An Argument against School Vouchers

[dmarker]

I have an argument against school vouchers that I've never heard before. So far I haven't been able to come up with a counter-argument, very important in a debate so no one can surprise you. I've managed to shut down one pro-voucher debater but he always debates from emotion and not from logic so he can't really find the flaws in my argument.

My argument against school vouchers is this:

I am a home owner, I pay local taxes to support schools. Because I do pay taxes, I have the right to elect a school board and the superintendent, to know the curriculum and how money is allocated, to lobby the school board with ideas about allocation and curriculum. And I have no school age children.

With school vouchers, my tax money goes to a private school. I have no control over the curriculum or allocation of funds and no recourse to lobby these schools for changes to either because I have no school age children. In fact, a private school doesn't have to disclose its curriculum or its allocation policies to me.

So essentially the school voucher system taxation without representation for everybody without school age children.

I want a logical counter argument to this. Emotional arguments like "parents have the right to educate children as they wish" doesn't hold water because they are spending my tax dollars to do it. The debate would just end at: "if I pay, I should get a say."

Now, the second counter argument could come from accreditation. Vouchers would only go to accreditated schools. However, accreditation only does so much as input into the local schools. I can hardly lobby the private school about buying a specific text book covering a subject that I think is necessary or adding a class to the curriculum that I think is important. Or spending more money in one area than another. Local taxes mean local control over services or least the right to have input.

So any willing to assail my argument with logic and evidence?

[Thanz]

I must admit that I don't know much about school vouchers - but I assume that they allow a parent to send a kid to private school, and have the "public school" fee paid by the voucher. Is this correct?

If so, I think that what you need is a tax direction system. In Ontario, you declare on your taxes whether you support the public or seperate (Catholic) school system. In your case, you should lobby for a system that would allow you to direct your taxes to either the public or the voucher system. Only give out vouchers to the level that they are supported.

This would eliminate your "taxation without representation" problem.

Not really a counter-argument, I suppose, but those are my thoughts.

[DavidJames]

A voucher program was just enacted in Colorado. It will use my taxes to send kids to private schools. If that's not bad enough, that money would normally go to public schools, which means, of course, that public schools will get that much less. I fully expect scores will drop, those supporting vouchers (who don't like public schools) will say, see how bad public schools are. A self fulfilling prophecy, which I believe is exactly what our Republican legislator expects (and has planned) to happen.

[apoger]

Originally posted by dmarker
I want a logical counter argument to this. Emotional arguments like "parents have the right to educate children as they wish" doesn't hold water because they are spending my tax dollars to do it.

Do they pay into the system?
Do they have children in the system?
If they do, just like you, and they are not allowed to have a voucher system as they want, isn't this also "taxation without representation"?

What exactly do you mean by "representation"? Isn't a choice between public school and a voucher a form of representation? A very direct form at that!

[Dancing David]

The main problem with vouchers is this:
They don't ever throw money in the first place, our school system is pitifully underfunded. So go ahead and siphon all the money so RICH people can send thier kids to private schools at the public expense.

Charter schools are the new Edsel of education!

Peace

[RichardR]

Representation does not mean that you have a say in how every dollar is spent.

I’m not sure what you mean by accreditation. But parents should only be able to apply the vouchers to schools that taught a curriculum in accordance with a standard set by elected politicians. Then you have taxation with representation.

In addition, if the majority had voted at an election for the party that said it was going to introduce vouchers, then you also have representation.

Do you have any other objections to vouchers?

[Skeptical Greg]

With school vouchers, my tax money goes to a private school. I have no control over the curriculum or allocation of funds and no recourse to lobby these schools for changes to either because I have no school age children. In fact, a private school doesn't have to disclose its curriculum or its allocation policies to me.

And you feel like you have this kind of control now when it comes to government schools?

Where do you live?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The main problem with vouchers is this:
They don't ever throw money in the first place, our school system is pitifully underfunded. So go ahead and siphon all the money so RICH people can send thier kids to private schools at the public expense.


Just a quibble: Rich people already send their kids to private schools -- how many Senators' kids are in public schools now, for instance?

NA

[Richard G]

With school vouchers, my tax money goes to a private school.

Here you are wrong. The taxes of the people sending their kids to private school pay for it, not yours. The voucher gives the people back THEIR tax money, not yours, to direct to the school of their choosing.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Richard G


Here you are wrong. The taxes of the people sending their kids to private school pay for it, not yours. The voucher gives the people back THEIR tax money, not yours, to direct to the school of their choosing.

Erk, well lets see are vouchers proportional to the amount of taxes paid by individuals, no. In many areas the bulk of taxes are paid by people with a low percentage of kids, so your redistributing thier money to the ones with kids in the first place.

Peace

[DialecticMaterialist]

Richard: And you feel like you have this kind of control now when it comes to government schools?

Where do you live?

Perfectionist fallacy, he may not have total control now but he has more control then he would have with a private school.

Representation does not mean that you have a say in how every dollar is spent.


Straw man. He is saying now he has more say over the money then he would with the voucher system. Basically he has more representation.

Apoger: If they do, just like you, and they are not allowed to have a voucher system as they want, isn't this also "taxation without representation"?

No. Mainly because they are infringing on many of his rights and the schools can so easily abuse the money.

For example if the parents send their kid to a religious school, the money would probably be spent on purely religious/non-educational as well as education.

Now why should I have to pay for any religious service? Even indirectly? That's like saying we can vote on whether or not people are forced to donate money to a church of their choosing or another person's choosing.

Ultimately the voucher idea is very, very bad.

Basically the rich get extra money to send their kids to school. The program is easily abused, what's to stop someone from spending their kids money on drugs?

Sure there can be precautions, but I imagine people will find loopholes. The private school "here's the money to get your kids supplies"...or they can get alloted 30 grand for a school year and send their kids to a cheaper school. They could also simply find a way to access the funds.

And there can be consequences....IF they get caught. And even then someone willing to rip off the system that badly is probably not too concerned with consequences.

