Elizabeth Warren's Sensible Thinking On School Vouchers
I've long found it terrible that kids are forced into terrible schools because their families are poor -- along with finding it terrible when parents have been jailed for enrolling kids in schools out of the area where they lived.
The WSJ quotes from the book "The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are (Still) Going Broke" (2003), by (now Senator from Massachusetts) Elizabeth Warren and her co-author, Amelia Warren Tyagi.
I think what they write here is right on:
Any policy that loosens the ironclad relationship between location-location-location and school-school-school would eliminate the need for parents to pay an inflated price for a home just because it happens to lie within the boundaries of a desirable school district.A well-designed voucher program would fit the bill neatly. A taxpayer-funded voucher that paid the entire cost of educating a child (not just a partial subsidy) would open a range of opportunities to all children. . . . Fully funded vouchers would relieve parents from the terrible choice of leaving their kids in lousy schools or bankrupting themselves to escape those schools.
We recognize that the term "voucher" has become a dirty word in many educational circles. The reason is straightforward: The current debate over vouchers is framed as a public-versus-private rift, with vouchers denounced for draining off much-needed funds from public schools. The fear is that partial-subsidy vouchers provide a boost so that better-off parents can opt out of a failing public school system, while the other children are left behind.
But the public-versus-private competition misses the central point. The problem is not vouchers; the problem is parental choice. Under current voucher schemes, children who do not use the vouchers are still assigned to public schools based on their zip codes. This means that in the overwhelming majority of cases, a bureaucrat picks the child's school, not a parent. The only way for parents to exercise any choice is to buy a different home--which is exactly how the bidding wars started.
Short of buying a new home, parents currently have only one way to escape a failing public school: Send the kids to private school. But there is another alternative, one that would keep much-needed tax dollars inside the public school system while still reaping the advantages offered by a voucher program. Local governments could enact meaningful reform by enabling parents to choose from among all the public schools in a locale, with no presumptive assignment based on neighborhood. Under a public school voucher program, parents, not bureaucrats, would have the power to pick schools for their children--and to choose which schools would get their children's vouchers.
And for those of you who would scream that this would not work -- it already is. As a WSJ commenter writes:
david levy
In Colorado any student can attend any public school, traditional or charter, of their choice, unless the school is already at capacity. The only other caveat is the student / parents are responsible to get them to that school (i.e. no school bus service for out of neighborhood students).Working just fine as far as I can tell.
And as another commenter puts it:
Leonard Lovallo
Obviously Lizzie did not clear this with the teacher unions but of course at the time she was the professor at Harvard and running for the elected office was not at all on her radar screen.
via @davidharsanyi
Don't worry, when Sec DeVos (R) proposes this, Sen Warren (D) will oppose it. When someone is running for the Dem Party Presidential Nomination and says "It's about the children", the one thing you can be certain of is that it isn't about the children. It's about the teachers' unions.
Wfjag at February 10, 2017 12:35 AM
We have this system as well in my county. However, it's been used so much that it is now a lottery system for the highest dand schools. We are considering it for the next school year because our current school doesn't have a very good ESE program. If we try for it, I'll report on how the process goes.
Cornerdemon at February 10, 2017 6:22 AM
It's about the teachers' unions.
Paging Senators Murkowski and Collins, please pick up a white courtesy phone, it is the teacher's union with some campaign contributions.
Also: http://heatst.com/politics/warren-devos-handshake/
I R A Darth Aggie at February 10, 2017 6:33 AM
So this has not been done because?
Pols are for a lot of things when they do not have to do them, are not judged on their outcomes, and can depend on others to stop them from being done (see Unions and environmentalists).
People who were against evil businesses (excess profit, salary wage gap, etc.) now applaud companies wanting open borders so foreign workers can be used.
Some kinda stupid if you believe life-time pols are for you.
Bob in Texas at February 10, 2017 6:49 AM
Is there anyone out there who isn't sick and tired of the Democrats saying one thing on education, and then doing the opposite? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone? Elizabeth Warren bitterly, violently opposed the nomination of Betsy DeVos, who wants to implement the policies that Warren claims to be in favor of; see here. (BTW, this kind of shit is why Warren got her mouth taped shut by the Senate the other day. Even a lot of the Democrats are getting sick of her caterwauling.)
To the Left, the purpose of education isn't to inform; it is to indoctrinate. They are completely and utterly in the tank for the educrats and the teachers' unions. Anything they say to the contrary should be dismissed as recruiting slogans.
Cousin Dave at February 10, 2017 7:17 AM
I thought the two income trap was a fairly good book with accurate presentation of the data and only a few issues with the final conclusions.
But I also recognize the Elizabeth Warren of the Two Income Trap has no relationship with the Elizabeth Warren the politician. The current Warren opposes all of the good parts of her book because it doesn't help her politically.
Ben at February 10, 2017 7:48 AM
There is an open district transfer policy in our school district so we were not concerned about exactly what school we were zoned to when we bought our house, as long as we were in our chosen school district we thought we would be fine. Plus this was a 5year distant worry. OH SO NAIVE! When it actually came time to enroll our kid, we find that transfers are capped because the good, desirable schools are full! and even if you do manage to get in, that you can be booted, EVEN MID YEAR, if enrollment increases because someone who is zoned there moves in.
