Vouchers are bad, Says AU

[Post Toastee]

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=10341

“The sad truth is, this fight is not about helping kids in D.C. or anywhere else,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It’s about ideology. Some people just don’t like public schools and want to use vouchers to funnel public funds to religious and other private schools."



I have to agree - what do you think?

[Talk2Bill]

so kids that value an education but have no money are suck in with the rest of the kids that do not?

the biggest issue with education in the US is discipline. Schools and teachers do not have the authority to discipline the kids. Teachers spend so much time dealing with disruptive kids that are experts is disrupting the process that time for teaching is LOST.

the 2nd biggest issue is all kids are treated as if they are all college bound. *at least as far as testing and school accountability*

[Chucky]

“The sad truth is, this fight is not about helping kids in D.C. or anywhere else,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It’s about ideology. Some people just don’t like public schools and want to use vouchers to funnel public funds to religious and other private schools."



I have to agree - what do you think?

I don't have to agree - it just sounds like they're parroting the NEA's anti-voucher propaganda. That is, rather than respond to the basic issue of public institution's failure to educate, they try to divert attention by throwing in the red herring of separation of church and state.

No, the issue, as Talk2Bill points alludes to, is that parents are desperately seeking to educate THEIR children, and are tired of wasting THEIR money on a system that is failing them.

[PhantomPholly]

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=10341

“The sad truth is, this fight is not about helping kids in D.C. or anywhere else,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It’s about ideology. Some people just don’t like public schools and want to use vouchers to funnel public funds to religious and other private schools."

I have to agree - what do you think?


I agree - I just don't like our corrupt and useless public schools.

My ideology is based on simple ethics - you cannot get performance if people are rewarded for mediocrity, and the mere existence of a "teacher's union" runs counter to the needs of the STUDENTS.

Outlaw unions, and outlaw any government program which guarantees government funds to a "favored entity." We need a Constitutional Amendment requiring that every government dollar MUST be put up for bid by ANY qualifying vendor, and ensure that "qualifying" cannot be perverted by corrupt politicians to mean only their cronies.

[MissB]

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=10341

“The sad truth is, this fight is not about helping kids in D.C. or anywhere else,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It’s about ideology. Some people just don’t like public schools and want to use vouchers to funnel public funds to religious and other private schools."



I have to agree - what do you think?



I totally disagree. My son was being bullied and making average grades at a public school. The administration did nothing to stop the bullies in fact they got worse. So at the start of this school year he transfered to a private Baptist school and is now on the honor roll and has made many friends. His tuition is paid by a state scholarship.

So I guess somone has been helped by the voucher system.

[Wake-Up]

I totally disagree. My son was being bullied and making average grades at a public school. The administration did nothing to stop the bullies in fact they got worse. So at the start of this school year he transfered to a private Baptist school and is now on the honor roll and has made many friends. His tuition is paid by a state scholarship.

So I guess somone has been helped by the voucher system.

State Scholarship? So I am paying my tax money (if I lived in your state) to send your kid to a private school? Voucher or redistribution of my wealth?

You had a choice all along to send your son to a private school. Too expensive? Get a second job or move to a better school district. I pay enough in taxes for my public schools without them using some of my dollars to support your desire.

Fix the schools. MAKE PARENTS ACCOUNTABLE, but vouchers are the same thing the conservative rally around when complaining of handouts, its taking from one sector to support another.

[MissB]

State Scholarship? So I am paying my tax money (if I lived in your state) to send your kid to a private school? Voucher or redistribution of my wealth?

You had a choice all along to send your son to a private school. Too expensive? Get a second job or move to a better school district. I pay enough in taxes for my public schools without them using some of my dollars to support your desire.

Fix the schools. MAKE PARENTS ACCOUNTABLE, but vouchers are the same thing the conservative rally around when complaining of handouts, its taking from one sector to support another.


You know what my tax dollars go to pay for this scholarship too so why can't my child benefit from this program. Make parents accountable, you say, well thats kind of hard when the school won't release the names of the parents or schedule a conference for all parents involved. I finally had to threaten to sue the school for any real protection to be seen for my son.

As for paying myself we also have a child that is disabled and I have to stay home to care for her, so my husband is the only income for the entire family.

We moved to this school district because it is the best in our area. Not to mention one of the best in state.

BTW I am a conservative.

[RWReaganfan]

Make parents accountable, you say, well thats kind of hard when the school won't release the names of the parents or schedule a conference for all parents involved. I finally had to threaten to sue the school for any real protection to be seen for my son.



Blame the laws passed by your well-meaning representatives in Congress! According to the law, any information such is that is covered by a federal law called FERPA.

[PhantomPholly]

State Scholarship? So I am paying my tax money (if I lived in your state) to send your kid to a private school? Voucher or redistribution of my wealth?

You are already paying tax money to send your kid to a private school - one owned and operated by the state (and poorly, at that).

If YOU believe that some bureaucrat appointed by their Uncle can better choose your child's school, teachers, and curricula - then YOU are probably right - for yourself. However, most parents are more in tune with their child's personal needs than Nephew Jimmy.

You had a choice all along to send your son to a private school.

And to be double-charged for the service - once in paying taxes to send other kids to school, another to send your own.

Too expensive? Get a second job or move to a better school district. I pay enough in taxes for my public schools without them using some of my dollars to support your desire.

No, you pay taxes to see to it that every child gets a good education. It isn't up to you nor the school board to define that for other people's children.

Fix the schools. MAKE PARENTS ACCOUNTABLE, but vouchers are the same thing the conservative rally around when complaining of handouts, its taking from one sector to support another.

That's exactly what vouchers do - they make Parents accountable, and force broken schools to fix their problems or lose funding. Really, you are making a better argument for vouchers than against it.

[Army of 1]

Rarely do private schools have the materials to educate the top kids as well as public schools. There simply are not enough students or money to have all the potential curriculum that public schools do. I know there are exceptions but if you have a public school with 3000 kids and a private with 500, who will have more offerings. Not to say that private schools don't do a nice job, what you aren't looking at is that private schools are dealing with kids that will excel no matter where the are.
Our local private school says they offer college prep curriculum. However they only have one language (spanish) you can take and 1 AP course. Our local schools has 19 different AP offerings and 4 languages(Spanish,French,German and Japanese). Now you tell me who is "college prep"?
Again there are exceptions but very few public schools are failing at the top end. People feel they are failing schools because they are passing standardized tests. The problem is that the number one reason that kids fail those tests is that they do not care about education or that test. If they or their parents do not care about education, why would they take the time to enroll or apply for voucher or school choice program. All that vouchers will do is make the schools worse for those kids because the top end kids are the ones that will take advantage of it and then leave the ones that can't or don't care enough to get out there. Limiting the offerings, the money and the environment to even lower levels.
Finally, private schools are not equipped to deal with certain students, they do not have the training or experience to deal with learning disabilities or the like. these kids would not be around long because private schools do not have to take every kid like public schools.
we want all kids to succeed but we also need to stop judging how good a school is by the bottom 10-25-20% especially when you compare them to private schools because private schools never, ever deal with the bottom 40% that public schools do.
look up "white flight". If you want to cripple inner city/ urban schools and permently trap the kids there, then put vouchers into place. we will be returning to segregation of the south.

[Army of 1]

I totally disagree. My son was being bullied and making average grades at a public school. The administration did nothing to stop the bullies in fact they got worse. So at the start of this school year he transfered to a private Baptist school and is now on the honor roll and has made many friends. His tuition is paid by a state scholarship.

So I guess somone has been helped by the voucher system.

Problem you do not know what helped your kid. Perhaps if he stayed the same exact thing may have happened. perhaps a different public school would have done the same. perhaps he just came across a wonderful teacher at that school that helped him open up. Obviously it worked for you, WHICH IS GREAT! Of course in every argument you can point to individual positives. The problem is how it effects the masses. Do you know how many kids may be hurt because of the vouchers? as a governing unit you have to worry about 1 kid, schools have to worry about hundreds and thosuands. They have to make choices based on that dilema while you make choices based on your dilema.
Shall we condemn vouchers because a friend went to private school, met kids with a lot of money and got into drugs.

[PhantomPholly]

Rarely do private schools have the materials to educate the top kids as well as public schools. There simply are not enough students or money to have all the potential curriculum that public schools do. I know there are exceptions but if you have a public school with 3000 kids and a private with 500, who will have more offerings. Not to say that private schools don't do a nice job, what you aren't looking at is that private schools are dealing with kids that will excel no matter where the are.
Our local private school says they offer college prep curriculum. However they only have one language (spanish) you can take and 1 AP course. Our local schools has 19 different AP offerings and 4 languages(Spanish,French,German and Japanese). Now you tell me who is "college prep"?
Again there are exceptions but very few public schools are failing at the top end. People feel they are failing schools because they are passing standardized tests. The problem is that the number one reason that kids fail those tests is that they do not care about education or that test. If they or their parents do not care about education, why would they take the time to enroll or apply for voucher or school choice program. All that vouchers will do is make the schools worse for those kids because the top end kids are the ones that will take advantage of it and then leave the ones that can't or don't care enough to get out there. Limiting the offerings, the money and the environment to even lower levels.
Finally, private schools are not equipped to deal with certain students, they do not have the training or experience to deal with learning disabilities or the like. these kids would not be around long because private schools do not have to take every kid like public schools.
we want all kids to succeed but we also need to stop judging how good a school is by the bottom 10-25-20% especially when you compare them to private schools because private schools never, ever deal with the bottom 40% that public schools do.
look up "white flight". If you want to cripple inner city/ urban schools and permently trap the kids there, then put vouchers into place. we will be returning to segregation of the south.

This is another straw-man argument - this one being that a private school couldn't operate as efficiently as a public school because the public school is bigger.

First, I suspect that a micro-school (e.g. a private teacher running a single class) could be run MUCH more inexpensively and effectively than our modern monstrosities.

