Vouchers Q & A
My local PTA sent a piece home with the kiddies today on vouchers. Overall I liked it. It made a clear nod toward neutrality -- which is nice in light of the increasingly silly rhetoric that is flying around on the issue. Thank you, local PTA.
For one point of reference, the flyer referred people with questions about the bill to this site. So, go ahead, fire away. (I have a dozen trials scheduled in October, but I'll do my best to keep up). To help myself out a bit, I'll refer you to some robust online debates we had during the session -- here, here, here, and here.
The PTA flyer also referred people HERE for the bill's text (which also should include Rep. Last's clean-up bill), HERE for pro-voucher arguments, HERE for anti-voucher arguments, and HERE for voter registration info.
As the flyer concludes, "Do your part, be informed and get out and vote!" And, for the record, I don't know how Brigham would vote on the issue -- but I'm going to be very suspicious, if he does vote.
For one point of reference, the flyer referred people with questions about the bill to this site. So, go ahead, fire away. (I have a dozen trials scheduled in October, but I'll do my best to keep up). To help myself out a bit, I'll refer you to some robust online debates we had during the session -- here, here, here, and here.
The PTA flyer also referred people HERE for the bill's text (which also should include Rep. Last's clean-up bill), HERE for pro-voucher arguments, HERE for anti-voucher arguments, and HERE for voter registration info.
As the flyer concludes, "Do your part, be informed and get out and vote!" And, for the record, I don't know how Brigham would vote on the issue -- but I'm going to be very suspicious, if he does vote.
posted by steve u. at 10/04/2007
Subscribe
43 Comments:
I thought dead people only voted in Chicago?
Steve,
I'm curious about one of the figures you cited in the voter information pamphlet for Referendum 1. You state that vouchers only amount to .0025% of the entire education budget. As far as I can tell, this figure is incorrect. The correct figure should be .25% (or .0025 without the percent sign).
Are you already aware of this mistake that has been published and erroneously disseminated to Utah voters? If so, are you planning on taking any steps to make sure the correct information is made widely available?
Thanks.
Don,
You are correct. The number should not have the percentage sign behind it. Thanks for pointing that out.
This can be clarified through media, alt media, and debates. It is important that we discuss the numbers in these settings. We are still battling with the issue that vouchers will "take money away from public ed," when the ledger shows that the reduced amount we would spend on voucher students would leave more money to be spent on students remaining in the public system.
Okay. So the number is incorrect. How did it get there? A simple mistake or deliberately misleading?
You say this "can" be clarified through the media. I want to know if you are going to clarify it through the media. It's your number and it's wrong. Are you willing to put out a simple press release, with no spin attached, stating that the information is incorrect and that it should be .25% or .0025, not .0025%?
Regarding the issue of vouchers leaving more money to be spent in the public school system, I'm curious how you can come to this conclusion when the Legislature's own impartial analysis estimates that vouchers will be a net cost to taxpayers when fully implemented.
I've read through some of the comment threads from your earlier posts and several people have asked where and how you got your number stating that vouchers would save 1.4 billion dollars while only costing 300 million, therefore saving 1.1 billion overall. I didn't ever see an answer to that question . . . so I'm asking it again.
Thanks,
Don
Steve,
One more question about the .25% number. That is the estimate for the first year of vouchers only, correct?
Thanks again,
Don
According to my calculations, the private school voucher plan could save $1 billion, but only if about 180,000 students switched from public to private schools (i.e. a third of all the students in Utah public schools). That's using PCE's assumption that each switcher would represent a $5500/year saving-- which is debatable.
There are only 16,000 private school students in Utah now. The massive switch is hard to imagine.
richard,
To be fair, I do believe the 1.1 or 1.4 billion dollar figures are for the 13 years required to fully implement the vouchers. Using your figure of 180000 students, that would be roughly 14000 students per year, or almost double the current private school population. This would still be a hard number to obtain, at least according to the Legislature's own analysis.
Of course, that doesn't take into account the amount that it will cost to pay for vouchers for those who would go to private schools anyway, so in your scenario, the savings would end up being less than a billion dollars.
