More criticism of voucher report

Last week’s OPPAGA report on corporate tax credit vouchers got a double-barrelled blast of criticism today. Kevin G. Welner, director of the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, argues in this op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel that OPPAGA’s report – which concluded vouchers were saving the state money – is based on “numbers out of thin air.”

The report assumes 90 percent of CTC voucher students would have attended public schools had they not received a voucher. “The defense of this guess is tucked away in the report’s appendix,” Welner writes. CTC vouchers “are available only to low-income students, so according to the report, it’s ‘reasonable to assume a high percentage of low-income students would not be able to afford private school without a scholarship, and therefore, would attend public school in absence of the program.’ But the reality is that Catholic schools in urban areas sometimes enroll 60 percent to 70 percent low-income children.”

On his blog, USF Professor Sherman Dorn cites Welner’s piece, riffs in more detail on the fixed-cost argument and concludes, “Essentially, the analysis is a simplified (and data-thin) calculation of the impact on state government, not the impact on total revenues and services.”

Comments

[lisa]

As a parent, I was naive, I thought my child was slow but the opposite is true. My resentment stems from the fact that the school had taught my child for 5 years and when I asked questions, no one seemed to know anything. I thought they were being kind by not telling me that my child is forest gump. Later, when I started digging deeper,The person in charge of this aspect of the school did not even know what dyslexia was. (I am not making this up) If regulations were in place, he/she would have been diagnosed earlier and my expectations would have been higher.

I feel so guilty about this, I wish I knew what an ld was. I felt that the teachers were the experts. Some parents are disfunctional, in a religious school shouldn't we reach out to these kids even more so than in public school.

my family has to spend a lot of extra money on make-up tutoring that is required.I don't think that the tuition paid was wasted becasue i have an awesome, empatic kid. I am sad because, of the time lost, my child may never reach her full potential.

on a related note. have I have seen what happens when you put a bunch of gifted kids together all day. Not a pretty sight :) a room full of leaders wanting to be leaders :) Pecking order squabbles like I have never seen.

I am not totally sure about the McKay scholarship but think it does pay for the needs of the students.If your child is labeled, then they give you a voucher to use. mine would have been about $4,500.00 If i continued to pay regualar tuition the school gains that much money. I wonder why more schools do not use this money.

They say that about 15% of the population has an ld. That should average out to about 3 or so? in a class.If a teacher has a couple of gifted kids, 3 ld kids, along with the rest who are average, I do not feel that the gifted kids suffer. They would be viewed as class leaders and I think it would not be too hard for a teacher to add a more challenging curriculum for these two. Many LD kids bring a different perspective to the classroom that compliments all the students. The dreamers, the engineers, and the ones who make it all come to be. Way more fun had at recess.

If the budget is this close maybe parents could volunteer more in other areas instead of a tuition increase. Or going in, parents can sign notices about the knowledge of lDS and state that if their child is labeled as such, they would have to pay more.This way parents would be aware. Just some more of my ideas, maybe one of them will be the solution :)

[Julia]

Lisa - part of me agrees w/ what you are saying. My son is 4 and has been DX'd already and has an IEP. He has a mild processing disorder. He is actually better behaved than 90% of the other kids in the class. However, I know he can take up more of the teacher's time to get him started etc... So, I guess it all balances out as she does not have to spend time disciplining him like some of the other "regular" (whatever that means nowadays) kids.

I just feel it is up to parents to be clued into this stuff. I put my child through the testing when he was 3 because I knew. I don't think I would put him in private because I KNOW they don't have the resources public school has. Trust me, I go to my church board meetings and there is not the $ to hire extra aides etc... Not w/o raising tuition for everyone else, which does not seem fair. I also don't know if one teacher no matter how well trained could handle multiple ESE kids without an aide. I suppose it would depend on the severity of the LDs and disorders.

My other child is very gifted. I feel she has a right to be in an environment where she can really let it rip w/o being slowed down at all. I also do believe in private companies/schools etc... being free from govt intrusion. As another poster said, different children have different needs. I am very happy so far w/ how the state has handled his inclusion and is in a traditional setting.