Second, once the monopolized funds currently being funneled down the voracious throat of the Teacher's Union is put up for independent bid, private schools will have a much bigger target audience (no longer just seeking kids of wealthy parents, but appealing to the rank-and-file). We may also quickly see "megaschools" catering to what are currently several school districts offering both better services and higher economies of scale than town-by-town traditional monolithic entities.

[RickL]

I honestly cannot understand how Conservatives are in favor of vouchers.

I work 3 jobs to send my kids to Catholic schools, and for them to have a stay-at-home mom to come home to. This is a CHOICE that my wife and I made so that my children can be educated in a Christ-centered environment. I, in no way, shape or form want anyone's help for this. I am a big supporter of public schools. My reason for my choice is religious. Why, as conservatives, would anyone feel that I, or anyone else, has the right to have the taxpayers make this choice a reality?

Private schools are just that; private! Since when do we believe that our taxes should go to support private institutions? Isn't that what we are so angry about now? I understand that people believe that kids are "trapped" in bad schools but, let me ask this: If I were "trapped" in a high crime area, would you support tax dollars going to pay for me to hire a private security agency? Or to pay for an alarm system?

Haven't we seen what happens when the government puts money into private institutions? Do I want my parish school ending up like AIG, or GM? Does anyone truly believe that once tuition is payed for by taxes, whether directly or indirectly, that the government won't demand that it play by their rules? My daughter's school brought down a bunch of kids to the March for Life last month. Once tuition is connected to taxes, can anyone honestly tell me that they don't see the day when either that wont be allowed or that, out of "fairness",the school must invite in a pro-choice speaker to, you know, "balance" things?

Vouchers will not "privatize" the schools. It will SOCIALIZE the private schools. I cannot speak for Yeshiva's or denominational schools, but every Catholic diocese has financial aid and scholarship programs where kids can EARN their way in or get in from charitable donations. Isn't that what we profess to believe as conservatives?

Again, this is my choice. If I could no longer afford it, if I lost my extra jobs, I could home-school, apply for help, apply for scholarships or send my kids to public school. I do not have the right to ask for tax dollars to pay for this choice. But, most of all, I want the government NOWHERE NEAR my church. I do not want to follow their rules. To me, that is what the separation of church and state is designed to do; keep the government's hands off my religion and the religious education of my children.

I had this debate with a priest who feared that more and more Catholic schools would have to close if vouchers don't pass. I said, so what? I guess we will be like the Mustard Seed Jesus speaks of. Government cannot be responsible to save my religion because then I will be in debt to them.

If one wants to send their kids to private schools let them either sacrifice for it, get scholarships, seek private charitable help, or they might not be able to go. Let's work to fix our public schools so that the tax dollars we do pay at least get used well. But I don't want your help to send my kids to Catholic school and I don't want to help you through tax dollars. I put plenty in the envelope each week. If that goes to help you, great. But. more than anything else, after the events of the past few months it should be clear that if tax dollars pay for tuition, if the government puts money into a private institution, either directly or indirectly, we must play by the government rules. And then, the one reason I send my kids to Parochial school will be gone as they are forced to sacrifice the Christian identity.

Rick

EDITED TO ADD:

Just for the sake of proof, right now Obama is considering removing the "conscience clause" for doctors in Catholic hospitals which receive federal funds. This would force them to perform abortions. Just the fact that this is being considered is scary enough. Also, in my view, it was federal tuition assistance to college which led Catholic universities to begin down the road of losing their Catholic identity. God forbid these things happen to our local parish schools, yeshivas or denominational schools.

[Young Southern Democrat]

I honestly cannot understand how Conservatives are in favor of vouchers.

I work 3 jobs to send my kids to Catholic schools, and for them to have a stay-at-home mom to come home to. This is a CHOICE that my wife and I made so that my children can be educated in a Christ-centered environment. I, in no way, shape or form want anyone's help for this. I am a big supporter of public schools. My reason for my choice is religious. Why, as conservatives, would anyone feel that I, or anyone else, has the right to have the taxpayers make this choice a reality?

Private schools are just that; private! Since when do we believe that our taxes should go to support private institutions? Isn't that what we are so angry about now? I understand that people believe that kids are "trapped" in bad schools but, let me ask this: If I were "trapped" in a high crime area, would you support tax dollars going to pay for me to hire a private security agency? Or to pay for an alarm system?

Haven't we seen what happens when the government puts money into private institutions? Do I want my parish school ending up like AIG, or GM? Does anyone truly believe that once tuition is payed for by taxes, whether directly or indirectly, that the government won't demand that it play by their rules? My daughter's school brought down a bunch of kids to the March for Life last month. Once tuition is connected to taxes, can anyone honestly tell me that they don't see the day when either that wont be allowed or that, out of "fairness",the school must invite in a pro-choice speaker to, you know, "balance" things?

Vouchers will not "privatize" the schools. It will SOCIALIZE the private schools. I cannot speak for Yeshiva's or denominational schools, but every Catholic diocese has financial aid and scholarship programs where kids can EARN their way in or get in from charitable donations. Isn't that what we profess to believe as conservatives?

Again, this is my choice. If I could no longer afford it, if I lost my extra jobs, I could home-school, apply for help, apply for scholarships or send my kids to public school. I do not have the right to ask for tax dollars to pay for this choice. But, most of all, I want the government NOWHERE NEAR my church. I do not want to follow their rules. To me, that is what the separation of church and state is designed to do; keep the government's hands off my religion and the religious education of my children.

I had this debate with a priest who feared that more and more Catholic schools would have to close if vouchers don't pass. I said, so what? I guess we will be like the Mustard Seed Jesus speaks of. Government cannot be responsible to save my religion because then I will be in debt to them.

If one wants to send their kids to private schools let them either sacrifice for it, get scholarships, seek private charitable help, or they might not be able to go. Let's work to fix our public schools so that the tax dollars we do pay at least get used well. But I don't want your help to send my kids to Catholic school and I don't want to help you through tax dollars. I put plenty in the envelope each week. If that goes to help you, great. But. more than anything else, after the events of the past few months it should be clear that if tax dollars pay for tuition, if the government puts money into a private institution, either directly or indirectly, we must play by the government rules. And then, the one reason I send my kids to Parochial school will be gone as they are forced to sacrifice the Christian identity.

Rick

EDITED TO ADD:

Just for the sake of proof, right now Obama is considering removing the "conscience clause" for doctors in Catholic hospitals which receive federal funds. This would force them to perform abortions. Just the fact that this is being considered is scary enough. Also, in my view, it was federal tuition assistance to college which led Catholic universities to begin down the road of losing their Catholic identity. God forbid these things happen to our local parish schools, yeshivas or denominational schools.

I am happy to hear you say this. People don't understand that with vouchers, the government is supporting a private sector. (something I thought conservatives were against)
Private schools are able to have religious affiliations, political affiliations, and can discriminate on who they let in. There is no way that it is laudable to let public funds support this.
Also, private school tecahers do not have to be state accredited and the schools do not have to follow state standards, so money should not go to support this.
Also, most private schools cost WAY more than what the voucher would cover, so the conservative argument that it is not allowing poor children to get a quality education is a crock. We should make sure that they can get a quality, affordable education.

[RickL]

I am happy to hear you say this. People don't understand that with vouchers, the government is supporting a private sector. (something I thought conservatives were against)
Private schools are able to have religious affiliations, political affiliations, and can discriminate on who they let in. There is no way that it is laudable to let public funds support this.
Also, private school tecahers do not have to be state accredited and the schools do not have to follow state standards, so money should not go to support this.
Also, most private schools cost WAY more than what the voucher would cover, so the conservative argument that it is not allowing poor children to get a quality education is a crock. We should make sure that they can get a quality, affordable education.


All fine points, Southern.

I just want to be clear that I object to vouchers because of my conservative convictions. I have no problem being on the same side as liberals, I just might not have the same reasoning, however.

I am a big supporter of separation of church and state because, as Pope Benedict said in his book Jesus of Nazareth, when faith and power mix, it is faith which inevitably suffers and becomes subordinate to politics. That would be a liberal dream come true and I would never sit back and let my beloved Church come under the power of the state. These vouchers scare the heck out of me. One can only imagine what my kid's theology curriculum would look like once kids there under a voucher object to the lack of "inclusiveness".:((

Regards,

Rick

[Young Southern Democrat]

All fine points, Southern.

I just want to be clear that I object to vouchers because of my conservative convictions. I have no problem being on the same side as liberals, I just might not have the same reasoning, however.

I am a big supporter of separation of church and state because, as Pope Benedict said in his book Jesus of Nazareth, when faith and power mix, it is faith which inevitably suffers and becomes subordinate to politics. That would be a liberal dream come true and I would never sit back and let my beloved Church come under the power of the state. These vouchers scare the heck out of me. One can only imagine what my kid's theology curriculum would look like once kids there under a voucher object to the lack of "inclusiveness".:((

Regards,

Rick

I agree. What most people don't understand is that you can still have faith but want separation of church and state. I myself am a born-again Christian, and I have found that a lot of Christians believe in a separation of church and state. Rick Warren being a good example.

[KyanWan]

I agree. What most people don't understand is that you can still have faith but want separation of church and state. I myself am a born-again Christian, and I have found that a lot of Christians believe in a separation of church and state. Rick Warren being a good example.

Yep - and the Government should have no say in religion - as my Puritan ancestor Nathaniel Dickinson may attest to ... no religion should get any special treatment - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, etc - none of the above, however you are free to practice or not practice as you wish. Condone none, vilify none. That's my stand - and it's firm. I'm on that 100%.

I support vouchers/education tax credits because: we've got failing schools wasting money, there are private options which are CHEAPER than government options - and better: academically, and morally. Plus, saving myself a buck comes first.

If private, productive education is sustainable, it should thrive. We should be able to put our dollars where we please.

[RickL]

If private, productive education is sustainable, it should thrive. We should be able to put our dollars where we please.

