EDUCATIONAL VOUCHERS.   Term Paper ID:19041 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Pros & cons. Case examples, parents' role, socioeconomic factors, impact on public schools.... More...

10 Pages / 2250 Words 4 sources, 16 Citations, APA Format $40.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Pros & cons. Case examples, parents' role, socioeconomic factors, impact on public schools. Paper Introduction: In the mid 1950s, Milton Friedman proposed a voucher system for schooling. This idea for educational reform had the intention of giving parents more choice in their children's education and of equalizing the quality of education among all socioeconomic groups. Many critics at the time considered Friedman's proposal to be wild and impractical, even though such a system was in use in British Columbia, Canada. During the late 1960's, the concept of vouchers raised little opposition. Well-known supporters included Friedman, Mario Fantini, and Christopher Jencks (Salganik, 1981, p. 7). However, it gradually became apparent that the thinking behind the voucher system actually was related to different, and sometimes conflicting goals. Some regarded vouchers primarily as a way to increase equality through reallocation of resources. Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. 7). Martyn, Kenneth A. Real estate advertisingattests to this fact. Infact, before the experiment was finished, the school administratorsadjusted the market aspect to suit their needs. Professionals wish to retain decision-making power over schools andteaching and, therefore, resist the changes vouchers would bring.Proponents of the vouchers believe that families know best what is best fortheir children. There have been limited voucher programs inMaine, Vermont, and Nebraska. 19).Presently more highly educated middle class and wealthy families exerciseconsiderable control over their children's schooling. During the late 196 's, the concept of vouchers raised littleopposition. The court only mandates that funding be provided for basiceducation in the local districts. (1965, November). Parental involvement is a must for quality education.These authors encourage parental involvement in the schools as they nowexist, rather than dismantling the public system in favor of a voucherprogram. 267). And finally, the administration did not allow advertising ofthe features of the various minischools (Sandler and Kapel, 1988, p. These have taken place in predominantlywhite, small town or rural areas that rank above the national averages inachievement tests. Thisis contrary to the American "meltingpot" concept of equality for all andlearning from exposure to the diversity of various cultures. What about increased administration toorganize and carry out the plan? The plan to fully inform the parents of their options wasnot available until the third year, and in the last year, the minischoolaspect of the program was abandoned. 272). There have not been further voucher experiments of the magnitude ofthe Alum Rock experiment. 273). Theydisagree on whether funds should go to public schools or to a state-regulated market of private schools. The Alum Rock plan demonstrated interesting, if limited researchresults. Gary S. The voucher controversy is complex. Following adiscussion of research findings concerning the actual uses of vouchers bypilot schools and discussion of researchers' positions on the issue, aconclusion summarizes the findings as they relate to the stated hypothesis. Still others believed that vouchers would instill greaterdiversity of values and philosophies into the schools. Parents would require information about the continuingquality of each school available through such a system. Sandler and Kapel have several arguments against the voucher system.They believe that (1) vouchers could weaken or eliminate the public schoolsystem, (2) that vouchers do not make sense financially, (3) that voucherscould lead to greater racial, economic, and social segregation of children,(4) and that there are better ways to introduce choice into the educationsystem (Sandler and Kapel, 1988, p. 274). In May, 1988, the Minnesota legislature adopted an open enrollmentprogram that allowed students the right to attend any public school.However, transportation had to be arranged by the parents, and no privateschools were involved. In the mid 195 s, Milton Friedman proposed a voucher system forschooling. 27 ). This sensitivearea of class inequality would need to be addressed before a trulyequitable system could be established. Well-known supporters included Friedman, Mario Fantini, andChristopher Jencks (Salganik, 1981, p. There is much opinion about the use of educational vouchers, butthere is little research based on actual use. Parents with higher socioeconomic status were more likely tochose innovative programs. 6-1 . It strikes to thevery core of the American way--separation of church and state and theavailability of a standard public education to all for the purposes oflearning a common culture. The school provided free transportation to children who needed it. Educational vouchers:A viable option for urban settings? Many private schools have certain admissionrestrictions by which they admit those children above a certain level ofability. Private schools are not required bylaw to provide transportation to their students. The State is currentlyunder court order to improve present policies. They point out that in other aspectsof the market-place no such equity exists. Saiganik, Laura Hersh. This philosophical question is at the heart of thedebate concerning the use of vouchers for schooling. However, it gradually becameapparent that the thinking behind the voucher system actually was relatedto different, and sometimes conflicting goals. No private schoolsparticipated. For purposes of this paper, we shall examine evidence to support orrefute the hypothesis that educational vouchers are a fair and efficientmethod to allocate funds for the education of children. Private schools tend to have a more structuredcurriculum, which may account for this finding, concurring with theaforementioned Alum Rock results. 