NationStates Jolt Archive

Why are some people against School Vouchers? I mean I think it's a great system. Here is how the system works. Lets say you have a kid in public school, however the public school that they're in (like most in this country) sucks. So you want to send him to a better school, a private one, but you don't have the money. Even if you do get the money, you still have to pay for the public school system through taxes. What Vouchers do is they give you a certain amount of money and you use that money towards your child's education. Not only does this system gives initatives for parents to get involved in their child's education, and lift some of the fianical burden off of the parents, it also creates competition between the schools. Public schools will have to start performing better, or simply cease to exist since they can't compete. Teachers will have to compete too, thus creating better teachers with better training. For those who aren't better, or don't get better trainings, they don't get jobs. So, what's wrong with having school vouchers? What's wrong with competition? I mean without competition, and people always trying to do better than the other guy, we wouldn't have all the stuff that we have now. So what do yall think?

That ignores this little thing I like to refer to as reality. It will create no competition between anyone. Schools are not businesses. If students leave the schools, they stop making money, if they stop making money, they are unable to afford any more improvements or pay for better teachers. They can't fire old, shitty teachers because they are tenured. Gee, what a great system! All the schools shut down but the private schools which parents like which states have no real control over and public schools in really rich neighborhoods that most kids can't go to because they are too far away and/or not in the right district and all schools left open get overcrowded and the students lose any benefit gained.

public money => fucking religions and their so-called 'schools'

What the hell's a voucher? Is that like a coupon?

vouchers don't work for several reasons.

Primary reason for their failure is because education does not have instant results. the soonest you will have results for an incoming freshman into high school is four years. Even then, they are not accurate results, as their performance in college will be more telling than test scores. So figure a minimum of five years. In order for proper competition to occur, you have to have visible results in a short time frame.

Vouchers also do not pay for private school. They pay what would have gone to public schools, which is a very small ammount. Poor families still will not be able to afford private schools.

Every citizen is promised a free and adequate education in the least restrictive of environments (IDEA laws). If a public school goes under in a small town, say...upstate New York, is it fair that those children will have to travel over an hour or more to and from school?

Competition is also only plausable in urban environments. Small and moderately sized towns are unable to populate multiple schools. As such, it would be impossible for a new school to open and become profitable in any reasonable amount of time. This ties back to my first point.

It is misleading to say private schools are better than public schools. They are two different systems. Public schools must serve everyone. Private schools can pick and choose who they take. Additionally, those who are good enough to get in but slack off ultimatly get expelled.

There is also the fact that families of private school students are more involved in their childrens educations. Parental involvement and value of education are both two of the best indicators for student success.

Additionally, if public money is going to private schools, the public deserves a say in what happens at that school. Same say we have at public schools.

Schools mirror society, not the other way around. You cannot fix schools untill you fix society. Get society to care about their education and their future, and you will see schools improve.

ETA: Also, there IS competiton between schools already. Moving to a better school district is one of the top reasons cited for families moving to a new town.

There are several reasons why vouchers might not be a good idea. One, many private schools are religious making vouchers subsidizing religious indoctrination. Two, private schools have an incentive to exclude kids with special needs because these kids cost more. Therefore kids with special needs will be screwed. Three, competition can exist in public schools by allowing parents to choose what public school their child goes to. Money follows students.

That ignores this little thing I like to refer to as reality. It will create no competition between anyone. Schools are not businesses. If students leave the schools, they stop making money, if they stop making money, they are unable to afford any more improvements or pay for better teachers. They can't fire old, shitty teachers because they are tenured. Gee, what a great system! All the schools shut down but the private schools which parents like which states have no real control over and public schools in really rich neighborhoods that most kids can't go to because they are too far away and/or not in the right district and all schools left open get overcrowded and the students lose any benefit gained.

Well maybe they should stop making money. Charlotte/Meck Schools have been getting raises after raises, bond package after bond package. It's budget is so big, you'd think they got the budget from the Carolina Panthers and Charlotte/Meck Schools mixed up. Trust me, throwing money at these public school doesn't work. Since it doesn't work we must try alternatives. Even though the teachers are tentured, a school system that has money problems due to it's own incompetents will have to lay off teachers, either that or sink. Also, more schools will actually pop up if there's money to be made. Either private schools pick up where public schools have been slacking, or public schools pick up their own slacks. Also, any family will have money to send their kids to a good school on the School Vouchers program. The government gives them money to do so. It's money that the taxpayers (IE Parents) use to pay for a crappy Public School system.