If something is "private" we should not put our tax dollars into it. If it is "productive", then it is self-sustainable and would not need tax money.

But again, is there anyone left on these boards who hasn't seen their worst fears become reality in the past few months regarding what happens when government gets it's hands into something? Ask the CEO of GM. Ask the execs at AIG.

Can anyone here honestly tell me that my kids will be allowed to learn that abortion is a violation of God's will once the government is helping to pay tuition? Once a parish school becomes "government sponsored" in any way, does anyone honestly believe that they won't be forced to be "inclusive"?

Rick

[KyanWan]

If something is "private" we should not put our tax dollars into it. If it is "productive", then it is self-sustainable and would not need tax money.

But again, is there anyone left on these boards who hasn't seen their worst fears become reality in the past few months regarding what happens when government gets it's hands into something? Ask the CEO of GM. Ask the execs at AIG.

Can anyone here honestly tell me that my kids will be allowed to learn that abortion is a violation of God's will once the government is helping to pay tuition? Once a parish school becomes "government sponsored" in any way, does anyone honestly believe that they won't be forced to be "inclusive"?

Rick

I should clarify a bit -

If I put my kid in a private school - I shouldn't pay taxes towards education - that's the "voucher" I had in mind.

Because the current setup - we need to pay for sending our kids to school. If you disagree with the curriculum - you should be able to put your kid in your own school of choice, and not support some unproductive leech. I'm not saying get more than you should be getting - but get your money back - either by voucher of what YOU paid into education, or not paying the tax in the first place.

So, I need to pay $10K in taxes towards education per year, if I don't use the public schools - I should get that money back as a school voucher, or not pay it in the first place.

I mean, Hartford CT public schools - $13,000 PER YEAR PER STUDENT!!!

How many of us could find a BETTER education than that with that amount of money? I could find a better one, AND buy a new car yearly for that cost.

[RickL]

I should clarify a bit -

If I put my kid in a private school - I shouldn't pay taxes towards education - that's the "voucher" I had in mind.

Because the current setup - we need to pay for sending our kids to school. If you disagree with the curriculum - you should be able to put your kid in your own school of choice, and not support some unproductive leech. I'm not saying get more than you should be getting - but get your money back - either by voucher of what YOU paid into education, or not paying the tax in the first place.

So, I need to pay $10K in taxes towards education per year, if I don't use the public schools - I should get that money back as a school voucher, or not pay it in the first place.

I mean, Hartford CT public schools - $13,000 PER YEAR PER STUDENT!!!

How many of us could find a BETTER education than that with that amount of money? I could find a better one, AND buy a new car yearly for that cost.

Hi Kyan,

There are some flaws in this idea, however.

For instance, you don't pay 10,000 dollars in taxes for education. Part of your overall bill goes to education. How much? And, how much will you get back or not pay compared to someone in a neighboring county?

Also, this would mean that anyone who does not have children, or whose children are grown would have to also receive the tax refund since they don't use the schools.

Then, what if I never call 911 in my life. Do i get the percentage of my taxes used for police protection back? If my house never burns down, what do i get back in return for never using the Fire Dept?

The fight should be to either have taxes lowered outright or, more people getting involved to make sure that the education tax dollars are being spent wisely.

To me, these are different yet imortant debates. I was just responding to the OP regarding vouchers and why I oppose them. I feel like I live in a society which is becoming more and more hotile to faith in general and Christianity in particular. So I use my rights to send my children to school where I am able to give them a Christ centered education. I would never impose this on anyone else. I do not demand that my faith be taught in public schools. I just want the right to choose it if i want. But, not as a gift of the government. As i said earlier, I sacrifice much in terms of material goods and I work my tail off to make it happen. All I want is the opportunity to do so. Let the Dioceses handle the financial aid and the scholarships. that is from private donations and that is what it should be used for.

Tax dollars, either directly with vouchers or indirectly with rebates, once infused in the private sector only leads to what we are witnessing now.

Regards,

Rick

[RickL]

One last point, Kyan (my lunch is almost over).

Who would benefit from a voucher/rebate program the most?

The poorest, right? Those who do not pay much, if any, in income and property tax. As Sean correctly points out on a regular basis, when people who pay little to nothing in taxes get money back, that is not a 'rebate", it is welfare.

So basically, I will get "my" money (or some of it anyway) back to help me pay for my kids to go to Parochial school and, at the same time, "my" money will also go to pay for someone else's kids to go to private school.

How is that fair? Let's be consistent.

This is not meantl to sound harsh. If i won the Megaball today, i would set up a scholarship fund, or donate to the Diocese, to help poorer people be able to make the choice I have made. But that would be MY choice to do so. This is an arguement I hear conservatives speak of all the time: except when it comes to schools vouchers. Then, it is OK to redistribute wealth and allow the government to "socialize" PRIVATE schools.

Regards,

Rick

[RWReaganfan]

This is another straw-man argument - this one being that a private school couldn't operate as efficiently as a public school because the public school is bigger.

The term is "economy of scale". Larger schools are cheaper to build in terms of cost per student and they are able to offer more services to the student.

[iamredbeard]

I use to be against vouchers as I saw it as a way to get money away from public schools and they need every penny that they can get, but I'm starting to change my mind. Kids have no choice what school they go to, it's all about what district that they are in. I am starting to buy into the theory that the way for schools to improve is to create some competition. The best way to see that happens is through school choice.

What concerns me though is that this would be a way for the government to get it's dirty paws into private school and dictate what happens there.

[PhantomPholly]

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=10341

“The sad truth is, this fight is not about helping kids in D.C. or anywhere else,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It’s about ideology. Some people just don’t like public schools and want to use vouchers to funnel public funds to religious and other private schools."



I have to agree - what do you think?


I think you are simply another in a long line of drive-by newbies who want to protect the Teacher's Union monopoly of public funds. Or, perhaps, one who has been here before under another name.

There has never been a single service run by the Government better than by private industry. The military and law enforcement are the sole industries for which it makes sense to allow a less-than optimal solution, and that is because no private company can accept the liability of the requirement to use force in the execution of their duties.

[Chucky]

There are some flaws in this idea, however.

For instance, you don't pay 10,000 dollars in taxes for education. Part of your overall bill goes to education.

...

Tax dollars, either directly with vouchers or indirectly with rebates, once infused in the private sector only leads to what we are witnessing now.

To me, the issue is freedom.

Pretty much everyone's property taxes are nowhere near the cost of educating their kids, even in the inexpesive areas. Businesses pay most of the taxes in all cases. The variation of vouchers that appeals most to me is the rebate: getting some of MY money back to educate MY kids in the way *I* see fit.

I may never use 911, but it's always available to me, regardless of circumstance. (likewise, my home alarm may never go off, but it's still being monitored and ready to go) I may never get an M-1 tank in my yard, but the Army is protecting my home. I may never ride the interstates in Nebraska, but they provide a way for the trucks to bring me fresh food.

One could argue that, since ALL dollars come from the government, 'tax' dollars are already infused into all private sector enterprises, whether schools, religious institutions, businesses or whatever. Indirectly, of course, but money is a necessary part of participating in the economy.

What keeps getting ignored in all the debates, however, is that in a government "of the people, by the people and for the people", the government operates at the pleasure of the people. If it is the people's pleasure to change the laws to retain some of THEIR money and freely spend it on THEIR children the way THEY see fit, that is simply reasserting some of the freedom they already enjoy.

I'm all for freedom.

[consigliere]

Vouchers will not "privatize" the schools. It will SOCIALIZE the private schools.

This is it right here. You're taking schools that were doing an okay job on their own and than injecting govt money into them. Once the govt gets its tentacles into the schools it will start dictating how those schools are run. What schools can teach, what you can do about problem students. In big cities the Catholic schools have been a traditional refuge for children from working-class families that otherwise would be being beaten and harassed in big city public schools.

[KyanWan]

Should have checked where I'm from -CT-

Here, something like 60-70% of the taxes collected in this state go directly to education.

Of that - 80-85% goes to paying teacher salary. ( And they're talking about cutting programs and classes because "they cost too much", and "our budget is too low". )

If I took off 60% of the taxes I paid - and put them into a private education - I'd save so much it wouldn't even be funny.

The taxes you get back - as an education voucher - should be directly relative to how much you paid.

What I'm trying to say - is take what a person directly contributes towards public education, and put it towards whatever education I choose - rather than the government telling me what it should be put into, and if I don't like it - tough. More rightly, it would be a cut or elimination of your personal taxes which go towards education expense. ( Either in the form of a credit, or voucher - in the value of what YOU paid, and nothing more. If you pay $1000 of taxes because you don't like to work ... then your credit might only be $50.00. )

The education situation here in Connecticut is unique - with the 3rd highest teaching pay in the nation .... with teachers, regular teachers - making up to 6 digit salaries (PLUS BENEFITS!).

My own views on taxes - people who don't produce should get nothing. I've been paying that annual tax - I've seen welfare cities - and the mockery that is Democratic ideals ... it's disgusting. I don't feel like working my tail off - to pay enough taxes to support a couple families - so they can sit around and have a good old time on my back. That's BS - and that's the way it is, EVEN TODAY - it's just going to get worse.

I'd love to get my hands on how to spend the taxes I directly put in - and if I don't like the way the Gov't is handling these "services" they provide me, I want the option to take my money, and get it myself - because I am completely confident that I can do better work with the money I worked for.

[PhantomPholly]

This is another straw-man argument - this one being that a private school couldn't operate as efficiently as a public school because the public school is bigger.

The term is "economy of scale". Larger schools are cheaper to build in terms of cost per student and they are able to offer more services to the student.

That is in fact the correct term; however, we are learning that such theoretical gains do not always occur. In fact, in particular with service industries there is a phenomenon of DIS-economy of scale (becoming progressively less efficient with size).

Not that it matters. With real competition for school funding, private enterprise could sort out through the crucible of the market which model is "best" - and likely that would be that what is "best" depends on the market you serve. McSchoolhouse might be the perfect answer for "average" kids, while small boutique schools might better serve special needs and gifted students.

