7 ms·

>> "His parents pulled him out of public school after his behavior deteriorated dramatically and he made what they said was almost no academic progress. They pl

>> "His parents pulled him out of public school after his behavior deteriorated dramatically and he made what they said was almost no academic progress. They placed him in private school, where he made rapid progress, and they sought reimbursement for tuition. They are entitled to that reimbursement if they can prove that the public school failed to provide a free appropriate public education under federal law." Seems like if this is the case for children with special education needs it should apply to all children given how poor the "free" educational system is in many areas in the US.

stinkytaco 10y ago
You've just waded into the voucher debate, congratulations. The argument against this is that if you reimburse private school tuition, you divert money from public schools, thus exacerbating the problem. You also divert money from public schools for no guarantee of better results. This kid did better, but would another? And once you divert public money to private schools, are they obligated to meet the same academic standards? On the other hand, the public schools are bad in places, and it's hard to argue that kids should be the ones in the middle, getting worse results while we sort out the schools.
- magila 10y ago
  The advantage with vouchers is that there is a direct incentive, the parent's desire to see their children succeed, driving the allocation of resources. By comparison, public schools have much weaker incentives. Public school administrators generally only need do enough to avoid being ousted from their appointment or election, while private schools live and die by their enrollment.
  - koolba 10y ago
    The incentive isn't just weaker, it's arguably diametrically against the interests of the children. A teacher's union would lobby for the interests of its members and that would include things like higher teachers' salaries (i.e. less money for the rest of the budget, transportation, activites) and shorter working hours (i.e. shorter school days).
  - sjg007 10y ago
    Nah vouchers will just raise tuition and give more money to private schools. Private school costs 5k say and you get a 5k voucher. Demand increases and they raise tuition to 10k. Voucher is still 5k.
- openasocket 10y ago
  Diving a bit deeper, there's a fundamental debate about whether private schools taking vouchers will perform better than public schools. The essential argument in favor is based around the idea that with a free market and healthy competition we get a better education for less with lots of room to adapt to changing needs. Those who reject vouchers argue that education is not and cannot be a free market in the usual sense. An important property of a free market is the ability for companies to fail: indeed, the majority of startups and small businesses fail. And while it's acceptable for restaurants a grocery stores to come and go, a private school going under has serious consequences. Unless the school goes under in the middle of summer break, all the students will be out of an education for a time. Even if neighboring schools are able to immediately take in all the displaced students, the disruption costs students weeks of productive learning. Also, competition requires people to have different options when choosing a school, but there's no guarantee schools will crop up appropriately, especially if poorer school districts will come with smaller vouchers. Finally, relating back to the article, if the private schools have any choice in which students they take, they will be incentivized to avoid taking students with disabilities, which generally are more costly to educate. The proponent's response to all of this is that these problems can be alleviated with proper regulations, and then we leave the realm of ideology and it becomes a negotiation. Personally, I'm skeptical that a voucher system could be implemented well enough to improve education, though it could come out cheaper, but I don't think it's worth the risk. I'm open to the idea, though, or at least talking about it.
- lancefisher 10y ago
  A voucher would divert money from a public school, but it would also divert a student. If it costs $5,000/year to educate a student at a public school, grant a $3,000 voucher, and the public school would come out ahead since they have $2,000 dollars without a student.
  - alistairSH 10y ago
    That's assuming they keep that $2000. I haven't seen any proposal where that would be the case. More likely is a voucher for $3000 and the $2000 is redirected elsewhere.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > if you reimburse private school tuition, you divert money from public schools, thus exacerbating the problem The total amount of funding for schools hasn't changed. One could inversely argue public-school funding is bad because it reduces money for private schools. Both arguments are tautological. They first assume their system is better, say the other competes for their money, and thusly conclude that funding for their better system should be preserved. (This is not an argument for or against charter schools. I'm just saying the "depletion" argument is silly.) > You also divert money from public schools for no guarantee of better results When properly done, charter schools can outperform public schools [1]. Otherwise, the evidence is mixed. I'd thus argue defaulting to the status quo. Teachers argue the status quo is state education while conservatives argue it's parent choice. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/charter-school-performance-study_n_3493023.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/charter-school-perf...
  - tomcam 10y ago
    Disagree but your post is another wonderful example of civil debate. Thank you.