Well maybe they should stop making money. Charlotte/Meck Schools have been getting raises after raises, bond package after bond package. It's budget is so big, you'd think they got the budget from the Carolina Panthers and Charlotte/Meck Schools mixed up. Trust me, throwing money at these public school doesn't work. Since it doesn't work we must try alternatives. Even though the teachers are tentured, a school system that has money problems due to it's own incompetents will have to lay off teachers, either that or sink. Also, more schools will actually pop up if there's money to be made. Either private schools pick up where public schools have been slacking, or public schools pick up their own slacks. Also, any family will have money to send their kids to a good school on the School Vouchers program. The government gives them money to do so. It's money that the taxpayers (IE Parents) use to pay for a crappy Public School system.

Reason two why vouchers won't work: supporters have no idea wtf they are talking about.

What the hell's a voucher? Is that like a coupon?

it's more like those tickets you can redeem for rides at a carnival

The government gives them money to do so. It's money that the taxpayers (IE Parents) use to pay for a crappy Public School system.

Taxpayers don't equal parents. Taxpayers can be parents but not all taxpayers are parents.

vouchers don't work for several reasons.

Primary reason for their failure is because education does not have instant results. the soonest you will have results for an incoming freshman into high school is four years. Even then, they are not accurate results, as their performance in college will be more telling than test scores. So figure a minimum of five years. In order for proper competition to occur, you have to have visible results in a short time frame.

Vouchers also do not pay for private school. They pay what would have gone to public schools, which is a very small ammount. Poor families still will not be able to afford private schools.

Every citizen is promised a free and adequate education in the least restrictive of environments (IDEA laws). If a public school goes under in a small town, say...upstate New York, is it fair that those children will have to travel over an hour or more to and from school?

Competition is also only plausable in urban environments. Small and moderately sized towns are unable to populate multiple schools. As such, it would be impossible for a new school to open and become profitable in any reasonable amount of time. This ties back to my first point.

It is misleading to say private schools are better than public schools. They are two different systems. Public schools must serve everyone. Private schools can pick and choose who they take. Additionally, those who are good enough to get in but slack off ultimatly get expelled.

There is also the fact that families of private school students are more involved in their childrens educations. Parental involvement and value of education are both two of the best indicators for student success.

Additionally, if public money is going to private schools, the public deserves a say in what happens at that school. Same say we have at public schools.

Schools mirror society, not the other way around. You cannot fix schools untill you fix society. Get society to care about their education and their future, and you will see schools improve.

ETA: Also, there IS competiton between schools already. Moving to a better school district is one of the top reasons cited for families moving to a new town.
*Opens mouth... shuts it again* Damn it Sarkhaan, we've been in too many of these threads together, you've memorized all of my points. :D

after a very carefully devised system of national tests. On the one hand
you don't want to open midrases (or church schools for that matter) where
people don't learn any real history or math. On the other hand, any monopoly does lead to decreased quality of product over time, so public school system does get worse and worse.
So a good system would be a national testing system where the teachers are only told what material the kids can know. The format of the test must be open so that teachers don't end up teaching test-taking instead of the actual material. And the amount of money that can be spent on a particular system must be directly proprtional to the average test scores in those schools. If you want to send your kids to a religeous school that doesn't teach math or history, your vouchers would be worth only 25% of what they would be worth in a school that is producing kids with supreme academic abilities. This would also force kids to fiercely compete for good grades. Because lower grades would mean acceptance to worse schools, which of course would lead to higher tuition bills. Of course, to make sure you don't have schools that just teach nothing and collect the lowest voucher values possible, you have the minimal requirements to be eligible to receive vouchers.
Or... you go to public school and the vouchers pay for your full tuition everytime... possibly with a 25% subsidy for the school to make sure their quality stays up to par.

