Join the Voucher Discussion!
I’ve posted a video and transcript of my voucher debate with Utah PTA President Carmen Snow on Politicopia. If nothing else, I think people might appreciate the civil tone of the exchange. It was a lot of fun.
We’ve made good headway in revamping Politicopia, and the site should be about ready to host some good discussion. We’ve done some things on Politicopia (and are in the process of doing some other things) to hopefully promote positive discussion – because, heaven knows, we need more substance, and not just more volume, in our political discussions.
We’ve made good headway in revamping Politicopia, and the site should be about ready to host some good discussion. We’ve done some things on Politicopia (and are in the process of doing some other things) to hopefully promote positive discussion – because, heaven knows, we need more substance, and not just more volume, in our political discussions.
posted by steve u. at 10/25/2007
Subscribe
15 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
Great blog here. Thanks for posting the videos on the Discussion site. They were a lot of help for my team project on Vouchers. I'm a BYU MPA student, and will be participating in the conference call (with Kiley) next Tuesday. Thanks.
The anti-voucher forces repeat over and over that school vouchers in any form are evil because the current voucher bill is flawed, inclear, and uncertain. Public education has demonstrataed all those qualities since it inception and is getting worse. If those qualities are fatal, how dare the self proclaimed advocates of publication show their faces? It appears that the only sincere advocates of public education in this fight are, in fact, the voucher proponents. Voin Campbell.
I look forward to talking with the group, Matt!
Hey Steve,
Any word on the numbers behind that 1% switcher rate you mentioned?
Thanks,
Don
Shall I assume that no information is forthcoming regarding your claim that this voucher program will break even with just a 1% switch rate?
Steve,
What about those illegal immigrants currently residing in Utah? Do they qualify for a voucher? They are in our public schools, right; and if they qualify for public schooling than I could logically assume that they also qualify for a voucher scholarship. Is that correct?
Also, the requirements for proof of income in order to receive a voucher leave room for administrative discretion. It looks like the board will use Tax Return information from the previous year, but what about new residents? What about people who are currently un/underemployed? Their Tax Returns are not representative of their current situation? Same goes for vice versa. Just some thoughts.
One more...
If the Voucher Bill doesn't pass, and a shame if it doesn't, what will be done to better educate the public in the future? The idea of Vouchers and School Choice isn't going away.
Matt,
The public is well educated on the subject. That's why Referendum 1 will go down in flames.
Steve,
I'm still waiting for some word on how that 1% switch rate will lead to the voucher program breaking even.
The 1% switch rate is a no-brainer that's easy enough to simply ballpark. You don't need the analyst.
It's this plain: 3% of Utah students attend private school. If over the next cohort we incrementallly work up to giving each of them a voucher of around 1/3 the cost of a public education, then to recoup those costs all it would take is the 2/3 savings from roughly an additional 1/3 of that total amount of kids switching from public schools. That's about 1% of public school students. Any more kids switching is a huge savings to the state for each kid.
The mistake the analyst made was assuming less than 3000 switchers over 13 years. Fact is, tens of thousands will switch, as evidenced by the 30,000 who switched to charter schools over the last six years. Even more will switch now that people can actually find out where all the private schools, are and how dirt cheap most of them become with a voucher, as shown here: http://www.affordableprivateschools.com
Daniel,
That's some pretty poor math you've done there. Let's apply some real numbers to your scenario and see how it turns out, shall we?
Let's assume a base private student population of 15000, a $6000 cost for public education which leaves us with $2000 for the average voucher (1/3) and $4000 for the savings (2/3).
If all private school students receive a voucher, plus the one third who are switchers on top of that (5000) thats 20000 vouchers total. 20000*$2000=$40 million for the cost of the vouchers.
Those 5000 switchers will "save" $20 million under your scenario, but that still leaves a net cost of $20 million per year to Utah taxpayers.
Sorry buddy, no oreos for you.
Not that it matters anymore, but the flaw in your formula is in assuming that the average cost of the private school vouchers for those currently attending private school is the same as those switching. Fact is, a high percentage of current private school students (not switchers) would qualify only for the $500 voucher due to their income, not the average $2000 voucher of the switchers. This lowers the cost vouchers for current private school students dramatically, and lowers the break-even point proportionately.
I believe Steve already mentioned this earlier... even though it's all moot at this point.
Daniel,
You're the one that used the "1/3 of the cost of public education" figure for the cost of vouchers for the base private student population. Furthermore, you didn't even factor in the cost of vouchers for the switchers in your scenario. You started with a flawed application of the formula to determine the net fiscal effect. The numbers clearly show how far off you were.
If you want to start breaking out the voucher amounts for switchers and non-switchers, that's fine, but don't tell me I'm wrong when I was using your assumptions. If we apply a smaller overall voucher to non-switchers, the cost of vouchers for switchers would go up (because most would be lower income, right?) and the relative "savings" from switchers would go down.
Any way you want to look at the numbers, the 1% switchers leading to savings just doesn't add up (unless there are some other assumptions to go along with the switch rate as well.) That's why I've been asking Steve for a couple of weeks now what the underlying assumptions are behind his 1% number. I find it incredible that someone can just throw out a number and then have nothing to back it up. This is why Referendum went down on Tuesday; the answers from the pro-voucher crowd have been misleading, incorrect or just non-existent from the get go.
I can see now why Steve never repsonded to you. It's impossible to debate these things with someone with an axe to grind.
See ya next time.
LOL.
Funny how my stating the facts is "having an axe to grind." What's my axe, truth? Yeah, I guess I sort of want to flesh out the truth when it comes to taxpayers money.
Of course, now that your post has been clearly shown to be flawed you'll just pick up your toys and run home. Fine by me if you don't want to discuss things rationally. If you want to use flawed math "next time" then I'll definitely see you then as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home