  - jrm5100 10y ago
    To add to your points, a very important consideration is that charter schools can game the metrics by forcing out students who aren't performing well, while public schools can't turn anyone away. This may be why they seem to improve test scores without making any actual difference [1]. Public schools can use charters to game metrics themselves too [2]. [1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w22502 http://www.nber.org/papers/w22502 [2] https://www.propublica.org/article/alternative-education-using-charter-schools-hide-dropouts-and-game-system https://www.propublica.org/article/alternative-education-usi...
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    I don't think the argument is tautological because right now, the public controls the cost of education and how that cost is allocated by our votes for taxes and bonding and by elections of local school boards. If we opt to increase or decrease that funding, it is based on the assumption that the funding will provide a certain level of education and that we can also elect people that oversee that education. Once you bring private schools into the mix, questions about cost become much more complicated. Can a private school charge tuition beyond the voucher amount? If not, what the point of it being private, isn't it just a public school in everything but public oversight? Right now, if I reject or approve a bonding referendum or vote for a school board member, I am offering my opinion on how a school system is run because my vote has a direct effect on how much money goes to the schools and who oversees that money. But if it goes to vouchers, do I lose that control? So no, I don't think the depletion argument is tautological because we do not have citizen control over how a private school is run, by definition. If they opt to charge more for tuition that the voucher covers, the depletion argument is very real, because people with more money can provide a better education with public subsidies. Even if they cannot do that, we still do not have oversight of those funds.
- mrfusion 10y ago
  So the Supreme Court just created a de facto voucher system?! Or are there limits to their ruling?
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    It only applies to disabled students who are not being adequately educated by their public school.
    - alistairSH 10y ago
      So, the wealthy get vouchers, as they can afford the lawyers and phycologists required to have a child declared disabled and in need of special accommodation?
- Clanan 10y ago
  My favorite response to the voucher debate is that most politicians who are against vouchers... send their children to private schools! (In D.C. at least, where public schools perform very poorly.)
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    Would the elite private schools that they send their kids to be affordable with only the voucher and no extra money? Doubtful. The main point of the debate is not whether some private schools are able to educate better than public schools. It is whether subsidizing private schools will raise the overall quality of education.
    - alistairSH 10y ago
      No, not even close. Tuition at Sidwell Friends is approaching $40k/year [1]. The Lab School (specializes in learning disabled students) is over $40k/year [2]. DC spent about $20k/year per student in 2014. That's among the highest spending level in the nation [3]. I believe that figure is closer to $25k/year in 2016. About a third of the states spend less than half per student than DC [4]. [1] http://www.sidwell.edu/admissions/tuition-and-fees/index.aspx http://www.sidwell.edu/admissions/tuition-and-fees/index.asp... [2] https://www.labschool.org/page/admissions/tuition-and-fees https://www.labschool.org/page/admissions/tuition-and-fees [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-states-that-spend-the-most-and-the-least-on-education-in-one-map/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-... [4]http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-educa...
  - alistairSH 10y ago
    The public schools in the parts of DC, Virginia, and Maryland where these politicians live are some of the best in the country. They don't send their kids to Sidwell Friends because Woodrow Wilson is mediocre, they send their kids there because it provides networking with other affluent and influential families and because it provides a certain amount of isolation from the proles.
- tomcam 10y ago
  Perfect, judgment-free description of an emotionally charged debate. I cant tell what side you're in, which is the exact right thing for this particular post.
- protomyth 10y ago
  > The argument against this is that if you reimburse private school tuition, you divert money from public schools, thus exacerbating the problem. Well, if I do poorly at my job, I won't get paid either. Why does a school system get protection that the people paying for it do not? The status quo continues to hurt children. > And once you divert public money to private schools, are they obligated to meet the same academic standards? Well, yes, they should be held to the same standards as our public schools. Heck, if they take tax payer money they should have the same standard of what can be added as extra fees (no BS taking the money and demanding additional tuition). It bugs me that when private social programs are brought in to deal with the worst-of-the-worst[1] and get results that we don't allow our children the same outlet education-wise. FYI: North Dakota has a variation of open enrollment for public schools https://www.nd.gov/dpi/SchoolStaff/SchoolFinance/OpenEnrollment/ https://www.nd.gov/dpi/SchoolStaff/SchoolFinance/OpenEnrollm... 1) I remember the lecture by one group out of Chicago in the 90's (cannot remember the name but they had some good data collection that I took hints from). They had a client burn down their HQ. They still continued even with that individual.
