Voucher System & Catholic Schools

[melensdad]

Just curious, what do you do, did you do, will you do with your children regarding school?

 

[melensdad]

Now I’m just curious, for those folks who do not like the concept of school vouchers, what do you oppose about being able to choose which school your child goes to?

And for those of you who would keep your children in public schools over Catholic schools, is it because your public school offers better academics? Better extra-curriculars? Other???

I know when I was growing up, the public school in my town was vastly superior to the Catholic school. In our current area, the public schools are beautiful, but the academics are horrible. While the Catholic school (St Edward’s in Lowell, IN) is a tiny school with modest ammenities, but excellent academics. I suppose each community is different.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I didn’t have a choice that truly reflects my opinion. On the one hand, I think more competition in education would be a good thing. On the other hand, I would hate to ruin Catholic schools by getting the government involved.

In any event, I do think that those of us who have been quite successful in the marketplace because of our Catholic education have a special obligation to help out our Catholic Schools.

 

[JimG]

I think that, in a sense, public schools might be considered unconstitutional because they represent an establishment of religion.

Now, I realize that public schools by law must not advocate for any particular religion. But that’s just the point. Education is always presented from a particular worldview. Public education must of necessity present only the secularist worldview.

 

[vern_humphrey]

One of the problems with “vouchers” is that most voucher laws have poisoned pills:

1. They provide only a fraction of the per-pupil budget to the private school that educates the child.
2. They are hedged with restrictions – as I said, if your child is left-handed, red-headed and has one blue and one brown eye, then you qualify for a voucher. Which entitles you to $10 off on your next oil change.
3. They don’t adequately introduce competition into the education system.

 

[Zenas]

I do not favor vouchers for two reasons. FIRST, they are unfair to the public schools. Public schools must take and keep anyone who lives in the district. It doesn’t matter if the child is autistic, psychotic, sociopathic or whatever. They must enroll him and provide a suitable educational environment. Private schools don’t have to take these children and usually have no suitable programs for them. Vouchers will invariably drain off the desirable students from the public schools, leaving mainly only those children who have no other options. If we are to have vouchers, we must level the playing field by allowing public schools to take only those students it deems desirable OR by forcing private schools to take anyone who applies.
SECOND, it is a foot in the door for government control over private schools. Anyone who thinks it won’t happen is truly out of touch with reality. The govenment has never given money to anyone with no strings attached.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do not favor vouchers for two reasons. FIRST, they are unfair to the public schools.

And the poor education provided by public schools is unfair to the students.

Public schools must take and keep anyone who lives in the district. It doesn’t matter if the child is autistic, psychotic, sociopathic or whatever. They must enroll him and provide a suitable educational environment. Private schools don’t have to take these children and usually have no suitable programs for them.

Why not? If you want private schools to take children who are “autistic, psychotic, sociopathic or whatever,” write that into your voucher legislation – and pay extra for it.

Vouchers will invariably drain off the desirable students from the public schools,

Let’s get something straight – the students are not a resource of the school, the school is a resource for the student. No child should be held in a substandard school simply because of the fear of “draining off” the best students.

leaving mainly only those children who have no other options.

That’s a poison pill – a true choice system would give all children the same option to leave a failing school.

If we are to have vouchers, we must level the playing field by allowing public schools to take only those students it deems desirable OR by forcing private schools to take anyone who applies.

Why is force always the first option?

SECOND, it is a foot in the door for government control over private schools. Anyone who thinks it won’t happen is truly out of touch with reality. The govenment has never given money to anyone with no strings attached.

That is perfectly true – which is why I would advise Catholic schools not to accept vouchers.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I couldn’t vote because my response wouldn’t fit. Some of my children went to Catholic schools, then to a public high school because there wasn’t a Catholic high school. Some went to both Catholic grade school and a Catholic high school.

I used to believe in vouchers, but I don’t anymore. You see these Catholic charities forced to do things contrary to Catholicism or go out of business, and you have to worry about what Catholic schools would be forced to do if they “took the soup” of public funding.

Anymore, I am inclined to even think it’s a mistake for Catholic dioceses to take 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. The Mormons don’t, and they are free of the “no political campaigning” restrictions that apply to tax exempt organizations. Their “bishops” can say whatever they want. Ours have to worry about whether they have stepped over the line in talking about politicians who support abortion, gay “marriage”, etc.