Your point stands though, that as far as anyone can tell, for there to be anywhere near the amount of savings represented by Steve, PCE, Lavar Webb and others, the number of switchers has to be much higher than what is estimated.
That is why I'm curious to see the math behind Steve's claim that vouchers could provide a 1.1 billion dollar net gain, ostensibly to be spent on students remaining in the public school system.
Don,
I submitted the rebuttal; so, the percent symbol must have come from me. No intent to mislead. Just a mistake. I learned the afternoon the rebuttal was due that I was doing it, instead of another legislator. I’m very happy to clarify the matter.
The legislative fiscal analysis just looks at costs, not the avoided costs. If you look at my 8/13/07 post, I go over some fiscal issues there. For each switcher, the avoided costs exceed the cost of the voucher – that means a savings to the system. If the costs reach $300 million, that means there are a lot of switchers (and, necessarily, a lot of savings). The total savings amount is reached by multiplying the amount of savings per student (the amount spent per student minus the cost of the voucher) times the number of switchers. The total costs are then subtracted from that total savings amount, and that is the amount of money that is left in the system to be spread among the remaining students.
Vouchers are available to students who are not currently enrolled in private schools. That basically includes (1) students switching from public to private, (2) students moving into the state, and (3) young students beginning their education. Thus, regarding the third group, we add a new grade every year for 12 years. Accordingly, the initial cost (9.5 million) will be increased by 11 additional grades as the program is rolled out. The final percentage of the budget depends on what happens to the overall education budget. (My best estimate would be .03 or so; but, again, that’s just the cost; the remaining money would go further to serve a somewhat reduced number of students in the public system).
RM,
The $1 billion number represents the overall effect, if the costs were $300 million. I agree with you that we won't have that many voucher recipients. Voucher opponents routinely use the $300 million number for costs. That's where it came from.
Steve,
Fair enough on the mistaken figure. Are you going to submit a press release?
The LFA doesn't just look at costs. The impartial analysis in the voter information pamphlet outlines both costs and savings. In the last year of implementation costs are estimated to be 71 million and savings anywhere from 11 million to 28 million. That leaves a best case scenario of vouchers being a net cost of $43 million a year once the program is fully implemented.
Why do voucher opponents use the 300 million dollar figure for the cost of vouchers over the implementation period? Because that is what is estimated to be the net cost over 13 years.
Steve, it is just plain not factual to say, "If the costs reach $300 million, that means there are a lot of switchers (and, necessarily, a lot of savings)." The costs could be $300 million simply by providing vouchers to those who would go to private schools anyway, regardless of the vouchers. Even if there are no switchers, there will still be plenty of costs.
The fact that vouchers are phased in seems to me to be a boondoggle set up simply to under-represent the true cost of vouchers in the long term. Frankly, the costs during the phase in don't really matter. It's the costs after the program is fully implemented that we should really be looking at.
If it's going to cost taxpayers an extra $43 million a year to subsidize private education, then let's be honest and tell the taxpayers the truth. Then we can start a rational debate about whether the benefits of vouchers (whatever they may be) are worth the extra cost to taxpayers.
The mitigation money is only for switchers so for the next 13 years, each year, one less class level becomes eligible for mitigation money? All Kindergarteners who take advantage of vouchers will not produce mitigation money?
Also, if a student is taking advantage of Utah's open enrollment and switches to a private school and takes a voucher, does the mitigation money go to his or her in boundary school or the one he or she previously attended?
Don,
The analysis does not include local funding (property tax) which provides nearly half of education’s funding. That money is all savings. I’m figuring out what to do about getting out the word on the percentage sign. A press release is a good idea.
Anon.,
I don’t quite follow your questions. Regarding the mitigation money, it is available for 5 years after a student switches. Eventually, that money will stop for some students (after 5 years) and start for others (who switch at that time). Mitigation money goes to districts, not individual schools. For a district to receive the money, the student has to reside in the district and had to transfer from the school district to a private school.
Anon,
Yes, your interpretation of the mitigation money is correct.