*Opens mouth... shuts it again* Damn it Sarkhaan, we've been in too many of these threads together, you've memorized all of my points. :D

haha...I almost closed the post off with "Hope this covers it all, NER"

I did miss one or two, but we can save those for later.

after a very carefully devised system of national tests. On the one hand
you don't want to open midrases (or church schools for that matter) where
people don't learn any real history or math. On the other hand, any monopoly does lead to decreased quality of product over time, so public school system does get worse and worse.
So a good system would be a national testing system where the teachers are only told what material the kids can know. The format of the test must be open so that teachers don't end up teaching test-taking instead of the actual material. And the amount of money that can be spent on a particular system must be directly proprtional to the average test scores in those schools. If you want to send your kids to a religeous school that doesn't teach math or history, your vouchers would be worth only 25% of what they would be worth in a school that is producing kids with supreme academic abilities. This would also force kids to fiercely compete for good grades. Because lower grades would mean acceptance to worse schools, which of course would lead to higher tuition bills. Of course, to make sure you don't have schools that just teach nothing and collect the lowest voucher values possible, you have the minimal requirements to be eligible to receive vouchers.
Or... you go to public school and the vouchers pay for your full tuition everytime... possibly with a 25% subsidy for the school to make sure their quality stays up to par.

Low socioeconomically grouped children underperform their average and high SES counterparts. In other words, poor children don't do as well in school as their richer classmates. This means that schools in lower income areas will generally do poorly on testing, particularly high stakes testing that is tied to funding. This, under your plan, would lead to lower funding for schools that need it most. And that would basically be the problem with NCLB.

A lot of posters here are demonizing religious schools.

I've no doubt there are some religious schools that fail to teach basic things like science. That doesnt mean all religious schools are bad. It doesnt mean all private schools are bad. In some (urban, i know, perhaps other) areas, religious schools offer the best education for all subjects, including math, science, history, and literature. So the school also teaches about the a certain faith. Parents should have the option of sending their kids to that school if they are comfortable with it. It is unfair to deprive a student of a good education because his or her parents cannot afford it. In such an instance, I think it'd be fabulous for the parent to have a voucher to help pay for the tuition.

A lot of posters here are demonizing religious schools.

I've no doubt there are some religious schools that fail to teach basic things like science. That doesnt mean all religious schools are bad. It doesnt mean all private schools are bad. In some (urban, i know, perhaps other) areas, religious schools offer the best education for all subjects, including math, science, history, and literature. So the school also teaches about the a certain faith. Parents should have the option of sending their kids to that school if they are comfortable with it. It is unfair to deprive a student of a good education because his or her parents cannot afford it. In such an instance, I think it'd be fabulous for the parent to have a voucher to help pay for the tuition.

a) vouchers do not cover tuition. They are a check for a set value. If tuition is still more than that value, the familiy must still pay
b)private schools can, at any time, refuse to accept a child for nearly any reason, or no reason at all. Just because you can afford to pay for a school does not, by any means, mean they want you there.

simply: poor families will not be able to afford the difference needed to send their kids to private schools so they wont get to use the vouchers anyway, but all the kids who can go will decrease the amount of money going to public schools making those public schools even crappier than they already are, and to top it off the poor families that dont get to send their kids to private schools will be paying the taxes that send the kids who are better off than them to these private schools anyway.

A lot of posters here are demonizing religious schools.

as well they should

The main objection I have to vouchers is the use of public funds on private institutions. This amounts to nothing more than yet another layer of welfare and business subsidization. Plus, where the king's money goes, so goes the king's regulations, requirements, and bureaucracy.

So, if the ultimate goal is expansion of the welfare state, increasing wasteful subsidization and associated lobbying and general cronyism, and crapification of the private educational system to the same extent as the public system, then vouchers are the way to go.

And besides, the issue has less to do with funding and more to do with the compulsory nature of public k-12 education. A compulsory system requires schools to try to include those who neither want nor deserve attention, thereby wasting resources on a massive scale. A voluntary system means that troublemakers and underachievers can be tossed to the curb where they belong, allowing resources to be shifted from babysitting and behavioral correction, to, say, actually educating people.

