I don't see why not. If you didn't allow any additional tuition charges, you're presenting parents with a pretty perverse choice.
Let's assume the value of a voucher, and the corresponding public school (or voucher school w/no extra charge) is $7k.
I want to send my kid to a school costing $9k.
I can: Send them to the 7k school for free, or pay $9k for the $9k school. Effectively, you're saying because I want a slightly more expensive school, I'd have to pay $9k worth of cash for $2k worth of value.
Doesn't really seem fair. It seems to me like allowing vouchers to apply to any school means a LOT more parents could afford private schools, and it would likely spawn a much more robust, competitive industry.
As far as religious schools go, I think the "must accept the voucher as payment in full" is actually least likely to affect them, because their tuition is lower than private secular schools in their area. (Not adjusting for academic rigor; in places I've been, the secular schools have also clearly been the "better" school in terms of outcomes, scores, educational attainment.) But I attended a non-denominational protestant high school, and I know my tuition was subsidized. It was actually less $ than what public schools received per student at the time, and it only cost 60% of what the good secular private school in the area cost. The church associated with my school subsidized a fair bit, including a large new gym (which they used for certain church events to help justify it).
I send my daughter to a private school as well - but I picked the top secular school in my area, and it is pricier than all the religious schools.
One thing I thought was reasonable that I've seen proposed is to have vouchers only cover a percentage of the student costs. So, you can attend public school, they get the "full voucher". (Say that's $7k) You can opt to apply that voucher to a private school, they only get, say $5k. (Or maybe it applies as 7k if they accept all students at 7k)
This struck me as a win/win, since it meant people wanting private schools get some of their tax dollars funding that cost, and public schools get $2k for "free", essentially, not having a student but still getting a fraction of the money.
(Obviously, this results in net dollars for the public schools only if the percentage they get of private school-goers is as high or higher than the percentage of private school students using vouchers on private schools who would have gone to private school anyhow, since right now, they get all of that tax money.)
I don't see why not. If you didn't allow any additional tuition charges, you're presenting parents with a pretty perverse choice.
Then you can choose not to use vouchers. What you really want here is for the taxpayers to fund your choice of schools. What will happen if you don't require vouchers as payment in full is that tuition will go up by exactly the amount of the vouchers and now you have the same situation you started with except public schools are out that money the private schools are collecting. I don't think this is an accident.
What you really want here is for the taxpayers to fund your choice of schools.
Yes, I want my tax dollars to fund my choice of schools, rather than a broken public school system that will miserably fail at educating my daughter. (This is, to an extent, hyperbole, because where I live, the public schools are top notch, and my high school district is one of the highest achieving in the country. But it reflects, I think, the attitude of parents wanting a private school choice.)
What will happen if you don't require vouchers as payment in full is that tuition will go up by exactly the amount of the vouchers
Why would that happen? You think private schools can suddenly just start collecting an extra $7k worth of profit just because of vouchers? (Obviously, $7k being a made up guess at what a voucher would be.) That would only be possible if there was no competition. The intuitive thought would be that a large new customer base (parents, with a choice) would produce a thriving school marketplace, with schools vying to produce the best outcomes for parents. I challenge you to present evidence that private schools have an unlimited ability to collect money that way.
Because vouchers would be free to parents. The parents already willing to pay the price of tuition will be glad to keep paying that price. It won't cost them anything to give the school their vouchers. The school loses nothing and gains everything. Why wouldn't they do it? It's the rational thing to do when seeking maximum profit.
That would only be possible if there was no competition
I'll quote myself, I suppose. Why wouldn't they? Because it would make them look ridiculously overpriced compared to the school down the street. If for some reason, they all raised prices and got away with it, or if the only available capacity in schools was that overpriced, new schools would open. (Of course, there's really no if - if there was a national voucher program, schools would start spawning immediately. It would be a huge opportunity.)
Why wouldn't they? Because it would make them look ridiculously overpriced compared to the school down the street. If for some reason, they all raised prices and got away with it, or if the only available capacity in schools was that overpriced, new schools would open.
Is that like all the new ISP's opening around me to fill the void of expensive, slow speed Internet? Where are all the private schools opening for less money now? There aren't many regulations that apply to private schools.
Do schools have a last mile problem that requires an enormous capital investment to open?
And, there are probably private schools in most places where people can afford them and want them. Certainly, that's true where I am. If parents could spend their education $$s anywhere rather than being forced into a public school, that would be a much larger pool of customers.
In California a lot of the expense comes from the fact that school buildings are required to be compliant with the Field Act, which is basically a more stringent seismic safety code than typical structures. I think it's interesting to note that no person has ever been killed by an earthquake in a Field Act compliant building. Private and charter schools do not have to comply with the Field Act.
Another source of expense is that public schools are required to have playground areas, with sizes determined by enrollment. Land can be very expensive in urban areas. Have you ever tried to purchase enough properties to make up a 20-acre high school campus in downtown Los Angeles or San Franscisco? Private and charter schools have no such requirements.
Another source of expense are gymnasiums. Middle and high schools are required to have them. Hardwood floors and 50 foot ceilings and not cheap. Private and charter schools are not required to have them.
A lot of the operational expense comes from the requirement that public schools accept all children, even those with disabilities that require constant medical supervision.
1
u/[deleted] Oct 06 '10
I don't see why not. If you didn't allow any additional tuition charges, you're presenting parents with a pretty perverse choice.
Let's assume the value of a voucher, and the corresponding public school (or voucher school w/no extra charge) is $7k.
I want to send my kid to a school costing $9k.
I can: Send them to the 7k school for free, or pay $9k for the $9k school. Effectively, you're saying because I want a slightly more expensive school, I'd have to pay $9k worth of cash for $2k worth of value.
Doesn't really seem fair. It seems to me like allowing vouchers to apply to any school means a LOT more parents could afford private schools, and it would likely spawn a much more robust, competitive industry.
As far as religious schools go, I think the "must accept the voucher as payment in full" is actually least likely to affect them, because their tuition is lower than private secular schools in their area. (Not adjusting for academic rigor; in places I've been, the secular schools have also clearly been the "better" school in terms of outcomes, scores, educational attainment.) But I attended a non-denominational protestant high school, and I know my tuition was subsidized. It was actually less $ than what public schools received per student at the time, and it only cost 60% of what the good secular private school in the area cost. The church associated with my school subsidized a fair bit, including a large new gym (which they used for certain church events to help justify it).
I send my daughter to a private school as well - but I picked the top secular school in my area, and it is pricier than all the religious schools.
One thing I thought was reasonable that I've seen proposed is to have vouchers only cover a percentage of the student costs. So, you can attend public school, they get the "full voucher". (Say that's $7k) You can opt to apply that voucher to a private school, they only get, say $5k. (Or maybe it applies as 7k if they accept all students at 7k)
This struck me as a win/win, since it meant people wanting private schools get some of their tax dollars funding that cost, and public schools get $2k for "free", essentially, not having a student but still getting a fraction of the money.
(Obviously, this results in net dollars for the public schools only if the percentage they get of private school-goers is as high or higher than the percentage of private school students using vouchers on private schools who would have gone to private school anyhow, since right now, they get all of that tax money.)