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    > Well, if I do poorly at my job, I won't get paid either. The problem here is always measurement. How do you measure education success? Tests? If we have too many tests, people complain that their kids get too much testing. Grades? That leads to inflation. And so on. I don't think most people will disagree with the need for measurement and performance expectations, it's the details that are the sticking point. > Well, yes, they should be held to the same standards as our public schools. Heck, if they take tax payer money they should have the same standard of what can be added as extra fees (no BS taking the money and demanding additional tuition). But what's the point of the school being private then? They become public school that we don't have elected oversight of. >FYI: North Dakota has a variation of open enrollment for public schools I actually live in North Dakota and know a few families who utilize open enrollment. I have my issues with it because the district foots the costs for transportation, but the key difference is that it is between public schools, not between private and public.
    - 10y ago
- wahern 10y ago
  Yes. The amount of time & money spent on special education programs is _incredible_. Private schools just don't tailor to this student population, and that's a _huge_ reason why private schools, on paper, look better. My wife is an SLP (i.e. "speech teacher", but more recently in management) and has dealt with several cases where very well-off families keep their children in public school so the state picks up the cost of special programs, even for simple stuff like articulation. In some states/counties, some students are entitled to government-funded therapy even if the kid goes to private school during the day! Given everything we know about how _little_ teaching methodology matters to overall, aggregate outcomes--that what matters most, by far, are the home environment and the peer environment--I don't even see the debate about vouchers as remotely legitimate. From a 10,000 foot view, public education has the maximal benefit with minimal _actual_ burdens on other students. Rich kids will tend to go to rich public schools, and that's all that really matters. Poor kids will go to poor schools because poor parents rarely care, nor have the time or wherewithal to care, about those issues. But at least public schools will meet a baseline. Those parents that do care usually are able to make busing arrangements. Basically, all the corner cases can be adequately handled with smaller programs. There's no need to upset the existing structure of public school education. Only bad things can happen. The history of education is littered with foolish ideas. The only obvious good idea was to institute public education in the first place. Beyond that, there are no easy solutions to improving educational outcomes. It's largely a cultural issue, and you can't legislate culture, nor can you throw money at it.
  - alistairSH 10y ago
    Well, you [i]can[i] throw money at it. It won't fix anything, but that won't stop politicians from wasting money on whatever asinine idea betters their re-election odds.
bitwize 10y ago
This sounds a lot like school vouchers, which I thought were the Literal Devil? I'm confused...

stinkytaco 10y ago

You've just waded into the voucher debate, congratulations. The argument against this is that if you reimburse private school tuition, you divert money from public schools, thus exacerbating the problem. You also divert money from public schools for no guarantee of better results. This kid did better, but would another? And once you divert public money to private schools, are they obligated to meet the same academic standards? On the other hand, the public schools are bad in places, and it's hard to argue that kids should be the ones in the middle, getting worse results while we sort out the schools.

magila 10y ago
The advantage with vouchers is that there is a direct incentive, the parent's desire to see their children succeed, driving the allocation of resources. By comparison, public schools have much weaker incentives. Public school administrators generally only need do enough to avoid being ousted from their appointment or election, while private schools live and die by their enrollment.
- koolba 10y ago
  The incentive isn't just weaker, it's arguably diametrically against the interests of the children. A teacher's union would lobby for the interests of its members and that would include things like higher teachers' salaries (i.e. less money for the rest of the budget, transportation, activites) and shorter working hours (i.e. shorter school days).
- sjg007 10y ago
  Nah vouchers will just raise tuition and give more money to private schools. Private school costs 5k say and you get a 5k voucher. Demand increases and they raise tuition to 10k. Voucher is still 5k.
openasocket 10y ago
Diving a bit deeper, there's a fundamental debate about whether private schools taking vouchers will perform better than public schools. The essential argument in favor is based around the idea that with a free market and healthy competition we get a better education for less with lots of room to adapt to changing needs. Those who reject vouchers argue that education is not and cannot be a free market in the usual sense. An important property of a free market is the ability for companies to fail: indeed, the majority of startups and small businesses fail. And while it's acceptable for restaurants a grocery stores to come and go, a private school going under has serious consequences. Unless the school goes under in the middle of summer break, all the students will be out of an education for a time. Even if neighboring schools are able to immediately take in all the displaced students, the disruption costs students weeks of productive learning. Also, competition requires people to have different options when choosing a school, but there's no guarantee schools will crop up appropriately, especially if poorer school districts will come with smaller vouchers. Finally, relating back to the article, if the private schools have any choice in which students they take, they will be incentivized to avoid taking students with disabilities, which generally are more costly to educate. The proponent's response to all of this is that these problems can be alleviated with proper regulations, and then we leave the realm of ideology and it becomes a negotiation. Personally, I'm skeptical that a voucher system could be implemented well enough to improve education, though it could come out cheaper, but I don't think it's worth the risk. I'm open to the idea, though, or at least talking about it.
