Can we talk abut school funding and the "voucher" option?

[ExtraSlow]

Kids going to charter school also "take money away from the public system". And kids going to catholic schools "take money away from the CBE".

maybe we could do a full voucher system, but make it only available to children who's household income is below $200,000/yr? Anyone over that amount gets zero public funding? That way those nasty rich people aren't messing things up. Does that solve the problem?

[98brg2d]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

2 billion out of 18 billion is only 11%. Not sure where you got 20%?

18 is the total amount of transfer for all purposes. 2 (2.6 actually I think) was used for school, out of 8 (8.9 actually) total school budget, then I down rated it from 25% to 20% for lower tax brackets, federally. I rounded numbers in my post to speed up the typing. They are very rough anyways since a lot of the information is not directly available.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Keep in mind the entire healthcare system is largely a "voucher" system.

You go to your doctor with, essentially, a voucher from the gov't. But the doctors are private people/corps.

If you ‘gave’ vouchers to teachers instead of schools, this comparison might make a bit of sense, but it’s a pretty crappy representation of both systems.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

maybe we could do a full voucher system, but make it only available to children who's household income is below $200,000/yr? Anyone over that amount gets zero public funding? That way those nasty rich people aren't messing things up. Does that solve the problem?

You'd probably want to have a progressive scale otherwise a small raise could cost a family tens of thousands of dollars a year.

[98brg2d]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not specifically directed at you, but I find it ironic that a lot of the "equality for all" posters seem to forget all about that same equality when it comes to funding received by those perceived to be "wealthy". It might not be hard to say some people forfeit the education funding, but it's even easier to simply apply the same funding to all children.

I know this flies in the face of the eat-the-rich, anti-private school crowd, but it should be known that there are a lot of families that send their children to private schools by making sacrifices in other areas of their lives. For some families, cutting the basic funding would mean the difference between private and public education.

^This, exactly. I get to hear about it all the time how parents are late on payments to the school, certain students have undisclosed bursaries in order to attend, kids getting pulled out due to cost etc. Just because somebody ponied up for a few years doesn't mean it is at all sustainable for them so don't think that everybody can fully afford it without the amount they do get from the province. Lots of people make major sacrifices. Probably the biggest I see is when only one child is put in private school, out of three or four children in a family.

I would bet that if the provincial funds disappeared the total private school enrollment would drop by 50%.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you ‘gave’ vouchers to teachers instead of schools, this comparison might make a bit of sense, but it’s a pretty crappy representation of both systems.

I actually think you might lack the capacity for even somewhat complex reasoning.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I actually think you might lack the capacity for even somewhat complex reasoning.

You do this a lot. You get called out for trying to wittle down something to the most mundane connection possible that doesn't actually work then throw out an ad hominem because you don't like to get called out for your bullshit. Try a new shtick.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would bet that if the provincial funds disappeared the total private school enrollment would drop by 50%.

Doesn't sound like a very efficient pricing model the private sector has come up with. Remove the provincial funds, presumably the private schools would have to reduce tuition in order to remain competitive. If they can't then they aren't really more efficient than the public sector at providing the service, are they?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You do this a lot. You get called out for trying to wittle down something to the most mundane connection possible that doesn't actually work then throw out an ad hominem because you don't like to get called out for your bullshit. Try a new shtick.



Doesn't sound like a very efficient pricing model the private sector has come up with. Remove the provincial funds, presumably the private schools would have to reduce tuition in order to remain competitive. If they can't then they aren't really more efficient than the public sector at providing the service, are they?

That's not an ad hominem - it's an insult.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's not an ad hominem - it's an insult.

Then by all means continue the discussion and explain how a doctor billing AHS for services provided regardless of amount accrued by a single patient is anything like the voucher system for private or public education. Get as complex as you feel comfortable with.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Then by all means continue the discussion and explain how a doctor billing AHS for services provided regardless of amount accrued by a single patient is anything like the voucher system for private or public education. Get as complex as you feel comfortable with.

Well, I should get as complex as I think you might be comfortable with. Know your audience, after all.

When you go to a doctor, they get paid by the government on your behalf for that service. When you take a voucher to a school, the school gets paid by the government for that service.

In either case, the important similarity is that they represent consumer choice. Without an education voucher, you do not have the same freedom of choice that is provided by the current "voucher" system employed by the healthcare system.

[98brg2d]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Doesn't sound like a very efficient pricing model the private sector has come up with. Remove the provincial funds, presumably the private schools would have to reduce tuition in order to remain competitive. If they can't then they aren't really more efficient than the public sector at providing the service, are they?

Remain competitive with whom? Other private schools would experience the same drop in funding. Private schools don't compete with each other, or public schools on cost. They compete on philosophy, class size, activities, facilities, outcomes etc. it varies from school to school but my take on it is they don't compete on cost much at all. If they lost funding and couldn't maintain adequate enrollment without tuition decreases, then they would cut tuition and services/benefits. At some point, they would reduce services/benefits to the same level as any other public school. Nobody would pay extra for that.

