Why are progressives against school vouchers..

[CUBE]

Then where the fuck is the money going?

Most of the public has no idea that almost 1/2 of a district budget...in some form...goes to special ed. That includes facility, programs, lawyers, extended staff, etc. Also, most money is categorical funded. Your school/district money can't be spent in whatever you need. You may need math books and have thousands in voc ed. It doesn't matter...you still have no money for math books. Schools also can get penalized in finacial areas for spending money in ways that are needed. This is hard to explain here..but trust me..it is a system in need of overhall and the PE teachers...now administrators...are not the mental giants to be rewriting it. You also have many unions involved and that helps/hinders many areas too. If you are a teacher that wants to make change...be careful..the districts are political machines...no good deed goes unpunished.

 

[Freddie53]

Were does the money go? The federal government sets up a bureaucracy to disperse the money and has lots of strings attached. Then the local district hires at top dollar, a lot more than the teachers make, one or more federal coordinators.

Most schools are top heavy in administration. Years ago, an elementary school had a head teacher that also taught a class and maybe had a secretary. Now a school the same size has a principal, one or more secretaries, librarian, guidance counselor, p.e. teacher, music teacher, computer lab teacher, art teacher, federal grants coordinator, nurse, four special ed teachers. And we are talking about an elementary school with 400 students or less. Because when the school gets to 450 or so, the school has to have a vice-principal, assistant librarian, another federal grants coordinator.

In all of the above, none are in the classroom teaching reading, writing and arithmetic. Fourteen faculty in these special jobs some earning more than the teachers. This same school will only have about 24 actual classroom teachers. Now I still haven't mentioned the supt. assistant supt. the "big guy" federal coordinator, the book keeper, four or more secretaries, and on and on "up" at the administration building. And all of this for a school with an enrollment of only 1000 K-12. Oh and the maintenance supervisor who makes more than any teacher.

Then coming from state education is a herd of supervisors that come and go to see that the teachers teach it just like it is supposed to be taught. And if the teacher's class fails, is it the supervisor's fault who required that the teaching be done the way it was done. Hell no, it was the classroom teacher who has more experience than all the top guys who tried to tell them, it wasn't going to work.

The students must score high. so even five year old only get one stretch break and one bathroom break at lunch for the whole day, because those five year old need to be focused entirely on learning how to read and according to those higher ups, don't need those trips to the bathroom and don't' need stretch breaks, And recess, a total waste of time. All students need to be able to read before they enter first grade or their teachers are bad people.

And you want to know why by sixth grade the students have shut down and said no more. Learning has to be fun. It has to be taught so that the students are yearning to learn. Not put be "belted down to a seat" with no getting up or talking except for a few minutes at lunch.

And now you know why some of the brightest and best teachers just walk out and say stuff it. All because some fucktarrds in the legislature and Congress and the President of the United States have decided they know how to teach better than those who have a certificate in teaching and have spent years teaching.

I need to quit venting. There was a time when public schools did a better job than they do now. But back then educators IN THE CLASSROOM taught each student how that student needed to be taught.

I gave 28 years to public education. My friends who still teach say the joy is gone. The federal and state governments have taken the joy away from both the teachers and the students.

 

[Big Don]

Talk about your Catch-22's.

BTW as a true fiscal conservative I am in no way in favor of a blanket voucher for ANYONE. Low income poverty level parents get my nod. Plus the idea of government money going to private enterprise is widely accepted, as long as it isn't education we are talking about so that is a bit of a strawman. Medicaid and welfare money goes to private business. Entitlement monies, SSI, government pension are spent in private business. The entitlee gets the dough and spends it wherever. They aren't required to spend it at a state/federal grocery store.

True, other social support payments go to private business in the end. However, businesses and tax-exempt religious organizations are two different creatures. School vouchers to me would be a breach of the separation clause as it would be government financial aid to religious institutions. That bothers me. I'd rather see that money stay in my local district where it could be put to use to improve education.

From another angle, if I had some sort of position in a church I would be hesitant to accept these vouchers. That money would come with strings attached, which would violate the independence that parochial schools now enjoy. I'm not sure I'd be willing to give that up.

 

[ledroit]

Without ranting can someone explain why this is such a hot button for progressives? What do I not see?