My understanding as far as open enrollment students go is that all mitigation money will go to the district where the student resides. The bill actually says that a student has to transfer "from the school district to a private school; and (reside) within the boundaries of the school district." (emphasis added) That could be interpreted to mean that students who are enrolled outside their home school district would not be eligible for mitigation money. Steve, can you provide some clarification on that issue?
The mitigation money to me is really a non-issue for either side on vouchers. It's not going to be enough to really make a difference and it goes away after five years anyway.
Don,
Agreed, on your interpretation of students attending outside their resident district.
Steve,
You say the analysis doesn't include local funding (from property taxes).
This is exactly why I'm asking you to reveal the numbers you've used to come to the conclusion that over 1 billion dollars could be saved by implementing vouchers. What is your assumed switch rate? What funding figure are you using? What's the estimated average voucher amount? If it's true that vouchers will save money in the long run, why won't you share the numbers?
I've done all the calculations using the pro-voucher Utah Taxpayer Association's number of $7500 in per pupil spending and it still doesn't add up to savings. Any way you look at it the switch rate has to be much higher than it is estimated to be just to break even.
Here's some analysis I posted on Frank Staheli's blog, simpleutahmormonpolitics.com:
For all of my calculations I’ve been using the Legislative Fiscal Analyst’s average voucher figure of approximately $2000 and the Utah Taxpayer Association’s figure of $7500/student for public education. With these assumptions each student who switches from public education to private (switchers) will save the state $5500.
In order for a fully implemented voucher system to just break even, the number of switchers must be just over 36% relative to the total number of private school students.
Here’s how the numbers break down for a total private student population of 30000.
30000 x $2000=$60,000,000 total voucher amount.
30000 x .3636 x $5500=$59,994,000 total savings from “switchers”.
This gives us a net loss of $6000, basically a wash.
Now, to get to a private school population with 36% switchers, the actual switch rate relative to the base private school population is about 57%. (19092 base population + 10908 switchers = 30000 total population). A 57% switch rate is simply unrealistic in the real world. In fact, it is almost four times the 14.5% rate estimated by the LFA.
Don’t forget, this wildly unrealistic switch rate is just to get us to the break even point. In order to get any type of real savings from the voucher program, the switch rate would have to be even higher. For comparison’s sake, a 100% switch rate would lead to a net savings of about 28.6 million. Again, this is hardly a windfall for taxpayers or public schools and it is based on a virtually unattainable number of switchers.
Steve, I would welcome any comments you have on the numbers I have presented here. Please feel free to point out where my numbers are so far off that vouchers will actually save hundreds of millions of dollars.
Here is one flaw in your analysis Don. Your diluting the savings of vouchers by 36%. Remember students already attending private school are ineligible to receive vouchers, therefore 100% of the hypothetical voucher receiving population are switchers. You calculation should be
30,000 switching voucher recipients
x2,000 vouchers each switcher\
$60,000,000 in vouchers distributed
30,000 switchers
x5,500 Savings per switcher
$165,000,000 in voucher savings
pramaphil,
I'm speaking of a fully implemented system where all private school students are eligible to receive vouchers. The switchers are those who would have gone to public schools without the voucher.
Are you aware that the current private school population is around 17000? Do you really think 30000 are going to be convinced to switch? That is the wildly optimistic switch rate I'm talking about. The Legislature's own fiscal analysts have estimated the switch rate to be about 14.5% relative to the current private school population. They are estimating somewhere around 2000 to 2500 switchers in year one and next to none from there on out (because most switchers will switch the first year they are eligible to receive a voucher).
Here's a link to the LFA's fiscal note model for your reference.
No Don, I'm simply taking your math and pointing out where your formula is flawed.
Well, you're wrong about my math. How can you assume that all the vouchers will go to switchers? It's just not reality.
Do some math using some figures that deal in reality and then get back to me. Please show me how my figures are wrong when dealing with a fully implemented voucher system.
pramahaphil,
You took my math and changed the underlying assumptions behind it in order to make your point. That's completely disingenuous and sadly typical of pro-voucher rhetoric.