So -- move (and pay a premium for a house zoned to the "good schools"?. I like my neighborhood, my house, and my lack or mortgage payment!!! Or private? Hoping to actually be able to help or pay for college and not have our kids saddled with impossible debt to start their lives, we are trying to avoid private. Or find an alternative, because the zoned school (which we in good faith toured and seriously considered, was a NO). We ended up in a dual language program, which is lottery (and increasingly hard to get into). The school hosting the program is still heavily Title 1 (which means heavily "economically disadvantaged" and comes with a huge set of challenges to the teachers and administration). But it's fairly small, and the dual language program is excellent, filled with district teacher's & admin's kids, and the school community is great, the teachers are great, and we are happy there.
Middle school will come with another set of choices and a lottery, so when that time comes we will see if we are moving or if this path will continue to work out for us.
Chickia at February 10, 2017 7:51 AM
So let me re-phrase this. You have kids in DMZ school like Brownsville ENY, Camden NJ etc. (worked in both areas we were told to leave before the sun went down.) I mean school with actual bullet holes in the walls, not quite the Reichstag circa late 45 but actual bullet holes. Now you take them and send the to public school in supper affluent areas. Mom and dad have an uncle who isn't a gang banger watch the kids during the week. Now these kids are benefiting from all the money affluent parents pour into the school. Partly through "inflated price for a home" partly thorough "fund drives". These kids are now funded by the very people they have been or will be taught to hate by the American left? Anyone else see a current parallel here? How do we VET them to make sure they are not violent gang banger?
A great deal of school quality is money however all the cash in the world will not fix parents not caring. Parents in affluent neighborhoods tend push their kids to succeed mainly as it reflects badly on them at the country club when the don't. But it's still attention and concern. So the above parallel aside if the parents care enough to do this the kid has a huge leg up on his/her peers. But as with any government program there are winners (kids from DMZ school) and losers (parents who paid a crap load for good school).
I saw the fall out from something similar called metropolitan cooperative program, MetCo for short. Some of the kids were ok but quite a few were violent nasty little ----s. They would brutalize some poor kid then pull the race card.
walter at February 10, 2017 8:05 AM
Warren is entirely about protecting teachers unions and the current education monopoly. Her offer of choice expands only to existing public schools. Her vouchers would go only to those. As Chickia explains above, the best public schools become oversubscribed, and the less-liked schools continue. Not much change.
The public schools are feeling the pressure of charter schools. Warren's proposal would exclude competitive charters by substituting state school charters only. It is quite clever of her.
The state should enable full-tuition vouchers to apply to any school meeting some minimum standard, true charter schools. For education to become excellent, competition must be supported, and the bad schools must feel the pressure to improve or go out of business.
Andrew Garland at February 10, 2017 8:38 AM
A well-designed voucher program would fit the bill neatly. A taxpayer-funded voucher that paid the entire cost of educating a child (not just a partial subsidy) would open a range of opportunities to all children. . . .
Screw that, Elizabeth Warren. "Empowering parents" just means disempowering those taxpayers who subsidize others because they don't have any children. Why should public funds go to private enterprise, controlled by those who benefit from it?
A great deal of school quality is money however all the cash in the world will not fix parents not caring.
I agree with Walter 100 percent here.
Kevin at February 10, 2017 9:56 AM
Want to know how many good schools in CO aren't at capacity? None. Meanwhile, shacks in terms cherry Creek borders go for half a million or more. To avoid the "at capacity" issue.
Momof4 at February 10, 2017 11:19 AM
Just have the Feds take all the state and local school funds and distribute them equally nationwide, thus downgrading the amazing schools and upgrading the crap schools equally.
If that wouldn't create an immediate outcry from the fortunates to improve American education across the board I don't know what would.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 10, 2017 11:55 AM
Address
- the quality of teachers,
- quadruple the teaching staff at schools w/behavioral problems while not passing those that can not pass,
- tell the kids the truth (your parents suck, you suck, give us a chance and you will 4X what your gangbangers earn, money talks),
- bring back welding and etc.
- put the behavioral kids to "work" doing welding, machine shop, fixing what the regular kids screwed up in class,
- basically recreate the '50' school environment.
Bob in Texas at February 10, 2017 12:18 PM
re my post above,
If the lefties can pretend that their cause is really not anti-Trump I can pretend too.
Bob in Texas at February 10, 2017 12:19 PM
Wrote Walter:
Mom and dad have an uncle who isn't a gang banger watch the kids during the week. Now these kids are benefiting from all the money affluent parents pour into the school.
You wrote "parents" when the correct term is "taxpayers."
I am in the latter group, but not the former, so I can assure you I'm well aggrieved at my money being "poured" into the school.
As we've seen with subsidized housing, people tend to value more what they have to pay for themselves. The minute President Trump suggests getting the non-bechilded out of the financial picture, I'll be glad to support all the "parental choice" espoused by Elizabeth Warren, Betsy DeVos or anyone else. Leave my wallet out of it and you can do what you want.
Kevin at February 10, 2017 3:40 PM
The school distract I was in had a program where kids could go to any school in the district based on certain conditions. Each student was original assigned a school based on address. Then parents could give up that spot and apply to have their kid go to another school. Of course the desirable schools would be over applied for. To make things more complicated there was some gifted programs. One had a special music program, two had programs for super smart kids. They abandoned it after a few years.
so like others have said capacity issues caused it not to work.
The Former Banker at February 10, 2017 9:01 PM
Leave a comment