Why should I be against school vouchers.

[Renew Deal]

I haven't spent a lot of time on this issue, but I have a question. The party is not for school vouchers. I don't understand why. To me it seems like pandering tot he teachers union. Can someone please tell me what I am missing?

[gWbush is Mabus]

1. i think it diverts money from public ed. to religious schools

[vi5]

2. It's a big issue but I'll try to explain....

Vouchers would give the same amount to each family to use at whatever schools they see fit. Therefore schools which are already behind the curve due to being in poor areas or not in areas where property tax is tied to school funding would get even worse.

It wouldn't solve the problem of inequality in schools because say every person got $500 back. The poor person would only have that $500 to spend on school wherease the wealthy person would have what they already have to send their kid to a good school, plus $500. It's not like that would level the playing field and give each kid a decent schooling. What would happen is that there will still be crappy poor schools that are inexpensive and there will still be wealthy, overfunded schools which are very expensive.

3 guesses as to which one the poor kids will go to and which ones the wealthy kids will go to.

On edit: Also adding that if schools became private they would be allowed to dictate their own curriculum and could teach religion or not adhere to strict educational standards.

[Rainbowreflect]

19. I agree with your answer but I would add a few points.

I don't believe our tax dollars should go to religious schools.
And there is the issue that while everyone pays money into public education people with no children do not get any money back.
What I mean by that is say Mr & Mrs Smith make $500,000 a year and have Buffy and Chip in private school already they will get money back to help pay for that private school. But Mr & Mrs Jones only bring $50,000 a year and have no children. They pay into the public school fund the the Smiths are dipping into, but have no way of getting any money back. Just one more way people without kids pay for those who decide to have children.
While I have no problem supporting public schools I do not want my money supporting private schools that can teach what ever they want.

[Generic Other]

104. This is an excellent argument

If the state wants to give money to private schools, it should not be my property tax money. If the state wants to back vouchers, I will quit voting "yes" for education. I am not willing to fund religious proselitizing.

[GinaMaria]

132. see my post #128

There are benefits to funding public education if you have no children in the school system.

[Touchdown]

3. What's wrong with the teacher's union?

Hmmmmmm?:shrug:

Write your response on the board 100 times in front of the class!;-)

[Gringo]

24. Excellent point.

The teacher's unions are unjustly demonized ALL THE TIME. Why?

[donco6]

187. I'm not a big fan, frankly.

After many years of sitting on the other side of the negotiations table, I've seen more of the NEA than I care to.

[bowens43]

4. Vouchers take money from the schools that need it most

creating a downward spiral that leads to an increse in the education gap between rich (and middle class) and the poor.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Downward spirals

Some schools have already spun down so far that we can't really save them. All we are doing is making the poor continue to get uneducated in them.

[Gringo]

26. Poor kids in bad schools already have the option to be bused

to better schools in better neighborhoods.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. Huh?

There aren't enough "better" schools in DC to take all the kids in the bad ones.

Try again.

[Gringo]

36. Most communities are not Washington DC.

And you've failed to explain how a measly $2000 voucher will help poor kids go to a $15,000 school. Or how the kids left behind in underfunded public schools will be better off.

Vouchers are a wonderful idea ONLY if your goal is to destroy the public school system. I'm a democrat. I believe in public schooling.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. I believe in public schooling

I also believe it is failing poor people around the nation. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I'd love to fix it, but it will also take DECADES to do so. In the meantime, what are the poor to do? Simply continue giving their children the life sentence of ignorance and poverty that result?

Or, give them a chance to get some out of there. Can we save them all? No. But I would rather offer a lifeboat to some then let them all drown.

As I have said, if you create a viable voucher program, schools will be created. Contrary to popular opinion, you don't need a big green space and a huge investment to build a school. In fact, all you need is office space. That, every area has.

[shanti]

84. you dodge questions all the time

HOW is a 1500 voucher supposed to help someone when the school costs 10000 to go??

[Solomon]

106. Not only that, but Muddle acts like all it takes is money to get

into a better school. They don't just let anybody in, just cause you got a voucher in your hand. For christ sake this is the worse thing that could happen to public education.

[Muddleoftheroad]

117. The worse thing for public education

In the urban areas is to continue to do what has been being done for decades.

[Muddleoftheroad]

116. It won't help many to get into THAT school

But if you think a viable school voucher program won't produce new schools, you are incorrect.

[Pithlet]

119. How?

Who would produce those schools? And what would they teach? Would they let anyone in who wants an education? So, the solution is to underfund the public schools out of existence, and let private and faith based organizations take over?

I don't want corporations and their bottom line affecting their decisions in my child's education. And I certainly don't' want to be forced to send my kid to a faith based school.

I have an idea. Rather than waiting for those private schools to pop up like mushrooms, how about fixing the public ones we already have? That way, public school remains available to all regardless of their economic class.

[Muddleoftheroad]

131. Who and how

You give me money and I could have a school set up in a couple weeks.

All you need is empty office space. Last time I checked the * economy, there were a bunch of intelligent unemployed people. So finding teachers will be easy. I can't speak for all of the schools, but I would only let in kids after they applied. I would take no troublemakers or special educational needs kids. Both specialties should require special schools.

You say you don't want "corporations and their bottom line affecting their decisions" about kids. But the exact same attitude infects public education.

And I'd send my kids to most any type of school other than DC public.

You ignore how easy it is to start something and do it differently. DC has unions and failing infrastructure and existing bureaucracy all of which hinder change.

[Pithlet]

136. I'm not ignoring how easy it is; I'm actually well aware

It's scary how easy it would be for many to give up on public education and give control over to private entities. And don't you know they would be more than happy to take the money to do so. That would be the worst thing to happen to public education.

If we demolish public education in this country, or even in any one area, then it eventually goes back to education for those who can afford it. Oh, many of the private schools may take SOME of the hoi paloi who can't pay, or who can only pay with assistance for now. But those who's parents are so poor that they couldn't afford the time or energy it takes to send kids to private schools (those fundraisers are a bitch) would be out of luck. America is supposed to be about opportunity for all. The very basic need for that is an education for all. That cannot be left up to private entities. Look what happened to our health care? How many Americans now are doing without? And weren't 2 million more just added to that number? Yeah, private companies are perfect for meeting our basic needs </sarcasm>

[Muddleoftheroad]

140. They couldn't do worse

And having private schools teach in no way eliminates the commitment to ensure all are taught. It simply changes who does the teaching.

[Pithlet]

144. Oh yes they could!

Private does not mean better. There's another post here by a DUer in this thread, Babette, I think, who posted about her own experience with private school. A good friend of mine sent her little boy to a Catholic school, and had to pull him out and put him in public school because it was so bad. Catholic schools overall tend to be very good, but not all of them. Her son started to thrive in public school.

As far as corporations go; Corporations watch their bottom line to appease their shareholders, and will do almost whatever it takes to make sure they can survive and keep that bottom line, and its shareholders happy. That is their motivation. If they can't do that, and maintain a decent curriculum, then they won't do it. I don't want my child's curriculum decided by what best serves their bottom line. I don't want my school's leader elected by shareholders.

[Muddleoftheroad]

147. By comparison

Yes, you could send them to school run by Hamas suicide bombers who kill them all, yes, that would be worse.

However, in the reasonable world, they would almost have to try to do worse than the DC system.

Clearly, any private operation would be regulated or overseen in some way. Many schools now operate in such a manner.

[Pithlet]

151. Clearly?

Are you sure about that? The way that other corporations are overseen now? The way corporations are now overseen so they don't pollute? Or risk killing their employees to fatten their profits? OSHA has been rendered almost ineffective, now. So, do you really expect that it will be any different for schools? Even if that were so, I still want to have a say on who runs the schools that take my tax money and educate my children, and I won't if it's a corporation.

You know I'm not suggesting that terrorists will take over our schools. But, corporations are already getting their greedy little fingers into public schools. There are already financially strapped public schools who are somewhat beholden to corporations because they took money from them. Examples would include soft drink makers. They put their machines in the schools and set rules as to where they are placed and what restrictions the school can place on the students using them, in exchange for money for the school. Do you honestly think that students needs are met by encouraging them to drink substances that contribute to rising obesity? And that isn't even the start. Give a corporation free reign over the entire school, and I don't even want to think about what that would do to our kids.

[Muddleoftheroad]

153. Private schools have operated in the U.S. since we were founded

I'm willing to embrace that reality that has indeed worked well. It works well at the college level, why not more?

You do have a say in the way corporations run. You vote. You pay taxes.

I would gladly give ANY corporation free rein over DC schools. I would trust they could only do better.

[Pithlet]

158. Yes, but

I know this is difficult for some to comprehend: College is not the same thing as primary education. College is not a right. Primary and secondary education is. What works at the college level won't work at the primary level. If we start treating primary schools like college, then we will definitely ensure that not everyone gets even a basic education.

Private schools work very well for those who can afford them. I'm not disparaging private schools. But, I really don't want to send my kid to one of them. I actually think public schools are better when they're run the way they're supposed to. Many good public schools run rings around private ones. I don't want my children side by side only with other kids who come from the same privileged background. To me, that does them a disservice. I think I benefited from the years of public school that I received. I think it has a lot to do with the kind of person I turned out to be.

I cannot vote out CEOs. Do you and I even live in the same country? CEOs are not accountable to us the same way that government officials are. There's no spinning that any other way. No government official would get away with insisting that junk food be placed in school cafeterias the way that soft drink company did (I can't remember if it was Coke or Pepsi).

[Muddleoftheroad]

162. Difficult?

You must be kidding. Yes, there are big differences between colleges and elementary schools. Too bad BOTH concepts work just fine in the private sector.

I know this might be difficult for some to comprehend, but not everyone gets even a basic education RIGHT NOW.

I am not asking you to send your kid to a private school. I am trying to free others from the chains of scholastic incompetence, mismanagement and corruption.

If you own stock, you can indeed vote out CEOs. You can also vote on how the company is run. If you vote, you also impact how their firm is overseen by the government.

[Pithlet]

170. I know that there are some not getting it now

An even bigger reason to be against vouchers in the first place!

I'm also trying to do the same thing you are. I just don't understand how you can be okay with diverting funds AWAY from the problem rather than addressing the problem directly. All diverting does is help out the rich who can already afford it. It's a boon for them to suddenly get to take tax dollars in return for allowing a few underprivileged kids. What a bargain!

The difference between you and me isn't' that only one of us wants to help the problem. The difference is that you are okay with letting private entities into the fray, and throwing away whatever kids they won't take. Private isn't automatically better than public, and there are all kinds of examples to bear that out. When I do, you turn it right back around and say "well, I'm okay with some kids not getting an education" You are SO hung up on privatization as the be all and end all that you're willing to give up some of those kids. I don't understand it.