Is it or is it not true that only kids who just moved in to the state, kids in public school, and kids entering kindergarten are the only ones eligible to receive vouchers? It is true.
PS Your population is what was wrong. You took 100% of the private school population and gave all vouchers, than you only attributed savings to 36% of the total voucher recipients. If my above statement is true (altogether.... it is!)Than you my anonymous friend are the one manipulating the numbers in a disingenuous fashion.
pramahaphil,
Your question is irrelevant to the argument I am making. You are clearly not understanding what I am saying. I am speaking of a fully implemented voucher system. You do understand that after 13 years all private school students will be eligible for vouchers, don't you? (This is of course theoretical based on all private schools accepting vouchers 13 years down the road. That probably won't happen, but the premise is sound for illustrative purposes.)
It doesn't matter what happens next year, or the year after. I'm using a hypothetical to show how vouchers will not save money once the program is fully implemented. The 36% of the population is the number of private school students who would otherwise go to public schools without the voucher (i.e. "switchers"). These are the only students you can honestly say are saving the system any money because they are the only ones that would cost taxpayers any money if there were no vouchers.
Still with me?
When you add in the costs associated with subsidizing private school students who would go to private school regardless of receiving a voucher (no cost to public school there, right?) then vouchers end up costing taxpayers money in the long run.
Do you understand?
PS, did you read the fiscal note information I linked to earlier? Do you see where the projected number of switchers is next to nothing the second year, but the number of voucher students still goes up by about 800? That's because every year a whole new grade's worth of private students becomes fully eligible to participate in the voucher program until the program is fully implemented (there's that phrase again) after 13 years.
At that time, you'll probably have a relatively stable base of students who could be considered "switchers". That's the 36% I'm talking about in my hypothetical scenario justfor taxpayers to break even. The LFA is estimating the amount of "switchers" to be much lower (around 14.5%) and that's why vouchers will more than likely end up costing Utah taxpayers in the long run.
Questions?
Hi Steve,
I'm still wondering if you're willing to share the figures used to determine that vouchers could save over a billion dollars, ostensibly to be used for public education, over the first 13 years of the voucher program.
I'd really like to compare it to the Legislature's own fiscal analysis.
Thanks,
Don
Don,
No doubt, you dominated this thread. Take a minute from your rapid fire and read the comments of others. Your answer is in there. You may not agree with it, but it's there.
So I'll take that as a "no"; you don't want to answer the question that others have posed to you previously but as of yet has gone unanswered.
I've read all the other comments, and no, the answer is not in there.
What is your assumed switch rate? What is your assumed average voucher? What is your assumed per pupil spending for public education?
Somehow you're getting to $1.1 billion in savings over 13 years. That's almost 100 million a year. When the Legislature's own fiscal analysts are estimating net costs to taxpayers of at least $43 million during year 13 of vouchers, well, you've got to be using some radically different numbers to end up saving $100 million instead.
I'd just like to see how it happens. Heck, if you can convince me that vouchers really are going to save taxpayers a boat load of money, you might even get me to change my vote. (I've posted many times in other forums that I'm not necessarily against vouchers philosophically, but that I do think this voucher law is bad public policy and should be voted down.)
Don,
As I clearly stated, I think the way voucher opponents throw around the $300,000,000 number is nonsense. It is thrown out simply as a scare tactic.
I have heard the number thrown out in two ways. First, it is tossed out as an annual cost upon full implementation. This is almost too ridiculous to even discuss. Nonetheless, if that crazy number is to be used, the math is simple. In such a situation, around 80% of all voucher recipients would have to be switchers. Because the average voucher amount will be approximately $2,000, the ridiculous annual amount of $300,000,000 would mean about 120,000 to 130,000 switchers (150,000 minus a "natural" private school population of 20- to 30,000 students). Thus, the scary (and silly) $300,000,000 per year number thrown out by voucher opponents would mean an annual savings of over $660,000,000.
Second, the number is tossed out as a cummulative number (over the 13-year rollout) -- adding all 13 years to reach the total. Fine. But voucher opponents never couple that big number with cummulative savings.