Non of this occurs in our existing one-size-fits-nobody monopoly.

[RickL]

I certainly do not expect everyone to agree with me, and I respect those who do not. But other than articulating dissatisfaction with public education in general, and teacher unions specifically, no one has directly answered my concerns from a conservative perspective.

1) Sean rightly points out that when those who pay little to no taxes get a "rebate" it is, in reality, a redistribution of wealth. Welfare.

So, if vouchers are aimed at helping the poor "escape" failing schools, how, from a conservative perspective, can we justify using my tax money to send someone else's children to a private school?

2) We believe in the sanctity of "private industry", of all kinds. Am I wrong here? I am admittedly not as conservative as the average person on this board, but, that said, I do agree that the private sector should be left to their own fortunes or misfortunes. How can we justify infusing tax money, either directly or indirectly, in to a private school? How is this not "socializing" private schools? That, to me, is the main question I would like answered.

3) After seeing beyond a shadow of a doubt what happens when the government infuses tax money into private business (attempting to set standards of pay and production for companies being "bailed out"), how can we avoid fearing that once the "customers" of private schools are government backed customers, that the schools wont be subject to the arbitrary and capricious demands of whatever the government decides is "essential". How can I not fear that my parish school will have to eventually face a forced secularization or relativization?

Regards,

Rick

[PhantomPholly]

I certainly do not expect everyone to agree with me, and I respect those who do not. But other than articulating dissatisfaction with public education in general, and teacher unions specifically, no one has directly answered my concerns from a conservative perspective.

1) Sean rightly points out that when those who pay little to no taxes get a "rebate" it is, in reality, a redistribution of wealth. Welfare.

So, if vouchers are aimed at helping the poor "escape" failing schools, how, from a conservative perspective, can we justify using my tax money to send someone else's children to a private school?

Simple. The tax money was collected to allow children to get an education. The only remaining question is WHO will provide that service.

The Conservative principle which is served is that YOU THE INDIVIDUAL know best how to allocate resources dedicated to you / your family, NOT the government.

Each and every industry ever run by the government has become an inefficient, corrupt waste of taxpayer money. The Teacher's Union would have you believe that somehow "schools are different." They are not - it is just another service industry.

2) We believe in the sanctity of "private industry", of all kinds. Am I wrong here? I am admittedly not as conservative as the average person on this board, but, that said, I do agree that the private sector should be left to their own fortunes or misfortunes. How can we justify infusing tax money, either directly or indirectly, in to a private school? How is this not "socializing" private schools? That, to me, is the main question I would like answered.

The State has an obligation to represent how taxpayer funds are spent, e.g. that standards are observed. I agree that we should not provide taxpayer school funds to pedophiles, nor to individuals or businesses which do not perform in their function. Yet this is no different than the Socialized school system today - so the point is somewhat moot. The only real question is, should the government have a monopoly on how these tax dollars are spent, or should the free market be allowed to compete for these dollars? The correct answer to that question should obvious to any Conservative - or in fact any rational human.

3) After seeing beyond a shadow of a doubt what happens when the government infuses tax money into private business (attempting to set standards of pay and production for companies being "bailed out"), how can we avoid fearing that once the "customers" of private schools are government backed customers, that the schools wont be subject to the arbitrary and capricious demands of whatever the government decides is "essential". How can I not fear that my parish school will have to eventually face a forced secularization or relativization?

Again, this is a separate issue. Businesses are regulated with or without government funding. It is up to EVERY Citizen to fight governments natural tendency to want to control every aspect of our lives, or accept that we will be little more than "servants of the State."

That, in fact, is the great question of the moment as it has been in virtually every generation of human history. To allow Freedom is mandate Responsibility, which allows Failure. That terrifies some people.

It is clear that too many people will reject true freedom if it means that the poor and the lazy will starve. In fact, I would argue that that is not even unreasonable - however, I don't believe that any true Conservative would deny that those who have no ability or desire to contribute to the system should have an equal voice in how the monies taxed should be spent. To allow this (as we do today) is to allow the majority to use force (the government) to steal (tax) from those who produce merely for their personal gain - an inherently unethical pursuit equivalent to banditry.

But the bottom line is that Free people must fight for their freedom anew in each generation, for there are always those eager to harness their productivity and live as parasites - whether they call themselves "leaders" or "the poor."

[PhantomPholly]

Vouchers will not "privatize" the schools. It will SOCIALIZE the private schools.

This is it right here. You're taking schools that were doing an okay job on their own and than injecting govt money into them. Once the govt gets its tentacles into the schools it will start dictating how those schools are run. What schools can teach, what you can do about problem students. In big cities the Catholic schools have been a traditional refuge for children from working-class families that otherwise would be being beaten and harassed in big city public schools.

Why on earth do you think that would happen?

No one would force existing private schools to accept taxpayer funds simply because Vouchers exist. People who send their children to these schools do so without the benefit of public funding, and presumably could continue to do so in a Voucher environment if they choose to.

What Vouchers would do would be to create a market for private enterprise to serve a market currently monopolized by teachers' unions and local bureaucrats, creating competition and choice.

Private schools not wishing to accept any conditions which might accompany such funds could simply refuse voucher applicants.

[LSBeene]

Why on earth do you think that would happen?

No one would force existing private schools to accept taxpayer funds simply because Vouchers exist. People who send their children to these schools do so without the benefit of public funding, and presumably could continue to do so in a Voucher environment if they choose to.

What Vouchers would do would be to create a market for private enterprise to serve a market currently monopolized by teachers' unions and local bureaucrats, creating competition and choice.

Private schools not wishing to accept any conditions which might accompany such funds could simply refuse voucher applicants.


THANK YOU - I was wondering when someone would bring this up.

Private schools that did not want gov't entaglements would simply NOT take the money.

By making the schools accountable due to market competition, they would compete. Teachers who were incompetetent or just didn't care anymore would be forced out - unlike now where the rules to get one fired can be more trouble than it's worth.

Making the schools accountable to the parents who would be the customers IS the answer. If they have 20 teachers, and one is constantly on auto pilot, not engaging the students, or just plain absent, that teacher would go. Since the school would lose money if they kept him/her the non-incentive of not being able to fire that teacher would evaporate.

As far a religious schools, they probably don't WANT federal "aid" (control) and won't accept it. No problem. Schools that won't aggressively teach kids, innovate, or try to indoctrinate kids (left or right) will be ACCOUNTABLE because the parents can pull the financial plug.

[MISSMOOHERSELF]

I couldn't disagree more. If public schools actually did their jobs and if politicians - from local officials all the way up to the Congress and the President - weren't all cozily in bed with the unions, we wouldn't even have this discussion. But public schools are NOT doing their jobs. They're being politically correct, teaching crap like "Heather has 2 Mommies" and not teaching the CORRECT version of American History, etc. Parents want their children to get the best education possible and to have a better life than they had. The've had a chance to do that through vouchers and now the union-loving politicians, who are so afraid to tell the unions EXACTLY where to go and how to get there, have pulled the voucher and scholarship programs in DC out from under them. Now the parents - usually single mothers - have to mortgage or sell their homes or work 2 or 3 jobs to pay the tuition. And many of these parents have more than one child and they want all these children to have the blessing of a good education but now, sadly, this will be denied them because of the politicians' fear of the unions, who should be sand-blasted to hell.

[RickL]

and not teaching the CORRECT version of American History, etc.

I would be interested to learn how you know this? I have two degrees in history and have been teaching the subject (American History) for the better part of two decades.

Which "version" have I been teaching/learning? What is the "correct" version, which I should be teaching?

Rick

[rightside]

I honestly cannot understand how Conservatives are in favor of vouchers.

I work 3 jobs to send my kids to Catholic schools, and for them to have a stay-at-home mom to come home to. This is a CHOICE that my wife and I made so that my children can be educated in a Christ-centered environment. I, in no way, shape or form want anyone's help for this. I am a big supporter of public schools. My reason for my choice is religious. Why, as conservatives, would anyone feel that I, or anyone else, has the right to have the taxpayers make this choice a reality?

Private schools are just that; private! Since when do we believe that our taxes should go to support private institutions? Isn't that what we are so angry about now? I understand that people believe that kids are "trapped" in bad schools but, let me ask this: If I were "trapped" in a high crime area, would you support tax dollars going to pay for me to hire a private security agency? Or to pay for an alarm system?

Haven't we seen what happens when the government puts money into private institutions? Do I want my parish school ending up like AIG, or GM? Does anyone truly believe that once tuition is payed for by taxes, whether directly or indirectly, that the government won't demand that it play by their rules? My daughter's school brought down a bunch of kids to the March for Life last month. Once tuition is connected to taxes, can anyone honestly tell me that they don't see the day when either that wont be allowed or that, out of "fairness",the school must invite in a pro-choice speaker to, you know, "balance" things?

Vouchers will not "privatize" the schools. It will SOCIALIZE the private schools. I cannot speak for Yeshiva's or denominational schools, but every Catholic diocese has financial aid and scholarship programs where kids can EARN their way in or get in from charitable donations. Isn't that what we profess to believe as conservatives?

Again, this is my choice. If I could no longer afford it, if I lost my extra jobs, I could home-school, apply for help, apply for scholarships or send my kids to public school. I do not have the right to ask for tax dollars to pay for this choice. But, most of all, I want the government NOWHERE NEAR my church. I do not want to follow their rules. To me, that is what the separation of church and state is designed to do; keep the government's hands off my religion and the religious education of my children.

I had this debate with a priest who feared that more and more Catholic schools would have to close if vouchers don't pass. I said, so what? I guess we will be like the Mustard Seed Jesus speaks of. Government cannot be responsible to save my religion because then I will be in debt to them.

