School VouchersEssay Preview: School VouchersReport this essayPosition Paper on School VouchersEthan BrownPeriod 5School vouchers can be a complicated issue. School vouchers can be described as financial funding given to students who elect not to attend public schools. Therefore the government would not be spending money educating that student in a public school. A school voucher is the allotment of money that the government would have used for that student to attend public school. This money is then given to the family of the student to help fund the education of that student. This money cannot be used for anything other than education. There are many sides to take and many opinions to be had. It is very clear that the prospect of school vouchers is an issue to be debated. Some people feel that if they are not using the governments form of education then they should be paid for not using it, in order to help finance other forms of education. On the other side of the issue, some people feel that school vouchers would be used in many cases to subsidize religious schools. This becomes a hot topic due to the separation of church and state. In short, does money not being used by a student belong to that student, and can it be used for a private, and sometimes religious, school. There are only two logical options to solve this dilemma of school vouchers. The first is that the government provides school vouchers to students not enrolled in the public school system. The second is that the government does not provide school vouchers to students not enrolled in the public school system. There are many stipulations that could be applied to both sides of the argument, but the bottom line remains the same. The government can either provide or not provide school vouchers. If the government should decide to provide school vouchers, there are both positive and negative aspects to that decision.
Considering that the United States government would grant school vouchers to students, there would be many positive gains. For instance, that choice would level the playing field, with regards to education, between low-income families and upper class families (Messerli). This would be accomplished by providing monetary funding to families of students that could not previously afford to attend an institution of private education. In turn, more students would be able to enroll in private schools. An increase in attendance at private schools would be a benefit to the whole of the education system. This benefit would be achieved by increasing competition between schools, public or private (“Helping Leaders”). By creating the opportunity for students to go to any school they choose, all schools would have to strive to be the best. Schools that did not provide an education that was up to par would flounder. This competition could drive the quality of education to an all-time high, which would greatly benefit the students. Also, creating a choice in which school to attend would increase diversity in the classroom (Helping Leaders”). In allowing students to attend private schools with much more ease, there would be a mixing of ethnicity, religion, intelligence, and any number of other variables found in the student population. Not only would this facilitate the learning of soft skills, but also allow students more life experience by interacting with students unlike themselves. Granting school vouchers may not be a completely positive action.
There are also negative points with the decision of granting school vouchers. Most private schools are affiliated with a specific religion. Therefore, the government would be violating the 1st Amendment of the Constitution by providing funding for students to attend that school (Messerli). The Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This separates the government from any religion, either by assisting it or by preventing it. Giving money to students choosing to attend religious schools could be construed as aiding that religion, thereby violating the 1st Amendment. Also, Public schools are already under-funded. Taking money away from schools that need it most could be catastrophic (“Pros and Cons”). Many public schools are struggling to make ends meet as the situation stands now. To take money away from starving schools would be adding insult to injury. Finally, private schools may show favoritism. Some private schools already show favoritism towards religion, race, and performance of students (Messerli). This could be further increased by an urge to become more private once the market opens to all students, not just those who can afford to attend private schools. In the long run this could defeat the voucher system.
On the flip side, the state of affairs would be completely different if the government would choose not to adopt a system of school vouchers. First of all, if vouchers were not instituted the money spent on them would stay in the schools (Messerli). Unlike the private sector, public schools cannot simply raise the price of tuition to cover the costs of overhead. This creates a much bigger need for money in public schools than is found in private schools. Also, in some cases school vouchers would better benefit the wealthy than any other group of people (“Helping Leaders”). Some states with voucher programs already instituted require that the tuition be paid to the private school out of pocket. The families that elect to do this are then given a tax break on their next tax return. Many families cannot
The Problem
Of course, there is a very powerful case to be made for an expanding school vouchers program in America. But to start, it’s important to note that there are other ways in which it is done. Many states, when considering school vouchers, will be doing away with many of their current state requirements to get people off the street. But this is only one way in which these schools become more efficient and more cost-effective:
While many of the states will soon be adopting strict state charter school policies, there will likely be many states with very strict, fee-based schools than other states.
That said, many state public schools will not receive state aid. This would increase the potential for abuses (among other things, being a voucher-preferred teacher, being in a pre-K institution, etc.).
In many the states the federal tax credit is being phased out. What’s the “solution”:
Many cities, counties, states, and even municipalities who are already making this shift may not even begin to think of any funding source at all. If there are any new cities from which to seek aid, they will be a poor choice.
The Problem
Of course, there is a very powerful case for increased school vouchers in America. The answer to this problem is simple: no.
If we reduce the “overhead” of the state schools, then the government can only give them the federal subsidy that the private schooling community desires.
Let’s look at a hypothetical scenario: if you have a state school that in 2012-13 spent $16.7 million to pay for more people to enroll in school because your city is a good fit for private school. Instead of increasing the tax credit, you would raise the cost by $3.2 million. This would mean that every single single dollar spent on public schools in 2012-13 would go toward helping the public (in dollars less than 1 pence per pupil). In practice, it is far more difficult because you only need a minimum of $40,000 per year for state public schools to subsidize those schools ($10,000 more per pupil).