One thing you are missing is the huge number of Chinese and Indian nationals whose IQs are in the top 25%. They would be almost twice the size of the entire population of the US. You can look at a typical distribution of IQs in a general population, and do the math. Intelligence quotient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A second thing you are missing is the premium that both China & India put on education. You are practically gods there if you have a PhD. (whereas in the US you are accused of being a "liberal" if you can read more than one book on a complex topic.) A third thing you are missing is the incredibly strong work ethic both countries have. In the US, students now want easy money and an easy life. A fourth thing you are missing is the speed with which those countries can appropriate and use new knowledge via internet.

Maybe there is even a fifth thing. Think of how many people there are in the US with IQs of 100 or less. They can be great citizens and good people, but they are not going to have an easy time connecting the dots among complicated thoughts or ideas. Those people are a gold mine for the GOP's fear-mongering and smear campaigns invoking "religion" or "liberals" or racial/sexual stereotypes, or the "extravagant waste" of spending money on inner city schools or families with low incomes.

The progressives I know in the US are reality-based, and are typically do not define themselves primarily by being "against" something. That is more the GOP's style. So I suspect the title of this thread is a little bogus. You don't find progressives calling up hate radio and screaming about vouchers.

The GOP has shown itself to be a great friend of "extravagant waste" so long as it benefits the rich and or itself. So this makes it easier to hear the racial overtones that are involved whenever it does find something "wasteful" to attack. The criminal thing is that this use of fake issues and fake news distracts people from real problems that are going to weaken the US's global competitiveness in the future. Worst of all is the snide and cynical message the GOP sends to students now in the US: that work is for democrats. If you are smart, like George Bush, and have the right connections, you will never have to work at all, and never even have to know anything. What an important message that is to the students of the US, about what a complete waste of time an education is.

That is definitely not something I would want to miss if I were asking your question. I think there is something extremely corrupt about wanting to take more tax money away from programs that benefit those who need an education most, and funnel it into private right wing religious clubs. I mean schools.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

>>>You don't find progressives calling up hate radio and screaming about vouchers.<<<<

You are kidding right? I listen to Air America and Jay Marvin, formerly Al Franken, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes and there is endless jabbing at school vouchers.

This was one of the most scary posts I have read.

BTW Bill Clinton had the White HOuse for 8 years and I didn't see ANY improvement in education. I'll throw George Bush under the bus, a big one, for being a foreign policy moron, but if you think this is a partisan issue, you are hopeless.

And our children will suffer.

 

[Freddie53]

>>>You don't find progressives calling up hate radio and screaming about vouchers.<<<<

You are kidding right? I listen to Air America and Jay Marvin, formerly Al Franken, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes and there is endless jabbing at school vouchers.

This was one of the most scary posts I have read.

BTW Bill Clinton had the White HOuse for 8 years and I didn't see ANY improvement in education. I'll throw George Bush under the bus, a big one, for being a foreign policy moron, but if you think this is a partisan issue, you are hopeless.

And our children will suffer.

I agree with you, the problems with public education shouldn't be a partisan issue. But it seems to be the nature of the beast. For every $10 the federal government throws at public education, only about $1 will actually reach the students in some real way. And it is that way regardless who is in power. Just the way it is wasted is different. The rules and regulations and such.

 

[JustAsking]

There is a distinct difference in world view between conservatives and progressives and school vouchers are directly in the line of fire.

Conservatives see the world as a big meritocracy, where hard work, competence and street smarts can be turned directly into financial success and security for them and their families.

Progressives, on the other hand, also want the world to be equitable but put less emphasis on a pure meritocracy, feeling that not everyone is capable of climbing the ladder, and that the ladder quickly turns into a tool for exploitation.

When conservatives look at government regulation and taxes, they see these things as interfering with the meritocracy they are relying on to achieve their goals. A world with no regulation and no taxes looks like the perfect meritocracy for them. They are confident that they will succeed if the system is stable, consistent, and rewards competence and hard work with success and security. For a conservative, economic Darwinism is a good thing.

When progressives look at the world, they see exploitation and victimization to such a degree that they feel that it takes regulation , taxes and other mechanisms for redistributing the wealth and power so that those who are victimized by exploitation have a chance.