If one wants to send their kids to private schools let them either sacrifice for it, get scholarships, seek private charitable help, or they might not be able to go. Let's work to fix our public schools so that the tax dollars we do pay at least get used well. But I don't want your help to send my kids to Catholic school and I don't want to help you through tax dollars. I put plenty in the envelope each week. If that goes to help you, great. But. more than anything else, after the events of the past few months it should be clear that if tax dollars pay for tuition, if the government puts money into a private institution, either directly or indirectly, we must play by the government rules. And then, the one reason I send my kids to Parochial school will be gone as they are forced to sacrifice the Christian identity.

Rick

EDITED TO ADD:

Just for the sake of proof, right now Obama is considering removing the "conscience clause" for doctors in Catholic hospitals which receive federal funds. This would force them to perform abortions. Just the fact that this is being considered is scary enough. Also, in my view, it was federal tuition assistance to college which led Catholic universities to begin down the road of losing their Catholic identity. God forbid these things happen to our local parish schools, yeshivas or denominational schools.



Ok, I agree and disagree with you, I feel that Government Schools are doing nothing to help kids get ahead in todays life, as far as you sending your kids to a Catholic school , that is good if that's your choice, but my question to you is how do you feel about homeschooling , I think its great , since most homeschoolers are 2 years ahead of the government schools, and its done without bullying.

[RickL]

Ok, I agree and disagree with you, I feel that Government Schools are doing nothing to help kids get ahead in todays life, as far as you sending your kids to a Catholic school , that is good if that's your choice, but my question to you is how do you feel about homeschooling , I think its great , since most homeschoolers are 2 years ahead of the government schools, and its done without bullying.

I think homeschooling is wonderful for people who want to do it. It is an option that American's are (and should be) free to use if they wish.
I doubt you would find too much opposition to it on this board.

Rick

[RWReaganfan]

This is another straw-man argument - this one being that a private school couldn't operate as efficiently as a public school because the public school is bigger.

First, I suspect that a micro-school (e.g. a private teacher running a single class) could be run MUCH more inexpensively and effectively than our modern monstrosities.

Second, once the monopolized funds currently being funneled down the voracious throat of the Teacher's Union is put up for independent bid, private schools will have a much bigger target audience (no longer just seeking kids of wealthy parents, but appealing to the rank-and-file). We may also quickly see "megaschools" catering to what are currently several school districts offering both better services and higher economies of scale than town-by-town traditional monolithic entities.

A private teacher running a "micro-school" does NOT have the ability to teach a kindergartner to read one minute and a high school senior AP calculus the next. To imagine they do is simply a flight of fancy.

As to your second comment, teacher's unions usually get NOTHING except the dues paid by the members. It is NOT your tax dollars, so what gives you the right to dictate how the money is used. Is that not for the members to decide?

In Jacksonville FL where I lived for many years, there was only one Catholic high school for decades with a waiting list that could easily fill two other schools. The archdiocese finally got around to building the second high school a few years back and it filled immediately. There is now a huge waiting list for both schools. Why do they not build the schools to eliminate the waiting lists? The answer is simple. They have no money to invest in the buildings and grounds for these new schools! The funds for tuition are there, but not the funds to build. Investing the capital for those projects would cause tuition to rise even higher, and the schools already charge far more than any voucher would be worth.

Also, these schools REFUSED to take the state voucher money back when Florida had them. Why? They had no desire to take funds for less than their tuition and they would be required to take vouchers from just any student as the law required. They prefer to control who got in and who did not. Besides, they did not have the room anyway!

[RWReaganfan]

Simple. The tax money was collected to allow children to get an education. The only remaining question is WHO will provide that service.


I take it that you would have no problem with an Islamic school opening a madrassa in your neighborhood, funded with vouchers, teaching that America is the Great Satan and that to die as a martyr for your religion should be your ultimate goal in life?

Does that sound like the kind of private school you would be happy supporting with your hard earned paycheck?

[PhantomPholly]

A private teacher running a "micro-school" does NOT have the ability to teach a kindergartner to read one minute and a high school senior AP calculus the next. To imagine they do is simply a flight of fancy.

Which is why no on is suggesting that - it would be silly.

However, a private teacher could specialize in either of the above.

As to your second comment, teacher's unions usually get NOTHING except the dues paid by the members. It is NOT your tax dollars, so what gives you the right to dictate how the money is used. Is that not for the members to decide?

You can keep your silly dues. I was referring to the tax money spent on public schools, which others would be allowed to compete for in a voucher scenario.

In Jacksonville FL where I lived for many years, there was only one Catholic high school for decades with a waiting list that could easily fill two other schools. The archdiocese finally got around to building the second high school a few years back and it filled immediately. There is now a huge waiting list for both schools. Why do they not build the schools to eliminate the waiting lists? The answer is simple. They have no money to invest in the buildings and grounds for these new schools! The funds for tuition are there, but not the funds to build. Investing the capital for those projects would cause tuition to rise even higher, and the schools already charge far more than any voucher would be worth.

Well, since you are such a business genius, doubtless you will become wealthy once vouchers are the norm.

Also, these schools REFUSED to take the state voucher money back when Florida had them. Why? They had no desire to take funds for less than their tuition and they would be required to take vouchers from just any student as the law required. They prefer to control who got in and who did not. Besides, they did not have the room anyway!

Yep, I would expect that most existing religious schools would not want to take the money. Different business model.

Once Vouchers loosen the death-grip of teacher's unions on public funds, I expect many new types of schools will come into existence.

[Apatriot]

I support vouchers for kids in failing public schools. I think that does the right thing, which is to give those kids a chance, and it also holds the teachers in the failing school accountable to some degree. I'm against vouchers for kids in good public schools. They don't need it. The public schools are meeting their needs.

[RickL]

Yep, I would expect that most existing religious schools would not want to take the money. Different business model.

What "business model" do schools follow? Almost all Catholic schools operate in the red and rely on money from the diocese just to stay open. I am not aware of any corporate type business models in schools. Can you explain?

Once Vouchers loosen the death-grip of teacher's unions on public funds, I expect many new types of schools will come into existence.

What is the "death grip of teacher's unions on public funds"? Can you tell me of any allocation which the unions have say over?

Regards,
Rick

[RWReaganfan]

Ok, I agree and disagree with you, I feel that Government Schools are doing nothing to help kids get ahead in todays life, as far as you sending your kids to a Catholic school , that is good if that's your choice, but my question to you is how do you feel about homeschooling , I think its great , since most homeschoolers are 2 years ahead of the government schools, and its done without bullying.

Since I hold a M.Ed. degree, and have researched this topic extensively, I would like you to cite the study you are referencing. I will not hold my breath as no such study exists.

[RWReaganfan]

Which is why no on is suggesting that - it would be silly.

However, a private teacher could specialize in either of the above.

That is not what you said.

You can keep your silly dues. I was referring to the tax money spent on public schools, which others would be allowed to compete for in a voucher scenario.

Vouchers are a dead issue in almost every state. You cannot convince people like me to pay taxes to send your kids to private school.

Well, since you are such a business genius, doubtless you will become wealthy once vouchers are the norm.

That will never happen. Vouchers have proven to be no better than public schools over the long haul.

Yep, I would expect that most existing religious schools would not want to take the money. Different business model.

You can equivocate and backtrack all you want, but your statements are simply false.
Once Vouchers loosen the death-grip of teacher's unions on public funds, I expect many new types of schools will come into existence.
What don't you understand? Teacher's unions do NOT control tax dollars! Every time you make a silly statement like that you paint yourself as another hack that does not understand the first thing about education, and yet have no problem telling the professionals in education what to do! Although I generally love Sean's views, on this issue he is woefully ignorant, just like someone else I know.

[RWReaganfan]

What "business model" do schools follow? Almost all Catholic schools operate in the red and rely on money from the diocese just to stay open. I am not aware of any corporate type business models in schools. Can you explain?

.

What is the "death grip of teacher's unions on public funds"? Can you tell me of any allocation which the unions have say over?

Regards,
Rick


They cannot! Their rhetoric is all worn out from overuse, and frankly, I get tired of proving them wrong time after time.

[RWReaganfan]

I support vouchers for kids in failing public schools. I think that does the right thing, which is to give those kids a chance, and it also holds the teachers in the failing school accountable to some degree. I'm against vouchers for kids in good public schools. They don't need it. The public schools are meeting their needs.

Student A attends class every day, brings his materials to school. behaves well both in and out of the classroom, does his assignments and makes excellent scores on the test.

Students B, C and D attend class whenever the mood strikes them because the parent/grandparent has no clue where they are. They never have a pencil or paper, spend more time with the assistant principal for discipline problems than they do in any classroom, have never completed a homework assignment, and fail every test.

What do you have here? A failing school! You want to hold the teachers accountable! Why?

Vouchers are offered to the students. Students B, C, and D can afford to make up the difference between the amount of the voucher, so they move to Private Academy, which promptly kicks them out because they violate school rules and refuse to work.

Student A remains behind but the school is sanctioned and strapped with additional "monitoring" to ensure the situation improves.

Students B, C and D are replaced by students E, F, and H who were just brought into the US by Catholic Charities from Bosnia, Africa, and any other Third World country. They do not speak any English and struggle from day one. Students B, C and D return to the school dragging it even further down.

Student A continues to excel and goes on to graduate from high school with honors, gets a full ride at an Ivy League school, attends medical school and develops a cure for cancer.

Wait! Student A attended a failing school! That is not possible! He should drool and not be able to form sentences!

Every student's education is dependent on what THEY make of it. Is my story an exaggeration? A little, but it is not that far from reality!

[RickL]

They cannot! Their rhetoric is all worn out from overuse, and frankly, I get tired of proving them wrong time after time.

I know, RW.

I really did not expect an answer, because there is none.

Regards,

Rick

[Apatriot]

Student A attends class every day, brings his materials to school. behaves well both in and out of the classroom, does his assignments and makes excellent scores on the test.

Students B, C and D attend class whenever the mood strikes them because the parent/grandparent has no clue where they are. They never have a pencil or paper, spend more time with the assistant principal for discipline problems than they do in any classroom, have never completed a homework assignment, and fail every test.