BTW, in reality, not everyone can afford stocks. So, only those with money would have a say? Surely you're not okay with that.

[LeahMira]

34. No school should be abandoned...

Some schools have already spun down so far that we can't really save them. All we are doing is making the poor continue to get uneducated in them.

Sorry, but there is no school that is doing so poorly that it can't be turned around.

The problems aren't the same in every school that is not doing well. Sometimes the administrators are to blame, sometimes the parents, and sometimes the students themselves. There are no "one size fits all" solutions, but there are solutions.

Another factor involved is the testing that's done in order to evaluate how well the schools are doing. That issue alone, with all the pros and cons, could fill a book.

The really simplest answer is to just give the people what they say they need. Generally, there is agreement among all the groups involved with a school as to what needs to be done once you get past some of the petty blame stuff.

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. Yes they can be turned around

What do we do in the meantime?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. Parents need to take the initiative

and make sure that their children have library cards and a chance to get out and see all the free attractions that any city has. (In Washington D.C, my goodness!)

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. LOL

Sure, just let your kids wander the streets?

Do you really know what DC is like?

Do you know how bad DC libraries are like?

A 14-year-old girl was murdered in her housing project the other day because somebody THOUGHT she had witnessed a crime.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

80. Uh, I wasn't thinking of taking the kids out of school and letting

them wander.

I was thinking of taking them to the library, reading to them, and taking them to the various attractions around DC.

[MountainLaurel]

86. Kinda hard

When you're working two minimum-wage jobs and travelling 2 hours every day because of welfare reform, not to mention that it's probably at least two bus transfers to get from Anacostia to the Mall.

[Muddleoftheroad]

118. Home schooling

What in essence you are advocating is home schooling. That takes more money than most poor people can manage.

[Indiana Democrat]

79. I agree..

I am convinced that the child of good, caring parents can succeed in any environment.

Just read to a baby, EVERY day, and that baby will grow-up and be very well educated.

[LeahMira]

83. How about...

What do we do in the meantime?

... we begin instead of complaining. If your child's school is not up to snuff, go to the next PTA or school board meeting with a plan to organize a few folks to start working on defining the problem, brainstorming possible solutions, and then trying the solutions that seem to have the most promise. In the meantime, stop waiting for the government to do something for you to fix it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

120. Process

The NEA solution to all problems. Not that it accomplishes anything, but it gets the rats running around in the maze looking good.

Again, there is NOTHING we can do to fix the schools right now. It will take decades. For me and mine, this was one of the big reasons we fled DC. And yes, fled is the right word.

You talk PTA when facilities are falling apart and crime occurs openly in the halls. I think you don't grasp the level of the problem.

[PVnRT]

124. So, then

it will take decades to improve infrastructure? Or just a summer and a good contractor? I'm a bit confused here.

And why do you hate unions so much?

[Muddleoftheroad]

133. It is easier to start over than battle existing problems

As for unions, they have their place. In some cases, they do a good job. In the school systems, I don't see it.

[PVnRT]

195. You obviously don't know any teachers

As evidenced by your posts.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

188. Your attitude is an example of "learned helplessness"

If MLK had thought like that, DC would still have separate drinking fountains.

[Muddleoftheroad]

189. No, my attitude is realistic

Things are not changing for the better. They have continued to get worse and we lose more and more poor and minority youths every year. Ignoring this is living in an ivory tower.

[oneighty]

5. School vouchers

here in the wilds of Western NY State is interesting in that there are very few private schools, and all of those are religious and of those mostly, if not all, are Catholic.

I would resent the school property taxes collected in our area to go to support a religious school, even one in this area. Fact is though state monies going to private schools anywhere in our state will remove state support for our (Very necessary)rural public schools.

In South Carolina where I lived for many years voucher monies will go to predominately white private schools. School segregation revisited, the real reason for school vouchers.

IMHO

180

[Indiana Democrat]

6. Here's what I don't get...

(And I'll be using numbers from memory, please excuse any mistakes).


They say we spend about $7000.00 per child, per year on education at the public schools.

Most of these voucher programs I've seen have had numbers of around $2500 per year that the parents of the child could get from the government in order to put towards a private school education.

Well...It seems to me that the school district would come out AHEAD in this deal...

The lose the student, and don't have to pay the $7000 to educate him or her. But, the parents are only getting $2500 from the government. So...This leaves $4500 that the school disctict gets but doesn't have to use on a child.

Seems like a money MAKER to me??


Can anyone straighten this out for me??

[prolesunited]

10. WRONG!

If they lose the student, they don't get the money. They do head counts at the beginning of the school year and the funding formula is based on the number of students enrolled.

The school would lose $7,000, not gain $4,500.

[apsuman]

21. wrong wrong!

My question is what monies do Schools get based upon school count? Otherwise, since everyplace I have lived ties school funding to LOCAL property taxes.

If you had 1000 students in a school district, and a budget of $7000000, if you give $3000 as a voucher to the parents of 100 students who found the School of the Almightly Voucher, they would get $300000, leaving $6700000 for the school district, and that works out to $7444 per student in the local school board.

[donco6]

28. Almost never that way

The bills that have come through Colorado work this way:

District counts all the kids - including voucher kids. Voucher kids awarded vouchers of 95% of district revenue/pupil (here about $5,450). State skims off funding from state portion of revenue (districts here are funded at about 40% property tax/60% state aid). District never sees that money, but does get to keep the 5%. But we've lost kids, and can't proportionally decrease expenditures (I can't necessarily reduce my fixed costs by the percentage of students lost, unless by some miracle, they all leave from one school). Plus, the bills I saw requires the district to maintain special education services if needed.

So, schools pretty much get screwed.

[Indiana Democrat]

42. The school district still takes-in the money from the taxpayers...

So where does the $4500 go? I know taxes aren't decreased.


Oh...And another thing (Assuming my theory is correct)...

Not only would they realize a net gain due to one less student, class sizes would decrease. Obviously a bonus. (And even if you're right and the $4500 magically disappears, a smaller class would still be a bonus).

No?

[donco6]

54. No.

First, you're getting revenue and expenditures mixed up.

The district may SPEND $7,000 per child, but that doesn't necessarily match the state funding formula revenue. This amount is often increased by the amount of federal grant monies, fees, override levies through voter-approval, etc. You need to find out the revenue per pupil awarded by the state's finance act.

At any rate, I've never seen a bill that had a differential that large ($7,000 to $2,500). Our proposed bill only has a differential of 5%. In our case, that's about $287 that the district would be allowed to keep.

And no, class size would not decrease at all. Schools are staffed based on their pupil count, according to the staffing ratio the school board sets. In our case, it's 20:1. Say you have a school of 600. 60 kids decide to take advantage of the voucher. Originally, the staffing would have been 600/20 = 30. The new staffing is 540/20 = 27. No reduction in class size at all. And for the loss of 60 kids, you've lost 60 X $6,000 in revenue ($360,000), less the 5% you can keep, which offsets the loss by $17,220, for a net loss of $342,780.

[trogdor]

12. Two words: Fixed Costs.

It costs money, regardless of the size of the student body, to heat and maintain the building(s). You will also need a certain baseline number of teachers, bus drivers, staff, kitchen personnel, etc., regardless of the size of the school or the number of students therein. Start reducing the size of the student body, and your seven grand per kid starts to grow to ten grand per kid as economies of scale start to go away. When that happens, they start to cut back drastically on things like afterschool programs, certain "nonessential" courses (the kind that drew you to the district in the first place), and what have you. In the end, your property taxes go up. Big time. Ask the DUer from western New York how shrinking student populations affect school districts.

[donco6]

20. It's not a straight-line cost savings

Just because I lose one kid in one classroom doesn't mean I've saved any money at all.

Think of it this way: When one of your children leaves for college, they move out. Say you have three kids, and two adults in the house, and your total expenditures are $100,000 for the year. According to the voucher math, you should decrease your expenditures by one-fifth - or $20,000 per year. But do you? Of course not. You still make full payments on the house, heating bills stay pretty much the same, your other two kids are still growing and eating you out of house and home. You're just short $20,000.

[aintitfunny]

7. Personally the concept has a good face

But reality sets in when I give it thought. There are people in our country who can't afford to provide their children lunch, let alone pay the difference between the vouchers and the private school tuition. Therefore we would still need the public school system. The public school systems would lose the money going to the students using the vouchers. This would result in sub-standard educational opportunities for those remaining in public schools.

Outside of the ravaging of the Public school system, what about class issues that would develop. The "Haves" and the "Haves some" would be well taken care of, and their children would get the benefit of a good education. The suffering of the "Have nots" would gets worse. The will see the windows of opportunity shutting for their children before they start kindergarten.

I think it would also potentially spawn a new industry. Cheap, poorly run private schools will spring up in inner cities to take advantage of the voucher system.

These concerns may not be the Dem Party line, but they are my concerns. While on the face of it is seems reasonable, I believe it is a dangerous concept.

[nannygoat]

11. Imagine if Enron had gotten into the school business...

The bottom line for me:

I don't want my tax money going to schools that support religious viewpoints. Another reason is that schools are one place where children should learn civics and how to be responsible citizens (this is not to say that public schools are doing a bang up job in this area...). If that's done by a corporation closed to members of the community, how can we be sure of what is being taught?

I firmly believe that if parents of private school children had spent as much time as they are "required to" by private schools (fundraising, volunteering, participating in meetings, etc.) in public schools, our public schools would not be in the state they are in today.

[LeahMira]

90. You bring up something that concerns me...

If that's done by a corporation closed to members of the community, how can we be sure of what is being taught?

If possible, the corporations are perhaps even more dangerous to education than the religious schools are. They have the money to give to schools, but in exchange for some sort of favor. Corporations generally favor more data entry skills, and less exposure to things like philosophy or literature or the arts. Take dollars from Pepsico and you find soda machines all over the school.

Nope. Let's keep public schools really public, and let's let them educate well-rounded, thoughtful future citizens.

[GOPisEvil]

8. State. Religion. Wall of Separation.

Tax money should not support private, religious-based schools. Vouchers allow that.

[Gulf Coast J]

89. What about Pell Grants?

Somebody please explain why Pell Grants are good but vouchers are bad. You can take a Pell Grant to Notre Dame or Baylor or Yeshiva or anywhere else you want to. As far as funding religious schools, what's the difference?

[Pithlet]

91. Colleges that accept government money

cannot discriminate in who the admit based on the person's religion. Unless that changes with a voucher program, private secondary schools can and do, and the ones that do will probably want to continue doing so. Plus, there is a difference between college and public schools. Public schools for children are a right. College is not. So, it's hard to compare the two, anyway.

