destroy the democratic party
and
until you do you will have
abortion
same sex marriage
bad schools
huge debt
and
until you do you will have
abortion
same sex marriage
bad schools
huge debt
toldailytopic: School vouchers, are you for, or against them?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
In theory you wouldn't be taxed anymore.
Same tax dollars as now. The only difference would be that parents would have the ability to spend those dollars as they see fit.
There is no doubt that government can ruin anything. And obviously the best thing would be for the government to get out of the education business altogether. Yet, arguing that would rob us of this topic of the day. :chuckle:
Lon
Well-known member
Yep. Look for instance, at the stats from Compassion International where private is the only kind of school. Those kids do well after they graduate.
State taxes don't go toward at-risk and special-needs, so much. Federal taxes do.
What are you looking for? A place where it has been tried and succeeded? Why does it matter? Being the public servant you are, I can imagine why it'd cause anxiety and fear.
elected4ever
New member
Well, I am against vouchers because the curriculum is still state approved and promotes socialism. What difference would it make if the same trash was being taught. The state would still dumb down the student and make them words of the state.
PureX
Well-known member
There are two major reasons that our public education system is having trouble. One is that it has been politicized. Much of the money we spend on public education doesn't get to the schools, or to the teachers, it get's swallowed up by "administrators" appointed by politicians as a reward for getting them votes. They are patronage jobs that at best do nothing for public education but drain off money, and at worst screw up the public education system with their ignorant meddling.
The second is that public schools have to take everyone's kid. They don't get to choose just the well-adjusted and motivated children. They have to take the mal-adjusted problem kids, too. And it's these two factors that need to be addressed if we want to fix our public education system.
Eliminating public schools will not solve either of these problems. The money that is now being wasted on patronage crony salaries would be eaten up by profiteering and the additional cost of having to take in the 'troubled' students. And the troubled students would soon effect the quality of education in the private schools just as they now do in public schools. So nothing is gained by the change, except that we would be limiting choice and competition, which will drive up the cost of the private schools even more. You say private schools are cheaper and better, now, but they will be neither when they have to take in all kinds of students, and when they know that we have to send our kids to them and pay them what they ask.
Now you're talking political nonsense. Republicans hate public schools because the teachers are unionized and unions tend to vote for democrats. So republican politicians have been deliberately slandering teachers and public schools in an effort to try and break their unions (i.e., end democratic support). They really don't give a crap about the state of the schools or the quality of the teachers, they just want to destroy their political opposition in any way they can, and they will destroy the public school system to do that if that's what it takes. I honestly don't know why people like you believe their obvious political nonsense.
Stop with the idiotic political slogans. Please. "Political correctness" has nothing to do with anything. It's a meaningless phrase conservatives love to throw around when they want to wallow in their own imaginary righteous indignation. Our public education system has worked exceedingly well for many decades. It's only very recently that we've begun to have problems with it and politics is one of the two main reasons we're having these problems. They could be dealt with very easily and quickly if people like yourself would stop buying into the political nonsense and tell your local politicians to stay out of public education, and to keep their patronage cronies out of it as well. It's much easier to get them to listen at the local level, where they can't hide from their angry constituents.
The second problem, that of poorly reared children, will be more difficult to solve, but that's going to be the case no matter what kind of school we're talking about.
some other dude
New member
Knight - how would successful private schools deal with the inevitable applications from troubled inner-city applicants who make inner-city classrooms unmanagable? How would successful private schools deal with the disruptive student who ruins the educational process for everyone?
HisServant
New member
Since they are private.. they can just boot them out of school after due process. Unlike public school.
some other dude
New member
Afte they're booted out, where do they go? Use their vouchers to enter another successful school? :idunno:
HisServant
New member
They can try.. otherwise they can always go back the cesspool that is the public school system.
Vouchers are only about choice.. a parents choice. If the kid doesn't cooperate its the parents fault.
I agree with you here.....mostly. I am not convinced that government has no role in educational advancements.
The main focus of education (home, private, or government) should start with the fear of the LORD. Proverbs 9:10
A lot of our home schools understand this. Some of our private schools understand this. None of our government schools understand this.
I like the idea of defunding our current government schools but am still wary of the price we would ultimately pay with these vouchers.
I've seen private schools take in kids who were expelled from government schools and occasionally these kids make a 180 degree turnaround. Others serve to spoil the bunch.
Home schooling doesn't tend to have this issue.
some other dude
New member
Last year, one of the kids my high school struggled with was himself struggling with the death of his mother and the incarceration of his father. He was bounced from aunt to grandma to other aunt and back again. The child (tenth grade) couldn't behave in a classroom and disrupted the learning process for the whole class. It took the school (one of the best in the state) three or four months to finally suspend him for the rest of the year. But then they were obligated to provide him with at home tutoring and counseling - way more expensive than having him in the classroom if he could have learned not to be disruptive.
He was an anomaly in my district, but closer to the norm in the inner city districts I used to teach in. Unsurprisingly, that district - five miles down the road - came in dead last in state rankings. And they spend 16k per student compared to our 13k.
Yes, there are some serious downsides to vouchers. The biggest being that the government could demand that schools teach certain things if they want to be able to accept the vouchers.
I wish there was simply an opt out. At the beginning of each year I could determine if I want to opt out of the public school system. This would allow me to play less in taxes that I would normally be paying for public schools. Then it would be up to me entirely to use those savings how I see fit (no voucher, just less tax burden).
Do you see a downside to that?