What do you have here? A failing school! You want to hold the teachers accountable! Why?

Vouchers are offered to the students. Students B, C, and D can afford to make up the difference between the amount of the voucher, so they move to Private Academy, which promptly kicks them out because they violate school rules and refuse to work.

Student A remains behind but the school is sanctioned and strapped with additional "monitoring" to ensure the situation improves.

Students B, C and D are replaced by students E, F, and H who were just brought into the US by Catholic Charities from Bosnia, Africa, and any other Third World country. They do not speak any English and struggle from day one. Students B, C and D return to the school dragging it even further down.

Student A continues to excel and goes on to graduate from high school with honors, gets a full ride at an Ivy League school, attends medical school and develops a cure for cancer.

Wait! Student A attended a failing school! That is not possible! He should drool and not be able to form sentences!

Every student's education is dependent on what THEY make of it. Is my story an exaggeration? A little, but it is not that far from reality!


Hmm, it's more likely that Student A will be the one to go to the Private academy. Guardians that don't know where their kids are generally don't take the time to fill out the paperwork for vouchers, etc.

Let's finish the story, Student A at the Private academy, not only excels, but he truly manages to enjoy school. In addition to curing cancer, he also sets up an educational foundation for scholarships for students like himself.

I've taught at a failing rough school. Yes, most of the failure was due to student choices. However, it's hard to reach those 2 or 3 good students due to the 15 or 20 B, C and D's. It's sometimes hard for those two or three students to withstand the peer pressure of the B, C and D's.

Finally, and I'm guilty of not doing this as well in my past, if teachers deliver a good enough lesson and motivate students, B,C and D will attend school.

[jmb6]

Why do teachers hate children so much? You would think teachers would want what was best for the children.

[Apatriot]

Why do teachers hate children so much? You would think teachers would want what was best for the children.

Most teachers do want what is best for the children, until they get burnt out by years of insolence, laziness and sheer apathy by students.

[RickL]

Why do teachers hate children so much? You would think teachers would want what was best for the children.

Why do so many carpenters hate red clam sauce? You would think they would prefer it to white clam sauce and want what's best for America's tomato farmers.

[PhantomPholly]

What "business model" do schools follow? Almost all Catholic schools operate in the red and rely on money from the diocese just to stay open. I am not aware of any corporate type business models in schools. Can you explain?

They are looking to develop the next generation of devout Catholics, naturally. The money "lost" in their "business" is considered an investment in the future.

Have you never heard of contributions from Alums?

What is the "death grip of teacher's unions on public funds"? Can you tell me of any allocation which the unions have say over?

Outside of a couple of voucher programs, can you tell me of a single location in the United States where any individual can bid to perform the education service for the public funds gather for that purpose? Hint: You can't. And if the Teacher's Unions have their way, you never will have the opportunity to pursue that business.

That is called a "Monopoly."

[PhantomPholly]

What don't you understand? Teacher's unions do NOT control tax dollars!

Really? Then anyone with an education degree can bid on the "work" of "providing education services" to a community?

No, I thought not...

Every government service save those involving use of force or rescue in dangerous situations (e.g. firemen, and sometimes even them) has been outsourced successfully - and generally becomes much more beneficial and cost effective. Yet some folks doggedly insist, without a shred of evidence to support it, that "somehow schools are DIFFERENT."

B.S.

Every time you make a silly statement like that you paint yourself as another hack that does not understand the first thing about education, and yet have no problem telling the professionals in education what to do! Although I generally love Sean's views, on this issue he is woefully ignorant, just like someone else I know.[/COLOR]

But I am NOT telling EDUCATORS what to do; and every time you misconstrue and misquote me you yourself are the one who loses any shred of credibility.

All I am doing is pointing out that our educational system's well-known shortcomings can be linked directly to a Socialist-mentality anti-competitive monopoly, and that continuing the same behavior over and over again while hoping for a different outcome is the very definition of insanity.

Which, if you are suggesting that our current system of monopolized public funds is the "best possible solution," suggests something rather unfortunate about you...

:wall:

[RickL]

Have you never heard of contributions from Alums?

Since you apparently enter into debates assuming your opponent to be ignorant

and...



Hint: You can't. .

assume the debate is over before it even truly begins,

and...

That is called a "Monopoly."

speak in a patronizing tone...

I guess there is not much benefit in responding.


Regards,

Rick

[RWReaganfan]

Really? Then anyone with an education degree can bid on the "work" of "providing education services" to a community?

No, I thought not...

Wrong again. It is called a charter school and have the same stories of success and failure found everywhere else in education. I am sorry, but your grasp of this topic is far below the leve needed to converse with professional educators.

Every government service save those involving use of force or rescue in dangerous situations (e.g. firemen, and sometimes even them) has been outsourced successfully - and generally becomes much more beneficial and cost effective. Yet some folks doggedly insist, without a shred of evidence to support it, that "somehow schools are DIFFERENT."

B.S.



But I am NOT telling EDUCATORS what to do; and every time you misconstrue and misquote me you yourself are the one who loses any shred of credibility.

How am I misquoting and misconstruing your words when I am quoting YOUR WORDS?

All I am doing is pointing out that our educational system's well-known shortcomings can be linked directly to a Socialist-mentality anti-competitive monopoly, and that continuing the same behavior over and over again while hoping for a different outcome is the very definition of insanity.

Which, if you are suggesting that our current system of monopolized public funds is the "best possible solution," suggests something rather unfortunate about you...

:wall:

If parents wish to homeschool their children at their expense, more power to them! If parents want to send their kids to a school that agrees with their religious dogma at their expense, more power to them. Anything else that asks me to fund your choice is unacceptable.

[Mimiheart]

Most teachers do want what is best for the children, until they get burnt out by years of insolence, laziness and sheer apathy by students.
And sometimes worse from their parents.:wall::wall:

[PhantomPholly]

Since you apparently enter into debates assuming your opponent to be ignorant

and...

assume the debate is over before it even truly begins,

and...

speak in a patronizing tone...

I guess there is not much benefit in responding.

Regards,

Rick

lol - but you did anyway...

I suggest that next time you call someone a hack you ought not to act surprised when they don't respond kindly.

:wall:

[RickL]

lol - but you did anyway...

I suggest that next time you call someone a hack you ought not to act surprised when they don't respond kindly.

:wall:

Where did I call anyone a "hack"? Or, where did I call anyone anything?

I asked a question:

When and how do teacher unions have say over allocation of public funds?

[PhantomPholly]

Where did I call anyone a "hack"? Or, where did I call anyone anything?

I asked a question:

When and how do teacher unions have say over allocation of public funds?

Hmmm, bad on both of us. The hack comment was further back in the thread, but you did not post it (you responded to my response to another poster). On the other hand, your accusation that I was being condescending was baseless. I was not being condescending - I was simply stating that which is (or ought to be) obvious.

As to your question, it is answered with a simple test: Name one public school in which non-union teachers can compete for jobs. If that cannot be done, or if the example is so rare that it does not merit discussion, then the teacher's union has a hammerlock (monopoly) on those public funds. Furthermore, it can be and has been demonstrated that teachers' unions have vigorously applied every sort of political, social, and in a few cases violent means of persuasion to maintain that monopoly.

Having a monopoly guarantees a great deal of control over allocation of public funds - the answer to your question. Such control is fundamentally unethical, and guarantees corruption and inefficiency in the system.

[Apatriot]

As to your question, it is answered with a simple test: Name one public school in which non-union teachers can compete for jobs.

Well, I got teaching jobs in public schools in Georgia and Alabama without being in a union. My wife got a teaching job in public school in Florida withoug being in a union. In Alabama, after I joined the union, I lost out jobs to people that weren't in the union. In right to work states (primarily the Southeast), the union has no strangle hold on teaching jobs.

[PhantomPholly]

Well, I got teaching jobs in public schools in Georgia and Alabama without being in a union. My wife got a teaching job in public school in Florida withoug being in a union. In Alabama, after I joined the union, I lost out jobs to people that weren't in the union. In right to work states (primarily the Southeast), the union has no strangle hold on teaching jobs.

Yep, each of the Right to Work states is somewhat more sensible in this area. However, I would submit that your personal experience of "losing out to a non-union worker" is still the exception, not the rule.

In the bigger picture, it is still true that no group of individual entrepreneurs may place a bid on the work of providing education services to any municipality (well, you could "submit" a bid but it would be ignored...). This despite the well-documented fact that government generally does a poor job managing such institutions when compared to a competitive system whereby features and costs can be compared. Teachers Unions oppose such a sensible solution because it subverts their "seniority system" and threatens their control over the teaching jobs.

[Apatriot]

Yep, each of the Right to Work states is somewhat more sensible in this area. However, I would submit that your personal experience of "losing out to a non-union worker" is still the exception, not the rule.

I do agree with that assessment. Employment related, I tend to be an exception. As a white male, I was once hired for affirmative action purposes. The first school system I worked at was under a court order to have the teacher population identical racially to the county as a whole. Whites were underrepresented, so I got a teaching job over qualified black applicants. I can tell you this, affirmative action doesn't really help in the long run. It took me 2 yrs for the black teachers to accept me, primarily because they knew I was hired because I was white.

In the bigger picture, it is still true that no group of individual entrepreneurs may place a bid on the work of providing education services to any municipality (well, you could "submit" a bid but it would be ignored...). This despite the well-documented fact that government generally does a poor job managing such institutions when compared to a competitive system whereby features and costs can be compared. Teachers Unions oppose such a sensible solution because it subverts their "seniority system" and threatens their control over the teaching jobs.

Private industry hasn't proven successful in the education business. Edison schools went from planning to run 1000 schools down to actually running 157 schools.

[Point Blank Gratte]

I think the whole system is setup for brainwashing. Public school is just a conditioning institute to make you stupid and suboordinate to the state. If it wasn't, why would the government care. Sense when did the government give a crap about our kids? Do we have child healthcare? NO!