I am not sure how McKay figures into all of this either. If a school takes McKay do they get $ for aides? I know very little about McKay, maybe some one else knows?

[lisa]

Yea if the kid is disruptive thats a whole different story or if the disability is severe. But thats my whole point, severe disabilities would be recognized before accepting these children. Middle and milder disabilities, that can be addressed in the classroom and tutoring, are not.

If the old people in the restaurant are throwing food, then kick them out. But it is against the law to not provide service for people because of there race, religion, age, and disability in restaurants. Establishment owners don't want to spend money for such things as wider doors for wheel chairs or the servers may hate having to spend more time listening to the old people talk, but they have to serve them. I think??

As for the children, its a matter of degree and common sense. The most help to the most people. Every classroom cant afford a signer, or an aide for each individual students. But most schools can afford a part-time recourse teacher to be used for expertise and as a bridge to help the child. In my perfect world, all teachers would be trained to understand and have credentials to diagnose and treat kids immediately. Its not rocket science just neuroscience and psychology.:)If this were true in the public school system, think of the money saved by paring down the ese departments and middle management. Inclusion to the next level :) Teacher could become 6 figure earners and the best and brightest would be lining up to be teachers.

To some private and religious schools, it really is about other stuff like the “appearance” of learning though high test scores(weed out low scorers). Teachers not wanting alter teaching methods, or some, sadly, feel that they just don't want to work harder. Its easier to place a ditto in front of the class and sit down. Teaching for different learning styles,has been proven over and over to help most children reach their full potential even ones without a learning difference.

There was a lot of huffing when private business owners were required to serve black people, buy landscaping for the environment,and put in wider doors for their businesses. The world did not fall apart.

[Pam]

Yes, I know this is fuzzy math regarding VPK rates. But in Brandon, my son's center is by far the best around. He is also very attached to his teachers. So I keep him there. When I question the difference in fees, I was told it is because VPK requires a lower student-teacher ratio than daycare rules and they must have certain curriculum. Does it add up? Of course not, but there's not much I can do besides complain to the state which I have done.

[teacher w/ brain]

Again, not every school is the best fit for every child. Yes, a restaurant can kick you out and also place a trespassing warrant against you if they wish. If a private school does not have the tools needed to help a particular child, shop somewhere else. I have witnessed several LD and non-LD students disrupt the learning of their classmates. To make the claim that they do not is ridiculous and unfounded. Private is private. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

[lisa]

So, a private establishment, like a restaurant, can kick old or black people out of their restaurant? Aren't they required have to have handicapped bathroom stalls? A little bit of regulation is sometimes needed to protect people!!!!!!! Safe guards are a part of doing business!!!!!!!!!!!

Children with LD's are a guaranteed by product of education, there must be structures put in place to help these children. I don't get why its ok for Private & especially Christian schools to hurt these kids. young ones are admitted and then asked to leave though no fault of their own. LD's like dyslexia are different from the deaf, blind or mentally delayed child. Parents know of these disabilities before kindergarten, But a Kid with a learning difference usually doesn't get diagnosed until 2nd grade. Thats up to five years (including Pre-K) without a qualified recourse teacher's expertise. The child has made roots in this special community. Also,these kids do not interfere with the their classmates education. The earlier the diagnoses the better chances for the child to live a full life. If the cost of a part-time resourse teacher is out of the question then maybe they shouln't be in business. Vouchers “with strings attached” can help to to make people aware.

[Janet]

According to many church goers that subsidize Catholic and Christan schools. They are not the same as private. They are supposed to adhere to a higher being. Jesus would not have excluded the faithful non-perfect or poor. Christian school is about the faith not a frame work for upper class families to get away from the common folk. For that they should start a non-religious private school.

[Julia]

I don't know where you all attend but that is definitely fuzzy math. I have a friend who is another very reputable program who again pays about $5250 a year - that's including until 6:00 for her. VPK picks up about $2600 so she is paying about $250 a month for until 6:00 care is her share vs. the $500 it would be w/o VPK.

These are all Christian based schools that have high reputations and have been around for a long time. My son's teacher has a Bacehlors in Ed and is certified etc...

