroat competition and no oversight . . . in which the poorer children would suffer.  Or you'd have a much larger school marketplace with a much larger educational bureaucracy, into which our tax dollars would disappear even more completely than they are now.

I'm not opposed to using competition to foster efficiency, but I don't think every part of our government should be free-marketized.  There are some places in which it either isn't feasible or desirable.

[Conan71]

Instead you would have a bunch of fly by night private schools opening up that are just looking to take money but would provide an even worse education then what is offered now. When Jabar Shumate tried to push through a voucher plan before I read a quote from a pastor at a church in North Tulsa who said they had classroom space and were ready to open their doors. This type of a school would have no accountability and the teachers no training.

I have to agree with you.  Some privately-owned "tech" schools and "colleges" exist to collect student loan money and do little to ensure the student is gaining marketable skills and do little, if anything to help assure they will find work after they have been through the program.  Same with daycares which exist to collect DHS money.  Certainly, not all private schools are bad, but any time the government at any level starts handing out money, the parasites manage to show up and get their share without regard to the personal outcomes of their students.

I went to a private high school and had my kids in private school for about five or six years.  To be perfectly honest, I don't see where if I chose to spend my money in that way toward their education why the government should subsidize that particular decision.  Why should I get any more of a break than my elderly next door neighbor whose kids are all grown? 

[cannon_fodder]

I'd fully support a school voucher system with two contingencies (in addition to being racially neutral etc.):

1) The voucher system sets it up so the public schools still win.  That is to say, the public school district gets funding of $2000 per kid (made up numbers) and grants vouchers for $1500 to anyone who wants them.  Thus, the proportional funding per student remaining in public schools increases.

The reason I feel this is important is because without it we will further two-tier our educational system.  If we suck too much funding from the public school it will cease to be a viable option, no matter how hard some parents would try.  And at the availability of least decent educational opportunities keeps many kids from descending into poverty if not criminality.

It would seem to be a win-win, IF the laws/rules could be crafted to maintain this goal.

2) The second contingency would be that voucher funding is only available for qualified schools.   A school would not be qualified unless it met certain baselines in curriculum and performance.  You can run it as a for-profit, as a religious school, or as a singing academy - I don't care so long as the baseline curriculum is covered  (whatever is recommended for that grade: science, math, reading, history . . .) and the baseline scores are at an appreciable level (Iowa Tests or whatever test they use these days).  Tests that cannot be corrupted by the institution (not self tested) and are not altered for the institution (black, white, Christian or Hindu . . . you should all know basic math, science, etc.). 

The reason I feel this is essential is because we are diverting Governmental money to private education.  I want to make sure it is a school, an institution that educates kids.  Not a place just to make a profit, not a football academy, not just a religious training academy, and not just a daycare.    You can do all those things so long as it doesn't frustrate the purpose of a school.

- - -

However, the right wingers will insist that they should be allowed to have governmental money to run a Christian Madrasah.  The "my snow flake" crowd will insist that testing is bad.  The leftists will cry because there will be more non-public schools forcing kids to donate their supplies to the collective.  The idiots will complain that their kid don't need no fancy building schoolin'.   In short, a rational approach will fail. 

[Conan71]

And yet, CF, any of those options are destined for failure if parents neglect their part in the educational process.

[cannon_fodder]

And yet, CF, any of those options are destined for failure if parents neglect their part in the educational process.

Without parents properly motivating their kids, including participation in their education, at least 90% of children will have no success in education. 

[Conan71]

Education FAIL:



Must look close:

[Red Arrow]

Public schools need to be fixed.  One good start would be parents that care.  Another would be to flunk students that don't learn and make them repeat a grade (or two) until they are able to learn.  More money alone won't do the job.  Discipline is a problem that for the most part didn't exist in the community where I went to school through high school.  I won't say there were no problems.  Our average class size was about 30 kids.  It evidently wasn't too many when the kids behaved.

I resist public money going to any religiously affiliated school.  I believe most prominent private elementary and high schools are religiously affiliated. If you want to send your kids to private school and are able, fine.  Do it on your dollar. If you can't afford it, maybe your church can help.  I see some mighty big (tax free?)  church buildings and properties around the area so I don't believe they are unable to help some of their own less fortunate. Vouchers are like taking money out of my pocket and putting it your church. 

[guido911]

I resist public money going to any religiously affiliated school.  I believe most prominent private elementary and high schools are religiously affiliated. If you want to send your kids to private school and are able, fine.  Do it on your dollar. If you can't afford it, maybe your church can help.  I see some mighty big (tax free?)  church buildings and properties around the area so I don't believe they are unable to help some of their own less fortunate. Vouchers are like taking money out of my pocket and putting it your church. 

Really?  How do you feel about your tax dollars going to religious-affiliated hospitals such as St. John and St. Francis hospitals that provide care to the elderly and the indigent?

[FOTD]

Really?  How do you feel about your tax dollars going to religious-affiliated hospitals such as St. John and St. Francis hospitals that provide care to the elderly and the indigent?

Those are reimbursements. Big diff.

How do you feel about the fact that they don't pay taxes that go to educate our neighbor's children who can't afford private schools? Or that fix the streets that run up and down their property? Or the over the top number of traffic signals?

[guido911]

Those are reimbursements. Big diff.

How do you feel about the fact that they don't pay taxes that go to educate our neighbor's children who can't afford private schools? Or that fix the streets that run up and down their property? Or the over the top number of traffic signals?

Who the heck is "they" and what were you smoking before you posted that nonsensical and irrelevant rambling.

And reimbursements, what is the "big diff"? Bottom line is that tax dollars are going to  religious-affiliated institutions. But if the difference is the term "reimbursement", then just reimburse those with the children in private school. Does that make you feel better?

Also, don't tell anyone, but Obama is following Bush's lead on faith-based initiatives, which, shhh, allows federal money to be sent to religious organizations:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/06/nation/na-faith6