 

[melensdad]

I do not favor vouchers for two reasons. FIRST, they are unfair to the public schools. Public schools must take and keep anyone who lives in the district. It doesn’t matter if the child is autistic, psychotic, sociopathic or whatever. They must enroll him and provide a suitable educational environment. Private schools don’t have to take these children and usually have no suitable programs for them. Vouchers will invariably drain off the desirable students from the public schools, leaving mainly only those children who have no other options. If we are to have vouchers, we must level the playing field by allowing public schools to take only those students it deems desirable OR by forcing private schools to take anyone who applies.
SECOND, it is a foot in the door for government control over private schools. Anyone who thinks it won’t happen is truly out of touch with reality. The govenment has never given money to anyone with no strings attached.

Well I’m not sure how accurate your points are. My wife is a public school teacher. She said that the voucher programs she has seen are not quite what you represent, but not too different either.

First, if a school has the capacity for 500 students, and it is full, then even if you want to put your child there, you cannot do it. Second, most voucher programs do not cross districts so if your child is in district A and district A only has 1 high school you don’t even have a choice. However, if district A has 4 grade schools (1 private, 3 public) then you could send your child to any of the 4 schools that HAVE ROOM for your child, and if you choose the private school, the tuition for the school may be higher than the voucher so you’d still have to pay SOME tuition.
Third, in the programs she has seen (and she has only seen about a half dozen proposals) the “strings” that are attached to the vouchers are that the school receiving the voucher must be state accredited per the department of education.

You make a good point that public schools MUST accept any student. That is also a good reason to support vouchers. If a school district has 3 or 4 grade schools, none of them will devote more attention to the troubled, slow, disadvantaged, or handicapped students than they have to. However under a voucher system, one of those schools may choose to specialize in providing excellent remedial assistance and it would then draw students with special needs. So in effect, the students would get much better help than they get now, because now they are guaranteed to get the “state minimum requirement” and very probably get nothing more.

For whatever it is worth, my wife is a pro-voucher public school teacher. Her logic is that ANY competition in teaching is a good thing, and vouchers will add SOME competition. I tend to agree with her on this point. While many teachers are dedicated, many are just there to put in time until retirement. Vouchers will force the teachers unions to address the competitive aspects induced by choice.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I couldn’t vote because my response wouldn’t fit. Some of my children went to Catholic schools, then to a public high school because there wasn’t a Catholic high school. Some went to both Catholic grade school and a Catholic high school.

I used to believe in vouchers, but I don’t anymore. You see these Catholic charities forced to do things contrary to Catholicism or go out of business, and you have to worry about what Catholic schools would be forced to do if they “took the soup” of public funding.

Yes – those who run these charities are apparently under the impression that there is a vault full of public money just mouldering away for lack of someone to spend it.

Our charities don’t need public funding – never fear, the appropriated money will get spent withour our help. So there is no need to compromise our Catholic values.

Anymore, I am inclined to even think it’s a mistake for Catholic dioceses to take 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. The Mormons don’t, and they are free of the “no political campaigning” restrictions that apply to tax exempt organizations. Their “bishops” can say whatever they want. Ours have to worry about whether they have stepped over the line in talking about politicians who support abortion, gay “marriage”, etc.

Our bishops are – many of them – part and parcel of the establishment.

 

[Michaeljc4]

Another issue related to public money going to private schools is teacher certification requirements. Under the current law, if you are a public school teacher, you must have a major in the subject you are going to teach and pass a state mandated test in both general knowledge and in your subject area, as well as fulfill numerous professional development criteria. The second a penny of tax funded dollars goes to a private school, the teachers there need to held to the same level of accountability.

Similarly, public schools are required by law to make what’s called Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in both Reading and Math (with Science and Social Studies soon to follow). That means that a school has to show improvement each and every year or it begins to face penalties. Furthermore, each specific subgroup has to show improvement; it’s not the mean scores of all the kids in the 5th grade (for example); it’s the mean scores of the African American kids, the special needs kids, the poor kids, the Hispanic kids, the non-English speaking kids, etc. taken separately, as well as the overall average of all the kids. Again, the first penny of my tax dollars that flows to a private school had better be followed by this level of scrutiny and accountability.

I suspect that most private schools want absolutely nothing to do with any of this. If the same laws that are applied to public schools are applied to private schools, private schools will be in trouble very, very quickly.

 

[melensdad]

I suspect that most private schools want absolutely nothing to do with any of this. If the same laws that are applied to public schools are applied to private schools, private schools will be in trouble very, very quickly.

That seems pretty gloomy. Maybe it is a regional thing, but here in Northwest Indiana the “average” public school has lower test scores on standardized testing that the “average” private school. Again, maybe just here in Indiana, but the kids at the private schools take the same “standardized” test as the public school kids (its called the ISTEP test in Indiana). The underfunded, small, old Catholic schools typically rank at the very top of the school rankings. In fact they typically out perform 95% of the public schools at the elementary, middle and high school levels. Unfortunately, due to tuition costs, many are closing down leaving us with FEWER choices and LESS competition. It also leaves us with LOWER educational opportunities for our children.