lancefisher 10y ago
A voucher would divert money from a public school, but it would also divert a student. If it costs $5,000/year to educate a student at a public school, grant a $3,000 voucher, and the public school would come out ahead since they have $2,000 dollars without a student.
- alistairSH 10y ago
  That's assuming they keep that $2000. I haven't seen any proposal where that would be the case. More likely is a voucher for $3000 and the $2000 is redirected elsewhere.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> if you reimburse private school tuition, you divert money from public schools, thus exacerbating the problem The total amount of funding for schools hasn't changed. One could inversely argue public-school funding is bad because it reduces money for private schools. Both arguments are tautological. They first assume their system is better, say the other competes for their money, and thusly conclude that funding for their better system should be preserved. (This is not an argument for or against charter schools. I'm just saying the "depletion" argument is silly.) > You also divert money from public schools for no guarantee of better results When properly done, charter schools can outperform public schools [1]. Otherwise, the evidence is mixed. I'd thus argue defaulting to the status quo. Teachers argue the status quo is state education while conservatives argue it's parent choice. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/charter-school-performance-study_n_3493023.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/charter-school-perf...
- tomcam 10y ago
  Disagree but your post is another wonderful example of civil debate. Thank you.
- jrm5100 10y ago
  To add to your points, a very important consideration is that charter schools can game the metrics by forcing out students who aren't performing well, while public schools can't turn anyone away. This may be why they seem to improve test scores without making any actual difference [1]. Public schools can use charters to game metrics themselves too [2]. [1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w22502 http://www.nber.org/papers/w22502 [2] https://www.propublica.org/article/alternative-education-using-charter-schools-hide-dropouts-and-game-system https://www.propublica.org/article/alternative-education-usi...
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  I don't think the argument is tautological because right now, the public controls the cost of education and how that cost is allocated by our votes for taxes and bonding and by elections of local school boards. If we opt to increase or decrease that funding, it is based on the assumption that the funding will provide a certain level of education and that we can also elect people that oversee that education. Once you bring private schools into the mix, questions about cost become much more complicated. Can a private school charge tuition beyond the voucher amount? If not, what the point of it being private, isn't it just a public school in everything but public oversight? Right now, if I reject or approve a bonding referendum or vote for a school board member, I am offering my opinion on how a school system is run because my vote has a direct effect on how much money goes to the schools and who oversees that money. But if it goes to vouchers, do I lose that control? So no, I don't think the depletion argument is tautological because we do not have citizen control over how a private school is run, by definition. If they opt to charge more for tuition that the voucher covers, the depletion argument is very real, because people with more money can provide a better education with public subsidies. Even if they cannot do that, we still do not have oversight of those funds.
mrfusion 10y ago
So the Supreme Court just created a de facto voucher system?! Or are there limits to their ruling?
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  It only applies to disabled students who are not being adequately educated by their public school.
  - alistairSH 10y ago
    So, the wealthy get vouchers, as they can afford the lawyers and phycologists required to have a child declared disabled and in need of special accommodation?
Clanan 10y ago
My favorite response to the voucher debate is that most politicians who are against vouchers... send their children to private schools! (In D.C. at least, where public schools perform very poorly.)
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  Would the elite private schools that they send their kids to be affordable with only the voucher and no extra money? Doubtful. The main point of the debate is not whether some private schools are able to educate better than public schools. It is whether subsidizing private schools will raise the overall quality of education.