The issue of separation of church and state isn't even my biggest issue when it comes to vouchers, but it is an important one.

[ulysses]

92. primary and secondary education are basic needs.

College is not.

[Gulf Coast J]

95. So why should the government fund higher education at all?

If college isn't a basic need, why not switch our funding to health care and pre-schools? Our college system is great and the envy of the world. It seems as though our primary schools could learn a thing or two from it. So why not a Pell Grant system for primary school? Works for college.

[IrateCitizen]

101. Not nearly as much as it used to

From the following article: Majoring in Debt by Adolph L. Reed, Sr.

Increased tuition, coupled with dwindling financial aid, is a significant problem for millions of families. According to the College Board, over the last decade, average tuition and fees at public four-year colleges increased 40 percent, and last year alone it increased by 14 percent. Community colleges increased tuition by a similar percentage last year.

Financial aid is not picking up the slack. Three decades ago, the financial aid system, with Pell grants as the backbone, guaranteed access to public colleges for primarily low- and moderate-income students. Millions of Americans earned college degrees as a result. In 1975, the maximum Pell grant covered 84 percent of costs at a four-year public college. Now, the grant covers only 42 percent of costs at four-year public colleges and only 16 percent of costs at four-year private colleges.

Meanwhile, colleges are shifting away from grants and toward loans. A decade ago, 50 percent of student aid was in the form of grants and 47 percent was in the form of loans. Today, grants are down to 39 percent of total aid; loans have increased to 54 percent.

So, what happens to the students who can't afford to make up the difference when the costs of a decent public education K-12 go beyond what they can afford? Should they mortgage their future for their high school education as well? How on earth will they then pay for college education?

[Pithlet]

102. You completely did not get it

College, and primary and secondary education, is not the same.

Aside from a very small minority who are home schooled, ALL kids have to go to school. Some go to private school, but a majority go to public school. Some public schools are thriving. They are in richer areas. Some are hugely underfunded and are barely scraping by. They, coincidently enough, are in the poorer areas. Diverting funds from them to allow kids to go to richer schools, harms those schools left behind.

College is different. Aside from it not being a right, we aren't taking money away from the poorer colleges in urban areas, and giving it to richer colleges in better areas.

If you think the money for Pell grants is better spent elsewhere, then write your representatives. Personally, I think things like Pell were made so that those who couldn't otherwise afford it can go to college, period. It's not as if they can just go to some other college that requires no tuition.

[ulysses]

103. different goals and different populations.

It is right to have government funding of college tuition programs. College may not be a basic need, but it is an economic help at the very least. It makes sense. And it's not as if college tuition programs are what are keeping health care and preschools underfunded.

What works for educating an elective population of twentysomethings in the finer points of, say, engineering does not necessarily work for educating a compulsory population of first graders in the math they'll need to balance their checkbook. We already have a situation in public education in which unequal treatment is given for compulsory attendance - vouchers will only make that worse.

Actually, I think the argument can be made that gov't funds should not go towards tuition at religious colleges, but that's a totally different argument, and I'm not the one to make it at any rate.

[Tim4319]

9. Why I am against Vouchers

I believe instead of relocating students away from their neighborhoods to educate them, let them attend the schools in their area while using that money associated with the vouchers properly equip the schools with up-to-date technology.

Plus, while all of the inner city schools are deteriating becuase there's no attention giving to them, that is going to add to the decline of the inner city. It is bad enough funds for inner city schools are already slim, I think they deserve as much attention as any other schools.

To sum it all up in a nutshell, I am totaly against vouchers because I am from an inner city school, and with some funding, these schools can produce just as many outstanding students as the school that are suppose to be these, "better schools". The only thing that is needed is some help. Keep the children close to home and provide them with the same things the others schools have, and see what you will get!

[Liberal in Ohio]

14. You are all missing the most important point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

School vouchers are just another -- cleverly disguised -- tax cut for the rich.

Think about it.

The majority of Americans send their kids to public schools paid for by taxes.

The "rich" send their kids to private schools that require tuition.
The "rich" also pay taxes which fund public schools.

Vouchers are a way to return money to the "rich" who already send their kids to private schools.

How many poor inner city families are going to send their kids to private schools in the suburbs just because they get a $2500 discount?
How much do you think tuition is at a private school?
Poor people will send their kids to public schools no matter what because they can't afford to pay ANY tuition.

The only ones who benefit are rich people who already use private schools.

Typical Bush economics.

[11 Bravo]

22. DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

The average cost of private school tuition in my part of the country is between 12,000 and 20,000 dollars. A 5 or 6K voucher will do NOTHING to help a poor inner city parent place a child into private school. It will, however, provide a nice little rebate to those wealthy families who can already afford the tuition. Bush economics, indeed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. If you set up a voucher program

There will be schools made available and, trust me, they are bound to be better than many we already have.

[Indiana Democrat]

44. EXACTLY!!! "Competition"!

Competition is ALWAYS a good thing for quality and cost. ALWAYS.

There is none in the school systems...And you see what we've gotten.

[Pithlet]

50. How, exactly, is taking away money

supposed to make poorer schools more competitive? Rich kids are never going to go to their school anyway. A vast majority of poor kids will have to continue to go to those poor schools, vouchers or no. You'd have to set up a voucher program big enough to allow all children access. For the amount of money it would take to do that, you could revamp the entire poor school district.

It's just another scheme to rip off poor schools and put more money into rich people's pockets, because they will still be the ones who disproportionately send their kids to the good, private schools.

[cheezus]

85. No Competition! holy crap!

Industy is about having the best bottom line, not the best product. (In fact, companies that make the cheap crappy stuff tend to do the best). In the case of education, the product is - well, EDUCATION.

Sure, some kids are going to get a Macy's education, but most are going to get a Walmart education.

[PVnRT]

87. There will be?

Set up by whom? Obviously not the state, since public education is, apparently, a grotesque nightmare where students just sit around all day being babysat while not learning anything.

Are you going to trust some big company to set up a school properly? We both know that the Republicans will do everything they can to short-ciruit any kind of oversight. Bush already did with his charter schools in Texas - read some of the horror stories sometime. Or how about a religious group? What if a parent doesn't want to send their child to a private religious school, but that's the only one available? Not very competitive then, is it?

[Pithlet]

88. How convenient

that is for those who wanted religion in the public schools? If they can't get that, then decimate them and hold decent education as a carrot in front of parents. "You want your kids to have a quality education? Let us indoctrinate them..."

[PVnRT]

100. That plays into all of this, I'm sure

Those private religious schools see $$$ with voucher programs...

[Muddleoftheroad]

121. Trust

You make it sound like I trust the D.C. school system with ANY children even now. A private enterprise would have the advantage of folding if it did its job anywhere near as bad.

[PVnRT]

125. First of all

The D.C. school system is not reflective of everywhere in the country. Believe it or not, it is not the center of the universe.

Second of all, if a private school folds, what happens to the students? Do they just sit out a year, waiting for an opening elsewhere?

[Muddleoftheroad]

134. Urban school districts

Not just DC are in chaos. Sure, lotsa white folks out in the suburbs have nice schools. Lucky them.

Yes, if a school folded the students would go elsewhere.

[ulysses]

94. "There will be schools made available" - by whom?

Joe Businessman whose only interest is making a buck. They will be absolute models of efficiency, and won't educate worth a damn.

[IrateCitizen]

108. Yup. Teachers don't control the raw materials they're given.

This reminds me of a story my mom told me before -- my mom and dad were BOTH public elementary school teachers -- about a businessman who used to go around and give "efficiency seminars" to public schools. He would tout his personal business practice as a model of how to include public education.

At the end of one of these seminars, a teacher stood up with a question. She asked him, "When you're confronted with some raw materials in your plant that don't meet your standards, what do you do with them?"

Unwittingly, the man replied, "Why, we get rid of them, of course!"

The teacher said back, "Well, we don't get to choose what raw materials we get to use. We have to teach every one of those students that walks through that door."

The man was stunned, and couldn't think of anything to say. Ever since that moment, he went on to become a tireless defender of public schools and teachers.


The moral of the story is this. A great many teachers do incredible work -- especially those that teach in inner cities and depressed areas. For them to reach one kid out of 20 is, quite often, a triumph. They don't get to choose the kids they get, they just have to do the best that they can with the kids they're given. Of course, it doesn't help much when they are also forced to teach in schools that are crumbling, physically; when they don't get support from the administration; they don't get support from the parents -- and so on.

For our struggling schools to improve, it will take a broad-based political will. Vouchers is a canard meant to play more on politics to erode traditional bases of Democratic support while starving government, as opposed to helping kids. Rather, what it will take is for every person to support the necessity of a sound education -- and the money, and more importantly, the ENERGY required to bring that about -- with the same kind of fervency that wasteful militarism is supported. Hell, imagine what the $87 billion spent on Iraq would help if it were instead applied to programs to help troubled schools!

I say this because I am a person who is pursuing a career transition into teaching. I don't want to get into teaching to get rich, by any means. And I won't lie and say that the extra time off is not nice. But most of all, I'm getting into teaching in the hopes of being in a career that makes a difference, and allows me the opportunity to give something back.

Education should not be a for-profit activity. If profit is introduced into the equation, then the real goal -- providing an education for future generations -- is lost in the shuffle. The profit motive will not help in this regard, but rather, will only hurt in the long run.

[ulysses]

110. I love that story

People who think that education can successfully be remade along a business model haven't stepped foot in a classroom in a very long time.

[Hammie]

182. What an outstanding example

of a fundamental problem with public education.

Students aren't raw material. Students are customers.

The school is an organization for providing a product (education) to its cutomers (students).

The resources (raw materials) that the school uses to accomplish this end includes teachers.

Private schools do not suffer from the same misunderstanding of who serves whom. To the extent that they do misperceive the true nature of the relationship, they risk becoming, like the "businessman" in you example, consultants.

[ulysses]

186. "students are customers" - no, they're not.

Calling a student a customer is meaningless jargon (is the student always right?) whose sole appeal is to those for whom "the market" is the magic bullet, applicable across the spectrum of human experience. It just ain't so.

[Muddleoftheroad]

193. Students and parents are indeed customers

And making sure they are satisfied should be on the agenda of the ivory tower eduprocess folks.

[Muddleoftheroad]

123. They couldn't do any worse

And if they wish to make a buck, they have to teach.

[PVnRT]

126. No

Every child has to go to school in this country, so you would have plenty of those schools that will just skim every dollar they can, and not teach much. But it will look good because they're making profit, and that's what voucher supporters like.

