Voucher System & Catholic Schools

[Br_Joshua_Seidl]

I am not strongly committed to having a voucher system or not. I truly see value in many arguments for and against. I have a slight leaning to not having vouchers, or having stronger criteria as to when they can be issued. Our first priority as a church is in teaching all our members. Catholic schools at their peek were never able to accomadate more than a quarter of the school age children in any decade. This means 75% had no chance at a Catholic education… We need to have a variety of catachetical methods and programs. It is not nessesary to attend a grammar or secondary school in order to recieve instructions on faith. Just think of the nearly 50% of those who did go to Catholic schools who are not active in thier faith as adults. Around 75% of the Clergy and Religious either did not attend Catholic Schools, or attended less than four years. I had three years in a Catholic School that never measured up for State accredidation.
Vouchers are fine in limited situations and only for schools that can measure up to accepting any student regardless of potential, behavior, or of any handicaps. I cannot see spending public resources on any school that excludes those with education or behavior problems or handicaps. The public schools are forced to take the problems some Catholic schools expell.
I do know of more Catholic Schools these days that are willing to tackle those most at risk. In those cases - by all means give some public support. Regardless - our real mission to to provide religious instruction to all in all situations. This does not require a parrochial school system. Catholic schools can probably do a better job if they focused on Christ and faith far above all other concerns, and were not tempted by Ceasar’s pot of gold.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The most powerful quality control instrument in the world is the sentence, “I’ll take my business elsewhere.”

Any thing that moves us toward the point where parents can use that quality control instrument will improve schools. Ultimately, we need True Choice – where the choice of school is entirely up to the parents and schools are all funded the same amount for each child they attract. Good schools will thrive, bad ones die.

But Catholic schools should not accept public money. No matter how beguiling the serpent, the apple is poisoned.

 

[Melissa]

I homeschool using a Catholic curriculum, no vouchers, and I don’t want them and wouldn’t use them.

My concern is primarily on the ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’ principle.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I homeschool using a Catholic curriculum, no vouchers, and I don’t want them and wouldn’t use them.

My concern is primarily on the ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’ principle.

Amen. “Who takes the King’s shilling is the King’s man.”

 

[melensdad]

Amen. “Who takes the King’s shilling is the King’s man.”

I’m not finding a lot of evidence that shows this to be true. However I do find a lot of opinion that supports this. I believe evidence is far more important than opinion.

Generally speaking I think the evidence for vouchers is overwhelmingly positive on all points.From the Catholic League

The myth of ineffective school vouchers
When reporting on school vouchers—programs that give parents money they can use to send their children to private schools—the media almost always describe research on vouchers’ effects as inconclusive. The New York Times, for instance, responded to a Supreme Court decision approving vouchers by declaring: “All this is happening without a clear answer to the fundamental question of whether school choice has improved American education. The debate… remains heated, defined more by conflicting studies than by real conclusions.”

In reality, though, the research on vouchers isn’t mixed or inconclusive at all. High quality research shows consistently that vouchers have positive effects for students who receive them. The only place where results are mixed is in regard to the magnitude of vouchers’ benefits.

There have been eight random-assignment studies of school voucher programs, and in seven of them, the benefits for voucher recipients were statistically significant. In Milwaukee, for example, a study I conducted with two researchers from Harvard found that students awarded vouchers to attend private schools outperformed a matched control group of students in Milwaukee public schools. After four years, the voucher students had reading scores six percentile points above the control group, and standardized math results 11 percentile points higher. All of the students in this study (which is mirrored by other research) were low-income and Hispanic or African American.

In a study of a different program based in Charlotte, North Carolina, I found that recipients of privately funded vouchers outperformed peers who did not receive a voucher by six percentile points after one year. All of the students studied were from low-income households. In New York City, a privately funded school choice program has been the subject of many careful studies. One found that African-American voucher recipients outperformed the control group by 9 percentile points after three years in the program. Another analysis found a difference of 5 percentile points in math. A similar program in Washington, D.C. resulted in African-American students outperforming peers without vouchers by 9 percentile points after two years.