This solution seems so incredibly simple because it actually is. This is why the politicians and bureaucrats couldn't understand it if it was pasted on the side of a brick and applied to the centers of their faces with great force. If anything, the bureaucrats and politicians should all be hung, and the educational system returned to parents, teachers, and the community where it belongs.

(edit: I am not necessarily against public education, public funding, or public assistance; there is a well established corelation between higher education levels and lower levels of crime and other social ills; public education is reasonably a matter of law and order, which is in turn a legitimate function of government. That said, I would seek ways to minimize public funding as much as possible, in order to minimize waste as well as the necessary use of force (taxation) in the collection of said funding. State assistance where necessary, not as a rule.)

as well they should
Why?

And besides, the issue has less to do with funding and more to do with the compulsory nature of public k-12 education. A compulsory system requires schools to try to include those who neither want or deserve attention, wasting resources on trouble instead of actually educating. A voluntary system means that troublemakers and underachievers can be tossed to the curb where they belong, allowing resources to be shifted from babysitting and behavioral correction, to, say, actually educating people.
The main purpose of a mandated education goes back to my first point about why vouchers don't work...there are no immediate results or benefits. It is, however, beneficial to society for all members to be educated, as well as a delayed benefit to the individual. Ergo, mandatory educational systems.

a) vouchers do not cover tuition. They are a check for a set value. If tuition is still more than that value, the familiy must still pay
b)private schools can, at any time, refuse to accept a child for nearly any reason, or no reason at all. Just because you can afford to pay for a school does not, by any means, mean they want you there.
Certainly not all, but at least some religious schools manage to educate students at a cost that is less per capita than the public school system, while still maintaining a higher quality of education. And even if there was still a difference remaining between the cost of tuition and the value of the voucher, a voucher would still make it more feasible for the student to attend the private or religious school.

And if the school doesnt accept the student, it doesnt get the voucher money for that student.....so what's wrong with that? Also, I know of very few students who were expelled from private schools for no reason. All of the student that I know of who were asked to leave religious schools were expelled because they were interrupting the learning process by doing things like fighting or bringing weapons to school. The only other reason I know of that student were not allowed to return was because of inability to pay the tuition bill.

It is, however, beneficial to society for all members to be educated, as well as a delayed benefit to the individual. Ergo, mandatory educational systems.

The benefit to the individual only exists to the extent that the individual is willing to work to achieve them. Those who are not, but are required to attend anyway, will serve only to distract resources and attention away from those who are. The net result is to disadvantage those individuals who want to learn and work to achieve that benefit, while resources spent on those who do not so want go to waste. I fail to see how wasting society's resources and disadvantaging those who would otherwise excell qualifies as "beneficial."

(edit: My own experience is that the most attention and resources are paid to the extremes; those students who are behavioral problems and troublemakers, and exceptionally gifted students, both constituting a minority. The rest of us were but cattle in a pen.)

Certainly not all, but at least some religious schools manage to educate students at a cost that is less per capita than the public school system, while still maintaining a higher quality of education. And even if there was still a difference remaining between the cost of tuition and the value of the voucher, a voucher would still make it more feasible for the student to attend the private or religious school.Firstly, the cost of educating a child does not mean that is anywhere near what a school will charge per student. It is actually not beneficial to be the cheapest in a subjective category like "what is the perfect school". Being cheap translates to the perception of low quality. Without rapid feedback needed for competition, this can be fatal.
Additionally, there would still be a significant portion of students who would, even with a voucher, not be able to afford a private school.

And if the school doesnt accept the student, it doesnt get the voucher money for that student.....so what's wrong with that? Also, I know of very few students who were expelled from private schools for no reason. All of the student that I know of who were asked to leave religious schools were expelled because they were interrupting the learning process by doing things like fighting or bringing weapons to school. The only other reason I know of that student were not allowed to return was because of inability to pay the tuition bill.they can kick a student out for not making the grades they demand. So lets look at a little picture.
The private school only keeps students who get a C+ or better. The public school cannot deny anyone an education. There is a small population of students who cannot afford the private school even with their vouchers.
Funding is based directly off of performance. The private school, by restricting who goes to their school, outperforms the public school. Funding is further decreased to the public school. The private school continues to improve its scores, while the public school continues to fall. And there are still those children in the public school who may be the most intelligent, but could not afford a decent education.
Now, as the private school gets more students, one of its major benefits is lost: small class size.
The wealthy parents move their children on to new private institutions, using the money they would have spent on education anyway, plus the voucher.