[Muddleoftheroad]

135. Skimming

Ah, so every company out there skims money. You have an interesting view of people.

And I am not advocating skimming, so there goes your last point.

[ulysses]

173. couldn't they?

And if they wish to make a buck, they have to teach.

Yes, and (to crib someone else's metaphor) Wal-Mart has to sell merchandise. The quality of that merchandise is often suspect, but it's selling.

It would be nice if private schools offered an educational magic bullet, but they don't.

[Muddleoftheroad]

190. At least Wal-Mart customers seem happy

It sure ain't perfect, but compare the success with customers to the success of the DC school system with their customers and get back to me.

[ulysses]

192. they're happy because they don't pay much,

not because they're getting a quality product. To carry the analogy further, Wal-Mart offers those low prices by screwing their suppliers (read: teachers).

I haven't seen anyone here defend the idea that the DC school system is a model of educational wonder, but your straw man is noted. Curing what's wrong with the DC schools by instituting a voucher program would be like curing a patient of cancer by shooting him in the head.

[Pithlet]

194. One, how do the two compare?

Number two, maybe you should ask the kids who live in countries who don't have public education who instead have to work like slaves to produce the products that Wal-Mart sells?

Selling our kids to the top bidder is not the solution. Maintaining and improving our public schools to ensure that everyone gets an education is. To wring our hands and say that's not possible is baloney.

To give in, and divert money to private organizations and corporations is hurting those kids who rely solely on public schools for their education. No analogy in the world gets around that.

[AP]

30. Not a tax cut, at least after first year. Vouchers will caus prices to go

up. That's what happens when you give money to people.

It's a transfer of public money to churches. That's why all those right wing churches tell people on Sunday to vote for Republicans.

[Pithlet]

48. Exactly

Add to that the breach in the separation of church and state, and school vouchers are a Republican's dream come true.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Private school families

Every single family in every district in the U.S. should sign up for PUBLIC school next year. Yes, public school.

They should even plan on attending just a little bit. Once that occurs and the public school systems collapse under the weight of all these other parents, perhaps THEN people who oppose vouchers would appreciate the parents who send their kids to private schools.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. Actually, if all private school parents had to send their kids to

public schools, the public schools would improve FAST.

There are world-class public schools in suburbs all over the U.S., because the rich look after their own. At Yale, I knew rich kids whose families had given them a choice between attending the local high school or going off to prep school.

Inner-city schools have deteriorated because the people with money and power have allowed it. It's just those black and brown kids in the inner-city, who cares about them, the thinking goes.

The fake "compassionate conservative" plan for improving inner-city schools is to starve them of funds, give the students vouchers that don't cover the cost of private schools, and then say that the problem is solved.

Conservatives like to cite D.C, which has high spending levels and lousy schools, mostly because of cronyism. That used to be due to the fact that D.C. schools were run by Congress (which of course, has nothing else to think about, right?), so they let the local crony types do what they pleased with the money.

I don't know what the situation is now, but if home rule has been extended to the DC schools, then DC parents need to rise up, throw out the entire school board, and replace them with people who put the children first.

That would benefit ALL children, not just the ones with savvy or affluent parents.

[Muddleoftheroad]

127. No they wouldn't

They would be so heavily overwhelmed it would be laughable.

Those who oppose private schools, religious schools and home schooling don't realize how difficult it is for those parents who sacrifice time and money to help their children. If they showed up for a week -- nationwide -- there would be such a clamor to fund school vouchers that you have never seen.

The halls would be overcrowded. There wouldn't be enough books, teachers, classrooms, supplies or administrators. (Gotta have those administrators!)

Yes, D.C. schools are bad. Baltimore schools are almost as bad. Urban districts across the nation are bad. I cite DC because I dealt with it.

[bandy]

16. The Palm Beach Post

has done excellent extensive research on this here in Fla. What they found is criminal in so many ways. As anything involving a "Bush", it is underhanded, unorganized, unregulated, etc. They have made a mess of the program and the schools. I commend the Post for their work. And they have paid dearly for it - Jeb refused to allow them to attend his press conference. Poor baby! They exposed his buddies and he is not happy.

[denverbill]

17. A few reasons:

1) Private schools aren't subject to testing. Why don't private schools compete with public schools based on equal standards?
2) Most voucher programs don't pay full tuition. Most poor people can't afford to pay the difference.
3) The voucher idea originated in the racist south. With integration, many white parents pulled their kids out of public schools and sent them to private schools to keep them away from the 'darkies'. Now they are all whiny about having to pay to support public schools when they aren't 'using them'. The whole idea is to get vouchers accepted as an acceptable tool, then expand them to middle-upper class white folks.

[radwriter0555]

18. Google Private School Washington DC.

take a look at the 10 that are there.

Then tell me how those schools are going to accomodate the 2000 -- That's TWO THOUSAND voucher kids that DC is going to hand out next year.

In fact, google "Private School *name your city here*" and think about how FEW private schools there are, and how are they POSSIBLY going to find room for the idiotic voucher programs?

Or do you just want CORPORATIONS like the one in BOSTON to take over YOUR kid's education?

Which is worse? A TEACHER who cares if your kid is learning or not, or a CORPORATION who's profits are WAY more important than the conditions your kid is being educated in.

[Gringo]

23. Vouchers are specifically designed to hurt the poor.

1. A voucher program would give families a small amount ($1000) per year towards private school tuition. That's a nice discount if you are wealthy and can already afford it, but for the poor & working folks, it would do nothing to bring private schools within reach.

2. Vouchers are intended more to de-fund the public schools than as a way to give parents "choice".

3. Private schools have NOT been shown to outperform the public schools in any significant way. Most public schools do a pretty decent job, actually. Polls show that most people THINK that public schools are performing badly, but the vast majority say that THEIR OWN PUBLIC SCHOOL is doing a great job. In other words, the majority of people have simply swallowed the media-reinforced conventional wisdom that the public schools are "failing" in spite of their own positive experiences.

4. Private schools do not have the capacity to handle any sort of real influx of students from the public schools.

5. Most private schools are parochial. I have a BIG problem with ANY of my tax dollars finding their way into the coffers of ANY religious institution.

6. It does NOTHING to address the problems that do exist in the public school system.

7. It does nothing to help get poor kids an education of the same quality that the rich kids get.

How's that for a start?

[Down2Earth]

25. Every one seems to miss the point

I believe that everyone has the same goal, a better education for the kids. The voucher will make the schools compete for students. If you look at schools in Atlanta, they have one of the highest dollar/student cost yet they are always near the bottom as far as scores. So all the money in the world to a school won't help. As with any job, if your performance dictates how much money you get.

Also, with regards to money going to religious schools, not all private schools are religious, and religious teachings are a small price to pay for a better education.

As with anything, just because you are exposed to religion, it doesn't mean you will be come a right wing nut.

[Gringo]

32. Competition is NOT always good.

Has your long distance service improved since the companies were forced to compete? Mine has gotten MUCH worse (AT&T), and it's not that much cheaper.

There were private schools when the public school system was devised. The idea was to provide a good, standardized education to ALL - and vouchers are not about doing that. They are a giveaway to the rich.

I am ASTOUNDED that anybody at DU favors these things. I could throw in a few snide remarks regarding Joe Lieberman and doors hitting people on the way out, but I don't want a reprimand.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. A "good, standardized education to ALL"

Do me a favor. Let me know when we come even close to that.

[Gringo]

37. We're a lot closer than we would ever be under vouchers.

The vast majority of us went to public schools(myself included) and did fine.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Sure, the hell with those poor people

Which is what the current system continues to say to us.

[Gringo]

45. Sorry, but I think vouchers wouyld hurt the poor most of all

and help only the rich.

That's why republicans favor vouchers.

Do you think they would EVER favor something that actually helps poor people? It would be a first.

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. They have their reasons, I have mine

Life is about compromise.

[AP]

49. Forget the snapshot. They'll help the poor this year. It'll

destroy their younger siblings and their children. You get a break in the first year, but vouchers will drive prices up inevitably (that's what happens when you givve people money they can spend only on one thing). And when the publics schools crumble, future generations will have no public options at all. Ie, something that was once free, you'll only be able to get if you pay for it.

The only way that will help the poor is if the poor like spending more time with poor people, because they'll have a lot of company -- vouchers will create a huge underclass of uneducated people.

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. News flash

We HAVE a huge underclass of uneducated people. I am worried about today and tomorrow. But there is no push to fix schools for tomorrow, so I want to save our children today.

[Pithlet]

81. But vouchers only save SOME of the children

and in doing so, ensuring that the schools that need help tomorrow for all the other kids won't get it. Any program that doesn't give opportunity to all the students is no good. There will be some kids who won't succeed despite that, but at least they had that opportunity.

Vouchers wouldn't even save all of the kids that could benefit. Not every child who is bright and willing to learn will be able to take advantage of it. Leave them to languish in horrible schools that get even less funding now?

It's just a scheme to hurt poor people even further by underfunding already underfunded schools mainly in poor areas.

[Muddleoftheroad]

122. Some children

In the African-American community, we've already lost a couple generations of young people thanks to horrendous education and the drug war. Sorry if we'd like to save a few of them now.

Perhaps if as many flee as possible, the politicians will understand and finally face the problem.

As an aside, DC schools aren't underfunded. Per pupil spending is about the third highest in the nation.

[Pithlet]

129. I'm sorry

I just don't think that we give up. DC sounds like its problem is gross mismanagement. I often hear as an argument for vouchers that it is a lost cause, because we can't reorganize/fund/educate them cuz they're lazy druggie criminals, etc. So we should just wash our hands of the failures, and privatize. I'm just not buying that. I'm especially not buying it because not every child who could be saved, will. Perhaps if that were the case I'd not be so vehemently against them. It's a defeatist attitude, and one that will leave horrible schools even more in the dust, and allow the richer ones to flourish and even benefit.

I went to public schools for most of my education. And, until my parents gave up and fled, as you did, I went to pretty crappy schools. Most of my classmates were not druggies, or criminals. They were there, and got a lot of attention. But it wasn't even close to the majority of them. I would not see a system that would leave kids like those friends I had in the dust because some people are so blinded that they cannot see that privatizing public education would be the worst thing that could happen to it. The days where education is available to all would be numbered, because those schools we gave up on to "save a few" would eventually disintegrate. Then it becomes not the fact that you were born in America, but the fact that you were born to those who could afford to educate you, that determines your success.

[Muddleoftheroad]

137. Reality

In reality, we gave up some time ago. Only problem is, the poor people in this nation still go to those schools.

