Vouchers and the Cost of Private Schools
A post at DemocracyForUtah concludes that vouchers aren’t a good idea, because they don’t cover the full freight of private school tuition. It is true that vouchers will not cover the full tuition cost at most private schools in the state. However, a few points should be included in the discussion.
The post uses the very expensive tuition at Rowland Hall-St. Marks to argue that private school can be beyond the reach of poor people, even with a voucher. I believe RW-SM is the most expensive school in the State. The gap would not be so big at others; at some, the tuition voucher would cover the full cost.
Most importantly, though, it is not the intent of the vouchers to cover all costs everywhere. The intent is to provide some help. Other costs beyond the amount of the voucher (which also would include transportation and school lunches) will have to be picked up by the parents or by scholarships through the private sector. The end result of expecting parents and the private sector to contribute is that more money flows into educating Utah children without leaning harder on the taxpayers. In many areas of government, such as government, we successfully provide incentives for the private sector to help fund worthwhile activities.
For what it's worth, the voucher would not cover the cost of educating a student at any Utah public school. In other words, the voucher amount is less than the amount of money that would have been spent on each child were he/she to attend the public schools. Regardless whether a child is rich or poor, the avoided costs to the school district are the same. So, yes, even rich people would get a $500 voucher (instead of the $3,000 voucher for the poorest). It takes a lesser incentive to get people with more resources to act.
Lastly, I don’t think poor people will look down their nose at the $3,000. Many parents work very long hours to fund private school tuition for children who were lost in the public system. If it means the parents have to work 400 hours less a year and can coach baseball, help their children with homework, sleep, etc. (or even in some cases – rare though I hope they are – sell less pints of blood), they probably think that’s a pretty good thing.
The post uses the very expensive tuition at Rowland Hall-St. Marks to argue that private school can be beyond the reach of poor people, even with a voucher. I believe RW-SM is the most expensive school in the State. The gap would not be so big at others; at some, the tuition voucher would cover the full cost.
Most importantly, though, it is not the intent of the vouchers to cover all costs everywhere. The intent is to provide some help. Other costs beyond the amount of the voucher (which also would include transportation and school lunches) will have to be picked up by the parents or by scholarships through the private sector. The end result of expecting parents and the private sector to contribute is that more money flows into educating Utah children without leaning harder on the taxpayers. In many areas of government, such as government, we successfully provide incentives for the private sector to help fund worthwhile activities.
For what it's worth, the voucher would not cover the cost of educating a student at any Utah public school. In other words, the voucher amount is less than the amount of money that would have been spent on each child were he/she to attend the public schools. Regardless whether a child is rich or poor, the avoided costs to the school district are the same. So, yes, even rich people would get a $500 voucher (instead of the $3,000 voucher for the poorest). It takes a lesser incentive to get people with more resources to act.
Lastly, I don’t think poor people will look down their nose at the $3,000. Many parents work very long hours to fund private school tuition for children who were lost in the public system. If it means the parents have to work 400 hours less a year and can coach baseball, help their children with homework, sleep, etc. (or even in some cases – rare though I hope they are – sell less pints of blood), they probably think that’s a pretty good thing.
posted by steve u. at 6/07/2007
Subscribe
13 Comments:
Steve,
I find this concern to be the most troubling of all. If I'm poor, how am I supposed to pay for public education even if it is only a couple thousand extra dollars? You consistently say that this bill will help Utah's poor. I can only see it benefitting the rich (even if they do only get a $500 stipend).
Why not make a voucher equal to the amount we currently pay per pupil? If private schools wish to accept state money they must charge the same flat rate ($5,000+). If they wish to charge more than that (e.g. Rowland Hall) they cannot receive state funding via vouchers. Then poor families, just like rich families, can enjoy the benefits of choice in education.
Jon did you read the post? A lower income family would get $3000, at some schools this would cover tuition. How does that not provide choice to a "poor" family?
Steve,
You bring up a great point. The voucher opposition loves to cherry pick their private schools when they talk about vouchers. They also seem to underestimate the poor and their ability and willingness to make sacrifices for their children's future.
In fact, we don't even need to look beyond our state borders to see how poor people would respond to vouchers because Utah already has a successful, privately-funded voucher program called Children First Utah or CFU.
CFU gives out half-tuition vouchers worth only up to $1,800 and yet, it gets thousands of applications from low-income families for the 275 vouchers it gives out every year. To even apply for a CFU voucher, a family must be low-income.
The average CFU family only makes $25,000 a year, receives a $1,600 voucher, and pays $2,000 out of pocket to make up the difference between the voucher and tuition.
My question to the voucher opposition is this: If a $1,600 voucher is attracting applications from thousands of low-income families, then how will a $3,000 voucher not attract thousands more?
And if you still think that a $3,000 voucher isn't high enough, then let's make the top amount even bigger. Let's give them the same amount that would have been spent on them in their local public school.
Other facts to consider:
-49% of students receiving a CFU voucher are minorities.
-Almost half come from single parent homes.
-CFU students are attending nearly 70 schools across the state that charge them on average $3,600 a year in tuition.
All of these things fly in the face of what we hear repeatedly from the voucher opposition, and that's because they often resort to anecdotal evidence rather than real life facts.
And by the way, I got the CFU numbers from their annual report that they send out to supporters.