Poorer families will suffer too. The good private schools are quite a distance from poorer neighborhoods. Sure kids could go there, if the school doesn't deny them due to "overcrowding"
and if they can somehow drive for an hour before and after work(IF their job gives them flexible hours). Remember public schools provide public transportation, no way for a kid to get to a private school(maybe the parents are working) the kid is SOL and now public transportation to the school is cut off due to underfunding.

And what if the private schools do become overcrowded? Unlike public schools they don't *have* to take the child. I suppose the market will create new schools, after a year or two. Meanwhile the kid will not get educated or will be forced to go to a now underfunded public school. Private schools can also deny entry for basically any reason, perhaps leading to descrimination and again kids forced to go to now underfunded public schools. I guess if your kid can't get entry you just cross your fingers and hope the "market" creates a new school.

I also don't think people realize how backwards private schools can be. I talked to a girl who went to Catholic school one time, at age 16 she wasn't fully aware of what sex was. Her school never talked about it, her parents never told her and she wasn't allowed to watch movies which included it. Private schools, even accredited ones can also teach creationism and other psuedoscience. They can also teach their own personal political views, like they can say the separation of church and state is a "bad thing". Which is just what we need, more ignorant, scientifically illiterate, propoganda fed fundamentalists now directly supported with state funding.

The funding is also much more complicated. In our current system money goes from tax payer to school. Now money is to go from tax payer, to a chosen school via some means(which must somehow tell what the parent wants) or to the parent then the school. You know how easily abused the latter is so I won't even go there. The former is overly complicated though(who or what's going to keep track of what money goes where?), creates even MORE beuracracy, and is likewise very open to inefficiency.

"Gee sorry sir I though you meant THAT school...well I'll see if I can get the money back."


And there is nothing intrinsically superior about private schools.

If you didn't notice the nations with the highest level of education (Japan,Korea, China, Israel) tend to be almost totally dominated by public schools. In China's and Korea's case(Korea is said to in fact have the highest level of education in the world) they have no private schools because they are socialist. Japanese schooling is mostly public. And Israel is a semi-socialist nation.

The US actually has a great deal of private schooling and one of the poorest levels of education for a developed nation.

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you feel like you have this kind of control now when it comes to government schools?

Where do you live?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Perfectionist fallacy, he may not have total control now but he has more control then he would have with a private



Urrhh, Ummm, that wasn't Richard..

----------------------------------------------------

So your assumption that he would not have any, if not more control, of how his money would be spent in a private school, is not fallacious?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Guess your right. Sorry for the iconveniance. Point still stands.

[Skeptical Greg]

What point?

[Thumper]

I'm all for open boundaries. That is, a student can go to any public school at no cost. Allowing them to go to a private school, however, only will siphon off necessary public education funds.

[QuarkChild]

I think that taken to its conclusion, the voucher idea becomes absurd. So say, hypothetically, that some students can actually receive better educations in private schools. Then what? What about the kids still in public schools?

Ignoring the flaws of private education pointed out by DialecticMaterialist, this sounds to me like the following:

Problem: Some ships in the fleet aren't sea-worthy.
Traditional Solution: Repair the ships.
Voucher solution: Transfer some people to safer ships.

Which one makes more sense?

Of course, this begs the obvious question of what to do if the repairs are botched.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Perfectionist fallacy, he may not have total control now but he has more control then he would have with a private school.



I'd call this an error of fact -- iff you have children that attend a private school -- since if you can gather a group of like-minded parents who agree that you are right & the school is wrong, they might and actually could change.

Publik skools are run by local, state & federal administrators & the NEA; your input, or the input of every parent combined will make - zero - difference. School boards are a wonderful, meaningless artifice, although they might be able to enter the get-a-kickback-from-the-book-salesman sweepstakes. Just my 2 cts...

[DavidJames]

"Publik skools are run by local, state & federal administrators & the NEA; your input, or the input of every parent combined will make - zero - difference. School boards are a wonderful, meaningless artifice, although they might be able to enter the get-a-kickback-from-the-book-salesman sweepstakes. Just my 2 cts..."

I curious, have you ever attended a school board meeting, or attended a parent-teacher conference, or sat in on a class?

Oh, you might want to run your response through a spell checker ;)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Dancing David
So go ahead and siphon all the money so RICH people can send thier kids to private schools at the public expense.


Now there's some brilliant thinking. Despite the fact that their tax bracket is higher than yours and their property taxes most likely are and the fact that they already send their kids to private school, how is it that a 300 dollar voucher comes out of your pocket? They pay more in taxes then you make in a year.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I'd call this an error of fact -- iff you have children that attend a private school -- since if you can gather a group of like-minded parents who agree that you are right & the school is wrong, they might and actually could change.

If you say you'll boycott or something I can see this. But this isn't about parents....it was about tax payers in general. This is also more difficult to do as there are no regular meetings and info is harder to get.

Publik skools are run by local, state & federal administrators & the NEA; your input, or the input of every parent combined will make - zero - difference. School boards are a wonderful, meaningless artifice, although they might be able to enter the get-a-kickback-from-the-book-salesman sweepstakes.

Absurd, the PTA here can actually decide on something as relevant as an expulsion and school book/sex ed. standards among other things.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Now there's some brilliant thinking. Despite the fact that their tax bracket is higher than yours and their property taxes most likely are and the fact that they already send their kids to private school, how is it that a 300 dollar voucher comes out of your pocket?

The semi-rich have a problem with this. The actual rich get lawyers to bail them out of fair taxes.

I know a guy who makes miilion but paid a mere 600 dollars a month for child support. That was due to lawyers. That's less the a middle class person pays a month. Hell that's less then a poor person is required to pay a month.

Also why do the rich need vouchers? Do they lack money?

They pay more in taxes then you make in a year.

Maybe so but who got them the money to get it? Did they land on a desert island and start companies out of thin air?

The fact also is, in most states the money does tend to go to local schools instead of being spread through your area. That is one reason why the public schools change so drastically in quality according to neighborhood. The rich people get taxed a lot more then the middle class overall(not proportion wise though) but then all their money still goes to their local schools.