Using a savings amount per switcher of $5,500 (the approx. annual cost of educating a Utah student -- $7,500 -- minus the average amount of the voucher -- $2,000), the first year alone costs $9.9 million but saves $14 million (2,559 switchers, which do not include the 1,721 students already attending private schools from impoverished families). Until those switchers graduate, that savings also compiles annually. (What would that be from just those initial switchers -- another $12.8 million the next year, $11.6 million the next, $10.4 the next, etc.?). Further, those savings are increased by the savings generated by new switchers.
If we look at other choice options that have been offered to Utahns (and every single one opposed by the same cast that is now opposing vouchers), like Charter Schools, the eagerness for choice far exceeds expectations. Thus, I think it is very reasonable to assume that new capacity (i.e., schools) will come on line and that the number of switchers annually will exceed several hundred students when the program is well under way.
Don? Are you there Don?
Yes, Josh, I'm here. Do you have a question?
Steve,
Okay, I'm willing to let you have the last word, more or less, on the voucher cost/benefit issue. I must point out though that you have still not answered my specific question about your assumed switch rate used to come up with the billion dollar savings. I think that is a very important figure needed to compare your analysis to that of the LFA.
Regardless, if people want to hope along with you that vouchers will save money once fully implemented, that is their prerogative. I think I have clearly shown, using valid statistical models, how that is unlikely to happen.
I would also just like to point out that I have never used the $300 million figure as a yearly cost. I also have never seen or heard it used by a voucher opponent in such a manner. If I do, I will let them know how silly it is, just as I try to point out how silly some of the pro-voucher arguments are. When it comes right down to it, we are all better served when the numbers are presented in as valid a statistical model as possible.
I, too, wish the discussion would focus on the real issues.
I did give you the number of switchers for the billion dollar number. It's a derivative of the silly $300,000,000 cost number. That would mean about 130,000 switchers. Multiplied by the $7,500, that comes to the billion dollar number. I netted those total savings against costs, to come up with the $660,000.
But, it's a silly discussion. There will never be that many switchers. My guess, over the next 15 years, is that we'd have around 10,000 switchers (and several new schools to greet them). But, as has been shown with other choice opportunities, that guess might significantly undershoot the mark.
Wait a second. Are you now admitting that the $1 billion number is a completely unrealistic figure based simply on the unrealistic presentation of "someone" else?
I'm not buying it Steve. The $1.4 billion and $1.1 billion numbers are mainstays of the pro-voucher argument. Are you really going to tell me that they are only a response to some unnamed voucher supporters who have no idea what they're talking about saying that vouchers would cost $300 million per year? If so, that certainly is not the way it is being presented by voucher supporters. Every time a voucher supporter mentions the $1.4 billion or $1.1 billion in supposed savings they present it as if it is inevitable. (Well, I shouldn't say "every" time. You are the noted exception. You are the only voucher supporter I have ever seen claim that this number isn't really true.)
As for the 10000 switchers you think there will be over the next 15 years, I think my analysis of a hypothetical private school population of 30000 (which included 10908 switchers) pretty much puts to rest the case that vouchers are somehow guaranteed to save taxpayers any significant amount of money once the program is fully implemented.
You may be right, the number could end up being much higher than that. But if that's the case, why are we paying the Office of Legislative Fiscal Analysis? I'm willing to bet they aren't that far off . . . ;)
Sorry, "unnamed voucher supporters" should be "unnamed voucher opponents" in my last comment.
Steve, I have to cry bull. I've never heard anyone throwing out $300M per year. There is absolutely nothing from Utahns for Public Schools that suggests such a ridiculous number. As for anecdotal examples, I bet I've had as many voucher discussions as you have and I've never heard any numbers cited remotely close to this.
The raw data from the Legislative Fiscal Analyst is sufficient. Like a BYU Religion Professor told me, always go to the primary sources.
The costs outweigh the savings, period. The Legislative Fiscal Analyst would have to be off by hundreds of millions of dollars just to break even.