School vouchers fall right into the firing line between these two world views because education is seen as important to both of them.

In a progressive's utopia, everyone has free and equal access to exactly the same education opportunities as everyone else. Progressives see school vouchers as something that undermines that ideal. To them, school vouchers suck money out of the public school system which undermines its ability to provide a quality education for everyone.

In a conservative's utopia, all education is privatized and those who can afford it can buy a higher quality of education than those who cannot have to make due with what they can afford. This is consistent with a free-market meritocracy. Conservatives see government funding of public schools as an interference in a free marketplace that should, according to them, work on pure Darwinian principles, which is "that which succeeds, proceeds."

Finally, since we are so polarized in the USA right now, progressives have come to view school vouchers as nothing more than a plot to undermine the public school system. They are blind to any advantages that might come from having education work on free market principles. And conversely, conservatives are blind to the advantages of bringing quality education to the economically disadvantaged.

Although this school vouchers have become a real political issue in the USA, the contention comes directly from the two very different world views.

 

[DM34]

When the public schools have to go to the voters for a levy referendum, the battle cry is always 'do it for the kids'. Oh, if only that were true.

In Minnesota, the public school teacher's union is very powerful and has a stranglehold on the Democratic party. The system is largely set up to benefit and protect the adults with vested interests. Kids are an afterthought.

Any kind of merit-based system is poison to a union mentality. Choice and vouchers make the unions very, very nervous, and the progressives care more about winning elections than actually insuring quality education.

At least in Minnesota.

 

[Freddie53]

I'm not going to copy Just Asking's post which is two up from this post.

Let me just say that his post was extremely well written and explains the two world views quite well. It also shows why there is so much difference of opinion over school and education in general.

I thought about sending Just Asking a private message, but then I decided that I wanted to board to read what I have to say. In the last few weeks Just Asking as posted some brilliant posts concerning several subjects. I have come to admire him greatly. Just Asking is just a good man who loves all people Thank you Just Asking for sharing you wonderful spirit with all of us.

 

[FrenumFellow]

Many points have been well made, but there is one that I have at least not seen made extremely succinctly.

Vouchers are and will be used generally by the best students, with the most involved and supportive parents. If you take those people out of urban schools, the result is an even more concentrated problem and lack of peer role models, unless the fundamental underlying problems are successfully addressed.

I am all for well-designed choice options that inject a certain amount of market forces into urban schools, as well as accountability for urban schools that don't respond to the carrot approach. But that has to go hand-in-hand with real solutions to profound problems, with adequate resources to do the job. And I don't see that simplistic voucher approaches accomplish what education really needs.


FF

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

In a progressive's utopia, everyone has free and equal access to exactly the same education opportunities as everyone else. Progressives see school vouchers as something that undermines that ideal. To them, school vouchers suck money out of the public school system which undermines its ability to provide a quality education for everyone.

Very well put JA. Probably the best and most complete answer on the thread. I wanted to add to this progressive utopia argument, though. Many also see that pulling kids out of "bad" schools based on economics or personal merit will leave those schools with no good students at all, and they as a result will be even worse off, while the "good" schools receive an influx of good students making them even better. The disparity between the "good" and "bad" schools would become even more pronounced than it already is and the overall picture of education in America would become increasingly less and less equitable, which is what they want to avoid.

Again, very well put.

 

[Whopper-lee]

It's the thought that vouchers take money, resources, and attention away from the schools that need the most help.

Why reroute state & civil money to private schools when the original problems still need to be fixed?

**********************************************************

LeeEJ
YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!

DO I HEAR ' THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GETS POORER' and what add better way to do it as through the educational systems, bringing even a greater division between the haves and the have nots.
The middle class will soon be a thing of the pass.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

Well inasmuch as we are the 3rd highest spending country per pupil, only Norway and Switzerland exceed us and I would bet they have overall better students, and we have TRIPLED, in real inflation adjusted dollars our investment since 1960, suggest ANY sort of answer.

Why can't we educate students as well as we did 45 years ago when we are spending 3X the money per student. We have had I believe 4 Democratic admins and an equal number of Republican admins, how do we fix it. More money!!??? Looks like a rat hole to me.

