100 Million for Religious Schools

[JoeyKnothead]

Caviar - the article doesn't say exactly how much of this 100 M goes to purely religious schools, but judging by the uproar, it may be quite high.

From the article here.

In a 225 to 195 vote, the House approved H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act. This legislation reauthorizes and expands the Washington, D.C. Federal private school voucher pilot program, under which millions of Federal taxpayer dollars — $100M per year over the next five years — are funneled into a voucher system which favors private religious schools over public and charter schools.

...religious schools, which, under this program, are allowed to discriminate in hiring and enrollment on the basis of religion.

...many schools that accepted voucher students did not meet accreditation and other quality education standards, and student achievement did not show statistically significant improvement.

For debate:

Is this a violation of church / state separation?

Could this money be better spent in improving the schools this program is designed to replace?

In a time when so many politicians, including the Speaker of the House, declare we must tighten the budget, is this a wise expenditure?

Is this just pandering to religious voters?

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning
Please review our Rules.

Do you have the sanity to read the study you keep asking for and stop the silliness?

It is not civil to question the sanity of the other debaters.
______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[nursebenjamin]

Considering how much better faith-based schools do in educating kids over the government monopoly/teacher's unions complex, I'm glad to see this.

Please present supporting data in this regard.

1st challenge.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Note public school SAT scores average 496 at a per pupil cost of $10,614, while Catholic schools (open to students of all faiths) average 533 at a cost of $8,182, and they do it in a violence-free environment. Who could be opposed to that?

There’s so many problems with your Fox News clip… First, random scores between schools is not evidence that one school did better at educating the kids. Kids at one school could have begun that school with certain advantages – such as parents who’ve taught their kids the alphabet or how to read at a young age; parents who sit with their kids at the dinner table and discuss vocabulary; kids who have parents available at home for help with assignments and homework questions; etc… A better study would be to compare the achievement of individual children from one grade to the next.

Private schools are “schools of choice�, meaning that the school has the ability to select their students. Private schools usually accept the brightest individuals and reject the rest. By mom was a special education teacher and this used to really piss her off. Her students, for the most part, couldn’t read or write, and yet their math and reading test scores are still used when comparing the mean standardized test scores among various schools. I’m willing to bet that most Catholic schools do not have a special education program.

Using SAT test scores to compare schools is not fair either. The biggest indicator of how well a student will do on the SATs is family income.[1]. And families who send their kids to private schools are usually wealthier than those who send their kids to public schools.

As for the claim that Catholic schools are cheaper, no supporting evidence is given. This guy on Fox News is just comparing two random schools that he selected. Perhaps the public school provides school buses, free and reduced lunches, provides expensive special education and speech therapy, and a whole lot of other activities that are not discussed. Of course a school that provides transportation is going to cost more than one that doesn’t. Should stuff like this be taken into account?

[East of Eden]

There’s so many problems with your Fox News clip… First, random scores between schools is not evidence that one school did better at educating the kids. Kids at one school could have begun that school with certain advantages – such as parents who’ve taught their kids the alphabet or how to read at a young age; parents who sit with their kids at the dinner table and discuss vocabulary; kids who have parents available at home for help with assignments and homework questions; etc… A better study would be to compare the achievement of individual children from one grade to the next.

So why do parents (many not wealthy) sacrifice to send their kids to private schools? Why do 40% of Chicago Public School teachers send their kids to private schools? Why does Obama, while at the same time cutting off school choice for poor DC parents?

Private schools are “schools of choice�, meaning that the school has the ability to select their students. Private schools usually accept the brightest individuals and reject the rest. By mom was a special education teacher and this used to really piss her off. Her students, for the most part, couldn’t read or write, and yet their math and reading test scores are still used when comparing the mean standardized test scores among various schools. I’m willing to bet that most Catholic schools do not have a special education program.

This objection is vastly overblown, IMHO, but how about we make private schools who participate in voucher programs take the same students public schools take?

Using SAT test scores to compare schools is not fair either. The biggest indicator of how well a student will do on the SATs is family income.[1]. And families who send their kids to private schools are usually wealthier than those who send their kids to public schools.

Circular reasoning. You can just as easily say the biggest factor of good SAT scores is if they go to a private school, which wealthier parents are able to afford. Why not extend that option to poor families also by the use of school vouchers? Kids should be more important than teacher's unions.

As for the claim that Catholic schools are cheaper, no supporting evidence is given. This guy on Fox News is just comparing two random schools that he selected. Perhaps the public school provides school buses, free and reduced lunches, provides expensive special education and speech therapy, and a whole lot of other activities that are not discussed. Of course a school that provides transportation is going to cost more than one that doesn’t. Should stuff like this be taken into account?