19). None have taken place in large urban areas withheterogeneous, low-income populations. Inadequate reading skills of some poor parents maketheir access to program information a serious challenge. The Alum Rock experiment expanded parental choice to a limiteddegree. 19. However, the project did not contain key components of a genuinelycompetitive market system. Socially advantaged people hadmore accurate information about the schools and were aware of theiralternatives. Prices are high in poorerneighborhood stores, and slum landlords are not known for their economicfair treatment of low income tenants (Sandler and Kapel, 1988, p. (1988). The Urban Review 2 : pp. In 197 , a voucher proposalwas presented to numerous school districts with promises of federalsupport. The Alum Rock project demonstrated that geographic proximity is ahigher priority than the availability of alternative academic programs.Over 7 % of those parents who responded to a questionnaire regarding theprogram cited geographic location of the school as the primary determinantfor their choice of school. Teachers received no special rewards for theirproductivity. If private schools have an advantage in themarket system, a possibility exists that lesser desirable public schoolscould lose large numbers of students as soon as the vouchers aredistributed. 6-7). Becker contends that a comprehensive voucher system would requirepublic schools to compete for students, suppress violence, enforcediscipline, involve parents, offer a challenging curriculum, and containcosts. As aresult, questions have been raised as to who should control the schools.Should it be the school personnel and state legislators or should it be theconsumer, the parents? It may choose from variousoptions. Further findings noted that the Alum Rock parents' program choicesresulted in clustering of students by family background (income, education,and values). 267-282.----------------------- 12 A mid 198 s Gallup poll revealed that 59% of nonwhites,compared with 43% of whites, favored vouchers for education (p. Private schools were not included in theprogram. A study carried out in the aftermath of the Watts riots foundsubstantial inequality in the supply of education among four"underprivileged" districts and comparable "privileged" school districts,favoring the lower income areas. Wealthier parents picked schools thatemphasized problem-solving and the development of communication skills(Sandler and Kapel, 1988, p. This basicdifference in how the various social groups view and act upon alternativesis one of the arguments against the use of vouchers. Opponents doubt that a voucher system can be efficient and fair torecipients of all income levels. It is likely that some sort of standardized testing and astandardized curriculum would need to be implemented in order to justifylarge amounts of public funding going to private institutions through avoucher system. It is unlikely that total educational budgets would be increased toaccommodate a voucher system, and such a program could drastically divertfunds from the public schools. Sandler and Kapel cite Levin'sopinion that the voucher system would violate the premises upon which thepublic schools are based by dispersing public funds to a variety ofcompeting schools with a variety of interests and aims. In 1972-73, the parents of Alum Rock students were given achoice among several public schools, each of which contained severalminischools. Parents did not really have choices among a wide variety ofvarious kinds of programs reflecting different philosophies and subjectmatter content. (1981, December). A voucher system could segregate difficult-to-educate childreninto lower quality public schools. Sandler, Andrew B., & Kapel, David E. Salganik, Wise, and Darling-Hammond state in twoseparate studies that there has not yet been a true test of the use ofeducational vouchers (Sandler and Kapel, 1988, p. 274).Details have not been worked out on how low income students would pay forextra private school expenses, such as uniforms and school trips. Some suburban communities compete for newresidents with the high quality of their schools. It isunlikely that disadvantaged families could afford these if they can barelyafford food and shelter. For example, the more deprived areasspent $384 and $447, respectively per year per student in a typical juniorhigh and high school, compared to $365 and $385 in a higher income juniorhigh and high school (Martyn, 1965, mimeo). Sandler and Kapel argue that it is unlikely that a voucher programwould increase equality in education. The rise and fall ofeducation vouchers. A vouchersystem would greatly increase the number of minority and lower incomefamilies who could choose private schools. Cohen and Farrar pointed out in a study done in 1977 that the AlumRock voucher system did not create a situation where the professionals lostany power to the parents, a fear of those opposed to the voucher idea. They question the viability of creatingworkable conditions of regulation, dissemination of information, andstandards that would not be unduly costly and cumbersome (Salganik, 1981,pp. Opponents of vouchers hold that because education is a publicgood, educational choices should be controlled within the democraticsystem. They also are lesssegregated by race and income, although more segregated by religion(Becker, 1986, p. References Becker, Gary S. Business Weekly, p. Of interest is the Washington State case. 7). Some regarded vouchersprimarily as a way to increase equality through reallocation of resources.Others hoped that vouchers would increase efficiency in the educationalsystem. It has been argued that the public school monopoly on education hasreduced the accountability of those who administer the schools,particularly in large urban systems (Sandler and Kapel, 1988, p. Research studies on the actual use ofvoucher systems are minimal and certainly insufficient for a basis forwholesale revision of the education system. Otherwise, schools could be required to simply close before theyhave an opportunity to change and improve. Professor James S. Families cannot make informed choicesunless they are aware of the choices. Minority families seem to realize their position, toa certain extent. 