Fundamentally, private schools have similar costs as public schools for basic education and facility costs, without any economies of scale. Some may be run more efficiently than public schools but you may never know that since it is masked by the tuition. Responsible schools provide yearly financial data and comparisons to public schools so you can see how they spend their money. I don't know if every private school does this, but mine does. Their biggest cost after payroll is rent of the school, which actually goes to the local school district, as they are the landlord (another benefit to the public system, almost like a reverse P3).

I think, almost by definition, private schools are run less efficiently than public, since they almost always strive for significantly smaller class sizes and more extracurricular activities.

[ExtraSlow]

Family Doctors in Alberta bill the government based on a set fee schedule per appointment, right? So if they fit in more customers, they make more money, and if they provide poor service, the customers take the business away and they make less. Sounds exactly like a "voucher" system. No idea how specialist doctors work.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Remain competitive with whom? Other private schools would experience the same drop in funding. Private schools don't compete with each other, or public schools on cost. They compete on philosophy, class size, activities, facilities, outcomes etc. it varies from school to school but my take on it is they don't compete on cost much at all. If they lost funding and couldn't maintain adequate enrollment without tuition decreases, then they would cut tuition and services/benefits. At some point, they would reduce services/benefits to the same level as any other public school. Nobody would pay extra for that.

Fundamentally, private schools have similar costs as public schools for basic education and facility costs, without any economies of scale. Some may be run more efficiently than public schools but you may never know that since it is masked by the tuition. Responsible schools provide yearly financial data and comparisons to public schools so you can see how they spend their money. I don't know if every private school does this, but mine does. Their biggest cost after payroll is rent of the school, which actually goes to the local school district, as they are the landlord (another benefit to the public system, almost like a reverse P3).

I think, almost by definition, private schools are run less efficiently than public, since they almost always strive for significantly smaller class sizes and more extracurricular activities.

That isn't efficiency in any useful sense of the word.

Public education is likely very inefficient (hard to tell due to monopoly/near-monopoly - but it is the government so the assumption is probably reasonable.). But it isn't designed to be efficient. It is designed to be universal and equal. We value that more than we do efficiency.

[suntan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Family Doctors in Alberta bill the government based on a set fee schedule per appointment, right? So if they fit in more customers, they make more money, and if they provide poor service, the customers take the business away and they make less. Sounds exactly like a "voucher" system. No idea how specialist doctors work.

Same thing. Only doctors that make salary are ones that work at hospitals and other state owned facilities.

[98brg2d]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That isn't efficiency in any useful sense of the word.

Maybe you misread what I said, I said they are by definition less efficient, maybe I am not understanding what you mean to say, other than to agree with me?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Public education is likely very inefficient (hard to tell due to monopoly/near-monopoly - but it is the government so the assumption is probably reasonable.). But it isn't designed to be efficient. It is designed to be universal and equal. We value that more than we do efficiency.

Absolute measures of efficiency are hard to see, but relatively, CBE seems much less efficient than other major school boards, like Edmonton. That is why Edmonton is able to have full day kindergarten in about 10 more schools than Calgary. The CBE audit also uncovered major spending problems that don't seem to be present in other school boards, including the Calgary Catholic board.

[Buster]

I meant that public schooling in general is almost certainly inefficient compared to a private system. The non-competitive nature of the labour force alone probably makes the education system very inefficient.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

When you go to a doctor, they get paid by the government on your behalf for that service. When you take a voucher to a school, the school gets paid by the government for that service.

And when you don't take a voucher to a school, the school also gets paid by the government for that service. When I call the fire department, they get paid by the government for that service, doesn't mean that they're a voucher system.

In either case, the important similarity is that they represent consumer choice. Without an education voucher, you do not have the same freedom of choice that is provided by the current "voucher" system employed by the healthcare system.

Except you still don't because you're comparing to fundamentally different things. You're comparing doctors, an important part of the healthcare system but still just a part, with a school. With a voucher system you lock into the school not to the teacher. You don't get to go to one school for their math and English teacher, another for their biology teacher and basketball team, and another for their travel programs and spring play. If you want education and healthcare to have similar choice, it would be picking a hospital and that's the one you get to use because that's where you took your voucher at the start of the year.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And when you don't take a voucher to a school, the school also gets paid by the government for that service. When I call the fire department, they get paid by the government for that service, doesn't mean that they're a voucher system.



Except you still don't because you're comparing to fundamentally different things. You're comparing doctors, an important part of the healthcare system but still just a part, with a school. With a voucher system you lock into the school not to the teacher. You don't get to go to one school for their math and English teacher, another for their biology teacher and basketball team, and another for their travel programs and spring play. If you want education and healthcare to have similar choice, it would be picking a hospital and that's the one you get to use because that's where you took your voucher at the start of the year.

probably better to just quit now. Pretend you got busy and stopped following the conversation.

[98brg2d]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I meant that public schooling in general is almost certainly inefficient compared to a private system. The non-competitive nature of the labour force alone probably makes the education system very inefficient.

It is hard to say on a basic operations level but my experience is private schools tend to employee much younger teachers that would be getting paid much less than older teachers. Older teachers don't want to deal with the atrocious helicoptering that sometimes comes with private schools.

[04Terminator]

If the funding is per child, then who cares where they choose to spend their voucher.

However, funding should be per school based on some formula of number of classes, students, teachers and special resources. Absolutely zero dollars should go to "academies"