I know some programs don't like to mess around with VPK. Or maybe Pinellas just has better availability?

[NB Teacher]

Regarding VPK and the 65% cost that it is supposed to be worth - my children's preschool told me that when they were starting to offer the VPK program, that they would have to raise the rest of the tuition to cover the shortfall that is the money from the state. This school, in the Trinity area, felt that the money offered by the state would be less than they actually charged per hour, so we the parents would not see much of a reduction. Talk about fuzzy math!!

[Julia]

Pam - that seems really off to me. I would talk to your school about that. I know for sure that the VPK voucher is worth around $2600. If you are saving $120 a month X 10 months is only adding up to $1200. I am guessing your son's school tuition went up from the previous year. My son's schools is extremely reputable, high quality and would cost around $5000 for a 10 month year for a full until 3:00 day. Thus, I am paying around $2400 for the year extra so a little over 50% is covered by the state.

[Pam]

Julia: FYI--VPK does not cover 65%. I wish! Before VPK, my son's daycare bill was $150 a week. Now with VPK it is $120. Not even 25%. At lower quality centers, I have seen rates of $100 a week for after VPK care...but that is as low as it gets. BUT because I'm a single mom who doesn't qualify for help that $120 a month is a big help for me. So I take what I get.

[Julia]

To those of you who are so against VPK and Bright Futures, I think you are missing the point a bit. You object to anyone that is truly in abject poverty getting assistance saying that this will send corporate fat cat's kids to private school or preschool. There's a lot of people in between extreme poverty and the very wealthy. These programs help MANY barely middle class people/upper end lower income people afford preschool and college for their kids. You know, people who pay taxes and work hard but don't qualify for things like Head Start or need based scholarships. College and even preschool has gotten extremely $ these days. Many families slip between the cracks because they "make too much". These families often get punished the hardest, especially for college assistance.

Dear 3:25am,

No, I don't get paid to blog, it's just fun to see people like 4:05am come apart at the seams.

Dear 4:05am,

In your post you say "Giving more tax breaks to corporations to fund voucher programs so their executives can send their kids to private school without helping anyone else’s kid is not the way to make this happen."

How do corporate executives use the CTC when by law the program can only be used by families that qualify for the free or reduced lunch program?

8:34pm,

This is my last attempt. If you don't understand my objections to Bright Futures & VPK, just Google the topics and read about all the others who object to the programs.

...Let’s get on the same page and apply some consistency to FL’s educational policies. The inconsistency is in policy making, not my arguments.

Again with the GI Bill-it’s an EARNED benefit. What a GI does with the money they EARN is none of my dang business. My tax dollars pay the GI for services rendered. Period.

Let’s give corporations the SAME EXACT TAX CREDIT to donate to public schools and see how your little program flourishes.

VPK is filled with objectionable policies from administrative malfeasance to lack of substantial educational benefits for the students.

Bright Futures is also filled with objectionable outcomes: from taking lottery dollars meant for K-12 public schools to the unintended consequences of increased fees not covered by BF or any other scholarships.

Test the kids the same.
Require the same services be rendered.
Require the programs serve all children.
Separate church and state.
Require the same protections for staff, students and families.

In summary: level the playing field. Don’t make public education jump through hoops if you’re gonna take the same tax dollars and give them to organizations that discriminate based on sex, creed or race and fail to maintain public accountability consistent with public education institutions.

The age old argument for requiring public schools to jump through hoops is to “hold them accountable for tax payer dollars.” Well, then, let’s be consistent-than hold all organizations receiving government funds to the same standard.

Our public school system is the operational model of our Constitution. There is no ideal more precious and no experiment worth more effort than our public school system.

Those who work in our public schools and those who are served by them enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights and aspire to enjoy the freedoms offered within.

For some time now, we’ve had an administration that treats the Constitution like it was bathroom tissue (both at the state and federal levels) and unabashedly traded profitable policy decisions for political favors. Corporations have received BILLIONS in tax breaks (like your voucher program) for everything from “creating local jobs” to (not) researching in areas our prayerful President objects to.