I imagine vouchers could change this a bit, but then again we have problems plus the guy has a low 30 grand while the rich gets 30 grands plus their original buying power.

A better solution is doing what they did in Vermont, spread all the state money evenly.

[blackadder65738]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
[B]Richard:

Private schools, even accredited ones can also teach creationism and other psuedoscience. They can also teach their own personal political views, like they can say the separation of church and state is a "bad thing". Which is just what we need, more ignorant, scientifically illiterate, propoganda fed fundamentalists now directly supported with state funding.


We're missing the bigger picture here. We need to look at the motivation of the people who are pushing the "vouchers" and other assaults on public education.
When the Supreme Court made its ruling in the sixties (i think) that Christian prayers and other Christian expressions in the public schools were unconstitional, the Fundies made a decision: "If you won't allow Christian indoctrination in the public schools, then there won't be any public schools." Ever since then we have seen a two-pronged attack on the government-run school.

Prong 1) The constant and mostly groundless perception that the public schools are cesspools of incompetence, with kids getting shot, failing tests, falling behind other countries, etc. While public education in the US may have some problems, due to underfunding, silly rules and laws that hinder them, etc. (whole other debate) the stories that don't get reported are the millions of success stories that go on every day, with the dedicated teachers and the students who get educated. The "public schools are terrible" mantra is so common now that it's not even noticed anymore. Nobody thinks twice when Bill O'Reilly or Rush says how bad the schools are. Nobody considers the ideological motivation they have to say that.

Prong 2) The assault on the funding of the schools, under the disguise of "parental choice". If you can't make an argument (at least that will be taken seriously) that the public schools need to be abolished, then the best avenue left is to suck the money out of them until they collapse. The strategy is to do things that sound like you want to help public education (No child left behind, etc.) while you hammer at their funding with the other hand. This works on two levels, since the schools degrade at a rapid pace, allowing you to pull more resources from them, which makes them collapse even further. Perhaps in the future, not the next few years, but a few decades from now, the US will abandon public education altogether. If not, the only students left will be those who are trapped and can't afford to get out. Either way, the Fundies win.

These people are organized, determined, and they move in lock step. I know these people, I live in southwest Missouri. Right near the HQ of Assemblies of God. These people have drank the f*cking Kool-Aid. The end justifies the means for them. If we have to have a generation of black boys and girls who have to be thrown in jail because they can't escape poverty and oppression, that's a small price to pay for saving the souls of our little white boys and girls, and keeping them away from that horrible Darwin, among other things.

Sorry to go on so long. This sh*t keeps me awake at night, people.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DavidJames

I curious, have you ever attended a school board meeting, or attended a parent-teacher conference, or sat in on a class?
Actually, yup, & currently have a couple relatives serving on local school boards. PTA has always been a joke imo.

Oh, you might want to run your response through a spell checker ;)
I may spel funny, but does that mean I'm as dumb as you? :(

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


If you say you'll boycott or something I can see this. But this isn't about parents....it was about tax payers in general. This is also more difficult to do as there are no regular meetings and info is harder to get.
Yeah, talk about taxation by misrepresention.

IIRC, Jefferson thought that more intelligent children -- black and white -- should be identified by testing and receive the bulk of the educational effort, which should be administered on a local level. I agree with him.

Work in the burger joint and keys have pictures on them anyway.


Absurd, the PTA here can actually decide on something as relevant as an expulsion and school book/sex ed. standards among other things.
What school district might that be? Location (blank) is unhelpful doncha know?

Does the NEA & Washington know you exist?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by QuarkChild
I think that taken to its conclusion, the voucher idea becomes absurd. So say, hypothetically, that some students can actually receive better educations in private schools. Then what? What about the kids still in public schools? The theory is that the public schools have to compete for parents' vouchers, and so they will either get better, or go out of business. If the latter, the school will be taken over by new owners, and they will have an incentive to make the school succeed.

Under a voucher system, if schools fail their students, the students will walk. Now, if the school fails, the students are stuck there.

It's a fine theory. Has it worked anywhere, that anyone knows of?

[DialecticMaterialist]

What school district might that be? Location (blank) is unhelpful doncha know?

La Costa school destrict. In Southern California. Why is that such a terribly important thing? You think I just *invented* it?

Seriously you make an extraordinary claim(PTA has no say, even though it's suppose to according to law) and then act like MY claim concerning a school is dubious.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The theory is that the public schools have to compete for parents' vouchers, and so they will either get better, or go out of business. If the latter, the school will be taken over by new owners, and they will have an incentive to make the school succeed.

See I agree competition can lead to improvements. However the school is very different then any other commodity. This can lead to overcrowding in some schools and underfunding in others. And if a poor school goes out of business the other school may be too far from the parents.

Under a voucher system, if schools fail their students, the students will walk. Now, if the school fails, the students are stuck there.

Ok I understand your point. I like the idea of giving children more freedom but you can likewise do this by letting students change districts at will.

I like the idea of more freedom for the students but I think other points outweigh that one.

It's a fine theory. Has it worked anywhere, that anyone knows of?

Another ify thing, it's untested. If we did try it at the very least we should start small, just to see how it does work.

[NoZed Avenger]

Without jumping into the main points, I wanted to make a good-natured, smart-*ss remark. This isn't 100% serious, it is just a comment on taking your message 100% literally.

Just to front load that disclaimer:

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


See I agree competition can lead to improvements. However the school is very different then any other commodity. This can lead to overcrowding in some schools and underfunding in others. And if a poor school goes out of business the other school may be too far from the parents.


. . . Whereas it is much, much better to keep a close school that sucks?

"Well, the kids aren't getting an education, but at least the drive is short to their crappy school. . . ."