276). And what about the transportation ofstudents who choose private schools? If a public school could not attract enough students to covercosts, it would have to close or be sold to a private owner. Demand was restricted bymaking it impossible for schools to expand, even if more students chosethose particular schools. (1986, March 24). They usually must accept whatever public schools are available, regardlessof how bad they are. Coleman and his associates at the University ofChicago show in their study that students from poorer families perform muchbetter in private schools than in public schools. Supporters of the voucher idea believe that the government shouldintervene in social life only as necessary, that families are more likelythan the state or local government to make educational decisions thatbenefit their children. Give all parents a say inchoosing schools. An even larger percentage did not have accurateinformation about the program and did not understand how to use it fortheir children's benefit (Sandler and Kapel, 1988, p. This idea for educational reform had the intention of givingparents more choice in their children's education and of equalizing thequality of education among all socioeconomic groups. There are various hidden economic considerations that have not beenaccounted for in voucher proposals. Disadvantaged families cannot afford private schooltuition, and they rarely can move to another community with better schools. Two other voucher projects diedbefore implementation, one from lack of interest from principals and theother from rejection from voters, who turned it down because they fearedincreased costs. These deeply held values cannot easily orquickly be exchanged for the merits of a voucher system. Private schools,with their unique specialized philosophies, do not coincide with theoverall sense of common community envisioned by the founder of thiscountry. They can afford thetuition of private schools, and they can move to geographic locations wherethere are better schools. Critics fear that this type of system is of benefitonly to the affluent. Becker, Professor of Economics and Sociology at theUniversity of Chicago, believes that a voucher system will equalizeeducation opportunities among all social classes (Becker, 1986, p. 268). Opinion among professionalsseems more negative than positive. These steps served to minimize any true market aspect of theprogram (Sandler and Kapel, 1988, p. It is unclear whether vouchers would cover theseextra expenses, and if not, how these would be reimbursed. School principals banned advertising, andteachers who left the project were given priority assignments to otherschools. Working-class parents preferred highlystructured schools that emphasize strict discipline, obedience, andconcentration on basic skills. Even after four years of bilingual publicity throughnewspapers, mailings, radio announcements, neighborhood meetings, andinformation counselors, a quarter of the parents did not know the vouchersystem existed. Many critics at thetime considered Friedman's proposal to be wild and impractical, even thoughsuch a system was in use in British Columbia, Canada. Report on education to thegovernor's commission on Los Angeles Riots, (mimeo). This experiment lasted five years. The Education Digest: pp. At the center of the voucher debate isthe philosophical question of who knows best what is best for the children. They agree that the educational system should teachcitizenship and literacy to all, that it should be efficient and fair, andthat it should promote democratic agreement while respecting diversity.They agree that the state should provide funds for education. This difficulty became evident inthe Alum Rock project. Despite the differences among voucher supporters and opponents, theyagree on many issues. Another concern is that private schools are not required to operatewithin strict federal and state guidelines because they do not at thepresent time receive tax money. Over 31% cited the desire to keep siblings andfriends together. Sandler and Kapel further caution that there is no reason to thinkthat increased market forces will help poor and disadvantaged families(Sandler and Kapel, 1988, p. They hold morepotential for wealthier families simply because these families know how to"use the system". Supporters also predict that a policy of choiceand competition would result in improvement of the quality of schooling.Free enterprise often improves the quality of the goods and services madeavailable. 269). This competition would need to be equalized over a period oftime. Few private schools maintain specialeducation programs. 19). They acknowledge full well that teachers and administratorsresist parental involvement because they perceive this shift as a loss ofprofessional power. Vouchers may further stratify students so that they do not haveexperiences with people from other diverse backgrounds and beliefs. Proponents of thevoucher system, in spite of limited research results cite various potentialadvantages. Only one district, Alum Rock, California (near San Jose), with15, students (55% Hispanic), agreed to try the voucher system (Salganik,1981, p. In conclusion, it seems that there is no conclusive evidence in favorof the hypothesis earlier stated. In general, low-income parents and those with less formaleducation were less informed about their options than other parents moreeconomically and educationally advantaged. The court is requiring efficiency, whichis defined as the productivity of each pupil compared to the funds spent. These transportationcosts would increase dramatically with a voucher system. Another major flaw cited by Sandler and Kapel is that parents wouldbe unable or unmotivated to be involved in schools some geographic distancefrom their homes. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.