You forgot to mention expensive unionized teachers. Catholic schools spend $5,436 for elementary and $10,808.

http://www.ncea.org/news/annualdatareport.asp

This analysis says the real cost of public education ranges from $12,000 in the Phoenix area to $27,000 in the NYC metro area.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11432

It stands to reason that competition will improve results and lower costs.

[Wyvern]

Why does Obama, while at the same time cutting off school choice for poor DC parents?

Maybe Obama thinks it more important to improve the entire system than to siphon funds out of the public system to improve a relatively small number of individuals.

This objection is vastly overblown, IMHO, but how about we make private schools who participate in voucher programs take the same students public schools take?

If it is so overblown why do so few private schools accept special needs students? You do understand that special needs students require much larger expenditures, much smaller class sizes and are added to the test scores for the school don't you? The real question should be what private school in their right mind would volunteer to increase expenses while at the same times decrease performance.

You can just as easily say the biggest factor of good SAT scores is if they go to a private school, which wealthier parents are able to afford. Why not extend that option to poor families also by the use of school vouchers? Kids should be more important than teacher's unions.

You could say that but it wouldn't follow from the data, across the board regardless of what type of school they go to the higher the income bracket of the parents the better outcome for the student.

You forgot to mention expensive unionized teachers. Catholic schools spend $5,436 for elementary and $10,808.

http://www.ncea.org/news/annualdatareport.asp

This analysis says the real cost of public education ranges from $12,000 in the Phoenix area to $27,000 in the NYC metro area.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11432

Did you actually bother reading the analysis from the Cato Institute? Did you notice that private schools were not put under the same analysis? All this analysis did was simply compare total budget versus budget that goes towards students, no different than when charities tell you how much of your money goes towards charitable work and not bureaucracy.

It stands to reason that competition will improve results and lower costs.

Universities have been competing for a long time but costs have not been decreasing nor have results been improving overall. Competition generally doesn't work very well when you have a captive audience, pretty much every state has a mandate to provide education to every child. Heck if all you want to do is improve results and lower costs all you got to do is stop educating the bottom quarter of all students solves your problem easily. Primary schools are not businesses, they are not set up as businesses. You complain now about how much education costs think what having to meet profit projections is going to do to the bottom line.

[East of Eden]

Maybe Obama thinks it more important to improve the entire system than to siphon funds out of the public system to improve a relatively small number of individuals.

So let's make this small number bigger, as the parents desire rather than making their kids captive to the teacher's unions. It doesn't hurt public schools anyway, it saves them money. If it costs a public school district $6K to educate a kid and they give away a $3K voucher, they just saved $3K and don't have to educate that kid.

If it is so overblown why do so few private schools accept special needs students? You do understand that special needs students require much larger expenditures, much smaller class sizes and are added to the test scores for the school don't you? The real question should be what private school in their right mind would volunteer to increase expenses while at the same times decrease performance.

You really think that is the main reason for the discrepancy between public & private school results and costs? BTW, we home-schooled our special needs kid because the public school wasn't cutting it.

You could say that but it wouldn't follow from the data, across the board regardless of what type of school they go to the higher the income bracket of the parents the better outcome for the student.

And I've seen studies that show in Chicago inner city poor kids to better in private schools than similar kids in public schools. Again, why do 40% of Chicago Public School teachers send their kids to private schools?

Did you actually bother reading the analysis from the Cato Institute? Did you notice that private schools were not put under the same analysis? All this analysis did was simply compare total budget versus budget that goes towards students, no different than when charities tell you how much of your money goes towards charitable work and not bureaucracy.

Here's an analysis from Michigan showing private schools being educated at half the cost of public school kids.

http://www.mackinac.org/1118

Universities have been competing for a long time but costs have not been decreasing nor have results been improving overall. Competition generally doesn't work very well when you have a captive audience, pretty much every state has a mandate to provide education to every child. Heck if all you want to do is improve results and lower costs all you got to do is stop educating the bottom quarter of all students solves your problem easily. Primary schools are not businesses, they are not set up as businesses. You complain now about how much education costs think what having to meet profit projections is going to do to the bottom line.

We already know, private schools do it for less, including those for profit. As far as the Universities, if they gave students a voucher to use at any school the student would shop around, similar to how patients with Health Savings Accounts shop around regarding price, unlike the wasteful Medicare system.

The state has an interest in educating kids, it should be irrelevant whether that is done publicly or privately.