NA

(tongue in cheek -- just thought the literal application of your statement was kind of funny)

[dmarker]

Originally posted by DavidJames
A voucher program was just enacted in Colorado. It will use my taxes to send kids to private schools. If that's not bad enough, that money would normally go to public schools, which means, of course, that public schools will get that much less. I fully expect scores will drop, those supporting vouchers (who don't like public schools) will say, see how bad public schools are. A self fulfilling prophecy, which I believe is exactly what our Republican legislator expects (and has planned) to happen.

I wonder if anybody has tried to challenge school vouchers on the grounds that I've laid out?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by apoger


Do they pay into the system?
Do they have children in the system?
If they do, just like you, and they are not allowed to have a voucher system as they want, isn't this also "taxation without representation"?

What exactly do you mean by "representation"? Isn't a choice between public school and a voucher a form of representation? A very direct form at that!

I pay into the system with my property tax. So part of the money is mine. Whether or not I have a child is irrelevent since I pay the same property tax as a person with school age children.

Let's say a family pays $2000 a year in property taxes. Let's say that 25% of that money goes to the local school system. The family who wants to opt out of the school system should only get $500 a year. My portion of school tax dollars should stay in the local school system where I have the right to be represented by elections such as the school board and the superintendent when I cast a ballot and the right to go to school board meetings and express my views on curriculum, staff, allocation of funds, et. I'm not saying that I'll be successful with my efforts, but the point is that I have the right to be represented as much as every other tax payer.

When vouchers remove my tax dollars from public schools to private schools, I have no say on curriculum, staff, et. Essentially my tax dollars are going to a place where I have no say in how it is spent. I cannot vote against or for the administration of a private school. I cannot attend the meetings of a private school where they discuss the next year's text books and currculum. Nor can I make suggestions on allocations at these meetings.

I do not mind supporting public schools with my tax dollar. However my tax dollar is not a free gift to anybody, it comes with strings attached. And as I said before, if I pay, I get a say.

[Thumper]

I've always enjoyed listening to people say that schools are failing, so we need to cut their funds.

Make no mistake, this is exactly what is going to happen.

If private schools really care about their mission, they will find ways of offering scholarships and 'leave no child behind.'

Oh, just to set things straight... I taught in both public and private schools. Middle and high. Both had their good teachers and bad. The school board in Portland is a joke. Parents were much better able to change things in the private schools in which I taught.

Curriculum? The private schools had religion required. The public schools did not. This allowed public school students to take other courses (or a study hall). However, the religion classes were a great place for the students to practice their writing and thinking skills. And as one of the science teachers, I was a gate-keeper on what science truly is. We taught evolution. In the middle school, I faced down parents who insisted on creationism (not even ID Evolution). Backing me the entire way was my principal. (May he rest in peace.) In the high school, there was no problem; it was expected. My (private) high school students went to Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, Vanderbilt, Stanford, etc. AND they went to Portland State, Mt Hood COmmunity COllege, SouthWest Oregon COmmunity College, etc. And I am proud of each and every one of them.

Hmmmmmm... did I get off topic? :)

[dmarker]

Originally posted by RichardR
Representation does not mean that you have a say in how every dollar is spent.

I’m not sure what you mean by accreditation. But parents should only be able to apply the vouchers to schools that taught a curriculum in accordance with a standard set by elected politicians. Then you have taxation with representation.

In addition, if the majority had voted at an election for the party that said it was going to introduce vouchers, then you also have representation.

Do you have any other objections to vouchers?

That's accreditation. And also I addressed that in my original post. I have the right to vote against the administrators of public schools, I have the right to attend school board meetings, and I have the right to lobby the school board with ideas on text books, curriculum, and the like. Having a say does not mean having my way, it just means that my opinion will be heard, just like every other tax payer.

Yes, vouchers mean that my local taxes are leaving my neighborhood. I'd like my local tax dollars to stay and benefit me, the person working for them.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Diogenes


And you feel like you have this kind of control now when it comes to government schools?

Where do you live?

Look at my location under my name.

Yes, I have the right to vote, attend, and lobby, just like every other tax payer.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Richard G


Here you are wrong. The taxes of the people sending their kids to private school pay for it, not yours. The voucher gives the people back THEIR tax money, not yours, to direct to the school of their choosing.

Nope, a portion of my tax money goes to public schools. I pay the same property tax as someone with school age children. Are you going to suggest that I pay more than my fair share for law enforcement, fire, and other government services that everybody uses?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by hammegk


I'd call this an error of fact -- iff you have children that attend a private school -- since if you can gather a group of like-minded parents who agree that you are right & the school is wrong, they might and actually could change.

Publik skools are run by local, state & federal administrators & the NEA; your input, or the input of every parent combined will make - zero - difference. School boards are a wonderful, meaningless artifice, although they might be able to enter the get-a-kickback-from-the-book-salesman sweepstakes. Just my 2 cts...

And if everybody votes out the administration of their local schools, you don't think that the next people would tow the line when it comes to the public?

But the point is that I have no school age children, thus no customers to offer a private school, thus I have no say at all in how my tax dollars are spent.

edited to add the word "the" between "tow" and "line"

[dmarker]

Originally posted by corplinx


Now there's some brilliant thinking. Despite the fact that their tax bracket is higher than yours and their property taxes most likely are and the fact that they already send their kids to private school, how is it that a 300 dollar voucher comes out of your pocket? They pay more in taxes then you make in a year.

Then they should get a refund of their tax dollars that are earmarked to pay for public schools. They should pay their fair share of other public services like law enforcement, fire dept, road repair et.

[QuarkChild]

Originally posted by Thumper
However, the religion classes were a great place for the students to practice their writing and thinking skills.
Thinking skills? You obviously didn't teach at the parochial high school that I attended. Most of my classes there were AP/Honors classes, and were challenging, useful, and thought-provoking. The religion classes, on the other hand, were a joke. The work was almost exclusively busy work--parroting whatever was in the textbook. The level of writing that was expected in those classes was almost insulting.

Example:
Textbook (paraphrased.): "Some Catholic doctrine has been passed on orally, rather than being written down. An example is the preservation of the Virgin Mary's virginity throughout her life."
Question on quiz: "Name one example of Catholic doctrine that has been passed on orally, rather than being written down."
Etc.