Perhaps it is different in other areas of the country?

I see school vouchers as a way to save our Catholic schools and perhaps help them grow.

 

[puzzleannie]

OP does not address issues as raised in poll selections. Vouchers are an excellent thing, proven to work in Cleveland and elsewhere. They were not in effect when our kids were in Cleveland parochial schools, but we did lobby for them as Catholic school teachers and parents.

 

[Michaeljc4]

Maybe it is a regional thing, but here in Northwest Indiana the “average” public school has lower test scores on standardized testing that the “average” private school.

There are libraries of books written on this very topic (one of the best is called Catholic Schools and the Common Good), but in a nutshell: Catholic schools don’t have to take everybody that shows up at the front door. Catholic schools have an economic gate (that is, you have to pay to go). The parents of Catholic school kids tend to be more involved than many of the parents of public school kids (i.e. if you as a parent care enough about your child’s education to pick a school for her, you are a type of parent who tends to value education, a condition which has a slew of positive factors attached to it). Catholic schools are also much more personal, and much less institutional. Kids in Catholic schools tend to have much more social capital (connecdtions between kids and community, mostly through the church). Also…there is something very positive to be said for a consistent moral framework for kids. Public schools do not have that.

 

[melensdad]

Catholic schools don’t have to take everybody that shows up at the front door. Catholic schools have an economic gate (that is, you have to pay to go). The parents of Catholic school kids tend to be more involved than many of the parents of public school kids (i.e. if you as a parent care enough about your child’s education to pick a school for her, you are a type of parent who tends to value education, a condition which has a slew of positive factors attached to it). Catholic schools are also much more personal, and much less institutional. Kids in Catholic schools tend to have much more social capital (connecdtions between kids and community, mostly through the church). Also…there is something very positive to be said for a consistent moral framework for kids. Public schools do not have that.

All good reasons to support vouchers, because the parents who do take an active role in moving their children to a different school, even if just to a different public school, will be more involved in their children. And the schools will begin to cater to specific types of children, or the needs of children or they will lose pupils and eventually both the teachers and the administrators will lose their jobs. Seems to me you gave more evidence to support vouchers. And all of it simply because, as you wrote “public schools do not have that” but under a voucher system they will have the incentive to get parents involved!

 

[Zenas]

melensdad says:
For whatever it is worth, my wife is a pro-voucher public school teacher. Her logic is that ANY competition in teaching is a good thing, and vouchers will add SOME competition. I tend to agree with her on this point. While many teachers are dedicated, many are just there to put in time until retirement. Vouchers will force the teachers unions to address the competitive aspects induced by choice. [end of quote]

I agree that any competition in teaching is good, but I think you have overlooked one big thing here. Those teachers who are putting in time until retirement used to be dedicated professionals. Then (in Kentucky) the Kentucky Education Reform Act came along and doubled everyone’s work load with tons of paperwork that had nothing to do with teaching and learning. Then we got No Child Left Behind and the busy work doubled again. I have been very close to our local public school system more than 40 years and I have seem countless cases of professional burnout due to KERA and NCLB. So far as I know, private schools are not subject to these laws and many others that usually hinder rather than help education. With vouchers, that is likely to change.

 

[melensdad]

I agree that any competition in teaching is good, but I think you have overlooked one big thing here. Those teachers who are putting in time until retirement used to be dedicated professionals. Then (in Kentucky) the Kentucky Education Reform Act came along . . .

I don’t think I overlooked it. In fact school has been out for my wife for over a week, but she was working tonight until after 9pm on some of her classwork for NEXT year. I see how much she spends preparing, being involved, grading, etc. Both she and I think vouchers will help bring new dedicated teachers into the system, and may energize some of the existing teachers too No question teachers earn their pay, I never implied they didn’t work hard or long. I see that every day.

 

[PapaSquash]

I only have one school age, the other two aren’t old enough yet. We homeschooled first grade this year, she was at our parish school last year. She (and her sisters) will probably go back to the parish at some point but vouchers/money won’t likely be a deciding factor. Luckily in our parish, if you live in the parish, and want your children in the school we will make it happen. Public school is out of the question unless we move someplace with far less of a secular, liberal agenda than Minneapolis.

 

[JimG]

Public school is out of the question unless we move someplace with far less of a secular, liberal agenda than Minneapolis.

In other words, you are concerned that in public school, they would be taught a different religion–the religion of secularism.

 

[PapaSquash]

In other words, you are concerned that in public school, they would be taught a different religion–the religion of secularism.

Pretty much. As CS Lewis said in The Abolition of Man, one way or another they are being “educated.” All teaching comes with presuppositions, and the secular ones are not truth.