Well, if I were running the private school I would kick out disruptive kids. :idunno:
Also keep in mind this... a typical voucher might not pay the entire tuition for every school. Some elite schools may require much more tuition than the voucher would supply. This would allow the elite schools to maintain their enrollment specifications. It wouldn't be a free-for-all.
Parents would need to make real world market choices. I.e., we can send our kids to this school and pay nothing extra, or... we can send our kids to this even better school and chip in an extra $5000 per year (or whatever).
some other dude
New member
Knight - I pay school taxes in three districts (in which I own property). I only use the services of one of them. And next year, when my youngest is off to college, I won't use the services of any of them.
Barbarian observes:
What we need to do, is compare nations without strong public school systems and those that depend mostly on public schools. Do you think you can do that?
And the unspecified nation has no public school system? And the students there have higher achievement than American students? Is so, why don't you identify this nation that does so?
Barbarian observes:
And, of course, if private schools took all children, regardless of disabilities and academic needs, their costs would be much, much higher than those of public schools. And their results would be much, much worse.
Wrong. Texas, for example, has a constitutional mandate that requires the state to provide that. And of course, the issue is the per-student cost, not where the money comes from. Private schools could not efficiently handle those students, which is why they don't try. An all-private school system would simply not educate millions of kids.
Barbarian
But we're back to square one; is there anyone out there who wants to step up and show us a nation that does not primarily depend on public schools, which has higher student achievement than the United States? How about one that has student achievement almost as good as the United States?
Anyone?
A nation that does not rely primarily on public schools, in which student achievement is higher than in the United States. I'll make it easier. Find one in which student achievement is almost as high as it is in the United States.
Marxists often ask the same question. My response is to first show me that it worked somewhere else, and then, I'll think about it.
If you plan on retiring some day, it should scare the bejabbers out of you. Today's kids are going to be carrying on as we retire. You're advocating a system that has never succeeded in a modern technological society. And we're supposed to just take it on faith that it won't turn out the way it did in Somalia.
By now, it should be pretty clear to everyone that it has never worked, and never will. There's a reason that modern, orderly, and productive societies always depend on a strong public school system.
Even if it's politically incorrect, it works. And BTW, standardized international tests show that it works better here then in most places.
What we need to do, is compare nations without strong public school systems and those that depend mostly on public schools. Do you think you can do that?
And the unspecified nation has no public school system? And the students there have higher achievement than American students? Is so, why don't you identify this nation that does so?
Barbarian observes:
And, of course, if private schools took all children, regardless of disabilities and academic needs, their costs would be much, much higher than those of public schools. And their results would be much, much worse.
Wrong. Texas, for example, has a constitutional mandate that requires the state to provide that. And of course, the issue is the per-student cost, not where the money comes from. Private schools could not efficiently handle those students, which is why they don't try. An all-private school system would simply not educate millions of kids.
Barbarian
But we're back to square one; is there anyone out there who wants to step up and show us a nation that does not primarily depend on public schools, which has higher student achievement than the United States? How about one that has student achievement almost as good as the United States?
Anyone?
A nation that does not rely primarily on public schools, in which student achievement is higher than in the United States. I'll make it easier. Find one in which student achievement is almost as high as it is in the United States.
Marxists often ask the same question. My response is to first show me that it worked somewhere else, and then, I'll think about it.
If you plan on retiring some day, it should scare the bejabbers out of you. Today's kids are going to be carrying on as we retire. You're advocating a system that has never succeeded in a modern technological society. And we're supposed to just take it on faith that it won't turn out the way it did in Somalia.
By now, it should be pretty clear to everyone that it has never worked, and never will. There's a reason that modern, orderly, and productive societies always depend on a strong public school system.
Even if it's politically incorrect, it works. And BTW, standardized international tests show that it works better here then in most places.
Like vouchers, it could be of benefit initially. But also like vouchers, I would fear an eventual escalation of governmental intrusion...in our homes.
HisServant
New member
Corrected that for you... it did work around 20+ years ago.. our public schools are now beyond repair in their current form. (I had 2 kids go through the Council Rock School district which is supposed to be one of the best in the state.. and I still think they got a vastly inferior education then I did back in the 70's).
Our schools need to be ripped out at the roots and rebuilt with new people.. who actually care about the education of their students and aren't hamstrung by federal mandates and guidelines.
One thing I would like to see come back is paddling... I got paddled quite a few times back in the day and it got its point across.
Odd, then, that the TIMSS studies (which give identical math and science tests to kids in about 40 nations) shows U.S. kids are slightly above average in achievement.
Sorry about your kids. But most kids today learn more than their parents did, and are more capable. Eight-graders are often taking algebra in public schools, and high-school kids are often taking college-level courses. My youngest daughter is going to a competitive university, and she was awarded a semester's worth of AP credit. And she's not unusual.
You want to discard something we do better than most other modern nations, and replace it with something that has never worked? Not smart. Show us a nation where it works, and then we'll talk.
Um, yeah. It says, "if we're bigger than you and we're government-approved, we can beat you." Probably not a good thing. My district put up the lumber for good, after they took a look at what it was doing for behavior. No one could find any sign that it worked. I can remember conversations with my buddies, acknowledging that we'd probably get paddled for something, and deciding it was worth it. And you got points for taking a beating like a man. Which was counter-productive.
Has nothing to do with education, anyway. Some of the most obnoxious kids often score the highest on achievement tests. Frustrating, yes. But still often true.