One of my religion classes was an exception. It was taught by Mr. McLean, who cared deeply about social justice issues and was passionate about the ethical questions brought up in the course material; hence it was a fairly thought-provoking class. Unfortunately, the diocese decided to crack down on the less dogmatic religion classes at my school and demand that they concentrate more heavily on Catholic doctrine. So I suspect that Mr. McLean's class has been discontinued.

Could a religion class be more useful academically than an elective or study hall?
In my experience, the answer is "it depends on the diocese." And, of course, the teacher.

[apoger]

Rich people send their children to private schools.
Rich people do not need vouchers.
Vouchers are not meant to give extra help to rich people.
Vouchers are meant to allow those who are not rich to get their children a competitive education.

I see a good deal of "screw the rich" mentaility in many posts here. Apparently people are so used to associating private school with the wealthy that they are unable to grasp that vouchers are not to help the rich, but to help those of lesser means acquire an opportunity to get their children an education that only the rich can afford at this time.


To be quite frank, I'd rather see our money put towards improving the public school system. However I am very aware that we have been trying that route for a long time and the complexity and corruption in the system appears to be winning. At this point I feel that it would be a good idea to explore alternatives, and vouchers might be a valid way to go. Why not set up some test areas and measure it's effect so we can determine which path is more effective? Test the systems and bring me evidence! HA! A call for experimentation and evidence. Bet you never expected to hear that in a skeptic forum. ;)

[DavidJames]

hammegk, your clever comment was:
"I may spel funny, but does that mean I'm as dumb as you?"

You must be so proud of yourself :rolleyes:

I've had very good, direct experience and success working within the public schools my children have attended. Can you provide specific examples of problems you have experienced and what actions you've tried to correct the situations?

[peptoabysmal]

So far most of the experiments with school vouchers in this country have gone to low income families, usually chosen by a lottery of some sort.

I haven't seen any data that shows any significant improvement in the student's abilities who have undergone these experiments.

Another aspect of this idea that I have a little trouble with is that a good portion of the private schools are religious schools, which can be selective about the student. A student could recieve a voucher, but that is no guarantee that the student can get into a certain school.

It's another desperate act like the California State Lottery was supposed to be to improve our school systems. California's schools are still in dire straights. The entire US school system is in need of serious reform. These poorly thought out band-aids won't make much difference.

When the government gets involved with these experiments, usually the bureaucracy generated to support such ideas eats up most of the money available within the experiment.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DavidJames
hammegk, your clever comment was:
"I may spel funny, but does that mean I'm as dumb as you?"

You must be so proud of yourself :rolleyes:
Er, not really. Thaks for yur kind advise, although keeping it to yourself seldom brings unwanted results.

I've had very good, direct experience and success working within the public schools my children have attended. Can you provide specific examples of problems you have experienced and what actions you've tried to correct the situations?

I agree that good parents can ensure their children recieve a decent education from nearly any publik skool.

The real test is percentage of graduates who can actually enter kollege without remedial math, english, or for god's sake reading. Percent who graduate at all might mean something, but if they can't read, write or do arithmetic who really thinks the school did a good job with public education.

If you happen to be in a "good" school, congratulations on your choice of school districts to be in. Would you be in an urban Denver location by any chance? I'll bet you a cup of coffee the answer is no.

And interestingly, a comment from DialecticMaterialist of a good Califunia school. My same basic comments on them. BTW, I suspect a high percentage of JREF participants are or will be good parents, and will do what it takes to see their kids do get educated.

[dmarker]

This is not about public schools versus private schools, this is about the right of tax payers to have input on how their money is spent whether or not they have a school age child.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by dmarker
This is not about public schools versus private schools, this is about the right of tax payers to have input on how their money is spent whether or not they have a school age child.

Or about your right to define reality anyway it suits you. Somehow I find discussion about vouchers is my question, not yours.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I say the answer is reform. There is no reason why public schools are intrinsically inferior and private superior. There is no reason why public schools have to do poorly.

I'd say instead of the untested, risky voucher method we work towards reforming public schools.

How? Well look at countries where public education is working very well, South Korea, Japan, Canada, and Finland. Emulate them.


Explore what they seem to have right and what we seem to be doing wrong. If implemented correctly, this will make our public schools do superior to private schools.

Rankings of how effective education is per country:



1. South Korea 1.4 percent
2. Japan 2.2
3. Finland 4.4
4. Canada 5
5. Australia 6.2
6. Austria 8.2
7. Britain 9.4
8. Ireland 10.2
9. Sweden 10.8
10. Czech Republic 12.2
- (tie) New Zealand 12.2
12. France 12.6
13. Switzerland 13
14. Belgium 14
- (tie) Iceland 14
16. Hungary 14.2
- (tie) Norway 14.2
18. United States 16.2
19. Germany 17
- (tie) Denmark 17
21. Spain 18.6
22. Italy 20.2
23. Greece 23.2
24. Portugal 23.6


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/26/world/main530872.shtml



The US's being 18 is a disgrace. We are the world's richest and most powerful nation and there is simply no excuse for this.

Now we can learn for ourselves through a long inefficient process how to improve ourselves or learn from other nations.

Strangely enough though, the problem may lie more with attitudes towards education within the home and society then how the school systems are set up.

It is clear that educational disadvantage is born not at school but in the home," said the report. "Learning begins at birth" and is fostered by "a loving, secure, stimulating environment."

How many of us were taught the value of education regularly by our parents?

Most of us were expected to get jobs at 14 or 15 at the expense of our schooling. Compare this to how my friends mom, who was chinese forbid her daughter to get a job so that she could focus on education. Her rationale was "being a student is your job." How'd her daughter do? She got straight "A's", not only that but she got them even though she has severe depression.

In fact I believe getting a job while your in a school is one of the worst things for your education. However this behavior is still widely practiced and widely encouraged. (You don't need much reasoning to realize why this is bad: it leaves less time for schooling, giving them a competitive disadvantage over students who don't have jobs, sometimes work hours do not bend for school hours, it usually to exhaustion and sleep deprivation, etc.)