DC is not alone in its chaos. Baltimore has had several schools taken over by the state. One was so bad that it had to be taken over by the police. No, that's not a joke. Crime, rape, robbery and assault were so bad that police had to be called in.

[Pithlet]

139. So giving up on THEM is supposed to help them how?

You seem to think I'm naive about public schools in urban areas when I've had firsthand experience with them myself. I also have family who are in the teaching profession who still teach at those schools.

[Muddleoftheroad]

141. They need to either change or be shut down

Anything to accomplish either the change or their replacement works for me.

[Pithlet]

142. What happens to the kids that were going there?

Where do they go?

[Muddleoftheroad]

148. New private schools

Funded by vouchers.

[Pithlet]

152. That's laughable

You really think that there will be a place for every single one of those kids? Do you think that there will be corporations and other private entities willing to take them on, when the government wasn't even willing to handle them?

[Muddleoftheroad]

155. I have said that this won't save all children

I prefer to save some than none as the current urban system does.

[Pithlet]

167. You just brought it right back to the beginning

We're right back where we started. Okay, then you're okay with leaving kids behind. I just wasted my time. Well, I'm not. We're not America if we don't offer basic education to everyone. We're not America if education is only available to those who can afford it or are lucky enough to live near one that can provide it.

We don't give up on a whole group of kids because someone comes along with some shady fund diverting scheme designed to look like it's benefiting poor kids, when all it's doing is allowing rich people to use tax funds to better their own children's educations, and allowing the few token poor kids is a bargain to them.

Here's the part where you call me a naive idealist, or something to that effect. Before you do, consider this: There is no reason why we cannot educate every single child in this country. None. We have plenty of resources to do it with. We just need to demand that they are taken and used so that this happens. Rolling over and letting the private schools take over for some, leaving the rest to hang is the absolute wrong way to go about it. Saying it isn't possible, and therefore we have to go about it that way is defeatism. Either way, it hurts kids. Not just the poor ones, either. The move to privatization will hurt all of them. Just ask the kids with type II diabetes who chug sodas at corporate sponsored schools.

[Muddleoftheroad]

191. Not OK with it, I just can't stop it

So, since the ship is sinking, I'd rather save some than let them all die.

You are wrong. We DO "give up on a whole group of kids." We do it every day. Those kids sit in schools and fail to learn because the systems fail to teach.

Of course there is a reason we cannot "educate every single child in this country." It's called political will. There isn't the will to get it done. Till there is, things will remain the same. In the meantime, I want to save as many as we can.

If doing that creates chaos, so be it. We've had chaos in the inner cities for long enough as it is. Maybe it's time somebody noticed.

[Down2Earth]

51. Competition is always a good thing

If you aren't getting paid enough at your job, you can go somewhere else and get a different job paying more. If you are unhappy with how much you pay in long distance you can change companies. Why shouldn't someone who is unhappy with the quality of the education their child is getting not be allowed to send their child somewhere else.
You would expect to continue to pay AT&T for long distance even after you switch to sprint. would you?

I don't have kids, so I pay for everyone else's kid to go to school. I would just like to know that the money i pay in taxes is actually helping the kids learn the three R's and not being wasted.

(The problem with schools in most poorer areas is not the amount of money the school gets, it's the lack of parent involvement and lack of motivation)

[Pithlet]

65. Right

Poor people are just naturally bad parents. Affluent areas just naturally have better parents. It has nothing to do with the fact that schools in richer areas get more money. It's the poor people's fault.

To the competition thing: the poorer schools certainly can't compete now, how is taking money away from them supposed to help them do that? Their schools are already crumbling. Take money away, they will crumble even further. What about the kids who's parents can't afford to send them even WITH the vouchers? I'm talking about the rare poor person who's actually a good parent, of course.

[Down2Earth]

112. not what i said

I live in an area that can be considered a poor area. My wife teaches school here. The teachers/school are not worse than other areas where we have lived, but the percentage of kids whose parents don't care, or that are happy if there kid just makes it through 9th grade is higher in this area than in more affluent areas that i have lived in. I don't think there is less money going to this school than ones in other areas that i have lived. You just have lower expectations on the students by the parents.

[Pithlet]

114. You say that's not what you said.

Then turned around and said the exact same thing. I'm telling you that I don't think the problem is all parents. Is it only coincidence that the poorer schools are in poorer areas? Is it only coincidence that many of the failing schools are doing so because they're being grossly mismanaged (which tends to happen in poor areas)?

There's no doubt that parental involvement is key, and that not all kids have that. I think that a lot of that is due to the fact that working poor just don't have nearly the time to devote to their kids' education that their wealthier counterparts do. The parents where I live have the time to ensure their kids are educated, and have the time to attend school meetings. They have the time to go to parent/teacher conferences. There's no doubt those advantages exist. So, the solution is to take more money away from the poorer schools so the good schools can benefit even more?

I do not think that it is coincidence that schools in richer areas do better. I do not think that all public schools are funded the same. If that's so in your area, then there's some mismanagement going on, and that needs to be addressed.

[Gulf Coast J]

93. My long distance is great

Competition isn't good for long distance?! I can buy a long distance phone card for $0.10 a minute. I can call from home for $0.05 a minute. I can get unlimited long distance from home for $49.95. My quality is great. I remember when I was a kid (not long ago) screaming into the phone when I made a long distance call. Do you think any of the innovations would have happened without competition?

Why does universal education have to be provided by the state? The government doesn't have farms to feed poor people. It gives them food stamps.

[Pithlet]

97. Why does universal education..

have to be provided by the state? Because, in our society, education is valued, and is absolutely necessary to get by unless you're born into money. We deem that education is a right for all. Public schools have ensured that everyone get that opportunity. The fact that some are crumbling in poorer areas, and thriving in richer ones is a travesty. Taking funding away from the poorer districts in no way makes them more competitive.

If your long distance company wanted to make more money and be more competitive, it wouldn't slash its budget, would it?

Handing the responsibility of educating our kids over to corporations, so they can control what our kids learn? No thank you. I don't want McSchool, I'll pass.

Hand it over to private entities, the majority of which are faith based? I don't want my kid forced to pray in school, thank you.

[bobbyboucher]

41. Let's compare it to health care.

We might have the most advanced health care in the world do to competition, but who can afford that top tier care? The wealthy. Our cost per person/per annum for health care is far, far more expensive than other industrialized nations and we still have 44 million uninsured. How many are underinsured? How many people are bankrupt do to medical costs not covered? How many quit jobs to go on Medicare?

So tell me, doing the same thing to education is going to fix it? No, it's going to imitate the health care system. The haves get the good education, and the have nots get shit. The PUBLIC education system was not set up to become private. It is public. Send your kid to private school on your own dime, not mine.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. If the Atlanta schools are being mismanaged

throw out the school board. Vote in people who care about children.

It's not rocket science, but it requires something other than sitting home on your butt bitching. And it would actually help ALL children.

[yankeedem]

138. What students will they be competing for?

Will they be cherry picking the best, and leaving the disadvantaged students in the public schools? Yes.

Meanwhile, the "loss leaders" will be left in the public schools.

[AP]

27. because they transfer taxpayer wealth to private hands (church

and privately-run schools) and leave behind decimated public schools.

Soon, there public schools will so bad that you'll have to pay for education. there will be no real public options. Public education is the foundation of this nations. America only began to committ itself to pubic education in the 50s. Democrats always wanted it so economic, cultural and political power could flow to the middle class. Republicans always opposed it for that reason. It was only the red scare that made Repubicans think twice about it. Now that there's no more red scare, they want to get rid of it.

Furthermore, it's stupid. What happens to the price of something when you give everyone 100 bucks to pay for it? The price goes up 100 bucks. In the long run, vouchers are just going to drive prices up. The difference in the price will be easy profits for providers, and basically be a transfer of huge wealth without getting anything in return. In fact, it will create NEGATIVE returns when we find that we've made the middle class smaller, poorer and stupider in the process.

[GreenPartyVoter]

35. Lots of reasons

I live in a rural area. I don't care what kind of voucher you give me, I am not sending my kids 2 1/2 hours one way to a better school. I'd far rather you improve the one I have now.

More reasons here;
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0710-02.htm



And NO, don't use the stupid NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT. All it does is teach kids to take a specific set of tests. And it sets up schools to fail and fail fast. If you have a high percentage of mainstreamed special ed kids in your classrooms they can throw the whole system off kilter and cause your school to "fail".

More about this ridiculous mandate here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0122-08.htm

[donco6]

109. Doesn't even have to be mainstreamed kids

It's not whether they're mainstreamed or not, but their handicapping condition that determines whether they have to take the test or not. We've had some kids who can't hold a pencil who've had to bubble in answers. It's ludicrous.

[Gringo]

38. One last, EXCELLENT reason to oppose vouchers.

REPUBLICANS favor them. Need I say more?

[Pithlet]

68. 'Nuf said.

They favor them because they've always begrudged the money spent on public education. They will do everything they can to ensure that it is underfunded, mainly in the poor areas, which vouchers are intended for. If I hear one more Republican say "you can't throw money at the problem"...

[LeahMira]

43. Vouchers are another sorting device

What the vouchers will do is to take the better students out of the public schools and leave the rest still there. How does that solve anything?

Our public schools have the goal of providing an education to all students, regardless of the students' ability or interests.

I would tend to favor giving some sort of evaluation to all students at the sixth or seventh grade level if there were some good options available for the gifted, the average, and the struggling student to enter a high school program specifically geared to their needs. I know that some European countries do this sort of thing. But I sincerely doubt that it will ever go over in the U.S. because parents would have a fit if all the evidence proved that their child was not college material and tracked him into a vocational program... although I do think that in most cases it would be a huge relief for the child involved.

All this testing and the voucher plans and so on are simply more sorting devices that are intended to create winners and losers among children. What we really need to do is teach each child as much as the child is capable of learning, and at the rate the child is capable of learning it.

[recidivist]

46. "The Party" is shifting on this issue.

We've debated vouchers and school choice at vast length on many previous threads, so I think I'll punt today except for one secondary point: "the Party" is not of one mind on this issue, and sentiment is slowly shifting to a pro-choice position. I think this will continue.

This has happened even here. If a DU voucher thread takes off, about 20% of posters will take the pro-choice side. That's a big change from just two years ago -- and that's at DU, which is well to the left of the Democratic Party as a whole.

Nationally, school choice has become a classic example of an issue in which poll results flip either way depending on how the question is worded. If you work in loaded language about stripping resources from public schools (which isn't true, IMHO, but put that aside), a majority of the public is opposed. If you ask the question in terms of letting parents choose the best available school for their children, whether it be public, private, or parochial, a substantial majority is in favor.