I will listen.

 

[DC_DEEP]

The "failing" urban or rural public schools are under the fiscal control of the school boards, and these usually are composed of business persons, not educators. And they usually apportion the funds in selfish ways, not ways that would necessarily best serve the education process.

As an example, the two years I taught in public school, I was the one "co-op" teacher in two small neighboring districts - I taught 3 morning classes at one school, and 3 afternoon classes at the other school. With both districts combined, there were 22 K-6 teachers; 2 art, 3 agriculture, 4 business, 5 English, 5 history, 2 English as second language, 2 home economics, 4 special education, 4 science, 5 math, 1 math & science, 1 ISS (in school suspension) (?!?), 8 coaches (plus 3 assistants/aides) and 1 music. Some of the buildings were not in the best of shape, but each district had a well-built, well-maintained athletic field and gymnasium. At one school, my classroom (and I was the only one who used it, it was not "safe" for any other classes) was the old gym - holes in the floor, broken windows, and a hasp & padlock on the door. One of the schools, though, had money to have thriving well-equipped programs for football (new home & away uniforms every year), cheerleading, boys' basketball (ditto with the uniforms), girls' basketball (uniforms again), baseball, softball, and golf.

The concept of pulling bright but poor students out of the public schools and giving them vouchers for private schools is not a good one. Perhaps a better idea would be to restructure the allocation of funds within a school district, track down and eliminate waste within that district, and fix the problem at its root.

Not to mention that using public tax money to fund tuition for select students at a private school just is not the right thing to do.

Oh, and JustAsking, thank you for making the distinction between conservative, liberal, and progressive.

 

[kalipygian]

I think that the size and number of students in elite private schools (and parochial schools) is small relative to the fundamentalist ones. At the extreme, the 'ideal world' for the parents of these kids is how they imagine the puritan theocracy was. Some don't want their kids exposed to any knowledge acquired since the seventeenth century. I think the parents are doing the kids a disservice, focusing on indoctrination rather than education.

The school district here offers a wide variety of optional schools, basicly any that are able to attract enough students to be financially viable, so there is in effect a 'voucher' system within the public system. Some of these have more interested students than there is room for, some peter out.

 

[DC_DEEP]

And just a curiosity question: Those who support the voucher systems, and especially those who complain about the quality of public education - what specifically and personally have you done to try to improve the school system, or even just your child's particular classroom?

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

I was a room *mom*, PTA president, and up until a couple years ago I coached inner city boys and girls middle school volleyball and basketball where there were no involved parents. Little League too in the summer for teams w/o dads. Now I help a group called Camp Comfort, helping kids who have lost a loved one, mom or dad, siblings. Like Outward bound but local. I used to bring falcons and hawks to class rooms for raising environmental issues.

As a room *mom* I think I could have boned every milf in the school had I wanted to. :smile: Long time ago.

 

[Lex]

I really dislike when people who have never been school teachers or administrators tell us what we need to do to reform education. Just because you went to school does not mean you have the qualifications to reform a school.

I have worked with disabled and disenfranchised youth my entire life. the obstacles that urban and rural schools face is incredible and incredibly complex.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I really dislike when people who have never been school teachers or administrators tell us what we need to do to reform education. Just because you went to school does not mean you have the qualifications to reform a school.

I have worked with disabled and disenfranchised youth my entire life. the obstacles that urban and rural schools face is incredible and incredibly complex.

But you can't deny that having professional educators on the local school board, and more equitable fund allocation within each district would have a beneficial effect?

 

[Lex]

But you can't deny that having professional educators on the local school board, and more equitable fund allocation within each district would have a beneficial effect?

I agree.

The problem is convicing the haves to give more to the have-nots. Think of it in terms of revenue sharing in the NFL. Until it happened, teams like Green Bay NEVER had a chance to be as good as teams in SF, DC or NYC simply due to a lack of funds being available.

Baltimore City spends $9200 per student and Montgomery County spends $12,000 per student. But, Baltimore City only has $150K per student to spend while Montgomery has $475K per student to spend. It is a little known figure called a district's per pupil wealth.

I would gladly vote to divert some (a percentage) of my district funds to poor/rural districts in MD. Better schools are good for the entire state.