  - alistairSH 10y ago
    No, not even close. Tuition at Sidwell Friends is approaching $40k/year [1]. The Lab School (specializes in learning disabled students) is over $40k/year [2]. DC spent about $20k/year per student in 2014. That's among the highest spending level in the nation [3]. I believe that figure is closer to $25k/year in 2016. About a third of the states spend less than half per student than DC [4]. [1] http://www.sidwell.edu/admissions/tuition-and-fees/index.aspx http://www.sidwell.edu/admissions/tuition-and-fees/index.asp... [2] https://www.labschool.org/page/admissions/tuition-and-fees https://www.labschool.org/page/admissions/tuition-and-fees [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-states-that-spend-the-most-and-the-least-on-education-in-one-map/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-... [4]http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-educa...
- alistairSH 10y ago
  The public schools in the parts of DC, Virginia, and Maryland where these politicians live are some of the best in the country. They don't send their kids to Sidwell Friends because Woodrow Wilson is mediocre, they send their kids there because it provides networking with other affluent and influential families and because it provides a certain amount of isolation from the proles.
tomcam 10y ago
Perfect, judgment-free description of an emotionally charged debate. I cant tell what side you're in, which is the exact right thing for this particular post.
protomyth 10y ago
> The argument against this is that if you reimburse private school tuition, you divert money from public schools, thus exacerbating the problem. Well, if I do poorly at my job, I won't get paid either. Why does a school system get protection that the people paying for it do not? The status quo continues to hurt children. > And once you divert public money to private schools, are they obligated to meet the same academic standards? Well, yes, they should be held to the same standards as our public schools. Heck, if they take tax payer money they should have the same standard of what can be added as extra fees (no BS taking the money and demanding additional tuition). It bugs me that when private social programs are brought in to deal with the worst-of-the-worst[1] and get results that we don't allow our children the same outlet education-wise. FYI: North Dakota has a variation of open enrollment for public schools https://www.nd.gov/dpi/SchoolStaff/SchoolFinance/OpenEnrollment/ https://www.nd.gov/dpi/SchoolStaff/SchoolFinance/OpenEnrollm... 1) I remember the lecture by one group out of Chicago in the 90's (cannot remember the name but they had some good data collection that I took hints from). They had a client burn down their HQ. They still continued even with that individual.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  > Well, if I do poorly at my job, I won't get paid either. The problem here is always measurement. How do you measure education success? Tests? If we have too many tests, people complain that their kids get too much testing. Grades? That leads to inflation. And so on. I don't think most people will disagree with the need for measurement and performance expectations, it's the details that are the sticking point. > Well, yes, they should be held to the same standards as our public schools. Heck, if they take tax payer money they should have the same standard of what can be added as extra fees (no BS taking the money and demanding additional tuition). But what's the point of the school being private then? They become public school that we don't have elected oversight of. >FYI: North Dakota has a variation of open enrollment for public schools I actually live in North Dakota and know a few families who utilize open enrollment. I have my issues with it because the district foots the costs for transportation, but the key difference is that it is between public schools, not between private and public.
  - 10y ago
wahern 10y ago
Yes. The amount of time & money spent on special education programs is _incredible_. Private schools just don't tailor to this student population, and that's a _huge_ reason why private schools, on paper, look better. My wife is an SLP (i.e. "speech teacher", but more recently in management) and has dealt with several cases where very well-off families keep their children in public school so the state picks up the cost of special programs, even for simple stuff like articulation. In some states/counties, some students are entitled to government-funded therapy even if the kid goes to private school during the day! Given everything we know about how _little_ teaching methodology matters to overall, aggregate outcomes--that what matters most, by far, are the home environment and the peer environment--I don't even see the debate about vouchers as remotely legitimate. From a 10,000 foot view, public education has the maximal benefit with minimal _actual_ burdens on other students. Rich kids will tend to go to rich public schools, and that's all that really matters. Poor kids will go to poor schools because poor parents rarely care, nor have the time or wherewithal to care, about those issues. But at least public schools will meet a baseline. Those parents that do care usually are able to make busing arrangements. Basically, all the corner cases can be adequately handled with smaller programs. There's no need to upset the existing structure of public school education. Only bad things can happen. The history of education is littered with foolish ideas. The only obvious good idea was to institute public education in the first place. Beyond that, there are no easy solutions to improving educational outcomes. It's largely a cultural issue, and you can't legislate culture, nor can you throw money at it.
- alistairSH 10y ago
  Well, you [i]can[i] throw money at it. It won't fix anything, but that won't stop politicians from wasting money on whatever asinine idea betters their re-election odds.

bitwize 10y ago

This sounds a lot like school vouchers, which I thought were the Literal Devil? I'm confused...