FWIW, African Americans favor school choice by a significantly higher margin than the general public. This is obviously because they are predominately urban, are most affected by the all-too-common failures of urban public education, and are most desperate for reform. This is also a danger signal for the national Democratic Party if we let the Republicans own this issue.

Here in 70% black and 90% Democratic D.C., we have one of the nation's most expensive and worst performing public school systems. Our Democratic mayor and several of our Democratic City Council and School Board members now favor vouchers. The noisiest local opposition comes from Eleanor Holmes Norton, which is a little embarassing because she (surprise, surprise) sent her own son to private school while opposing school choice for the poor. This is a recurring pattern nationally. Voucher opponents should recognize the danger signals when their own leaders rather systematically don't practice what they preach.

I have so far not said Word One about the educational merits of the issue -- this is all about the politics. Take whichever side you want. But recognize that people are voting with their feet, the constituency for school choice is growing, and the Democratic Party has a significant pro-choice faction. Last time I checked, we do not have a commissar who will bundle you off to the gulag if you deviate from the party line; it is ok to be a pro-school choice Democrat.

Twenty years ago, perhaps even ten years ago, school choice would not have commanded a majority even among the Republicans. It is now orthodoxy over there. This is ironic because vouchers empower the poor. Giving scholarships to poor kids trapped in lousy schools ought to be OUR issue. Were it not for the institutional opposition of the teachers' unions, it would be. In another ten years, I think the unions will be isolated and defeated on this. It can't happen too soon -- I hate playing catchup, and we have conceded the issue to the other guys for too long.

[TSElliott]

52. Wow, that truly was the...

smartest thing I have read all day. Thank you. And you are right, Democrats need to realize that it looks bad to be against offering people choices.

[bobbyboucher]

60. Oh come on.

It is a giveaway, nothing more. Anything they can do to pull the government apart at the financial seems and destroy accepted and expected benefits from the government are job #1 for this crew of theives.

[Pithlet]

71. It's not about choices

If it were, the issue would be a lot simpler. It is about underfunding public schools in already underfunded areas. It's dressed up to look like it's something good for poor people. There's no choice here. Unless you give enough funding for all or a majority of the students, a vast majority will be left behind in even more underfunded schools. Where's the choice in that?

You want to talk about choice? How about repairing and rebuilding the poorer schools so that the kids that go to them have more choice in their life because they got a better education? THAT is the kind of choice I like.

[bobbyboucher]

57. How many of that 20% DU acceptance

are part of the disinformation/divide coalition that has gained such a stronghold in the DU?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. Yes, DC schools are bad

but what is best for all children, or does parenthood make people incredibly selfish and shortsighted so that they stupidly believe that only their precious little over-indulged angel deserves a chance a life?

The thought is, "If we get vouchers, then my child will have a chance."

Well bully for your child, who stands at the center of your blind spot. What about all the rest of the children, who will be adults when your child is an adult? Do you really want to have your educated child surrounded by even more illiterates than there are now?

Chuck out the corrupt DC school board. Replace them with honest, caring individuals. (I bet the average parent could do a better job than the current bozos.) Have this new board perform a massive housecleaning. Have no more than 12 kids in the first three grades, 15 up through middle school, and 20 in high school. Get the best possible teachers and fix up the crumbling schools so that the kids can see that adults care about them.

But that's harder than jumping ship.

[Tims]

96. You've hit the nail on the head

To hell with everyone else's kids, I want my voucher for my kids.

Such thinking is what drives the whole voucher thing. People don't care about fixing the education system for everyone, just for their kids. All the arguments for vouchers are simply rationalization to divert attention away from this selfish, easy out for the few people who do have school choices in their area and who have sufficient personal wealth that they can afford them. I doubt that there are very many people for whom having a voucher or not is what is keeping them from putting their child in a private school.

Competition??? Do we really want the educational equivalents of WalMart? That's what we will get if we privatize schools.

Do we really want an educational system that only answers to stock holders rather than elected school boards?

Any system that does not address fixing the educational system for EVERY child should be rejected.

[recidivist]

111. More than one way to crack an egg.

Lydia,

I have read with great appreciation your many contributions to the frequent education threads over the last couple of years, and I have meant for some time to tell you that I agree with you perhaps more than you suspect. I don't generally post unless it is to debate a point. I should perhaps acknowledge agreement a bit more often.

With regard to urban public education, we agree that the governance issue is central. We disagree on strategy. You are far more optimistic than I about the ability of aroused citizens to effectively reform big city school systems. That probably reflects, in part, the difference between Portland and Washington. I suspect it also has something to do with the fact that you don't have kids, and therefore can afford a much longer time horizon.

Anyhow, I am all for fighting the good fight at the ballot box. But I am also a direct actionist. Vouchers directly empower parents. That's a good thing and, from where I sit, it looks like a much faster and surer route to accountability and reform. Permit me to make a few additional random points:

(1) As a voucher advocate, I think the amount of the voucher should be pegged at the full per-student cost of the public system. For example, the DC Public Schools are now spending upwards of $13,000 per student. A voucher in that amount would buy a LOT of schooling.

The fact that most voucher experiments to date have offered much lower amounts reflects deliberate sabotage by opponents. Even at those artificially low and inadequate levels, however, low income parents line up for the chance and make huge sacrifices to enroll their kids. That speaks volumes.

(2) You call for a new school board to engage in "massive housecleaning." I know you understand -- but are perhaps too polite to mention -- that "massive housecleaning" involves "union busting." I have the highest respect for good teachers and enormous gratitude to those who have touched my life. But the grim reality is that personnel reform is one of the core issues that needs to be addressed. The unions will fight this tooth and nail.

(3) The class sizes you mention are probably in line with current practice in DC. Some years ago, the system-wide student-teacher ratio was 12-1. It may have drifted a bit since I last saw the figures, but class size is not the problem here.

(4) At last report, the DC Public School system had more non-teaching than teaching personnel. I know where school administrators stand in your pecking order; this is one of our many areas of agreement.

(5) It takes a gifted teacher to manage well a classroom with a "normal" range of middle and working class kids. It takes nothing short of a miracle worker to manage a classroom where 16 out of 20 kids are from single parent households and in which the developmentally disabled, the educable retarded, and the local gangbangers are being mainstreamed. Long before questions of academic rigor arise (another area where I generally agree with your comments), these are the issues that drive middle class parents out of lower class schools.

IMO, the only way the public schools in a city like DC can fight their way back, given the socioeconomic deficits in play, is through much stricter discipline and much more aggressive ability grouping. Otherwise, middle class parents will vote with their feet. These remedies, however, tend to be political non-starters (at least in DC).

(6) Last but not least, all I am calling for is a full and fair test of the concept. The existing system works adequately in solid middle class areas (though it too easily settles for mediocrity), and even superbly in places where there is outstanding leadership. But the current system has produced a catastrophe in the big cities. Surely a fair test is not too much to ask.

[Pithlet]

115. I apologize

I hate to butt in because this wasn't directed at me, but may I address a few of your points?

You say that vouchers empower parents. That's well and good, and as a parent I fully understand that. And, faced in a situation where my kids are suffering in a poor school, and I couldn't afford better, I'm not sure I would turn one down. But, what about the kids who's parents won't or can't afford to take advantage of such a system? You say that it appears to be a faster and surer route to accountability and reform? How are those schools who's funds are being diverted by these voucher programs supposed to do that with even more funding cut?

You're right about it being a quick fix, but only for those who can take advantage of it. Public education is supposed to be for everyone. Everyone who wants to, regardless of economic status, should be able to fully take advantage of it. There are problems that exist that prevent that. The quick fix appeal is what makes vouchers so attractive to many, and disguises the fact that it is merely diverting even more sorely needed funds away from public schools and lining the pockets of wealthier, private ones.

No doubt that corruption and cronyism runs rampant in many school systems. The solution is to change that, not bleed them even further. Merely giving up on the poor schools leaves too many behind.

[IrateCitizen]

72. Which is what makes it all the more alarming...

The following article sums up quite nicely why any talk from supposed "Democrats" or "liberals" in favor of setting up a voucher system scares the living hell out of me.

Why the Right Hates
Public Education

by Barbara Miner



In an article about education, it's appropriate to start with a pop quiz. Today's question: Republican strategists want to privatize education because:

a) Education is a multibillion dollar market, and the private sector is eager to get its hands on those dollars.
b) Conservatives are devoted to the free market and believe that private is inherently superior to public.
c) Shrinking public education furthers the Republican Party goal of drastically reducing the public sector.
d) Privatization undermines teacher unions, a key base of support for the Democratic Party.
e) Privatization rhetoric can be used to woo African American and Latino voters to the Republican Party.
f) All of the above.

OK, I admit it, the answer's obvious: all of the above. But in the debates over education policy, the Republican political agenda (see d and e) is often invisible.

Occasionally, Republican strategists let the cat out of the bag and admit that vouchers--which divert public dollars to private schools--are about politics, not education.

Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform and one of the most influential Republican strategists in Washington, has long recognized the partisan value of vouchers, sometimes euphemistically referred to as "choice." "School choice reaches right into the heart of the Democratic coalition and takes people out of it," he said in a 1998 interview with Insight, the magazine of the conservative Washington Times.

Norquist and others see great political benefit in going after the teachers' unions. During the last thirty years, as private sector unionism has declined, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and National Education Association (NEA) have grown in strength. Today, the 2.7 million-member NEA is the country's largest union. The AFT has one million members, mostly in education but also in health care and the public sector.

http://www.progressive.org/jan04/miner0104.html">READ THE REST HERE

[Solon]

47. Another point...

What about the practical considerations, like transportation. Even if there are enough private schools in an area who would even consider taking in these kids. Many are located away from urban areas, in suburbs, whereas most of the parents live in the urban areas, many not even owning a car, or are otherwise unable to transport the kids. What are we supposed to do then, use publically subsidized taxis?

[himself]

53. More thoughts ...

School choice is a scam. There aren't any choices, as most of us have said. No one from Roxbury (inner city Boston) can get to Andover on a voucher.

Plus 'vouchers' obscure the root causes of public school failure - which are social and economic inequality, in a word. To make poor schools better - and give poor kids and their future families a fighting chance - we have hire the best teachers, buy better books and commputers, and keep gyms and libraries opened nights and week-ends. Not to mention decent jobs and health insurance for poor parents, so they and their families can work their way up and out.

But the Right Wing doesn't want to talk about that - it likes the cheap fix to social crises - and doesn't want to talk about the privileges it insists upon for its own children, either. When Frist or Bush offspring spend a voucher to go to an inner city school, maybe then (maybe never) we will know that poor schools have been turned around.