I say we abolish public school all together. People can host private schools, doesn't matter to me. I wouldn't encourage, discourage, or regulate it. Anyone can learn basic math and english skills.

The only public education should be colleges. Colleges should be free for people of all ages to educate themselves and get the tools they need to work and integrate into society. If we don't have that, then you shouldn't be surprised of the crime rates. If we're to play along in this rat race, then we should atleast be given the skills we need to play along.

[Army of 1]

As a teacher here is the problem with vouchers...they do not address the problems.
In our area we have what we call "choice" schools. They are public schools that you apply to go to. they have slightly different curriculum BUT not hugely different. They do however force parental involvement through contracts, along with discipline..etc. They can be run much like a private school because you chooce to go there- don't like it or don't abide by the rules, you can or will be sent back to your neighborhood school. The one law running the school that is the makeup of the school must reflect that of the entire city
=Same % low income, same % minority, same % male/female.etc.
This school ends up being the 2nd highest testing school-simply because parents are involved-PERIOD!(add in that inorder to get in you must apply and have the initiative to go to this type of school. Which basically says regradless of income or race school is important.
Vouchers will not help many failing kids simply because their parents/grandparents will not take the initiative to use the vouchers. It will take the top kids whose parents are involved and move them away from that school leaving only the failing school. This will give them less money, less staff and less student examples to push these kids to pass/achieve. They will basically be left with no chance.
Want to make vouchers work?
Then take any kid that is not meeeting standards (or not meeeting by a large amount) and allow them to use vouchers. Then you will see that it probably isn't the school(in most cases) and I would be willing to bet that most vouchers would not be used.
My last intervention would be that you would have to be failing for many years because I am sure some "crafty" parent would tell their kid to bomb the tests so they can move to a private school for free...

[PhantomPholly]

I do agree with that assessment. Employment related, I tend to be an exception. As a white male, I was once hired for affirmative action purposes. The first school system I worked at was under a court order to have the teacher population identical racially to the county as a whole. Whites were underrepresented, so I got a teaching job over qualified black applicants. I can tell you this, affirmative action doesn't really help in the long run. It took me 2 yrs for the black teachers to accept me, primarily because they knew I was hired because I was white.

Hehe - that is true. So-called "equal opportunity laws" are actually thinly veiled institutionalization of racism. It will be interesting to see over the next few years whether Whites become "protected" by these laws as they become the minority....

Private industry hasn't proven successful in the education business. Edison schools went from planning to run 1000 schools down to actually running 157 schools.

I disagree - the only example we have is of private schools running a different "business model" than the public schools.

Current private schools exist for one of two reasons: As religious "recruitment" vehicles (e.g. make the children of whatever religion is running the school more likely to remain with the church); and as a status symbol / escape from being "grouped with the poor/violent." As such, in the first case they tend to be subsidized by the church which stands to benefit from increased "loyalty," and in the second case it is a "luxury purchase."

In neither case is a truly superior education the primary goal of the "sale." It often DOES happen, if only because absent the poorest / most disabled the environment is less "distracting" to the students; but not always.

Under a Voucher system, there is suddenly a pool of public funding which was once locked for the monopoly group now suddenly up for bid. Now the goal is to attract parents by virtue of superior service.

[themadcow]

Vouchers are a horrible idea. So is free public education. I say eliminate both programs and then you have the recipe for success, lower taxes, and education for those who will care about, those that PAY for it.

[rosto67]

State Scholarship? So I am paying my tax money (if I lived in your state) to send your kid to a private school? Voucher or redistribution of my wealth?

You had a choice all along to send your son to a private school. Too expensive? Get a second job or move to a better school district. I pay enough in taxes for my public schools without them using some of my dollars to support your desire.

Fix the schools. MAKE PARENTS ACCOUNTABLE, but vouchers are the same thing the conservative rally around when complaining of handouts, its taking from one sector to support another.

The problem with the schools is the kids that are going there not the program the teachers or the facilities. If you are assigned to a school with a bunch of thugs then it is likely they will pick on your kid. The problem is that the parents have no say in the decision to send a kid to a certain school. There are very good public schools but these schools are mostly located in wealthy suburbs. In suburbs where the parents discipline their kids at home. If you live elsewhere then you take what you get. Kids from single parent homes etc. The decision to send a kid to a private school is based on finances and poor families should have the same choice as the wealthy. They should be able to send their kids to good private schools even if it means taking away money from the public schools to do it. It is unconscionable to send a kid to a public school where his/her failure is certain just because some ideology proscribes it.

[PhantomPholly]

Vouchers are a horrible idea. So is free public education. I say eliminate both programs and then you have the recipe for success, lower taxes, and education for those who will care about, those that PAY for it.

That's a great formula to make us a third-world nation you have there.

War fighting, and thus the security of the nation, depends now more than ever on an educated populace from which to draw soldiers. Even leaving aside the ability of our country to compete economically, the above argues that public funding of education is a matter of national defense, and thus one of the very few "public programs" currently in existence which is Constitutionally authorized.

[PhantomPholly]

...

They should be able to send their kids to good private schools even if it means taking away money from the public schools to do it. It is unconscionable to send a kid to a public school where his/her failure is certain just because some ideology proscribes it.

Actually, they should be able to send their kids to a decent school ESPECIALLY if it takes the money away from a bad school.

Any system which does not ALLOW "failure" is a system which GUARANTEES failure. Allowing poor schools to receive funding is what has brought our system to it's current sub-par condition.

[themadcow]

That's a great formula to make us a third-world nation you have there.

War fighting, and thus the security of the nation, depends now more than ever on an educated populace from which to draw soldiers. Even leaving aside the ability of our country to compete economically, the above argues that public funding of education is a matter of national defense, and thus one of the very few "public programs" currently in existence which is Constitutionally authorized.

Well however did this union form without the Department of Education then I dare ask? If you think that the public education system in this country leaves people on an equal footing with the rest of the world, well then, may I suggest some more education.

If education is to be funded from public resources, then let it be a local issue, not a national one lest we all turn into California.

[PhantomPholly]

Well however did this union form without the Department of Education then I dare ask? If you think that the public education system in this country leaves people on an equal footing with the rest of the world, well then, may I suggest some more education.

I agree absolutely that it should be a LOCAL issue - primarily the Parent's decision (vouchers). The Fed has no business being involved whatsoever; my comment about it being related to defense is simply that I don't believe that this kind of funding is Unconstitutional. In other areas I'm pretty much in favor of cutting government around 80-90%.

As for how we got by without public education, when our country was founded the most complex weapon was a cannon. People could be taught to use it in about 10 minutes without written instructions. Defending our country today requires literacy as a minimum level of education simply to read the instruction manuals. Far more is required to field an effective force.

If education is to be funded from public resources, then let it be a local issue, not a national one lest we all turn into California.

Amen. And while we are at it, let Californication fail as an example to other idiots who think Socialism solves anything.

[Dregun]

Again this is another situation where we are not trying to solve a problem we are trying to find a way AROUND the problem...vouchers.:wall:

If our public school system is failing then why should the government spend money on an alternative instead of a solution?

How are vouchers fair to those who live in areas without charter schools?
How are vouchers fair to those who "don't" recieve them and have to go to public school.

The argument FOR vouchers is the same argument against them. Simply because the argument is that if parents want to send thier children to charter schools why shouldn't they. Yet at the same time its telling those who CAN'T go to charter schools too bad, you're going to have to suffer the public school system.

The proponents of vouchers are taking the "me me me me" stance, as is not surprisingly the same response on many topics. The problem is many only seem to care about themselves and not the group, basically saying its ok if other kids fail as long as thiers can succeeed. Instead of wanting to help ALL poor kids receive a proper education they only want those who can get the "voucher" to get that education.

I'm all about whats good for everybody as a whole, what can we do to make our country better for everybody or at least the vast majority. Fixing our public school system will do just that, providing a lottery for vouchers will not.

This is the worst kind of class warfare, everyone here likes to complain about "redistributing wealth..socialists..communists" yet when it comes to helping themselves without helping others thats just plain "American":rolleyes:

[themadcow]

Again this is another situation where we are not trying to solve a problem we are trying to find a way AROUND the problem...vouchers.:wall:

If our public school system is failing then why should the government spend money on an alternative instead of a solution?

How are vouchers fair to those who live in areas without charter schools?
How are vouchers fair to those who "don't" recieve them and have to go to public school.

The argument FOR vouchers is the same argument against them. Simply because the argument is that if parents want to send thier children to charter schools why shouldn't they. Yet at the same time its telling those who CAN'T go to charter schools too bad, you're going to have to suffer the public school system.

The proponents of vouchers are taking the "me me me me" stance, as is not surprisingly the same response on many topics. The problem is many only seem to care about themselves and not the group, basically saying its ok if other kids fail as long as thiers can succeeed. Instead of wanting to help ALL poor kids receive a proper education they only want those who can get the "voucher" to get that education.

I'm all about whats good for everybody as a whole, what can we do to make our country better for everybody or at least the vast majority. Fixing our public school system will do just that, providing a lottery for vouchers will not.

This is the worst kind of class warfare, everyone here likes to complain about "redistributing wealth..socialists..communists" yet when it comes to helping themselves without helping others thats just plain "American":rolleyes:

A me me me solution would be for me to advocate shutting down all schools and rescinding all taxes for schools since I have no children and no plans for them.

Instead I care about what happens to all of your (peoples) children.

[WildGoose]

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=10341

“The sad truth is, this fight is not about helping kids in D.C. or anywhere else,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It’s about ideology. Some people just don’t like public schools and want to use vouchers to funnel public funds to religious and other private schools."



I have to agree - what do you think?


It's wrong.

At the heart of the problem is the tyranny that is public education.

Public education is a cesspool of corruption, statist indoctrination, and ineptitude. Government forces the citizenry to pay for it, and in return we get no value. This is the truth.