Every one of the voucher programs studied resulted in enthusiastic support from parents as well. And all this was achieved in private schools that expend a mere fraction of the amount spent per student in public schools. The most generously funded of the five voucher programs studied, the Milwaukee program, provides students with only 60 percent of the $10,112 spent per pupil in that city’s public schools. The privately funded voucher programs spend less than *half *what public schools spend per pupil. Better performances, happier parents, for about half the cost: if similar results were produced for a method of fighting cancer, academics and reporters would be elated.​

 

[melensdad]

From the Catholic Herald

Supreme Court Ruling on Vouchers Praised, Decried by Educators
By Catholic News Service
(From the issue of 6/27/02)
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling that upheld Cleveland’s school voucher program was hailed as a victory for low-income parents by Catholic educators and other church leaders but decried by public school educators for validating a system that does not address the problem of inferior public schools.

  The Supreme Court upheld the Cleveland voucher program in a 5-4 ruling     in the case of Zelman vs. Harris, saying the program is "entirely neutral with     respect to religion." A majority of the students who receive the vouchers use them to     attend Catholic schools, which led opponents of the program to charge that it constitutes     state support of religion.

   The majority of the court disagreed, however, siding with Chief Justice     William Rehnquist, who said the system is "a program of true private choice" and     does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

   Arlington Bishop Paul S. Loverde applauded the decision because he     believes a good education is beneficial for every American.

   The bishop said the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* teaches that     as those first responsible for the education of their children, "parents have the     right to choose a school for them which corresponds to their own convictions. This right     is fundamental."

   "By allowing economically disadvantaged parents to use tax dollars     to send their children to a school of their choice, parents are enabled to fulfill this     important parental responsibility," Bishop Loverde said.

   Dominican Sister Glenn Anne McPhee, secretary of education of the U.S.     Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the decision "reinforces the basic right of all     parents to choose the school they believe best serves the educational needs of their     children."

   Mark Chopko, general counsel for the USCCB, said one of the most     important elements of the court's decision was that it "relied on evidence about the     design of the program, rather than statistics about the choices actually made."
  "This means that when legislators enact a program for valid reasons     that gives parents constitutionally permissible choices, legislators can more confidently     act without worrying that some court will second guess that judgment when people actually     begin to make choices," he added.

   Rehnquist was joined in the majority by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor,     Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

   In a separate concurrence, O'Connor detailed the amount of money spent     by the state on the voucher program and compared that to other ways in which government     money goes to religious institutions, such as through tax credits and exemptions, public     health programs and grants for college educations, housing and community development.

   Thomas wrote that the voucher system is an effective way of helping     minority students get the education needed "to defend themselves from some of     discrimination's effects."

 

[vern_humphrey]

I recommend reading The Rule of Benedict. While I do not share the author’s apparent dislike of His Holiness, I find his analysis of the impact of tax-payer funding on religion in Germany interesting. I think everyone agrees that the response of the churches to Nazism was too little, too late – and the author shows how this was linked to taxpayer money flowing to the churches.

 

[cynic]

Any thing that moves us toward the point where parents can use that quality control instrument will improve schools. Ultimately, we need True Choice – where the choice of school is entirely up to the parents and schools are all funded the same amount for each child they attract. Good schools will thrive, bad ones die.

.

and the best schools, (ie the ones with the highest fees which the vouchers won’t even come close to covering) will fill up with the kids who’s parents have the most money and mobility. The poor will have to settle for what’s left in their area.

 

[melensdad]

and the best schools, (ie the ones with the highest fees which the vouchers won’t even come close to covering) will fill up with the kids who’s parents have the most money and mobility. The poor will have to settle for what’s left in their area.

Counter to that, studies nationwide have shown that per-capita school spending has little to do with the quality of education and standardized testing seems to prove that to be true.

So it seems like there is very little fact based evidence for the opinion that the poor will have to settle for what’s left. Further you presume the “poor” are too slow to enroll their children on time to get them into the better schools when you imply that good school will fill up. Certainly some private schools may have waiting lists and admissions that are prohibitive to many students, but some public schools will also excel as will some private schools that will not fill up.