[Wyvern]

Maybe Obama thinks it more important to improve the entire system than to siphon funds out of the public system to improve a relatively small number of individuals.

So let's make this small number bigger, as the parents desire rather than making their kids captive to the teacher's unions. It doesn't hurt public schools anyway, it saves them money. If it costs a public school district $6K to educate a kid and they give away a $3K voucher, they just saved $3K and don't have to educate that kid.

First off where is this money coming from? Secondly things don't work that way, the money stated for costs per student go towards things like teacher wages, ancillary staff wages, facilities, textbooks, materials among other things. Just because a student leaves does not mean that money is not spent all the same, all those things previously noted still need to be paid. Schools are not free to shift student populations which your idea would necessitate.

You really think that is the main reason for the discrepancy between public & private school results and costs? BTW, we home-schooled our special needs kid because the public school wasn't cutting it.

It is one reason among many, and if it is not a consideration why is it so few private schools provide special needs education?

And I've seen studies that show in Chicago inner city poor kids to better in private schools than similar kids in public schools. Again, why do 40% of Chicago Public School teachers send their kids to private schools?

Probably for many of the same reasons that 20% of the population of Chicago have left Chicago.

Did you actually bother reading the analysis from the Cato Institute? Did you notice that private schools were not put under the same analysis? All this analysis did was simply compare total budget versus budget that goes towards students, no different than when charities tell you how much of your money goes towards charitable work and not bureaucracy.

Here's an analysis from Michigan showing private schools being educated at half the cost of public school kids.

http://www.mackinac.org/1118

This was not an analysis, it is a proposal for legislation in Michigan. I liked how it began by saying the costs for private education is half that of public goes on to mention that private education has a lot of additional costs not included in the tuition and then at the end states that private education costs half as much as public. If this is your idea of an analysis...

We already know, private schools do it for less, including those for profit. As far as the Universities, if they gave students a voucher to use at any school the student would shop around, similar to how patients with Health Savings Accounts shop around regarding price, unlike the wasteful Medicare system.

Students do shop around and yet costs continue to skyrocket at universities. This gets back to your idea that the cost of education is nothing but moving dollars about and the facilities and educators are readily available. With the continually expanding population and the increasing need for a better educated workforce colleges are hard pressed to keep up with the demand for their services. Adequate facilities take time and are very expensive and qualified college educators are in short supply.

The state has an interest in educating kids, it should be irrelevant whether that is done publicly or privately.

The current system consists of a mix between public and private schools already. What mystifies me is why a conservative such as yourself is advocating increasing welfare to support a private enterprise.

[East of Eden]

First off where is this money coming from?

The parents who would use the voucher.

Secondly things don't work that way, the money stated for costs per student go towards things like teacher wages, ancillary staff wages, facilities, textbooks, materials among other things. Just because a student leaves does not mean that money is not spent all the same, all those things previously noted still need to be paid. Schools are not free to shift student populations which your idea would necessitate.

Student populations are never static.

Probably for many of the same reasons that 20% of the population of Chicago have left Chicago.

Yes, liberal policies. You're not answering the question, your thesis is there really is no difference, yet those who know the Chicago Public Schools best avoid them.

This was not an analysis, it is a proposal for legislation in Michigan. I liked how it began by saying the costs for private education is half that of public goes on to mention that private education has a lot of additional costs not included in the tuition and then at the end states that private education costs half as much as public. If this is your idea of an analysis...

No contradiction there, total costs include more than tuition.

The current system consists of a mix between public and private schools already. What mystifies me is why a conservative such as yourself is advocating increasing welfare to support a private enterprise.

I'm advocating that parents already paying for public education not be forced to pay twice to get their kids an adequate education.

IMHO, much of the opposition to change comes from the unions and Democrats who benefit from the whole money-laundering system whereby teachers are forced into unions and made to pay for political goals they may disagree with. The racket goes like this: Unions promise political support if politicians turn around and overpay unions. Why not, it's not their money.

[Wyvern]

First off where is this money coming from?

The parents who would use the voucher.

No, where is the money for the voucher itself supposedly coming from.

Secondly things don't work that way, the money stated for costs per student go towards things like teacher wages, ancillary staff wages, facilities, textbooks, materials among other things. Just because a student leaves does not mean that money is not spent all the same, all those things previously noted still need to be paid. Schools are not free to shift student populations which your idea would necessitate.

Student populations are never static.

So how can you claim that three thousand dollars would be saved by the school?

Probably for many of the same reasons that 20% of the population of Chicago have left Chicago.