Let's get real.
Craig J.,
Okay. Let's get real. And specific. Do you dispute my numbers from the first year, where savings clearly exceed costs? Do you dispute my numbers from the second year, where savings clearly exceed costs? At what point do you think costs will exceed savings, and what switch rate do you use to reach that conclusion?
LOL, I just can't help but laugh at you Steve. You're asking Craig for numbers that you yourself have been unwilling to provide. This is just too much . . .
As for your first year savings estimate, I'm willing to give you that one (I can't answer for CraigJ ;) ). But as far as I can tell, you didn't provide any cost data for year two, so I don't really know if you've estimated net savings or not. However, if we use the LFA's fiscal model, it looks like by about year two the program is just about breaking even. I'd say by year three we start incurring actual net costs to taxpayers.
BTW, after year one, there won't be a significant number of switchers to add to the savings from year one. If people are so dissatisfied with their public school experience, why would they wait until year two to switch? Oh, you might have a few here and there that do switch in subsequent years, but you'll also have a few who switch back to public schools every year. It's even possible that the number switching back could far exceed any new switchers, especially if we get the inevitable fly-by-night operations propping up to scam parents into thinking they're better off in some fancy new private school. To say which will be higher would be a guessing game at best, so, to be fair let's just call it a wash.
Even if we estimate, as I did in my analysis, an ongoing switcher population of 36.36% (which is four times more than the LFA's estimate) vouchers will only be a break even proposition once they are fully implemented.
What did you say your assumed switch rate is again Steve? I must have missed it. ;)
Rep.Urquhart and all others,
As I read the bills, the children who will be eligible for vouchers the first year include:
All new kindergarten students,
All students who move into Utah after Jan. 1, 2007,
All students who were in public schools on Jan 1,2007,
All students who's "parents had an annual income less then or equal to 100% of the income eligibility guideline in the calendar year immediately preceding the school year for which a scholarship is sought", HB 148, lines 98-100.
Since the bill says the students must meet one or more of those guidelines, any current private school student who qualifies for a voucher of $3000 would be eligible to receive the voucher. This is a group of students that the PCE and the Legislators who approve of vouchers are ignoring in all of their analysis. Why? The Legislators were more then willing to bombard us with the sob stories of the parents who are working 3 or 4 jobs to afford private school, but now they are unwilling to say that even though these students are enrolled in a private school they will still be eligible for the voucher. WHY?
Don,
I gave you actual numbers. If you can't follow the conversation, I can't help you.
Cdmom,
What? We mention them, because we care about them. They are accounted for. It is voucher opponents who generally say only rich people will want private options.
Steve,
Okay, got it, you're sticking with the fake numbers to support your claims that vouchers will save over a billion dollars. I just wanted to confirm . . . thanks!
BTW, how's that press release coming along?
cdmom,
The students currently in private schools who qualify to receive a voucher under the income guidelines are included in the Legislature's fiscal analysis.
Here's a link to the fiscal note inputs used by the LFA. In it you'll see that they are estimating 1721 current private school students who will qualify for the voucher.
Frankly, I don't remember seeing anyone denying the fact that these students will be eligible for the voucher. Therefore, just because it's not mentioned often, I don't think you can attribute this to any nefarious intentions.
Nevertheless, I find it comical that Steve just couldn't resist taking his seemingly obligatory swipe at voucher opponents. ;)
Please indulge me. Now we pay nothing for private school students. If Referendum 1 passes and HB 148,174 are implemented, in 13 years taxpayers will subsidize all Utah private school students in private schools that accept vouchers. And we save money doing this?
If we don't want to pay for children in public school should we perhaps reconsider birth control?
Anonymous,
If you read my analysis from earlier in this thread you'll see that saving some money under a voucher program actually is a valid mathematical premise.
The problem lies in the fact that in order to just get to the break even point we'll need an ongoing switcher population of between 36% and 37% relative to the total private student population. That requires a switch rate of about 57% relative to the current private school population. BTW, this is all using the pro-voucher amount of $5500 for assumed savings per switcher. This number itself is highly debatable. But I find it easier to just concede the point, as it is not a problem to debunk the pro-voucher math even using their own numbers.
