Dems kill vouchers in D.C.

[citizen k]

Who'd resist such a reform?

Dick Durbin

[Neil]

Finally the reason the funding works the way it does is because the schools are controlled, and thus funded locally.  To reform that would take the power from the local community and put it in the hands of the State or Federal government and that would be unacceptable to alot of people.

Indeed.   They're already pretty pissed off that the Constitution prevents them from turning regular school into Jesus school.

[grumbler]

FYI DC spends much, much more per student in the public school system than any state in the US.

FYI, this is incorrect.  In 2006 NYS and NJ spent more (about $14.8k per student in 2006, while DC spent $13.8k, about the same as Hawaii) but it did spend more than the national average of $9.1k
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/011747.html

Interestingly, state governments finance over half of all revenue for public schools, contrary to what has been implied in this thread.  Though this can and does still lead to gaps in per-pupil spending between rich and poor districts, it isn't as bad as it once was.

The problem with voucher programs, as has been noted, is that it "supports" non-union teaching.  Obviously, the unions are going to oppose it.

[KRonn]

This is disappointing indeed. Even in Massachusetts Governor Patrick has tried to increase vouchers and charter schools, against great opposition. Not sure where the Governor stands now on this issue though.

[Darth Wagtaros]

This is disappointing indeed. Even in Massachusetts Governor Patrick has tried to increase vouchers and charter schools, against great opposition. Not sure where the Governor stands now on this issue though.

Still wishy washy in favor of it. 

[KRonn]

This is disappointing indeed. Even in Massachusetts Governor Patrick has tried to increase vouchers and charter schools, against great opposition. Not sure where the Governor stands now on this issue though.

Still wishy washy in favor of it.

Yeah, that's kind of what I think. Which is amazing, given the political and Union opposition. So I give him some credit for trying. But many parents/voters favor it.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Of course they do. Many people want some say where their kid goes, and would prefer to send them to a private school.

[derspiess]

The implication is that the public system is crap

<gasp>  O RLY?   

[The Larch]

Sounds terrible. Hasn't there been enough time to reform that?

@ DW: But can't things be worked on a different way? Even if affluent areas have no incentive to change it, you'd think that there's way more people interested in it changing. Who'd resist such a reform?

It is hardly a national system Larch it varies.  In Texas we have the "robin hood" scheme where we make the rich districts share with the poorer ones.

I am not sure if it is working but it sure drives the property taxes sky high in the rich areas in an attempt to keep the schools good.

Besides I am pretty sure DC has only a singular school system so this problem would not exist there.  In that city the rich people send their kids to private school.

Finally the reason the funding works the way it does is because the schools are controlled, and thus funded locally.  To reform that would take the power from the local community and put it in the hands of the State or Federal government and that would be unacceptable to alot of people.

Ok, I've read a bit on the issue, and it seems even more screwed up to me, although I guess it's more a political culture shock. Over here the concept of an educational district with powers to raise taxes and exercise eminent domain, all while mostly autonomous from regional government is totally alien, so most of the related concepts and issues are shocking as well.

Personally, I'd have no issue with it, each place governs itself as it sees more fit, but this system seems to me like a breeding ground for inequality.

That Robin Hood system thingie sounds better than the "each district for itself" approach, though.

[The Larch]

The implication is that the public system is crap

<gasp>  O RLY?   

Even if it's vox populi, an admission of it being so by the system itself seems a terrible implication.

[alfred russel]

Ok, I've read a bit on the issue, and it seems even more screwed up to me, although I guess it's more a political culture shock. Over here the concept of an educational district with powers to raise taxes and exercise eminent domain, all while mostly autonomous from regional government is totally alien, so most of the related concepts and issues are shocking as well.

Personally, I'd have no issue with it, each place governs itself as it sees more fit, but this system seems to me like a breeding ground for inequality.

That Robin Hood system thingie sounds better than the "each district for itself" approach, though.

The problems with the system are less financial--DC public schools are comparatively swimming in cash. The major problem is that your poor, less educated districts aren't fit to govern themselves. See Poor Rural School Districts run by boards with members elected on intelligent design platforms, and basically any inner city district in the country.

[Valmy]

Personally, I'd have no issue with it, each place governs itself as it sees more fit, but this system seems to me like a breeding ground for inequality.

It is a breeding ground for inequality.  The quality of education varies wildly from district to district.  That has alot to do with how seriously the local community takes education and/or how many resources they have at their disposal versus the number of children to be educated.  The kids are thus the victims/beneficiaries of tons of factors outside of their control but I guess that is true for almost every factor in their lives.

Anyway our political system has always been very decentralized due to the colonial way the entire country was settled.  The school system is one of the most extreme examples though the feds and the states have gotten more and more involved over the years.

[The Larch]

Personally, I'd have no issue with it, each place governs itself as it sees more fit, but this system seems to me like a breeding ground for inequality.

It is a breeding ground for inequality.  The quality of education varies wildly from district to district.  That has alot to do with how seriously the local community takes education and/or how many resources they have at their disposal versus the number of children to be educated.  The kids are thus the victims/beneficiaries of tons of factors outside of their control but I guess that is true for almost every factor in their lives.

Anyway our political system has always been very decentralized due to the colonial way the entire country was settled.  The school system is one of the most extreme examples though the feds and the states have gotten more and more involved over the years.

Then there's an even better measure to reduce inequality than vouchers, have school districts run at least at a county level, under a general state level. Works for the rest of the Western world.  Inequalities, even without dissapearing completely, are evend out quite nicely.

[Valmy]

Fucking union

I have to say I am coming over to the perspective that the singular biggest problem in public policy in the United States is the Public Worker Unions.  Their political power is incredible and it puts a tremendous burden on our flexibility.  Public policy seems like it is done to further the interests of the public workers rather than the interests of the population...but I guess this is endemic of the whole political system where minority interests who are properly motivated and funded can have their way over the general welfare in almost every area of government.

[Valmy]

Then there's an even better measure to reduce inequality than vouchers, have school districts run at least at a county level, under a general state level. Works for the rest of the Western world.  Inequalities, even without dissapearing completely, are evend out quite nicely.

Too many people benefit from the system for it to be easily changed.  Further any sort of centralization of power will always be opposed by those who find that ideologically offensive.  That is a powerful political coalition right there.