Not to mention that the lack of support in the research literature for the notion that vouchers improve the performance of students or schools. So far, it looks like a wash. Meanwhile, the worst schools continue to nosedive, and another generation of poor kids heads to oblivion.

[Laughing Mirror]

59. also, if I may add to your excellent post

To make poor schools better we need to start making the poor neighborhoods better. You can pump all the money you want into a school, but if you don't improve the living conditions of the people who go to them, you're wasting your money.

Fight poverty and you'll get better schools.

on edit: I could use better schooling myself!

[Fleshdancer]

58. well I can't speak for the Democratic Party...

but the reason I'm against school vouchers is because I'm pandering to my child, not the teacher's union.

First of all, I think it's unrealistic. I don't see how a poor family will still be able to afford private school even with a voucher.

Second, what evidence do we have that private schools are better? If they're not regulated and don't answer to the state education agencies, how do I really know a $13,000/year education is really better?

Third, to take money out of the public school systems doesn't fix the problem. That would be like fixing a leak in the dam by chipping at the hole and making it bigger.

Fourth, why would I subject my child to a school that could discriminate? Again, because private schools are not state funded, how can I, as a parent, be reassured that a private school won't expel a student based on race, sexual orientation, religion, etc? And what happens to the voucher money when a student is expelled? Is it refunded to the parent? The govt.? Or does the school just keep it?

Fifth, abuse. We start giving vouchers to private schools, then what? Homeschooling too? How do we know how the private schools would use the money? Where is the accountability?

Sixth, is it in the best interest of this country? Education is a very important topic and lately, the only "answers" that our govt. can come up with when addressing the issue is somewhat shallow. Vouchers, seperate the boys and girls, school uniforms, blah blah blah. Heaven forbid we should sit, shut-up, and listen hard to what the educators across this country have to say. Heaven forbid we look beyond our borders and see what other countries are doing...I doubt they're taking money out of the schools.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. In addition, even within the charter school movement

there are charter schools that have had their charters removed because they were doing a WORSE job than the public schools. This has happened in both Portland and Minneapolis.

If this can happen in schools that are nominally under the supervision of the public schools, how much more can it happen when there are no requirements?

I can see the same slimes who run "rent to own" shops and "payday loan" outfits getting into the private school business in the inner city. Take the money from the public coffers, set up some card tables and chairs, and have the kids do workbooks all day--or put the high school students to work as unpaid workers under the guise of "vocational training."

[IrateCitizen]

62. Here's why

Why the Right Hates Public Education
by Barbara Miner


In an article about education, it's appropriate to start with a pop quiz. Today's question: Republican strategists want to privatize education because:

a) Education is a multibillion dollar market, and the private sector is eager to get its hands on those dollars.
b) Conservatives are devoted to the free market and believe that private is inherently superior to public.
c) Shrinking public education furthers the Republican Party goal of drastically reducing the public sector.
d) Privatization undermines teacher unions, a key base of support for the Democratic Party.
e) Privatization rhetoric can be used to woo African American and Latino voters to the Republican Party.
f) All of the above.

OK, I admit it, the answer's obvious: all of the above. But in the debates over education policy, the Republican political agenda (see d and e) is often invisible.

READ THE REST OF THIS ILLUMINATING ARTICLE HERE

[Peregrine]

66. vouchers are built on the falsehood that private is better

There is absolutely no proof that private schools, especially religious schools, are better than public schools. For every poor performing public school, there is also a piss-poor private school. Private schools are exempt from the performance testing required by the "no child left behind" act and state requirements.

Maryland, prior to NCLB, had its own performance tests and private school participation was voluntary -- the state would pay to administer it. No private school ever participated.

When I lived in MD, there was a religious school a few hundred feet from my house. It was for K - 12 grades and consisted of 42 students in 3 classrooms and 4 teachers none of whom were certified nor held a bachelors degree in anything. This is the typical religious school. Private religious schools is a cottage industry. They can pop-up anywhere and in MD all that is required is for them to register with the state and teach the state curriculum, but the state is not permited to inspect them to ensure they are meeting state standards. States cannot dictate any type of standard for the curriculum nor for teachers. Teachers do not need degrees, much less certification.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. Even on the college level

there are bad private colleges that will literally take any warm body backed by a bank account or that are indoctrimation institutes for fundamentalists, and good state colleges (Berkeley, Michigan) that have cachet among prospective students throughout the world.

[Gulf Coast J]

98. There are plenty of public schools that do the same

I remember when University of Houston and Texas Southern (no offense to anyone who went to those schools) came by my high school basically begging people to go.

I don't think schools like Bob Jones should get a dime of federal money, but there are plenty of good private schools out there.

[Babette]

130. I attended a private school for middle school...

None of the teachers were certified. Only a small handful had been to college. They didn't teach us algebra because they didn't understand it themselves. They were basically missionaries. They were horribly underpaid, living four to a one bedroom apartment.

The books were all Biblically based. I remember the science text explaining how the ancient Hebrews understood that stars put off radio waves because one of the Psalms states that the "stars sing God's praises." History was all Biblical and tales of modern missionaries smuggling Bibles into evil heathen countries. We had memorization of entire chapters of the Bible. One hour of Bible class every morning, two hour sermons every Wednesday. Laying on of hands for sick kids.

This isn't some lone school- the Beka curriculum is popular among private Christian schools. Most private schools in small towns will end up being like this one. Tuition was about $300/month. That is the only kind of school that a voucher will cover. Even then, no band, no bus, no lunch program, no PE, no extra-curricular anything except setting up for revivals.

I have experienced it first hand. I attended a public school and was so far behind my classmates it wasn't funny. I do NOT want my tax dollars going to a school like that one.

[thedude]

67. special ed students are often forgotten in comparisons

Proponents of school vouchers often point to the fact that since public schools spend $7000 per student (a number that sounds a bit high to me), and parochial schools spend $3-4000 per student as proof that private schools are more efficient and cost effective than public schools.

However, such a comparison is erroneous. The cost per student in public schools is skewed upwards because of students with special needs. For example, a student with severe autism may require a half of a special ed teacher and a teacher's aide just for themselves, thus the cost to educate this one student is several times the cost of a normal student. Good students cost only a fraction of special needs students.

Private schools can pick and choose who they educate (typically not special ed students), and by refusing to educate special ed students, their per student costs go way down. Furthermore, public school districts are usually required (by law) to provide special services to parochial schools (and pick up the costs), making such per student cost comparisons even more more disingenous.

With vouchers, the total cost to a public school district really won't go down as much as people think, and the money diverted from the school district will be really painful.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, but my wife is a school psychologist so this topic really hits close to home.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. At $7000 per student, public schools are a bargain

The church-related schools that charge only $3000-4000 are subsidized by their religious groups, and they get by with paying teachers poorly because many do it as a sort of religious act of devotion. This was even more true when the Catholic schools relied entirely on nuns and monks, both of whom worked for room and board.

Take a look at a good private school that is not religiously-connected (and many that are), the kind that rich people send their kids to, and you'll find that it's $10,000 a year MINIMUM.

This $10,000 pays for state-of-the-art equipment, teachers who are subject specialists, a demanding curriculum, and most important, small classes full of other kids whose parents are pushing them to achieve.

When rich Republicans who are paying $10,000+ per year to send their child to a private school with only ten kids per class turn around and state that money isn't the answer and that there are no studies proving that small classes are better, you sort of have to wonder why they aren't struck dead on the spot for blatant hypocrisy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. By the way, people, you know all those Japanese and European schools

that are out-performing ours?

They're all public schools, and mostly public schools controlled by a government ministry that aims to give all children equal access.

[PVnRT]

78. School vouchers are a step towards privatizing education

They can argue all they want about "helping the poor," or "not just throwing money at the problem" all they like, but, in the end, this is a move to privatize education. The right-wing has dreamed for years of eliminating the Department of Education, and this is a step twoards doing that.

Private schools are not required to take in anyone who wants to come there, voucher or not. In fact, a voucher will not be enough to pay for the tuition at most private schools - what then? They argue that we're just letting the poor continue to get bad education, but if they can't use that voucher, how has life improved? Now their school, deemed "failing," is closed down and they have nowhere to go.

"Pandering to the teachers union." Straight out of the Republican mantra. Given how badly teachers are paid in this country, especially in those poor districts that get no money, they could use some "pandering," if that's what people want to call it.

[1songbird]

82. School vouchers take public funds and put them in private hands.

Another thing that is so inherently incorrect is the fact that kids in public schools are tested to death and the teachers are held responsible or accoutable if students don't do well. Kids in parochial private schools where a majority of vouchers go don't have to be tested. There is no accountability. How do we know that these schools are doing any better. In Clevland, Oh the experimental voucher system failed. The focus should be on improving public schools for all kids not just the lucky few who will qualify for vouchers.

[CO Liberal]

99. Vouchers Are Designed to Punish the Teachers' Unions...

...for traditionally supporting Democratic candidates.

THAT'S what you're missing.

[ComerPerro]

105. I am not about to tell you why you should be against them

But I will tell you why I am against them.

One: The program (like most Bush programs not involving war or corporate handouts) is terribly underfunded.

Two: Proponents say that letting certain kids leave troubled public schools with problems such as overcrowding and letting them to to a private school will help the children. This is true, bur it doesn't address the troubles that the public school system is having.

Three: It perpetuates the myth that private schools are the only way that we can have a good education system. Its a step toward making public schools obsolete. Now thats fine if your family has money, but if you don't make enough to send your children to a $5,000 a year private school then you are just screwed.

Four: Private schools can teach whatever they want. They want to teach you that Jesus is the son of God and that the world was created in six days, then they can and no one will stop them. They want you to swear a loyalty oath to the president, then nothing stops them...

[ulysses]

107. what does private elementary school cost?

The Cato Institute says less than $2,500/year at the median.

I work at a private, Christian elementary school in metro Atlanta, a city teeming with private elementary schools. The tuition at my school, which the owner consciously keeps lower than *all other private schools in the are*, is $5,000 per year.

[blondeatlast]

113. Why should you be FOR them?

1. They violate the Constitutional separation of church and state.
2. Public money funds private enterprise through vouchers.
3. Private and religious schools have the ability to discriniminate on MANY levels; I don't want my taxes paying for it.

Edit: What exactly is wrong with teacher's unions? Even though I no longer teach, I'm a member of the NEA.

[GinaMaria]

128. Property values

As a homeowner without kids in the public school system, I pay property taxes that fund my neighborhood schools. I've always considered it my civic duty. Public education was available for me when I was young. I realized recently that funding the schools by paying property taxes benefited me.