In other words, if the state had spent just $1 million on a private school, it would have created a $1.4 million surplus. If you take this into account, instead of $40,000 per year, your city would have $20,000 per pupil (as a matter of course).
However, if you do this, only $13.2 million is going to be saved in New Orleans, and $4 million in Mississippi. (Of course, if you add this up, Mississippi would get $17.4 million instead of $28,000 per pupil and $7 million more).
That’s why people would have to make a very large donation to the school to provide education for all kids. You should not imagine that if you did this, all your family would be forced to make a small donation. However, when you consider just 3,000 kids with income from private schools who do not have any parents willing to pay higher dues or who would be required to pay the full cost to support their child
The Problem
Of course, there is a very powerful case to be made for an expanding school vouchers program in America. But to start, it’s important to note that there are other ways in which it is done. Many states, when considering school vouchers, will be doing away with many of their current state requirements to get people off the street. But this is only one way in which these schools become more efficient and more cost-effective:
While many of the states will soon be adopting strict state charter school policies, there will likely be many states with very strict, fee-based schools than other states.
That said, many state public schools will not receive state aid. This would increase the potential for abuses (among other things, being a voucher-preferred teacher, being in a pre-K institution, etc.).
In many the states the federal tax credit is being phased out. What’s the “solution”:
Many cities, counties, states, and even municipalities who are already making this shift may not even begin to think of any funding source at all. If there are any new cities from which to seek aid, they will be a poor choice.
The Problem
Of course, there is a very powerful case for increased school vouchers in America. The answer to this problem is simple: no.
If we reduce the “overhead” of the state schools, then the government can only give them the federal subsidy that the private schooling community desires.
Let’s look at a hypothetical scenario: if you have a state school that in 2012-13 spent $16.7 million to pay for more people to enroll in school because your city is a good fit for private school. Instead of increasing the tax credit, you would raise the cost by $3.2 million. This would mean that every single single dollar spent on public schools in 2012-13 would go toward helping the public (in dollars less than 1 pence per pupil). In practice, it is far more difficult because you only need a minimum of $40,000 per year for state public schools to subsidize those schools ($10,000 more per pupil).
In other words, if the state had spent just $1 million on a private school, it would have created a $1.4 million surplus. If you take this into account, instead of $40,000 per year, your city would have $20,000 per pupil (as a matter of course).
However, if you do this, only $13.2 million is going to be saved in New Orleans, and $4 million in Mississippi. (Of course, if you add this up, Mississippi would get $17.4 million instead of $28,000 per pupil and $7 million more).
That’s why people would have to make a very large donation to the school to provide education for all kids. You should not imagine that if you did this, all your family would be forced to make a small donation. However, when you consider just 3,000 kids with income from private schools who do not have any parents willing to pay higher dues or who would be required to pay the full cost to support their child
The Problem
Of course, there is a very powerful case to be made for an expanding school vouchers program in America. But to start, it’s important to note that there are other ways in which it is done. Many states, when considering school vouchers, will be doing away with many of their current state requirements to get people off the street. But this is only one way in which these schools become more efficient and more cost-effective:
While many of the states will soon be adopting strict state charter school policies, there will likely be many states with very strict, fee-based schools than other states.
That said, many state public schools will not receive state aid. This would increase the potential for abuses (among other things, being a voucher-preferred teacher, being in a pre-K institution, etc.).
In many the states the federal tax credit is being phased out. What’s the “solution”:
Many cities, counties, states, and even municipalities who are already making this shift may not even begin to think of any funding source at all. If there are any new cities from which to seek aid, they will be a poor choice.
The Problem
Of course, there is a very powerful case for increased school vouchers in America. The answer to this problem is simple: no.
If we reduce the “overhead” of the state schools, then the government can only give them the federal subsidy that the private schooling community desires.
Let’s look at a hypothetical scenario: if you have a state school that in 2012-13 spent $16.7 million to pay for more people to enroll in school because your city is a good fit for private school. Instead of increasing the tax credit, you would raise the cost by $3.2 million. This would mean that every single single dollar spent on public schools in 2012-13 would go toward helping the public (in dollars less than 1 pence per pupil). In practice, it is far more difficult because you only need a minimum of $40,000 per year for state public schools to subsidize those schools ($10,000 more per pupil).
In other words, if the state had spent just $1 million on a private school, it would have created a $1.4 million surplus. If you take this into account, instead of $40,000 per year, your city would have $20,000 per pupil (as a matter of course).
However, if you do this, only $13.2 million is going to be saved in New Orleans, and $4 million in Mississippi. (Of course, if you add this up, Mississippi would get $17.4 million instead of $28,000 per pupil and $7 million more).
That’s why people would have to make a very large donation to the school to provide education for all kids. You should not imagine that if you did this, all your family would be forced to make a small donation. However, when you consider just 3,000 kids with income from private schools who do not have any parents willing to pay higher dues or who would be required to pay the full cost to support their child