Parent-Child Negotiations

"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
...

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.

"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.

I happened to look at a page I'd turned back in _Market_Education_
_The_Unknown_History_ and stumbled back across something I'd forgotten about
that is relevant to the segregation/integration discussion. Quoting from
page 277:

"Political scientist Jay Greene and his colleague Nicole Metler recently
attempted to overcome this limitation by looking at the level of integration
in school lunchrooms. Voluntary lunchroom seating patterns, they reasoned,
are a much better indicator of true integration than are overall
school-enrollment figures. What Greene and Mellow found is that private
schools, particularly religious ones, produce much higher racial integration
in their lunchrooms than do public schools."

The citation in the endnotes is:

Jay P. Greene, "Integration Where It Counts: A Study of Racial Integration
in Public and Private School Lunchrooms," paper presented to the American
Political Science Association, Boston, September 1998.

I happened to look at a page I'd turned back in _Market_Education_
_The_Unknown_History_ and stumbled back across something I'd forgotten about
that is relevant to the segregation/integration discussion. Quoting from
page 277:

"Political scientist Jay Greene and his colleague Nicole Metler recently
attempted to overcome this limitation by looking at the level of integration
in school lunchrooms. Voluntary lunchroom seating patterns, they reasoned,
are a much better indicator of true integration than are overall
school-enrollment figures. What Greene and Mellow found is that private
schools, particularly religious ones, produce much higher racial integration
in their lunchrooms than do public schools."

The citation in the endnotes is:

Jay P. Greene, "Integration Where It Counts: A Study of Racial Integration
in Public and Private School Lunchrooms," paper presented to the American
Political Science Association, Boston, September 1998.

"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.

A nice ostrich imitation, but not a logically sound argument. The reality
is that families who send their children to private schools, and people who
donate significantly to them, pay far more than their share of the total
cost of our having an educated society, while those who do not help pay for
private schools pay less than their share. Call it what you will, but in
practical terms, the effect is just as unfair as double taxation whether it
should technically be considered double taxation or not. (I posted a much
longer argument regarding this issue excerpted from my book a few days ago.)

However, tax subsidies
to private schools which the public cannot control would truly
constitute "double taxation" of other taxpayers; in fact, it would be
"taxation without representation." Voucher tax dollars would be spent
according to the policies and directives of a private school board,
not through the decisions of a democratically elected and publicly
accountable public school board.

The same argument could be used to label food stamps "taxation without
representation" since society exercises only very broad control over how the
food stamps are spent.

The reality, of course, is that vouchers have a quality control mechanism
that has generally proven AT LEAST as effective as what the public schools
have. That mechanism is direct accountability to the people who actually
use the product or service (or, for children's products and services, their
parents). There is no logical reason to think that we wouldn't get our
money's worth.

[Generally, schools are funded according to enrollment or actual
attendance. When a parent sends a child to a private school, the local
public school receives no tax funds for that child. No, the parent
does not receive a credit; the taxes are instead diverted to police,
fire, parks, etc.]

Which is why I argue that the current structure takes unfair advantage of
the minority who use and support private schools for the benefit of the
majority, thereby violating the concept of the equal protection of the laws.
The minority is stuck with a cost that would normally be paid by the
taxpayers as a whole, and the majority gets to use the savings for other
purposes.

"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.

A nice ostrich imitation, but not a logically sound argument. The reality
is that families who send their children to private schools, and people who
donate significantly to them, pay far more than their share of the total
cost of our having an educated society, while those who do not help pay for
private schools pay less than their share. Call it what you will, but in
practical terms, the effect is just as unfair as double taxation whether it
should technically be considered double taxation or not. (I posted a much
longer argument regarding this issue excerpted from my book a few days ago.)

However, tax subsidies
to private schools which the public cannot control would truly
constitute "double taxation" of other taxpayers; in fact, it would be
"taxation without representation." Voucher tax dollars would be spent
according to the policies and directives of a private school board,
not through the decisions of a democratically elected and publicly
accountable public school board.

The same argument could be used to label food stamps "taxation without
representation" since society exercises only very broad control over how the
food stamps are spent.

The reality, of course, is that vouchers have a quality control mechanism
that has generally proven AT LEAST as effective as what the public schools
have. That mechanism is direct accountability to the people who actually
use the product or service (or, for children's products and services, their
parents). There is no logical reason to think that we wouldn't get our
money's worth.

[Generally, schools are funded according to enrollment or actual
attendance. When a parent sends a child to a private school, the local
public school receives no tax funds for that child. No, the parent
does not receive a credit; the taxes are instead diverted to police,
fire, parks, etc.]

Which is why I argue that the current structure takes unfair advantage of
the minority who use and support private schools for the benefit of the
majority, thereby violating the concept of the equal protection of the laws.
The minority is stuck with a cost that would normally be paid by the
taxpayers as a whole, and the majority gets to use the savings for other
purposes.

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

How hard, and in how many places, have you looked? Are you really saying
that the peer pressure issue has nothing to do with why some Jews and
Moslems send their children to Jewish or Moslem schools? And if so, how
do you know?

I notice you leave out Hindus (maybe because there are not many Hindu
day schools?) My dil is Hindu. My husband is Jewish. I live in a
very diverse area which includes those of all these religions and more
- Bahai, for example are numerous here. The only proselytizers are
fundamentalist Christians. Some Catholics may proselytize in some
circumstances though not among children as far as I know.

Why does it matter? If anything, your apparent prejudice against religions
that proselytize looks like evidence that you are trying to take advantage
of the current situation to put non-prosylitizing religions in a stronger
position compared with prosylitizing ones. That would violate the
Establishment Clause.