But in a way, this is a distraction from the main problem. Our responsibility, or at least the responsibility of the government we elected, is to educate all the students in the District of Columbia. Some students will take vouchers and go to private schools, but most won’t, and we need to educate those kids too. Kids from the worst family backgrounds, who are harder to teach, are most likely to remain in public schools.

Although it’s fun to debate vouchers, the debate needs to move from the side issue to the main issue. Why is DC’s public education so staggeringly expensive? Is the $25K figure I’ve read actually correct? If so, is that figure calculated the same way states’ figures are calculated (I’ve read that there plenty of chicanery and obfuscation in those calculations)? Why is DC’s public education so bad (if indeed it’s worse than cities’)? What can we do to fix this?

A couple of thoughts that aren’t contradictory:

1) The voucher students must pass a means test to qualify, and are known to be economically disadvantaged. Also, those in failing schools are given preference. Might these disadvantages not warrant vouchers greater than the $4000 base level?

2) In the latest report, the mean tuition for voucher schools was around $5900, with the lowest being $3500. Since the voucher is capped at $7500, the mean voucher amount must have been less than $5900.

3) This idea of setting voucher levels could actually shine light on what public schools are actually spending to educate students, and allow discussion over what they should be spending.

It would be easy for a school to spend virtually nothing on a gifted or motivated student who is already ahead of the standard course material. And if those who favor using these students as assistant teachers had their way, the cost could actually be negative. A minimal voucher would effectively set a floor on what public schools would have to spend educating good students in order to keep them.

When I said the voucher schools were skimming off the top students, I didn’t mean the top students had any obligation to stay in inferior classrooms just to benefit other students. That would, indeed, be a deplorable use of those students; I can see why you’d find it objectionable.

Instead, I meant that the top students were leaving and taking with them more money than they would have cost had they remained in public school. Neither you nor I is privy to exact details of DC’s school budgets, but I imagine student costs might be something like:

student with autism, $60K
dyslexic student, $20K
student with ADHD, $17K
student with no father at home and drug addicted mother, $17K
average student with uninvolved parent, $10K
good student, no disabilities, with involved parents, $4K

Obviously, I made these numbers up out of whole cloth, but I do believe that good students with involved parents are going to be the cheapest to educate. If such students cost the school $4-5K, but take $7.5K away when they leave with vouchers, then the rest of the students are even worse off, and that was my point.

In roughly reverse order:

Suppose the average per-student cost in D.C. is $10K, and 20 percent of students are in special ed. If educating mainstream students costs $7500, that leaves $20K to spend on each special ed student.

If you think $7500 is unrealistic, then what would you consider a more accurate cost? If you’re unwilling to name an amount that you would allow to follow these kids out of the public system, I can only conclude that you’re using the $7500 figure as a red herring.

The Sidwell Friends example is another distraction, since it’s obviously atypical; in fact the mean tuition for voucher schools is below $6K. Again, you don’t indicate support for vouchers toward any of the lower-priced schools either.

Whether or not the only studies available show a significant academic benefit is another irrelevant argument. The studies also show no measurable harm, and the voucher parents seem to see a definite benefit.

None of these points support a categorically anti-voucher position; all are neutral or ambivalent. So why oppose vouchers? All I’m left with is your statement about voucher schools “skimming off the top students.” Perhaps I unfairly lumped you together with other anti-cream-skimmers, who advocate forcing high-achievers to remain in the classroom in order to somehow pull up the low-achievers, and who clearly advocate using those students as means to an end. But if your concern is strictly economic, again, what do you think is the true cost of educating these high-achievers in public schools?

And, if a given program doesn’t help all of those students, Fang opposes it. If the opponents of a program manage to limit its scope, Fang opposes it.

One of the “kindergarden stories” is about a girl walking down the beach throwing starfish back into the sea, to get them away from the sun that is drying them out and killing them. An adult asks “why are you bothering, you can’t make a difference – there are far more starfish than you can save”.

The little girl pointed out that what she did made a difference to the ones that she saved.

In other words, no programs for the difficult and expensive kids, no pesky feeding of the kids eating into the budget. I wonder what happens to kids on medications at these schools?

So much for the safety and satisfaction arguement.

My understanding is that the DC public school system is unique in that it is overseen by the federal govt. If so, then look what govt. intervention does for you.

Mayoral control and the annointed on Rhee have had 2 years to improve this situation and have not.

Stop putting politicians and amateurs in position of authority and instead put some real educators, then you’ll see some change.

Only a few years ago, it was in all the papers that the DC schools could not determine with any sort of accuracy either the number of students or the number of staff in the system. I believe that was about the same time that the head of the DC teachers’ union was arrested for embezzling several million dollars of union funds, and she wasn’t the only one involved in that scheme. Also, the number of administrators and central office staff is huge. I remember reading a comparison between DC and the Baltimore Archdiocese schools, which had similar numbers of students, and DC had 10 times the number of central office bureaucrats. The union does add to the problem, because it has a stranglehold on work rules/assignments, makes it exceedingly difficult to fire anyone and because any attempt generates large legal fees. I remember $600,000 being the average figure. (several years ago, somewhere in the DC area)

The vouchers educate children for MUCH less than DCPS and I’d bet that the level of safety and order is better. Regarding severe special-ed students, DC has had large numbers of them expensively placed in private situations, with DCPS paying the whole bill.(more than DCPS spends for similar students) Considering the general achievement and discipline levels in DC, I understand parents trying to remove those kids who have academic ambitions from the poisonous attitude of the remainder.