The schools in my area used the property tax money wisely and improved the schools so much that not only are their scores some of the highest in the city, but people are struggling to move into my neighborhood. The result of funding these schools is that my property value has increased 4xs what I originally paid. Public schools are tied to homeowners property values. Crappy schools in your neighborhood mean lower property values.

Vouchers take your property tax money and fund private schools, often no where near your home. They take away from your property values. They will leave your local public schools without funding and they will deteriorate as will your property values.

The GOP is looking to put your tax dollars into the hands of private institutions without concern for homeowners/taxpayers. The religeous schools, especially Catholic schools, can't wait to get their hands on your tax money. There's no benefit to you. The benefit is to private institutions. We have no civic obligation to fund private institutions.

[CBHagman]

143. Vouchers sound nice on paper but don't address the real issues.

Here are some of the issues:

*Due to funding schools primarily by property taxes, funding for schools is uneven and determined primarily by property values. Hence, kids in affluent areas have better funded schools.

*Vouchers do not address the structural or funding problems per se, but expend PUBLIC resources in a private system -- a private system, I might add, that can screen students and reject applicants.

*Generally, voucher programs do not cover the entire needy population in an area. Only a portion of eligible students will receive vouchers. What's being done for the remaining population?

*Vouchers don't necessarily cover the entire cost of tuition at private schools.

*There's no guarantee private schools will have openings for voucher students.

Remember that many school districts have buildings that are unsafe or in poor repair. Many lack up-to-date textbooks, and many have classes so large that students fail to get adequate attention and guidance. I would prefer to spend my tax dollars addressing those particular problems, rather than siphoning funds off for private and parochial schools.

By the way, I am a Roman Catholic, and I am opposed, on principle, to funding parochial schools by public money. The church already receives federal funding for some of its social programs anyway. I don't want a parochial school system funded by state, local, and federal dollars.

[donco6]

145. A little clarification

"*Due to funding schools primarily by property taxes, funding for schools is uneven and determined primarily by property values. Hence, kids in affluent areas have better funded schools."

Not all states fund schools primarily through property tax - though many do. But even those that DON'T face equity issues. For example, here in Colorado, property taxes fund about 40% of the total cost of K-12 education. But inequities exist because the state funding formula allows districts to hold "override" elections, which allow local taxpayers to voluntarily increase their taxes for the school district. Districts in wealthy, supportive areas can actually receive up to 20% more per pupil than areas that will not approve these overrides.

And it's not always the voters' fault, either. Sometimes, it's just not economically feasible. For example, a district like Conejos county, with a very low property wealth, would have to pass an enormous mill levy in order to raise enough money to actually do anything. Cherry Creek and Aspen, on the other hand, only have to pass tiny overrides to raise millions for programs.

In addition, districts with growing populations can often pass bond elections for new schools to accommmodate the overcrowding. They usually tack on money for renovating existing buildings. Districts that are not growing must make do with operating money to keep their buildings repaired.

Things are always more complicated than they seem, but the overall idea is correct: The Rich Get Richer.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

146. Pandering to the teacher's unions is better than pandering to corporations

Hey - the Republicans party is all for spending tax money to enrich corporations.

[Muddleoftheroad]

149. Why aren't they equally bad?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

157. one is democratic, the other is anti-democratic

I realize that there are plenty of people who call themselves "Democrats" who hate democracy and democratic principles. Unions are democratic institutions, based on the concept of one-person, one vote. You know, that subversive, American ideal of equality. Corporations are plutocratic institutions based on rich people having a greater say than everyone else. That's why.

Why would you think they are "equally bad"?

[Muddleoftheroad]

164. Democratic institutions

Can be corrupt and mismanaged as well. Lord knows, there's NO history of union corruption in the U.S.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

168. Unions are some of the LEAST corrupt institutions in America

look it up - there is much more corruption in corporations and even churches than there are in unions. Of course, if you believe Republican propaganda, all unions are corrupt and violent - but that's Hollywood not real life.

In any case, you didn't respond to the point about democracy at all, just tried to change the subject with unfounded attacks on "union corruption".

[stopthegop]

150. you shouldn't be against school vouchers

some people are against them because:

they reduce the power of the public school monopoly

they allow parents to have greater control and decision making power over what their kids are taught

they reduce the power of the public school monopoly

they can go to religious schools

they reduce the power of the public school monopoly

they allow too much flexibility for families

they reduce the power of the public school monopoly

[Pithlet]

154. Yeah...

That's exactly why we're against them :eyes:

Seriously, I'm all for flexibility for families. That is exactly why I'm against them.

[stopthegop]

156. if you're for flexibility...

why do you care (assuming you do) about what's taught at a private school..or even how well...let the parents worry about it...

[Pithlet]

159. I don't care

as long as my tax dollars aren't funding it. And as long as they aren't diverting funds from public schools, I don't care. If someone wants to send their kid to some school that only teaches a certain viewpoint, well, then, that's there business. Public schools are there for all, regardless of income, or religious belief. If those schools aren't there, or are barely there because they were underfunded even further, and the only choice is private schools for those who can afford them, then what kind of choice is that?

[stopthegop]

163. what kind of choice is it if your $ goes to the public schools

and you'd rather send your kid elsewhere?

[Pithlet]

174. You still benefit from public schools

even if you don't send your own kids there. Without public schools, not everyone can get a basic education. Without an educated society, all kinds of problems arise. When we live in a society that doesn't educate all it's children, we end up with an illiterate population. We end up with child labor (what else do you do with kids in such a society that doesn't care enough about them to educate them?)

You and your privately educated kids (general you, not specific) will benefit when the less fortunate are also educated and can provide services to you, like build your roads, protect you, teach you, nurse you in hospitals, protect your country in the armed forces, etc.

[stopthegop]

175. true...but why shouldn't

a part of my tax money be available to me to educate my kids as I choose?

[Pithlet]

177. It is. That's what public school is for.

If it isn't what you want for your kids, why should we have to pay? You want it and can afford it, then send your kids elsewhere. But don't expect me to pay for it, when there is (or should be) a perfectly good public school. If there isn't one, then my tax dollars should go towards improving THAT, not lining the pockets of private schools that can pick and choose who they want to accept, and charge tuition as it is.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

160. public schools don't have a monopoly

what are you talking about? You are free to send your children to whatever school you want? Saying that the public schools have a monopoly is Republican disinfo.

[stopthegop]

165. I'm free to send my kids to whatever school I want..

but have to keep paying to send them to public school...is that it?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

171. can I get vouchers for a different military?

can I get vouchers for private roads? It's called "promoting the general welfare".

[stopthegop]

172. ok...but don't pretend it's not a monopoly...n/t

.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

176. There are MILLIONS of private schools

so, again, what are you talking about? This is a public service - NOT a market. There is NO monopoly of schools in the US. Sorry, you're simply wrong.

[Muddleoftheroad]

166. Playing Monopoly

If you are too poor to go to another school, it IS a monopoly.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

161. My tax money is going to pay for some child's education

at a religious school.

That's why I'm against school vouchers.

[Carl Spackler]

169. Agnosticism is a religious viewpoint

A lot of the objections to vouchers run along the lines that they would promote a particular religious viewpoint. Actually I think they would make education more neuteral. By its very nature the educational process from K-12 is loaded with assumptions about religion - everything from the study of origins to training in ethics and respect for others. In our public school systems these assumptions are basically agnostic, teaching that the relationship of God (or the spiritual realm in general) is unknowable and unteachable. That's a great viewpoint (and one that I hold), but profoundly at odds with lots of folks.

For example, consider the teaching of History. There's just no way to teach history without making value judgements that promote a particular religious/spiritual viewpoint. Public schools tend to teach that the greatest sociological achievements of modern history are those which promote individual rights, but there are millions of Bhuddist, Shinto, Hindu, and other groups that would say that such a focus on individualism is selfish and wrong.

Vouchers would have the effect of allowing parents to choose an educational approach that best matches their beliefs and values, rather than making all poor parents send their kids to agnostic public schools. Vouchers would promote religious diversity and plurality, and I think they should be a Democratic issue.

While voucher plans don't provide an instant cure to the unfairness of educational opportunity, I don't see why they would be worse than the situation now. And I do believe that if you put vouchers into the hands of tens of millions of families you would have a healthy competition from all sectors to provide quality educational services at lower prices than today.

[Pithlet]

178. You'd have a point if

agnosticism is what is taught in public schools. But it isn't. Public schools don't teach any religion, they are secular (or are supposed to be). That is not the same as agnosticism, because that is addressing the issue of whether or not God exists. Secularism does not, it just doesn't address it at all. "No religion" isn't a religion in itself.

Your last paragraph would be great if it weren't for the fact that placing vouchers in the hands of tens of millions of families would require so much money that you might as well just put that in the public schools, and make THEM better. Why make the private ones richer, and improve some kids' situations when we can take that money and improve public schools for all?

[Carl Spackler]

180. Agnosticism is assumed

and colors the teaching of virtually every other topic. My mother (very, very Catholic) sees the hand of God in every detail of history. She taught for years in both Catholic and public schools and it drove her nuts that she had to teach a version of history in PS that ignored the hand of God, which she saw as the very point of studying history.

[ulysses]

181. the "hand of God"...

That's your mother's issue, and there are plenty of religious schools for those who want to educate their kids, or teach others' kids, that the hand of God controls every detail of history. That kind of history lesson does NOT belong in a public school, and *not* teaching that is *not* a religious viewpoint.

[ulysses]

179. baloney

Yes, Virginia, DU has changed a lot. Agnosticism is a religious viewpoint? I suppose it is, in the sense that it has to do with religion - on the other hand, how many history teachers do you suppose there are out there who temper discussions of, say, MLK with reminders that mortal beings have no direct knowledge of the divine? :silly:

There's just no way to teach history without making value judgements that promote a particular religious/spiritual viewpoint.

That's a complete load of crap. Teachers teach history every day without making religious value judgments.

[Carl Spackler]

183. Public Schools teach that the spiritual/divine is insignificant

to understanding history, sociology, etc. which is most certainly a promotion of a particular religious viewpoint. I do have some credibility on this - majored in Philosophy much to the chagrin of Mom.

[ulysses]

184. no, they don't.

Public schools take no position on the topic, as they should. To take no position is *not* to take a particularly religious viewpoint in the least. Religious instruction belongs in the home, not in compulsory public education.

And I have a double major in philosophy and math, if it matters, which it doesn't.

[donco6]

185. Perhaps you might get that indirectly . . .

. . . but not directly. At least, not in our schools.

[Moderator]

196. Locking

The original question seems to have been covered rather thoroughly.

Thank you
DU Moderator