The Office of Legislative Fiscal Analysis has estimated the number of switchers to be only 14.5% relative to the current population. The 14.5% is based on how the price of tuition effects the decision of a parent to switch to a private school. The price elasticity is relative to the cost reduction in the price of tuition due to the voucher amount.
Voucher proponents have been very slick in their propaganda. They bombard the public with simplistic "oreo" commercials, and talk of saving over a billion dollars. Unfortunately, many voters will take what they hear at face value, not realizing that they're only being presented with half of the equation.
When the payments to subsidize those who would go to private schools regardless of the voucher are added in, justifying the fiscal aspect of vouchers becomes a much harder proposition and vouchers themselves become much harder to "sell" to the voters.
One thing I haven't seen or heard about, is that isn't there a Federal "per student" allocation, where the Federal Government pitches in a certain amount per student? How does this relate to the newly reduced enrollment in public schools? How much is that per student, and shouldn't that reduced funding amount be calculated into the overall savings/benefit/non-savings/ non-benefit?
Anyone?
Anonymous,
I believe the federal funding is about $500 per student. I also believe that it is part of the funding received by the schools through the Minimum School Program, which is tied to enrollment numbers. Therefore, if a student leaves, then the federal funding leaves as well.
It doesn't really matter though. Even if I'm wrong, I've already calculated the cost of vouchers using the pro-voucher "savings" of amount of $5500 per switcher, and the numbers just don't add up to being close to saving taxpayers any significant amount of money. In all likelihood, vouchers will end up costing taxpayers more money than they save.
Steve,
Since this is a Q & A thread, I have another question I'm hoping you can answer.
Do you know what the funding figure will be to determine the mitigation money per switcher? I understand that the bill says the mitigation money is to be determined by taking the per pupil funding received by the districts under the Minimum School Program and then subtracting the statewide average voucher amount. What I haven't been able to find an answer to is, what is the per pupil funding figure under the MSP?
I've done some math of my own based on the figures from the MSP information on the State website and I've determined the starting point to be about $4800 per student. Therefore, using the estimated average voucher amount of $2000, each student's mitigation money will be worth about $2800.
Is that about right?
Thanks,
Don
There's been alot of dicussion about assumed switcher rates and the costs to the taxpayers of a fully implemented program. I believe that an important set of facts has been overlooked. I agree with Don that we should consider the long term picture very carefully.
1) All of the students recieving vouchers 20 years from now will recieve a voucher amount that will be a percentage (less than) of whatever the state is then giving to the school districts on a per enrolled student basis. We really have no idea what those figures will be in such a distant future, but we know this: it will cost the state (the taxpayers) less to provide a private school voucher to a student than it will to send that same student to the public school. Why? because that's the way the bill is written.
2) The number of switchers in any given year, now or in 20 years, seems irrelevant to me in terms of the overall tax burden to the people. When a student switches, the state still pays the "public school" cost of that student - part of it in the form of a voucher, the other part of it back to the public system (mitigation money, as it has been called here). This split allocation goes on for five years, after which the state no longer gives the public school system its portion. Hence, for every switcher from now until the end of time, the public schools are going to a) have one less student to educate, and b) have more money per student. The public schools benefit the most when they are eligble for this break for the complete five year period - that is, when the switch is made before the 7th grade. I think it reasonable that most switches will happen in elementary school.
In light of the foregoing, any cost vs savings discussion surrounding switches doesn't make sense from the state's perspective. The state (the taxpayer) pays out the same amount before and 5 years after the switch is made.
3) After the five year period is up, the state (and taxpayer) will then really begin saving money because, as we noted before, the price of a voucher is less than the price of a public education.
4) Any discussion about public schools losing funding needs to consider that this only happens if a) the student doesn't enroll in public school to begin with, or b) the student switches and five years has passed. In either case, the school is no longer educating that student! Seems to me that it would thus be unreasonable to expect funds for that student!
Post a Comment
<< Home