The Rants of Issachar

This is a thread on school vouchers. I'm going to add some more here, but right now it's just here because I didn't want to get this thread off-topic.

Update: Later...

Okay...

So what about school vouchers? I should mention that since I work in an independent school, the adoption of school vouchers would probably have a positive affect on my income.

For those who don't know, a school voucher system is one in which parents are given "vouchers" for their child's education. Schools get government funding based on the number of students enrolled at the school. The benefit of this is that school choice is no longer dependent on income. The way things currently stand, not everyone can afford to send their children to independent or private schools. A voucher system changes this.

There are obviously details to be worked out about how vouchers would work with schools that restrict enrolment on other bases. Non-tuition school fees, (such as school trip fees like those currently charged in public schools) would have to be careful regulated. But the principle of school vouchers remains a good idea.

So why is the so-called "left" against school vouchers? They shouldn't be. Voucher systems help the less wealthy more than the wealthy. They level the playing field. They provide parents with free choice in the education of their children. Their time has come.

Posted by:  salty cracker

My suspicion is that even with school vouchers, there are those who would perceive inequity, because to be perfectly frank, some schools are "more desirable" than others.

One could argue, however, that such a system would encourage "less desirable" schools to improve their facilities, staff, etc.

One possible rub is that if school locations are determined based on population distribution, there will likely always be some difficulties for schools in East Van, Whalley, etc. to become "more desirable" schools, as fewer parents may want their kids in those neighbourhoods. And the kids who live in those areas and may have difficulty affording transportation to other schools would still be at a loss.

I'm not saying that the voucher idea does not have its merits; I'm just playing left's advocate.

Posted by:  zannebee

Basically the argument is that school vouchers would take money away from already underfunded public schools and would provide government funding for religious schools (since most private schools are religious schools) which violates the 1st Amendment separation of church & state. Also, private schools aren't accountable to any government oversight and private schools can discriminate whereas public schools are required to accept everyone regardless.

those with the most to gain from school vouchers are not the working poor or minority communities, but the wealthy, who will gain tax credits for something they already do (send their kids to private schools), and the Christian Right, who are eager to use their vouchers to fund a religious education. Also, school vouchers "assist" in paying tuition but a private schools can raise their fees to the point where vouchers will not help the poor.

(I am talking about the US here, not Canada. I don't know the exact problems in Canada but I suspect they are similar).

Posted by:  salty cracker

Another argument I've heard is that with the voucher system, some schools may be tempted to use their funds for promotion rather than for educational resources.

Posted by:  issachar

Zannebee...

This is another case where the US situation is actually quite different from the Canadian one.

I'm limiting my comment to the education system in BC because it's the one I'm most familiar with.

Having said that, independent schools (I use that term because that's what the BC Ministry of Education calls them), are subject to government oversight. They have to teach the government mandated curiculum and are audited on a regular basis by the Ministry of Education to ensure that everything's okay. In fact, my school was audited last year. Teachers in independent schools have to be authorized by the Ministry of Education as well.


You raise a good point with private schools continuing to raise tuition, (thus pricing out the poor), but this problem is easily dealt with.

*You could have voucher use restricted to schools with no tuition. This gives increased choice to parents, but doesn't increase the number of families who could afford to send their children to the more expensive schools.

*You could have vouchers "lose value" as a school charges tuition. (i.e. The school charges $100 and the voucher is worth $50 less). This would give some advantage to tuition based schools but would influence them to charge less tuition, thus increasing the number of families who could afford to send their children there. (Not perfect, but it's an improvement).

The whole separation of church and state issue is different in Canada, but if we had to we could easily make it so that vouchers could only be applied to standard curriculum content costs, not the "religious" classes.


I must disagree with your statement that the people with the most to gain from vouchers are the rich. Tax is percentage based, vouchers are fixed numbers therefore they will count as a more significant portion of income for those with less income. (Most tangible benefit goes to the poor). Additionally, the rich currently can pay for private school. With vouchers they still can but so can everyone else. (Most tangible benefit goes to the poor).

I still don't see how it makes any sense to be against school vouchers if you want to help the poor. The only way it makes sense to me is if you want public schools to act as a tool of social engineering. If that's the case, then you don't want to have parent choice in education. A person like that would want to make independent education illegal, but that's politically unrealistic in Canada.


Vouchers help every parent by giving them educational choice, but they give the most help to the people who don't currently have free choice. (The poor).

Posted by:  issachar

Salty Cracker...

If a school uses it's money to print fancy advertisements rather than educating children I suspect that the quality of their school will diminish. (Thus making them a lot less desirable).

Posted by:  salty cracker

Hello again... a pile of questions, as you've connected the two threads:

Just to start, I am all for independent schools; if a parent wants to send a child to an independent school for any reason (faith-based, etc.), great. I am also for parental choice, or at the very least, parental involvement to a greater degree than there is now (without being detrimental).

I do believe, however, that a voucher system would be a tough sell in Canada, because there are those who would argue that even though it is not privatization, it may have the appearance of sending things in that direction.

I don't claim to be an expert on how such a system would work, but I do have some questions; the answers to which likely have significant consequences.

In a voucher system, would a public school's allotment of government funds be entirely based on vouchers? Let's suppose that a public school and an independent school have equal enrolment. Would the public school be able to exist on a level playing field if the independent school is able to raise funds through other means (such as private donations, or affiliations with other organizations)? The public school (or the school board) could make corporate deals as well, but would this be in the best interest of education?

Suppose a public school is located, out of geographic necessity, in a less than desirable neighbourhood. I would assume that fewer parents would want their children in those areas. Do the few students who do attend this school end up with an equal education?

If each student is funded equally, does this give the government the right to question an independent school's standards of behaviour or requirements for admission?

If both public and independent schools are part of the same voucher system, who would take on the cost burden when a new school needs to be built? The government, the private sector, or a combination of both? Would this depend on which party was in power?

And with regard to the teachers, would they lose or gain, and would this depend on whether or not they were unionized?

What if an independent school "turns a profit"? Does the government have any say on where this money goes?