Yes, liberal policies. You're not answering the question, your thesis is there really is no difference, yet those who know the Chicago Public Schools best avoid them.

Where have I ever said there was no difference? Some schools are better than others regardless of whether they are public or private. The example I have given previously between MN and NM schools are a good illustration of this.

This was not an analysis, it is a proposal for legislation in Michigan. I liked how it began by saying the costs for private education is half that of public goes on to mention that private education has a lot of additional costs not included in the tuition and then at the end states that private education costs half as much as public. If this is your idea of an analysis...

No contradiction there, total costs include more than tuition.

The contradiction is that it starts out at 2:1 and ends at 2:1 even though in the middle an unidentified yet admittedly large amount is added. I'll say it again, if this is your idea of an analysis...

The current system consists of a mix between public and private schools already. What mystifies me is why a conservative such as yourself is advocating increasing welfare to support a private enterprise.

I'm advocating that parents already paying for public education not be forced to pay twice to get their kids an adequate education.

These parents have the option of putting their children in public education, they don't have to pay twice as you put it, they choose to do so. Your idea would end up eradicating public education as the people that can afford it to pull out of putting their money into the public education system which would leave the system severely underfunded and even worse performing. Paying for public education is a civic duty no different than paying for public transit or libraries, even if you do not use that particular service it is good for the community at large to have it. After all if you can make the argument that those people that send their children to private schools should not contribute to public schools you can make the same exact argument for those that have no children or whose children have already graduated.

IMHO, much of the opposition to change comes from the unions and Democrats who benefit from the whole money-laundering system whereby teachers are forced into unions and made to pay for political goals they may disagree with. The racket goes like this: Unions promise political support if politicians turn around and overpay unions.

There's change and then there's radical change such as you are advocating. As a citizen of the United States you are made to pay for political goals you may disagree with. You seem to think this is grounds for disbanding unions by the same logic it is also grounds for disbanding the nation which a number of Republicans are actually calling for secession, the most noteworthy Republican involved with these secessionists is Palin.

[nursebenjamin]

There’s so many problems with your Fox News clip… First, random scores between schools is not evidence that one school did better at educating the kids. Kids at one school could have begun that school with certain advantages – such as parents who’ve taught their kids the alphabet or how to read at a young age; parents who sit with their kids at the dinner table and discuss vocabulary; kids who have parents available at home for help with assignments and homework questions; etc… A better study would be to compare the achievement of individual children from one grade to the next.

So why do parents (many not wealthy) sacrifice to send their kids to private schools? Why do 40% of Chicago Public School teachers send their kids to private schools? Why does Obama, while at the same time cutting off school choice for poor DC parents?

Probably for many of the same reasons that 20% of the population of Chicago have left Chicago.

... You're not answering the question, your thesis is there really is no difference, yet those who know the Chicago Public Schools best avoid them.

Strawman No one said that there was no difference between public and private schools. The point was that public schools have a mandate to educate the public and therefore lack to ability to be selective with regards to whom is enrolled. Private schools are able to pick the cream from the crop, if they so choose.

The student body found at public schools is going to be different from the student body found at private schools. You acknowledge that there is a difference between public and private schools, yet you fail to take the difference between student bodies into consideration when comparing various schools. If you take the entire student population from a failing inner-city public school in Chicago and transfer all the kids to a Catholic school down the street, would not some of the hurdles that students face simply follow the student body?

Also, people sacrifice and send their kids to private schools for a variety of reasons. I have a good friend who sent her kids to a Christian school because she wanted, admittedly, for them to be indoctrinated into the Christian faith at a young age. Public tax dollars should not be going towards the religious indoctrination of school children. No ifs, ands, or buts about this; public funds supporting religious instruction is against the Establishment Clause of the Constitution!!!

Private schools are “schools of choice�, meaning that the school has the ability to select their students. Private schools usually accept the brightest individuals and reject the rest. By mom was a special education teacher and this used to really piss her off. Her students, for the most part, couldn’t read or write, and yet their math and reading test scores are still used when comparing the mean standardized test scores among various schools. I’m willing to bet that most Catholic schools do not have a special education program.

This objection is vastly overblown, IMHO, but how about we make private schools who participate in voucher programs take the same students public schools take?

I doubt that you could get private schools to go along with this. Nor is the "point" overblown. The cost of enrolling one special needs student could easily cost 1000+% of the cost for an average student.

Using SAT test scores to compare schools is not fair either. The biggest indicator of how well a student will do on the SATs is family income.[1]. And families who send their kids to private schools are usually wealthier than those who send their kids to public schools.