Also its not that Americans are lazy or we don't spend enough time in schools.

UNICEF spokesman Patrick McCormick said the study had been unable to draw conclusions on a range of factors, such as how much was spent on education. Some countries spent less and did better.

Also just to head off criticism:

UNICEF said it based its conclusions on combining results of tests conducted by the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, conducted in 2000 and the Trends in International Math and Science Study, or TIMSS, given in 1995 and 1999. TIMSS is backed in the United States by the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation and globally by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

[hammegk]

Dear DialecticMaterialist

Nice comments, easy answer. Put accountability & funding for schools at the local level.

Sorry, no can do. Everyone is exactly equal in abilities since the mid-60's.


Added for your reading pleasure ....

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110003475

[Thumper]

Originally posted by QuarkChild

Could a religion class be more useful academically than an elective or study hall?
In my experience, the answer is "it depends on the diocese." And, of course, the teacher.

Yep. Our school prided itself on being a college-prep school. However, there were religion classes that were wastes of time, but that was attributable to the teacher and not anything else.

[DavidJames]

"I agree that good parents can ensure their children recieve a decent education from nearly any publik skool. "

On this we agree completely. A child who is not interested in learning will not be successful either at public or private schools.

Why dilute public schools focus and funding? Easy, politics (personal and corporate) and payback to religious fundamentalists.

[kittynh]

Well, I'm NOT RICH!!! And I send both my kids to private school. For one thing, most decent private schools have great scholarships that are based on ability to pay. There is a great service that figures this out for the schools, so they don't even have much say about the amount. Now, once your kid is in the school, if he/she proves a hard worker and an asset to the school, then there are those private scholarships from alumni that also help out. If your kid is bright, the prep schools LOVE it. If your kid is bright and personable, and can sit next to old grads at fund raising dinners and charm the heck (and money) out of them - then you have it made.

Why do I send my kids to private schools...well, I like small class sizes. I like teachers who are relaxed and dedicated. I like my one daughters school so well I got a job there. As a teacher I love the supportive administration, I love having the time to spend with each child. I love the money for extras - like one computer for every two children, and computers in the classrooms. I like the classroom sizes - HUGE!

Prep schools or private high schools are great! The kids are all on the college track. The teachers come in on the weekends and evenings to tutor the kids. They kill themselves to get your kid in a good college.

Another luxury, if a child doesn't fit in, they are asked to leave. This does not mean behavior problem. Private schools are not one size fits all. I teach at a MOntessori school. If your child is hyperactive it is hard for the child to be as self motivated as is required. The self motivation is taught, but if you are very hyper it just doesn't work out.

My youngest is a severe dyslexic. The teachers love her - and gladly put in the extra time she needs. In fact in a class of 35 (average for our public school) she would need a classroom aid (paid for by the taxpayers). In a class of 30 with 3 full time and 2 part time teachers she is fine.

So, if you are willing and have the time to drive your kid to school, you can send your kid to a private school, you just have to qualify for scholarship money. Sure it would run out if everyone decided to send their kids, but every year money goes to waste because not enough people know. Especially the prep schools. A lot of them are boarding, and some parents can't get over that. A visit showed me that my daughters prep school was probably one of the best high schools in the world. This place is fabulous, because people keep dying and leaving them gobs of money (I'm talking millions). I remember visiting and thinking, "How can they have all these antiques just in the hallway???". It's like a nice home more than a school. But, you put the kids in nice surroundings and they act nice! The weird part is the kids are all happy. Happy learning teenagers. That's because this school is for VERY bright girls, and they are happy because they have found a whole school full of kids like they are!

sorry to go on and on. But no way a voucher would pay for these schools. No voucher is going to pay $15,000 a year, close to $22,000 boarding. That's why 80% of the people at most prep school are on scholarship. They actually pay what their parents can afford.

The school I teach at costs $8,000 a year. I will say our town has to pay for the public school students to attend the high school in the next town. That costs $10,000 a year. Some towns allow the parents the option of the money or the public high school education. Now that makes sense! But vouchers, no.

So, the taxpayers get a free ride with my kids. It costs the taxpayers more than $8,000 a year to educate a child in the public school. My youngest qualifies for a classroom aid and that would cost over $25,000 a year! But, I hate it when I go to the public school and town meetings and am told by other parents, "you can't talk about the school , your kids don't go there.". I of course keep my mouth shut! (I once dared to ask why we were teaching Spainish but not French, when we live to close to Quebec).

sorry to rant...but it's not all rich people at these schools!

[dmarker]

Originally posted by hammegk


Or about your right to define reality anyway it suits you. Somehow I find discussion about vouchers is my question, not yours.

Why is it your question?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by kittynh

So, the taxpayers get a free ride with my kids. It costs the taxpayers more than $8,000 a year to educate a child in the public school. My youngest qualifies for a classroom aid and that would cost over $25,000 a year! But, I hate it when I go to the public school and town meetings and am told by other parents, "you can't talk about the school , your kids don't go there.". I of course keep my mouth shut! (I once dared to ask why we were teaching Spainish but not French, when we live to close to Quebec).

sorry to rant...but it's not all rich people at these schools!

Tell them that you still pay local taxes. My argument does apply to those who chose private schools for their children as well as those with no school age children.

And what happens to the kids who are hyperactive? Who educates them?

Yeah, private schools are great, however both Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein would have been kicked out. Not to mention a number of other geniuses like James Clerk Maxwell who pioneered radio waves. None of those three really "fit in" their school environments. Many others didn't either. How many private schools are rejecting young Einsteins, Edisons, and Maxwells?

But I digress. This is about how someone's tax dollars are spent, not about how great private schools are. I've explained my position clearly and I have yet to see an adequate counter argument.

Laud private schools all you want, but why should I have to pay for it when I have no input?

[shanek]

Originally posted by dmarker
Yeah, private schools are great, however both Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein would have been kicked out.