It’s time we put our Constitution back to work, took back our public policy making process and shored up our public education system to meet the needs of our future. Giving more tax breaks to corporations to fund voucher programs so their executives can send their kids to private school without helping anyone else’s kid is not the way to make this happen.

It is painfully obvious programs like your CTC voucher programs are not financially, educationally or morally sound. This type of policy making has bankrupted nearly all of us.

You sound like a smart person. Just find a new line of work.

8:34pm-Does someone pay you to blog about vouchers?

[Julia]

I need to point another common misconception about VPK. Yes, working families take advantage of it all the time. The state pays for the 4 hours and the parents pick up the tab for the rest of the day. This saves most people about 65% of their daycare costs for the pre4 year if they are in fulltime. 65% not 50 since the state reimbursement is pretty good actually. I must remind many here that many parts of the country still only have a half day of Kindergarten as well.

Dear 11:58am,

You state:

“I vehemently object to any of my tax dollars being used for any faith-based programs”.

So I assume you object to students under the GI Bill, which you benefitted from, using the program to attend Notre Dame, Yeshiva University, Bible Baptist College, or the many seminaries that veterans use the GI Bill to attend?

You state:

“Stop it with the GI Bill-it's not even in the same stratesphere (sic) with vouchers.”

But the GI Bill violates your objection above, since it is used at faith based schools. Are you being inconsistent?

You state:

“VPK serves some of the people some of the time and ultimately doesn't touch the group with the most need. I'm sure we both know needy families can't take advantage of a 4 hour "school day" for Pre-K kids due to much longer work days.”

Oh I agree totally. I think VPK should be means tested, just like the Corporate Tax Credit Scholarship Program that started this whole conversation. But again you didn’t answer the question: do you object to the VPK program because a majority of the children use this program to attend faith based pre-k providers?

You state:

“And Bright Futures, I'm sure we both know and underderstand (sic) they were never ever meant to serve anyone but the most elite.”

Again, the reason you were asked about Bright Futures is because it violates your “vehement object(tion) to any of my tax dollars being used for any faith-based programs.” We understand that you don’t want to subsidize rich kids going to college. That’s admirable. But can poor kids take your tax dollars to faith based colleges? Why or why not?

You state:

“The thing your vouchers have in common with Bright Futures & VPK is they take money from the working poor and give it to the rich “

The families participating in the corporate tax credit scholarship program have average incomes of under $25,000 for a household of four. When they pay $1,000 on average out of pocket per child to use this program, how is this “taking from the working poor and giving to the rich?”

You state:

“Bottom line-you're (sic) voucher program takes from ALL to finance SOME.”

Isn’t that what we do when we tax property, corporate profits, sales of goods, insurance premiums and other items to finance public education? Do you object to that as well?

You state:

“And to add insult to injury, the education in the schools where voucher money goes is not "tested" in the same way as public schools, nor do the results fall under the same scrutiny.”

By law, all children in the corporate tax credit scholarship program must take a nationally recognized standardized test approved by the Florida DOE every year, and the results must be reported to the University of Florida, who will report to the public on the learning gains each year. It’s not the FCAT, true. But are you satisfied with your investment in the public schools, which spend more than double the amount of this program and yet graduate less than half its low income children? How is that gamble working out for you?

Dear 8:04,

Forgive me for saying your reading comprehension is somewhat lacking.

It seems to me you are finding the argument you want to have.

I vehemently object to any of my tax dollars being used for any faith-based programs. I hope new leadership in Washington will repeal Bush's government support of religious programs.

I also vehemently object to any of my tax dollars that discriminate against people based on race, gender or creed.

Stop it with the GI Bill-it's not even in the same stratesphere with vouchers.

VPK serves some of the people some of the time and ultimately doesn't touch the group with the most need. I'm sure we both know needy families can't take advantage of a 4 hour "school day" for Pre-K kids due to much longer work days.

And Bright Futures, I'm sure we both know and underderstand they were never ever meant to serve anyone but the most elite.

The thing your vouchers have in common with Bright Futures & VPK is they take money from the working poor and give it to the rich. -Again, don't bring the GI Bill into this. Dangling a carrot in front of a kid with no other hope in the world of making an independent life for themselves than to gamble on whether or not they can make it home to spend the GI Bill is a LOT different than sending a kid with little hope of graduating from college to go party for a sememster or two on the tax payers.

