Matt:

OK, I'll bite, especially since you're posting while I'm reading.

I'm not sure this really works. A grade school supporting 300 students needs virtually the same infrastructure, supplies and staff that they'd need to support 280 students, assuming all these 20 weren't from the same grade, allowing the school to completely remove a classroom.

The school loses these kids, who represent $160,000 (at $8,000/child) of budget. Using simple numbers, let's say the district gave the school half of that money, and gave the other half to the exiting students in the form of vouchers. The school has still suffered a net loss of $80,000. Having fewer students to service only saves some minor costs on items like food and basic supplies. But the real costs are salaries and infrastructure, which don't change, as you still have 93% of the students there to be educated. True, they'll be better served since the teacher/student ratio goes down a little, but that doesn't impact the budget at all.

What do you think? And thanks for drawing me into the fray. The site seems great. You might actually draw me out of my apathetic stance and into the fray.

Take care,

Dave Billings

Dave, thanks for the thoughtful question. I'll give it my best stab, and hope that others eventually join this thread to shed additional light.

The first and best answer is that overall, the public sector entity that has to pay out vouchers for kids to go to private schools is still saving money on a per-student basis becuase the vouchers are less, per-student, than per-student costs in a regular public school.

You have a legitimate concern that overall expenses may still remain pretty close to the same at a given (theoretical) non-voucher public school, where, say, 20 students exit for private schools, using vouchers.

But as the savings accrue on a state-wide basis (as opposed to just one school)the public sector still has more money to spend on public education, for fewer students. An big caveat here is that just some states allow voucher now, and a bog U.S. Supreme Court decision may (or perhaps more likely, may not) make it easier for states to legislate vouchers -- many states right now would have to engineer a constitutional softening of their so-called "Blaine amendments," which mostly date back many years and enforce church-state separations pretty stringently with respect to say, vouchers being used at a parochial school).

As the author of the NYT op-ed piece observes, vouchers are typically awarded at a level significantly less than per-pupil costs in the public schools. IF the savings are re-invested in local public schools, there is a net gain on a per-student basis. State voucher legislation could decree that such savings have to be re-invested in traditional public schools.

Two other quick points. You say that a school with 300 students, when reduced to 280 students because of vouchers, would still have almost the same costs for salaries and infrastructure. I'm sure there's data out there that could tell us both more, but I suspect the savings could be somewhat greater, which, again, plays into the whole overall per-student $ resources picture.

The last point goes more to synergy between losing a whole BUNCH of public schools losing students via vouchers, those schools getting more money per student, and the constructive threat of competition. Bottom line: positive change could, and should result.

Use some of the savings (which would have to trickle back to the school) to extend school hours and pay teachers a bit more (if possible on a per-school basis, as it should be); or to re-shape the curriculum somewhat; or to do other creative things to boost bang for buck.

A big item here is buy-in on parent involvement, admittedly difficult with certain demographic sectors. Nonetheless, there are plans for extended-hours, uniforms and parent contracts at some 15 new, planned San Francisco public schools soon, according to an SF Chronicle article I hope to post to the blog soon.

If public schools are planning such measures now, why not later, when funds are a bit greater and competition stronger?

A couple of other thoughts synergistically speaking. The teacher student ratios will be lowered and this could be benificial. I think the use of student teachers (read, no or low cost help from people looking for teaching experience while still in college) could also lower the teacher student ratios. Another boost is that with competitive schools the overall drop out rate may decrease, conversly increasing the number of students counted as attending in the public schools and incresing overall monies, as parents and students see academics as a vehichle to improve there lives not just a waste of time. Matt thanks for inviting me in I have never been blogging before it is pretty cool.