Thank you for the post, Steve. I am impressed with your positive attitude in all of this. I can't say I've done as good of a job at keeping my cool.
I think Jon has some nice intentions, but his one rate system would mean that once again, only the wealthiest would have the chance to attend the more expensive schools.
Many of the private schools in Utah offer scholarships to their families.
The Catholic schools, for example, base tuition on each family's economic situation, and in a sense, give out scholarships to almost a majority of their students through discounts based on income.
I know other private schools that let parents do work for the school to help cover their kids' tuition costs. If anything, the vouchers would help free up funds at some of the private schools so that they could assist even more low-income families with their tuition costs.
Many times I've heard arguments equating "poor" to "helpless" or "totally dependent." I don't think that's accurate. Poor means low on resources, but possibly not low on drive to get scholarships and perform extra work to provide opportunity for kids. With that perspective, I don't think we'd reach the conclusion that poorer people wouldn't be helped if we don't provide every penny, drive kids to the schools, etc. Poor people can figure out carpools.
Jon,
I would prefer a "backpack" voucher. Utah can appropriate a specific amount for the education of each child. The child, then, can use that money at a normal public school, charter school, or private school. Let each school prove to Utahns that it is the best place to use that money.
None of us should be surprised that Democrats don't think low-income families will take advantage of vouchers.
By its very nature, the welfare state takes a patronizing view of the individual and underestimates his ability to succeed on his own.
Steve,
I like the "backpack" idea. I only worry that we might create a two-tiered educational system in the state, one for the rich and one for the poor. But I think you're idea is on the right track. I appreciate the innovation.
If the voucher is less than the cost of educating a child in the public school system, everyone, including the poor wins. The public school system has no expense burden for the private school other than the voucher itself. The public school system keeps the difference. Net gain for public schools. There may be rational arguements to the contrary but I have yet to see the voucher opponents directly address this arguement. They just ridicule and call names instead. Voin Campbell.
The information on CFU in great. Information like that, that can refute the arguments that this is only a give away to "the rich" will go a long way toward convincing people that vouchers might be a good thing.
Another worry that I would have is that public schools would become more of a "high risk pool" for education.
I work in insurance and worry that with vouchers, private schools will cherry pick the cream of the crop from public schools and those schools will be left with an even larger percentage of those students for whom the cost of educating them is even higher than the average.
The USDA considers it a bargain to pay hog farmers not to raise hogs because that costs the government less that to pay the price subsidies if the market is flooded by too many hogs. The not raisen hog farmers love it and the goverenment thinks it struck a bargain. I might be cheeper still cheaper if the goverment got our of subsidy business and lte the market encourage hog farmers to raise corn for renuable fuel. Does this have anything to do with public education and vouchers? Perhaps.
This is the kind of debate I hope for in the voucher referendum campaign.
Hopefully, there will be well reasoned factual information coming from the other side as well.
Here are the concerns I have about school vouchers. Perhaps, Steve, you can address some or all of them for me. First, I despise the argument that vouchers will reduce class size. With school populations exploding all across the state, class sizes are not going to be reduced. Pro-voucher arguments lead people to believe that will actually happen. Second, I've heard a lot of talk about the schools still getting money for those students that go to private schools for 5 years after a student leaves. If the overall population of the school is not decreasing, will the school still get that money? Third, I personally have a problem with the seperation between church & state and giving tax money to fund private church schools. I don't like ignoring good law under the premise that it benefits everyone. I would really like to hear your opinion and get better facts on the issue.
CFU gives out half-tuition vouchers worth only up to $1,800 and yet, it gets thousands of applications from low-income families for the 275 vouchers it gives out every year. To even apply for a CFU voucher, a family must be low-income.
....
My question to the voucher opposition is this: If a $1,600 voucher is attracting applications from thousands of low-income families, then how will a $3,000 voucher not attract thousands more?
Dave, I'm sorry, but the things you've said are at best mischaracterizations. First of all, you can apply no matter what. There is no pre-applicant weeding out. Second, you seem to imply that the CFU is being flooded with thousands upon thousands of applications. This year they've had a little over 2000. The last detailed annual report I could find on their site was 2004, but it stated about 1000 applications. So consider even those two numbers added: 3000.
Right now, as stated on their website, they have 375 children who received scholarships. Since 2001, 1300 scholarships have been provided. it states that 1500 children are on their waiting list. So assuming their were no other applicants during the other years (which we know there were), that means that a significant number of applicants were not qualified.
Finally, you don't know at all whether or not the people who received scholarships had to come up with funds out of pocket. In fact, from their website, it suggests that they are making use of the Carson Smith Special Needs Scholarship in addition to the CFU scholarship, which can merit up to $6,042 a year. A student can qualify for this over such "special needs" as ADD.
And yes, many schools do have annual tuition under $3000.00. They are almost *all* parochial schools. In fact, well over half of the schools on the list are parochial. So what are we saying? If you're poor and need vouchers, then you must accept religious indoctrination of your children?
If you could post the full 2005 & 2006 annual reports, that would be great. I was unable to find them on the website. It would be interesting also to see if the people it was helping were mainly students with special needs. It would be another striking difference between the CFU and the proposed legislation.
Anyway, there it is.
DS
Post a Comment
<< Home