If you go back and re-read you may notice that religious schools is only one part of the argument.

Bottom line-you're voucher program takes from ALL to finance SOME. And to add insult to injury, the education in the schools where voucher money goes is not "tested" in the same way as public schools, nor do the results fall under the same scrutiny.

If you want to make a bet that a private school yeilds a better result than a public school then bet your own money-not mine!

Think of private schools like the pay-by-the-day prisons for white collar criminals. For and extra $75 a day, a white collar criminal can get a "better" prison environment than Joe 6-pack.

Your arguments are far more concise, I give you that. Yet, they lack truthfulness.

Catholic-and ALL private schools in any area where public schools exist have the MEANS AND THE RESOURCES to "treat" special education students.

Ask your public school system. Private schools can take advantage of any "special" program available in the public schools.

Home school children can also take advantage of programs as well as sports and any other extra curriculars offered by public schools.

It is a CHOICE of private schools-Catholic or otherwise-NOT TO SERVE SOME STUDENTS.

Public schools do not have-nor do they wish to-make the same choices.

And that's where public schools take the higher road. We SERVE them ALL!!!!!!!

Service to God? Service to community? Faulty claims by "faith-based" schools. What happened to "treating the least of 'my people' as you treat me?" It's a big load of crap.

It's not rejecting them, it's a matter of resources. If they don't have the resources to help certain children, why lie to people and say that they do? Would you go to a knee surgeon asking them to give you cateract surgery?

*not know

[teacher w/ brain]

Tina, what planet are you from? Do you now know what private means? If a Catholic school were made to be just like a public school no one would want to go. Why pay for something that you can get for free? Private means you get to do what you want and if that means picking and choosing who you serve, then that's what it is.

Dear 10:45,

I believe the reason you were asked about VPK, Bright Futures, and the GI Bill is that you first post appeared to object to the CTC because taxpayer money is indirectly being used for students to attend faith based schools. All of these other programs allow students to directly use taxpayer funds at faith based schools.

So it appears, from your second post, that you are judging all these programs based not on the seperation of church and state, but rather on whether the recipients are deserving of the aid.

You are OK with means tested Head Start, because poor people use it. But you are against the CTC, even though the average income of the families is less than $25,000 for a family of four.

You are for the GI Bill because veterans earned their scholarships, and contribute out of their own pockets to use them. Yet you are against the CTC even though parents with this level of income pay out of pocket on average $1,000 per child to participate.

Forgive me for saying that your posts are somewhat inconsistent.

[tina]

The problem with catholic schools is that they make you feel a part of the community then weed out children that have dyslexia or other lds. Its like give me your money then when you may take some effort go away.when they accept 3 to 7 year olds there is no way to screen before entering school. so kid gets to deal with rejection.People need to know this.

I think catholic schools should have the same rules public schools do in order to protect children. Each school is like its own little island, there are no checks and balances to make sure kids are learning and to make sure that the school is not into petty disagreemnts or cliques. parishners should make it affordable for any family to go. Not free but maybe on a slided scale. Otherwise its not catholic school but exclusive "superior Hitler" school.

If the Catholics need to finance education-hold a garage sale at the Vatican. Don't tithe my paycheck through taxes.

We know religious schools are not "loaded" with money. That's why they are after MY tax money. No thanks, don't want to contribute.

1:30pm, aka presumptuous,
I am against VPK as it currently exists. Not against enhanced Head Start programs, however because it's a needs-based program.

And, yes, although I have high school aged kids, I am against Bright Futures "scholarships." They are not working. 1) Bright Futures has nothing to do with scholarship (as it was billed to pass), nor has it created brighter futures for most kids who begin, but don't finish college-because they were never ready to begin with and 2) there is no measure of need.

No, I'm am not against the GI Bill. It helped put me through college. To even throw the GI Bill into the argument as a straw man is a cheap shot. It's not even in the same realm as a K-12 voucher or a "choose" to go to Pre-K program. GIs E-A-R-N the money they use for college. Many even contribute money from their meager paychecks to E-A-R-N better benefits once enrolled full time in school.