They were. And government schools would have just "mainstreamed" them and made the experience so boring and miserable as to take all of the fun out of learning for them. Then where would they be?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by shanek


They were. And government schools would have just "mainstreamed" them and made the experience so boring and miserable as to take all of the fun out of learning for them. Then where would they be?

Probably the same place, perhaps being ostracized suited these geniuses better than being accepted. I mean work wise not social wise.

However many children have been hyperactive and not geniuses, myself included, that would be kicked into a public school system. Because of my childhood experiences, I'm likely to lobby on behalf of children with hyperactivity even though I am childless.

If my tax money goes to the Montressi school, am I able to lobby that school to make accomadations for hyperactive children? Why should I give money to a school that would have rejected me when I was a child?

Yes, parents have the right to educate children as they wish. But they have no right to do this on my dime. If parents want a private school, then they have the responsibility to pay for it instead of forcing me to.

[kittynh]

I don't think tax dollars should go to my private school. In fact, my school has publically stated it would not accept tax payer money because then they would lose the freedom they now have. As soon as you accept public money, you have to start taking state tests - you have to teach what they want you to teach (like mandatory citizenship education). It gets so you lose control. The hyperactive kids it should be noted almost always go to another little private school in the area that has more structure. It is a more traditional style school with a predictable day that ADHD children respond well to.

The one size fits all school model just doesn't work all the time. The Catholic school in town is really great for kids that need lots of emotional support, and offers really great parent educational services too.

I don't think any child is well served in a class size of 37. Actually, I think the person who suffers the most in the teacher! It's unfair to ask a teacher to do crowd control instead of teach. Raise my taxes, but don't spend it on more administrative staff, build classrooms a decent size and hire some teachers!

It should be noted that deaf children, and children with Down's Syndrome are sent to boarding schools out of state. The town claims they can't hire the staff needed to deal with these children. We live in a very rural area, and they may be right. It's just a pity that kids as young as 7 are farmed out.

But vouchers won't work if the schools won't take them!

[shanek]

Originally posted by dmarker
However many children have been hyperactive and not geniuses, myself included, that would be kicked into a public school system.

I have a 5-year-old with both hyperactivity and autism. So far, he's been both in private preschools and government preschools. The private preschools' solution was to reconstruct his work area and give him the special attention he needs. The government's solution was to give him ritalin.

I've talked to other parents in similar situations. Their children are faring far better in private schools than public. My ex has severe dyslexia and went from being a straight-A/B student in private school to being a D student in government school.

So I'd really like to know why you think children so afflicted fare better in government schools than private.

If my tax money goes to the Montressi school, am I able to lobby that school to make accomadations for hyperactive children?

No, and this is one big reason why vouchers are a completely bad idea. The other is that, I guarantee you, there'll be strings attached. Maybe not this year, but soon. For evidence, look at the record of sending government funds to private colleges.

Yes, parents have the right to educate children as they wish.

Absolutely agree 100%. You realize, though, that the logical extension of this argument is the elimination of government (not public) schools?

[shanek]

Originally posted by kittynh
I don't think tax dollars should go to my private school. In fact, my school has publically stated it would not accept tax payer money because then they would lose the freedom they now have.

Good for them. At least there's some semblance of sense and realism around.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by shanek


I have a 5-year-old with both hyperactivity and autism. So far, he's been both in private preschools and government preschools. The private preschools' solution was to reconstruct his work area and give him the special attention he needs. The government's solution was to give him ritalin.

I've talked to other parents in similar situations. Their children are faring far better in private schools than public. My ex has severe dyslexia and went from being a straight-A/B student in private school to being a D student in government school.

So I'd really like to know why you think children so afflicted fare better in government schools than private.



No, and this is one big reason why vouchers are a completely bad idea. The other is that, I guarantee you, there'll be strings attached. Maybe not this year, but soon. For evidence, look at the record of sending government funds to private colleges.



Absolutely agree 100%. You realize, though, that the logical extension of this argument is the elimination of government (not public) schools?

I never said one was really better than another. I just said that I do not want my tax money going to a school where I have no say. If parents want to send their kids to private schools, then they should pay for it. I am willing to refund their share of school funding out of their taxes, but my money should go to public schools where I have control. The quality of private schools are not at issue here, I'm sure that there are many fine ones, the issue is my rights as a taxpayer.

Of course there are strings attached to government money. That's my whole argument about my tax dollars, every penny comes with a string attached to it.

What's the difference between government schools and public schools?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by kittynh
I don't think tax dollars should go to my private school. In fact, my school has publically stated it would not accept tax payer money because then they would lose the freedom they now have. As soon as you accept public money, you have to start taking state tests - you have to teach what they want you to teach (like mandatory citizenship education). It gets so you lose control. The hyperactive kids it should be noted almost always go to another little private school in the area that has more structure. It is a more traditional style school with a predictable day that ADHD children respond well to.

The one size fits all school model just doesn't work all the time. The Catholic school in town is really great for kids that need lots of emotional support, and offers really great parent educational services too.

I don't think any child is well served in a class size of 37. Actually, I think the person who suffers the most in the teacher! It's unfair to ask a teacher to do crowd control instead of teach. Raise my taxes, but don't spend it on more administrative staff, build classrooms a decent size and hire some teachers!

It should be noted that deaf children, and children with Down's Syndrome are sent to boarding schools out of state. The town claims they can't hire the staff needed to deal with these children. We live in a very rural area, and they may be right. It's just a pity that kids as young as 7 are farmed out.

But vouchers won't work if the schools won't take them!

That's so true. So "school choice" can't be bought with my tax dollars anyway. Might as well allow refunds of tax dollars earmarked for public schools to the parents who paid that amount and let the parents make up the difference.

Nothing wrong with expressing your views to the school board and other elected public officials. After all they are supposed to be working for you.

Why can't they hire the staff? None in that area?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by shanek


Good for them. At least there's some semblance of sense and realism around.

Unlike those who want to use my tax money without my input.