I'm personally against vouchers. Sure, you may now have money to take to a private and/or religious school, but what this does is it allows the hand of government into those schools so they can dictate curriculae and policy. Where these schools may not have unions, they may be forced to allow them or be banned from the use of funding from vouchers, for instance.

There is only one solution, only one, that can solve the problems of public education: Freedom.

Demand that all public funding of education cease and desist. All schools must compete in the market. That way, parents and students can determine for themselves the value of the services they are getting because they would actually be paying directly to the schools they are using. If, for any reason, they do not like how these schools are providing their services, they can go elsewhere. And by doing that, schools will adapt to serve certain clients depending on market research and target customers they want, and therefore would provide the best services for the money. Not all will be above board, but a market with a free exchange of information will help weed out the bad ones.

It is not right to force others to pay for your education, or anything else that can be provided by your own labors.

[RWReaganfan]

It's wrong.

At the heart of the problem is the tyranny that is public education.

Public education is a cesspool of corruption, statist indoctrination, and ineptitude. Government forces the citizenry to pay for it, and in return we get no value. This is the truth.

I'm personally against vouchers. Sure, you may now have money to take to a private and/or religious school, but what this does is it allows the hand of government into those schools so they can dictate curriculae and policy. Where these schools may not have unions, they may be forced to allow them or be banned from the use of funding from vouchers, for instance.

There is only one solution, only one, that can solve the problems of public education: Freedom.

Demand that all public funding of education cease and desist. All schools must compete in the market. That way, parents and students can determine for themselves the value of the services they are getting because they would actually be paying directly to the schools they are using. If, for any reason, they do not like how these schools are providing their services, they can go elsewhere. And by doing that, schools will adapt to serve certain clients depending on market research and target customers they want, and therefore would provide the best services for the money. Not all will be above board, but a market with a free exchange of information will help weed out the bad ones.

It is not right to force others to pay for your education, or anything else that can be provided by your own labors.

Your statement is not the truth. It is a lie. You and everyone else benefits from an educated populace, hence "value". To deny such is simply ignorant.

If there was no public education, I would be an uneducated child of a factory worker and housewife. Instead, I graduated from a public high school and have obtained both a Bachelor's and a Master's degree. Instead of educating children, I would probably be working in a factory until my company decides they can make refrigerators cheaper in some Third World country, paying a $1 a day wages. After that, I will be a ward of the state and your taxes will provide my support. is that the kind of "value" that you prefer?

[WildGoose]

Your statement is not the truth. It is a lie. You and everyone else benefits from an educated populace, hence "value". To deny such is simply ignorant.

If there was no public education, I would be an uneducated child of a factory worker and housewife. Instead, I graduated from a public high school and have obtained both a Bachelor's and a Master's degree. Instead of educating children, I would probably be working in a factory until my company decides they can make refrigerators cheaper in some Third World country, paying a $1 a day wages. After that, I will be a ward of the state and your taxes will provide my support. is that the kind of "value" that you prefer?

First, I note that you never really refuted what I said. Government subsidizes failure by confiscating money from taxpayers. Normally this is done to buy votes.

Second, I must ask, why do you feel entitled to my money? I don't know you. Yet, you feel as though it is my fiscal responsibility to pay for public education no matter how well or poorly it performs, and it performs very poorly.

Why do you feel entitled to anything at all? I may sympathize with your circumstances, tragic and dramatic though they may be, but what fault is that of mine? If you were born to poverty, does that obligate me fiscally to bear responsibility for you? Don't I have a right to keep what I earn and do with it as I please? To not have it taken from me by force to be done as some government bureaucrat and politician wants? Don't you believe in Freedom?

[PhantomPholly]

Again this is another situation where we are not trying to solve a problem we are trying to find a way AROUND the problem...vouchers.:wall:

Depends on what you happen to perceive as the "problem."

Providing ANY service requires resources. As I explained in my prior post, I believe that an educated populace is essential to national security - thus collecting taxes for such a service could be Constitutional. Nonetheless I feel that this should be handled at the lowest possible level of government - which is also in keeping with the intent of the Founders.

So the only remaining question is, how should resources collected from taxes meant for providing a specific service (education) be spent? Should the government get into the "business of education" (which it has, and like every other business ever run by government it is adequate at best and terrible at worst)? Or should it do what has proven to be the most effective method of accomplishing the goal - namely making those funds available to potential outsource service providers? If the latter, should we allow all-or-nothing monopolistic bids, or should we place the spending decision in the hands of those most affected by the outcome?

Once you answer these two questions in the only LOGICAL way, vouchers (or something like them) become the only valid choice.

If our public school system is failing then why should the government spend money on an alternative instead of a solution?

The money is collected to provide a service. The government is demonstrably incapable of making, or unwilling to make, good decisions. The only people with a vested interest in seeing to it that the money is well spent are parents - who thus should individually control how the funds are spent.

How are vouchers fair to those who live in areas without charter schools?

Easy - I have no doubt there are many people qualified to teach even in rural areas. Such people could home school (receiving perhaps some reduced portion of those funds in exchange for sacrificing the ability to hold other employment in favor of teaching their children), or form small private schoolhouses like they did in the old West. In other words - once the money becomes available, people will compete to provide the service creating schools where there were none.

How are vouchers fair to those who "don't" recieve them and have to go to public school.

If a parent CHOOSES to keep their child in the government school, then the money goes to that school - same as for every other child. The parents NEVER "receive" the money (unless it is for directly providing the education service as a home-schooling parent).

The argument FOR vouchers is the same argument against them. Simply because the argument is that if parents want to send thier children to charter schools why shouldn't they. Yet at the same time its telling those who CAN'T go to charter schools too bad, you're going to have to suffer the public school system.

You seem locked into the idea that only existing Charter schools could possibly be considered for vouchers. This is nonsense.

I can fully imagine people opening up specialty schools targeted at problem students (e.g. a "military boarding school" or something similar). These types of schools are impossible today because there is too small of a paying market to consider them, but in a voucher system could become available almost everywhere.

Before the Phone Company was broken up by anti-trust, you could only legally hook up a phone made by the phone company. No one really imagined what phone service COULD be until the breakup- then suddenly we had call-waiting; voice mail; caller id; etc.

Today most parents have no idea what kinds of schools COULD be available if the government school monopoly were to be broken up. In truth we CANNOT know until we take the leap of faith that the "world won't come to an end." However, based on every single historical precedent, whatever shape it takes will be far superior to what we have today.

The proponents of vouchers are taking the "me me me me" stance, as is not surprisingly the same response on many topics. The problem is many only seem to care about themselves and not the group, basically saying its ok if other kids fail as long as thiers can succeeed. Instead of wanting to help ALL poor kids receive a proper education they only want those who can get the "voucher" to get that education.

I have no children. I care about AMERICA, because I have traveled around the world and know that we are rapidly falling behind from what was once a commanding lead. Why? Because we have turned our backs on the principles laid out across history that are known to WORK, and instead relied on the promises of politicians with a historical success rating of zero.

Inner city American school children today receive the worst educations in the western world. What we are doing is not working, it is as simple as that. Fighting to keep our current system the same is equivalent to demanding to be first in line among Lemmings rushing to the cliffs and into the sea.

:wall:

I'm all about whats good for everybody as a whole, what can we do to make our country better for everybody or at least the vast majority. Fixing our public school system will do just that, providing a lottery for vouchers will not.

This is the worst kind of class warfare, everyone here likes to complain about "redistributing wealth..socialists..communists" yet when it comes to helping themselves without helping others thats just plain "American":rolleyes:

Actually, class warfare is a good way of describing our current public school system. Take Atlanta as an example - there are more dollars spent per student in Atlanta than almost anywhere in the U.S., but the results are among the weakest anywhere. A voucher system might actually have a shot at breaking this circle of defeat that keeps hundreds of thousands of good people from getting a decent education.

[WildGoose]

The money is collected to provide a service. The government is demonstrably incapable of making, or unwilling to make, good decisions. The only people with a vested interest in seeing to it that the money is well spent are parents - who thus should individually control how the funds are spent.



Precisely. And why is government incapable of making good decisions in this regard?

Because it isn't really their money. If the government bureaucrats and politicians fail to provide excellent service, they never suffer for it because year after year after year they are routinely rewarded with more money. They are never held to account for their failures because such things are never reported or linked as failures on their part.

And we all suffer for it.

Note that when a private business or organization mishandles money and makes poor decisions, its effects are rather limited. Even Enron and the numerous corporate scandals were rather limited in scope. Sure, people did get hurt, but not everyone got hurt. And when a business fails due to its own incompetence, in the end everyone benefits because others will perform in ways the failing business did not.

When government makes bad decisions, especially with money, everyone suffers because it is wasting all of our money. It is not the government's money. Remember that!

This is why I never look to government to handle most problems. I always first look to myself and my own family, friends, neighbors, colleagues and private institutions before I would ever look to government for anything. Why? Because I want the problem solved. If government gets involved, rarely do problems ever get solved. They become political chips used at the convenience of politicians who use it to bargain with or to get re-elected. Meanwhile, year after year after year goes by, with more failure and more incompetence that we all have to suffer through.

The more of your life you control and manage the happier you will be. It's just that simple.

[Tom Kalbfus]

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=10341

“The sad truth is, this fight is not about helping kids in D.C. or anywhere else,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It’s about ideology. Some people just don’t like public schools and want to use vouchers to funnel public funds to religious and other private schools."



I have to agree - what do you think?

Explain to me what a Public School is for?
If it is to provide a "free education" to those who can't afford to pay tuition to a private school, why not then just pay for his tuition to a private school?

Does the government need to operate a publically funded supermarket to provide food for the poor?
No, they have something called food stamps, which can be accepted at privately owned supermarkets.

Where is the argument that the government needs to run something to provide a service at taxpayers expense? Government is quite capable of paying a private contractor to supply services, and there are plenty of people willing to provide those services so long as they are paid for. So what the heck are public schools for?