Seems to me that the criticism is very much a “broad stroke” criticism that is willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater simply because no voucher system will be PERFECT.

 

[vern_humphrey]

and the best schools, (ie the ones with the highest fees which the vouchers won’t even come close to covering) will fill up with the kids who’s parents have the most money and mobility. The poor will have to settle for what’s left in their area.

As opposed to the pre-voucher situation, where the poor got to go to the best schools, and the rich were stuck in the bad schools?

There are two things wrong here – first of all, you have an unspoken assumption that it’s somehow bad for some kids to escape the bad school trap. All children have to have the same bad schools?

Second, you assume that if we go to True Choice we can’t deal with problems like this.

 

[cynic]

Counter to that, studies nationwide have shown that per-capita school spending has little to do with the quality of education and standardized testing seems to prove that to be true.

So it seems like there is very little fact based evidence for the opinion that the poor will have to settle for what’s left. Further you presume the “poor” are too slow to enroll their children on time to get them into the better schools when you imply that good school will fill up. Certainly some private schools may have waiting lists and admissions that are prohibitive to many students, but some public schools will also excel as will some private schools that will not fill up.

Seems to me that the criticism is very much a “broad stroke” criticism that is willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater simply because no voucher system will be PERFECT.

Under a voucher system (once public) schools will be private businesses. Thus they will charge as high a fees as they can, and this will not neccessarily be tied to the resources put into actually educating children. At the top end of the scale, (the schools that attract the best teachers, with the most resources spent per student and of course the highest fees) there will be competition. At the ‘affordable’ end of the spectrum there won’t be. Providing low cost education at or near the cost of supply would not be profitable. You’re not going see many competing institutions trying to sccop up the low income education market, because there isn’t much profit to be made there.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Under a voucher system (once public) schools will be private businesses.

Name any state or city that has a voucher law that relinquishes ownership of the public schools, or makes the teachers and staff not public employees.

Thus they will charge as high a fees as they can, and this will not neccessarily be tied to the resources put into actually educating children.

How will they do that, as long as the schools remain public property and the teachers and staffs public employees?

At the top end of the scale, (the schools that attract the best teachers, with the most resources spent per student and of course the highest fees) there will be competition. At the ‘affordable’ end of the spectrum there won’t be. Providing low cost education at or near the cost of supply would not be profitable. You’re not going see many competing institutions trying to sccop up the low income education market, because there isn’t much profit to be made there.

Why not? There is absolutely no reason we can’t sweeten the pot for low income students and those with special needs.

I challenge you to show us any city or state with a voucher system that has these “problems.”

 

[heathernoel]

I am a public school teacher with children in the system…the Catholic school system. I’d LOVE to have a voucher, but that’d mean government involvement which would defeat the whole purpose for sending there there to begin with!!

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am a public school teacher with children in the system…the Catholic school system. I’d LOVE to have a voucher, but that’d mean government involvement which would defeat the whole purpose for sending there there to begin with!!

That’s a point I’ve made over and over – we cannot surrender control of our Catholic schools to the state.

What we need is bishops to recognize how important our Catholic schools are, and to motivate us to support them.

 

[cynic]

Name any state or city that has a voucher law that relinquishes ownership of the public schools, or makes the teachers and staff not public employees.

Apologies I thought you were advocating privatising education , because this is what politicians on the right want to see happen here (New Zealand). The fees of these schools would not be capped, the result is a similiar system as if they were private - high quality education from schools that charge fees well above the subsidy from any vouchers and the reverse… Supply and demand, the better the school, the higher the demand from parents, the higher they can make their fees and the less likely low income people can afford a ‘good’ school.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Apologies I thought you were advocating privatising education , because this is what politicians on the right want to see happen here (New Zealand).

Why on earth would I want to change the education system in New Zealand?