[shanek]

Originally posted by dmarker
I never said one was really better than another. I just said that I do not want my tax money going to a school where I have no say. If parents want to send their kids to private schools, then they should pay for it. I am willing to refund their share of school funding out of their taxes, but my money should go to public schools where I have control. The quality of private schools are not at issue here, I'm sure that there are many fine ones, the issue is my rights as a taxpayer.

Okay, I agree with that 100%. In fact, the tax refund for sending your kid to private school or homeschooling them was one of my campaign issues.

What's the difference between government schools and public schools?

Public schools are answerable directly to the public, as our schools were before the 1950s or so. Government schools are run by the government, and so you have to go through the government to affect any change.

[shanek]

Originally posted by dmarker
That's so true. So "school choice" can't be bought with my tax dollars anyway. Might as well allow refunds of tax dollars earmarked for public schools to the parents who paid that amount and let the parents make up the difference.

Actually, I'd go even further. I'd allow other taxpayers, individuals or businesses, to contribute to the tuition of any child, and be eligible for a dollar-for-dollar tax refund up to their share they paid. Since businesses pay a lot more in taxes, this is a good source of funding for those parents having trouble affording it. A business could contribute to the education of the children of its employees, for example.

[Tmy]

You want your kids in private school than you pay for it. The gall of all these people talking about their tax dollars should go where they want it to go. Or worse yet, a TAX REFUND if they send their kids to private school.

I have no kids but I still pay taxes to keep up the school sysytem. How fair is that? You should pay more taxes if you have kids in school. There are already so many tax breaks for parents and people want more.

As far as the original argument in this thread. I would counter that your tax dollars do not come with strings attached. You still have your representation because you can vote in reps who can control or repeal the voucher program.


Havent some places been using vouchers? How is it working out?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
You want your kids in private school than you pay for it. The gall of all these people talking about their tax dollars should go where they want it to go. Or worse yet, a TAX REFUND if they send their kids to private school.

Why is a tax refund worse? It's their money! If they choose not to participate in the school system, why should they be forced to pay for it?

As far as the original argument in this thread. I would counter that your tax dollars do not come with strings attached.

Interesting. Meantime, in the real world... :rolleyes:

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


Why is a tax refund worse? It's their money! If they choose not to participate in the school system, why should they be forced to pay for it?



I should get a cash vocher for not having any kids. Or I should pay less taxes for not using the school system.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
I should get a cash vocher for not having any kids. Or I should pay less taxes for not using the school system.

I'm not going to disagree with that.

And here we reach the logical conclusion: user fees charged to those who actually benefit from the school system. This influx of competition into the system just might force the government schools to actually (gasp!) improve their services!!! :eek:

[dmarker]

Originally posted by shanek


Okay, I agree with that 100%. In fact, the tax refund for sending your kid to private school or homeschooling them was one of my campaign issues.



Public schools are answerable directly to the public, as our schools were before the 1950s or so. Government schools are run by the government, and so you have to go through the government to affect any change.

Ok, then what about the people without children? And does this tax refund consist of just the money earmarked for schools or what each child costs the system? If the reund is for what each child costs the system, then wouldn't that be essentially stealing from people with no school age children?

Any school board members who don't think that they answer to the people are going to be unemployed after election time. I can go to my local and state school board website and see what's going on. Is there an equivilant for the private schools which accept vouchers?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Tmy
As far as the original argument in this thread. I would counter that your tax dollars do not come with strings attached. You still have your representation because you can vote in reps who can control or repeal the voucher program.




Yes, my tax dollars come with strings.

Right now, I can lobby my local and state school boards even if they laugh at me. I could even run for a place on my local school board. I probably wouldn't get elected having no background in education, but I could still give it a shot. I can visit the school board's websites and see where my money goes.

Once my tax money goes into vouchers, then what? I can't lobby a private school, can I? I can't run for a place on their committee, can I? I don't get to see how my money is spent, do I?

Sure, I have some control over the reps, but I have that now. After school vouchers, I will have much less representation per tax dollar that I'm still paying into the system. What's the matter with wanting to hold onto the rights that I have?

[kittynh]

well, I think taxpayers have some control. But, really, any non parent stands little chance of being elected to the school board.

Then if you are lucky enough to get on the school board, you run into this little thing called the Union.

[shanek]

Originally posted by dmarker
Ok, then what about the people without children? And does this tax refund consist of just the money earmarked for schools or what each child costs the system?

The one I proposed was based on the percentage of tax dollars the schools used. So, if schools took 20% of the tax money for funding, you would be able to get back up to 20% of your taxes for paying directly for the tuition of a child, or homeschooling your child.

There are other suggestions, which I think are good, too. Our state LP wants a $3,000 per child per year tax refund, so you got more money for supporting more than one child. (Notice the child does not have to be yours.)

If the reund is for what each child costs the system, then wouldn't that be essentially stealing from people with no school age children?

Isn't that whay we're doing anyway?

Any school board members who don't think that they answer to the people are going to be unemployed after election time.

Unfortunately, school boards nowadays are severely limited in what they can and can't do by state and local governments.

I can go to my local and state school board website and see what's going on. Is there an equivilant for the private schools which accept vouchers?

Yes, private schools have boards and parent/teacher associations.

[shanek]

Originally posted by dmarker
Once my tax money goes into vouchers, then what? I can't lobby a private school, can I? I can't run for a place on their committee, can I? I don't get to see how my money is spent, do I?

This is an excellent point.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by kittynh
well, I think taxpayers have some control. But, really, any non parent stands little chance of being elected to the school board.

Then if you are lucky enough to get on the school board, you run into this little thing called the Union.

But I can run, whether elected or not doesn't really matter because I retain the right to try.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by shanek



Yes, private schools have boards and parent/teacher associations.

But would they allow a childless person to run for the boards or join the parent-teacher associations?

[shanek]

Originally posted by dmarker


But would they allow a childless person to run for the boards or join the parent-teacher associations?

For the boards, maybe; it would depend on the by-laws, I guess. The PTA, probably not.