I am FOR seperation of church and state (including freedom from religion as a valid choice), effective use of tax dollars and government leaders who don't rob from the taxpayers to repay favors from the rich.

Rather than listing the things I am for, I'll refer you to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe they properly outline my biggest passions.

[Julia]

I would like to comment on the $ aspect of this. Somehow in urban areas, the global catholic church helps out. Not so here. They are run locally.Many of them have seen drastic enrollment drops and some have closed recently (Transfiguration). I am more familiar w/ Lutheran Church schools. I can tell you right now, that our Church is not making any $ off the school. We are lucky to break even on it. The Church itself is in debt. Lutheran Churches have closed recently (Garden of Peace).So whatever notion there is that religiously affiliated schools are just loaded w/ $ is not true. In fact, it is one reason I won't send my daughter to ours. The computers and facility are way behind the times. My Church has never even asked me to send my kids there. In fact the majority of the kids that attend there are non Church members kids. Hope that dispels another notion that the Church is out there trying to control its members.

From having spoken w/ many parents, I feel public does a better job. Unless you can really afford prep school like Shorecrest etc...The class sizes are not always smaller and teacher credentials can be very thin. The one thing I do like is a better balanced curriculum and lack of FCAT though.

[Another teacher]

I am not following the idea of 60-70% of low income families attending private schools anyway. Though, there are probably other allowances from the church in order for this to actually occur. If so, why do the churches need this money? Most Catholic churches already have way more money than the public schools.

My husband and I are both school teachers. We send our two children to a private school that is not religious based. We are doing without in order to send them there because we believe in what the private school offers them (smaller classes, traditional rigorous education, discipline, well mannered children, and no FCAT stressed out children and teachers.)

My point is that we feel this is a better environment for our children, so we are doing everything (including second jobs) to send them there. Priorities. I realize that not every low income family can afford it even if they worked two jobs; however, we do what we can for our children because of the life choices we make. I do not expect tax payers to fund my choice.

Also, the voucher system does not take into account all of the additional expenses that a private school requires: materials, donations, special events, field trips, parties, purchasing student lap tops, etc. What happens when the families cannot afford these expenses? Or when the children misbehave and then are kicked out and put back into the public schools? Where does the money from the vouchers go? It stays at the private institution. There is no accountability. So that student's funding is somewhere else, but they are back in the public schools with no additional money to support them. (There were articles about this very thing happening here in Pasco a while back.)

If people could just spend a little more time and energy demanding that the state law makers do a better job at making the school systems work, instead of overloading the public education system with more mandates, more paperwork, more responsibility, and less money.

Dear 7:00am,

I presume that you are against the Voluntary Pre-K program and Bright Futures? Under these programs, students take funds directly from the state treasury (as opposed to though a tax credit mechanism where the funds never reach the treasury) and attend faith based schools. I presume you are also against the GI Bill, under which for decades veterans have used taxpayer funds to attend faith based colleges (and even seminaries).

The Florida legislature makes direct appropriations to the state's Historically Black Colleges, three of four of which are faith based institutions. Should that be outlawed as well?

Can anyone figure out what 7:08am is trying to say?

DRIVEL:

families is $25,000 for a family of four. Fact: the average tuition at the over 900 schools serving the CTC kids is $5,000. Now, how mnay of you out there think that 60 percent of the families--many of whom have more than one kid on the program--would pay the full tuition out of pocket?

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE FAMILIES CAN PAY-THE DANG CHURCH WILL...AND SHOULD AND COULD PAY. IF THE FAMILY DOES WHAT THEY ARE TOLD BY THE CHURCH, THEIR TUITION IS PAID. NOW ASK YOURSELF WHY THE CHURCH NEEDS TAX PAYERS TO PAY INSTEAD-BECAUSE FAMILIES DO NOT WANT TO DO WHAT THE CHURCH TELLS THEM TO DO. THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE OWNED BY THE CHURCH. DUH.

vouchers = tax payer bail out for religion

The purpose of vouchers is to avoid socialization of children in the public schools.