The fees of these schools would not be capped, the result is a similiar system as if they were private - high quality education from schools that charge fees well above the subsidy from any vouchers and the reverse… Supply and demand, the better the school, the higher the demand from parents, the higher they can make their fees and the less likely low income people can afford a ‘good’ school.

If you can’t figure out how to avoid that, you might consider asking the British to take over again.

 

[c659smith]

I am quite cofused with this whole issue and vouchers would be nice because they save me money.

However I do have a child in Catholic school and find that it to be very expensive. In grade school I am paying over 4000.00.

Now it would seem to me that this price is out of the range of most muiltiple children Catholic families.

When I was in Catholic school in the seventies I think it was 50.00 a year but Mom and Dad had to paticipate in Church activities and a percentage of their income went for the Sunday basket.

In an age where Catholic Education and what happened to our rich traditions and youth is always a discussion, well in the United States it comes with a price tag today and an expensive one.

Why did we get rid of our Nuns in the Educational System?
there are as many Nuns today as there was in the seventies when I went to school.

If we are interested in taking care of our Catholic Children today then have a percentage 7 to 10 % of income from the teachers we hire and the parents to go to the church and offer the Catholic Education to our children at no charge.

We are the most richest Church yet we squander the education of our youth and CCD is not the answer–1 hour a week for 16 to 20 weeks a year does not make a good practicing Catholic.

We fail to evangelize those most precious “our very own”

 

[vern_humphrey]

You post explains why we have to stop thinking of financing education as only the parent’s responsibility, and start recognizing the whole Church must take on the responsibility. Our bishops must lead – they must tell all of us in no uncertain terms that we – every one of us, even those with no children in school – must whole-heartedly support our Catholic schools.

There should be a second collection every month for Catholic schools, and we should strain ourselves to give all we can.

 

[melensdad]

We are the most richest Church yet we squander the education of our youth and CCD is not the answer–1 hour a week for 16 to 20 weeks a year does not make a good practicing Catholic.

We fail to evangelize those most precious “our very own”

You post explains why we have to stop thinking of financing education as only the parent’s responsibility, and start recognizing the whole Church must take on the responsibility. Our bishops must lead – they must tell all of us in no uncertain terms that we – every one of us, even those with no children in school – must whole-heartedly support our Catholic schools.

There should be a second collection every month for Catholic schools, and we should strain ourselves to give all we can.

In Chicago, I believe the Cardinal put forth a rule that the schools must be self-supporting. Consequently dozens of Catholic schools have closed.

My parish is not in the Archdiocese of Chicago and the parish does support the school, but the school is always on the brink of closing down each year. We have a “second” envelope and unfortunately very few parishoners use it. My daughter no longer goes to the Catholic school in our parish, but my donation checks still to to the school. I also pay out of parish tuition to the Catholic school she attends (our school only has elementary grades and she is in JR high), but we qualify for ‘in parish’ rates. I feel that by paying the out-of-parish rates that we are “donating” via tuition. Most of the other parents think we are nuts to pay the out-of-parish rate but it seems like the ‘right’ thing to do. So we are donating to 2 schools at 2 parishes.

I wish more people saw the TOTAL value that Catholic education provides

 

[vern_humphrey]

In Chicago, I believe the Cardinal put forth a rule that the schools must be self-supporting. Consequently dozens of Catholic schools have closed.

That sounds like sabotage.

My parish is not in the Archdiocese of Chicago and the parish does support the school, but the school is always on the brink of closing down each year. We have a “second” envelope and unfortunately very few parishoners use it. My daughter no longer goes to the Catholic school in our parish, but my donation checks still to to the school. I also pay out of parish tuition to the Catholic school she attends (our school only has elementary grades and she is in JR high), but we qualify for ‘in parish’ rates. I feel that by paying the out-of-parish rates that we are “donating” via tuition. Most of the other parents think we are nuts to pay the out-of-parish rate but it seems like the ‘right’ thing to do. So we are donating to 2 schools at 2 parishes.

I wish more people saw the TOTAL value that Catholic education provides

You and me both – what more important Social Justice program does the Church have?