Circular reasoning. You can just as easily say the biggest factor of good SAT scores is if they go to a private school, which wealthier parents are able to afford. Why not extend that option to poor families also by the use of school vouchers? Kids should be more important than teacher's unions.

You can easily say whatever you like, but that won’t necessarily make your statements factually correct. And, this is not circular reasoning; family income is one of the biggest predictors of how well a student will do on the SATs. Therefore, using the SAT scores to guess at the achievement of individual students at various schools is not an accurate indicator of the quality of education at those schools. Using the SAT scores would be a better of a predictor of the wealth of the students who attend those schools.

As for the claim that Catholic schools are cheaper, no supporting evidence is given. This guy on Fox News is just comparing two random schools that he selected. Perhaps the public school provides school buses, free and reduced lunches, provides expensive special education and speech therapy, and a whole lot of other activities that are not discussed. Of course a school that provides transportation is going to cost more than one that doesn’t. Should stuff like this be taken into account?

… Catholic schools spend $5,436 for elementary and $10,808.

http://www.ncea.org/news/annualdatareport.asp

This analysis says the real cost of public education ranges from $12,000 in the Phoenix area to $27,000 in the NYC metro area.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11432

It stands to reason that competition will improve results and lower costs.

You are cherry-picking your data. Middlesex School is a private school that costs $31,000. How does this figure into your argument?

Catholic schools are heavily subsidized by the Church, that’s why they are cheap. Again, if we transfer the entire student body from all public schools and put those very same students into Catholic schools, will the Catholic church be able to subsidize everyone's education at these same rates? And if so, why doesn’t the Catholic Church just subsidize public education? Wouldn’t that be the Christian thing to do?

Also, do these Catholic schools provide public transportation, free school lunches? Are afterschool and extracurricular activities included in the cost of tuition, or are these charged as extra fees. Do teachers at these private schools receive health benefits, or is the cost of health care for families of "cheap" teachers passed to various state programs?

You forgot to mention expensive unionized teachers.

Your criticism of Teacher Unions is also unsupported. Perhaps unionized teachers are more expensive, but evidence shows that the presence of teacher unions has a positive effect on achievement. Out of the 10 states that have virtually no collective bargaining for teachers [none in AL, AZ, GA, MS, NC, SC, TX, and VA; there is only one district with a contract in LA, and two in AR], only Virginia has an average rank above the median, while four are in the bottom 10, and seven are in the bottom 15. In contrast, nine of the 10 states with the highest student achievement, as measured by the NAEP tests, have the highest concentration of unionized, collectively bargaining teachers.[2]

[East of Eden]

No, where is the money for the voucher itself supposedly coming from.

The same place the money for public schools comes from.

So how can you claim that three thousand dollars would be saved by the school?

Because they pay $3K for the voucher but don't spend $6K on the student in public schools.

Where have I ever said there was no difference? Some schools are better than others regardless of whether they are public or private. The example I have given previously between MN and NM schools are a good illustration of this.

We're talking better or worse within a given area. Wouldn't you want your kid to go to the best school?

The contradiction is that it starts out at 2:1 and ends at 2:1 even though in the middle an unidentified yet admittedly large amount is added. I'll say it again, if this is your idea of an analysis...

You need to be more specific before you go alleging contradictions.

These parents have the option of putting their children in public education, they don't have to pay twice as you put it, they choose to do so.

Because the public schools are often lousy.

Your idea would end up eradicating public education as the people that can afford it to pull out of putting their money into the public education system which would leave the system severely underfunded and even worse performing.

No it wouldn't, I've already shown they would profit $3K for every kid that leaves.

Paying for public education is a civic duty no different than paying for public transit or libraries, even if you do not use that particular service it is good for the community at large to have it.

Paying for education, whether it is private or public should be irrelevant.

After all if you can make the argument that those people that send their children to private schools should not contribute to public schools you can make the same exact argument for those that have no children or whose children have already graduated.

And using your argument it would be just as fair to have parents of public schools subsidize private schools.

There's change and then there's radical change such as you are advocating.

With a $14 trillion deficit, it's time for radical change.

As a citizen of the United States you are made to pay for political goals you may disagree with.

You shouldn't have to violate your conscience in order to hold a job.

You seem to think this is grounds for disbanding unions by the same logic it is also grounds for disbanding the nation which a number of Republicans are actually calling for secession, the most noteworthy Republican involved with these secessionists is Palin.

Cite? I don't think she has ever advocated it, she may have associated with proponents of it the same way Obama has associated with an unrepentant terrorist and a racist, America-hating pastor.