Any group (especially the poor) is susceptible to influence through their children.

Unfortunately for all of us, there is a group of some of us that believes their way (in many cases, their way is religious) is better than any other way.

Secular education is a threat to all religious groups. Public education (by way of the Constitution) refuses to recognize religious stories as fact. Some hang up about scientific study, I think.

Keep in mind Catholic schools were formed after a lawsuit by the Irish immigrants who thought texts espousing Protestant ideals were not appropriate educational materials.

Some people believe compulsory attendance laws force them to give their children over to the state to educate. Churches urge their membership not to do this. Church leaders want kids educated in their private church schools. It meets two ends: the first, immediate funding to maintain operations and extended membership through indoctrinated generations repeating their childhood for their own children.

No where in this is the overall desire to provide the very best education for students.

Instead, the desire to take from all kids to "educate" some kids. The desire to avoid scientific study. The desire to avoid exposure to "other" ideas-like differing religious views, let alone secular education. The desire to maintain firm control over the thoughts, desires and ideas of children...these are the "moral principles" on the side of voucher supporters.

Remember the lessons about Pilgrims and Indians? Missions in the US before, during and after the Spanish-American war?

Vouchers are akin to funding missions. Voucher-based schools are, in fact, publicly funded missions for churches.

Tax deductions aren't good enough to keep churches in the money anymore I guess. Now they need cash from tax payers to fund their way of life.

6:59
Sure he does. They are Mexican.

vouchers = snake oil

So now if you're against vouchers, you are immoral. Oh, wow. Nice try. I see you are familar with the old press trick of creating a moral panic.

You want everybody running around gasping about saving the poor people from themselves. You'll put forth the same argument used for "Bright Futures" which is now proven to be a defunct program. Not only did it not support first in their family college grads, but it bankrupted the state college systems while quadrupling (conservative estimate) add-on fees not covered by scholarships or other financial aide.

Nice job there.

Now you want to bankrupt public schools because...well, I don't know why.

Peddle your crap somewhere else.

Dear what-your-name-you're-already-forgotten,

Whatever.

Dear 6:57,

What is rational about saying that people with these levels of income could possibly pay that much tuition?

Those who oppose choice for low income parents have lost the moral argument, and they have lost the financial argument.

OPPAGA was actually conservative in estimating the savings from the CTC. Instead of using the full FEFP of over $7,000, they used an "applicable" FEFP which excluded certain "categorical" expenses that should have been included. If the full FEFP had been used, the savings per year would have been millions more.

Talk about pulling something "from thin air". Does Welner have any citations for his "60 to 70 percent" of Catholic school kids being poor? The facts and common sense refute him. Fact: the average household income of the CTC families is $25,000 for a family of four. Fact: the average tuition at the over 900 schools serving the CTC kids is $5,000. Now, how mnay of you out there think that 60 percent of the families--many of whom have more than one kid on the program--would pay the full tuition out of pocket?

RE:
This is the best argument that choice haters have? That maybe 60 percent of poor people would somehow come up with tuition, so the program doesn't save the state money?

They better do better than that.

AT LEAST IT'S A VIABLE ARGUMENT GROUNDED IN TRUTH. NO WAY PRO-VOUCHER DONKEYS CAN COME UP WITH A SIMILARLY RATIONAL ARGUMENT.

Until we all come together to provide a common experience for all our kids-we will continue to be divided.

This is the best argument that choice haters have? That maybe 60 percent of poor people would somehow come up with tuition, so the program doesn't save the state money?

They better do better than that.

This argument by Welner is a joke. The average houshold income of families on this program is $25,000 for a household of four. The average tuition at the schools serving the kids is $5,000. How many parents can pay that much for one, much less two kids, to go to private school?

[Julia]

I am curious though. My understanding is that the Catholic church HEAVILY subsidizes high poverty inner city Catholic schools so the cost is pretty low. That is not the case here. It is not a subsidized area. Catholic school even as a member will cost you a minimum of $5500 per child. I don't see any high poverty family affording that. Add in more than one child and it is simply not affordable even for more middle class people.