You end up with a hierarchy. The rich attend supreme schools, the middle class decent schools, and the exceptionally poor get the remnants, or worse, nothing.


Vouchers attempt to blend two systems that cannot work together due to the fact that while similar, they are ultimatly vastly different systems.

The benefit to the individual only exists to the extent that the individual is willing to work to achieve them. Those who are not, but are required to attend anyway, will serve only to distract resources and attention away from those who are. The net result is to disadvantage those individuals who want to learn and work to achieve that benefit, while resources spent on those who do not so want go to waste. I fail to see how wasting society's resources and disadvantaging those who would otherwise excell qualifies as "beneficial."

(edit: My own experience is that the most attention and resources are paid to the extremes; those students who are behavioral problems and troublemakers, and exceptionally gifted students, both constituting a minority. The rest of us were but cattle in a pen.)
The benefit to the individual from an education comes following their graduation from that level. Completion of an additional level increases employment opportunities, as well as pay. Even in the same position, the person with the higher degree will often make more. Education benefits the individual highly.

Additionally, how do you plan to fund this system? Not everyone uses it, so it is hardly public. Do you imply a full privitization of the school system? That raises the issue of SES. Do you imply that it should remain funded by the entire society? That raises the issue of taxation for a service that benefits an extreme minority.

Well maybe they should stop making money. Charlotte/Meck Schools have been getting raises after raises, bond package after bond package. It's budget is so big, you'd think they got the budget from the Carolina Panthers and Charlotte/Meck Schools mixed up. Trust me, throwing money at these public school doesn't work. Since it doesn't work we must try alternatives. Even though the teachers are tentured, a school system that has money problems due to it's own incompetents will have to lay off teachers, either that or sink. Also, more schools will actually pop up if there's money to be made. Either private schools pick up where public schools have been slacking, or public schools pick up their own slacks. Also, any family will have money to send their kids to a good school on the School Vouchers program. The government gives them money to do so. It's money that the taxpayers (IE Parents) use to pay for a crappy Public School system.
Not any parent would be able to afford it. In the GVRD public schools get $1575 per student. Private school is in the area of $3000 per student. The voucher will cover about half of what is nessesary. Of course, how effective would our public school system be if it had a budget of $3000(note that most private schools require the parent to do xx hours of fund raising and have registration fees, but for the sake of this arguement they get $3000) per student. Double the public schools budget and see where they go. But, since public schooling is just a commie scheme to redistribute wealth, you say they should compete. Why not have them compete on equal footing? Private schools cannot charge more than what get from the voucher. The same $1575 the public schools have to work with. Lets all hop on board because with half the budget, they are going to be just as spactacular as before.

-snip-
Change your location. It breaks the page.

Why are some people against School Vouchers? I mean I think it's a great system. Here is how the system works. Lets say you have a kid in public school, however the public school that they're in (like most in this country) sucks. So you want to send him to a better school, a private one, but you don't have the money. Even if you do get the money, you still have to pay for the public school system through taxes. What Vouchers do is they give you a certain amount of money and you use that money towards your child's education. Not only does this system gives initatives for parents to get involved in their child's education, and lift some of the fianical burden off of the parents, it also creates competition between the schools. Public schools will have to start performing better, or simply cease to exist since they can't compete. Teachers will have to compete too, thus creating better teachers with better training. For those who aren't better, or don't get better trainings, they don't get jobs. So, what's wrong with having school vouchers? What's wrong with competition? I mean without competition, and people always trying to do better than the other guy, we wouldn't have all the stuff that we have now. So what do yall think?

School Vouchers in theory, like most things are a good idea. I think creating competitions between schools is a great thing. But the money should not be given to parents who wish to send their kids to:

Any kind of religious school
Any kind of military school
Any kind of school which teaches one type of ideology/doctrine over another

Firstly, the cost of educating a child does not mean that is anywhere near what a school will charge per student. It is actually not beneficial to be the cheapest in a subjective category like "what is the perfect school". Being cheap translates to the perception of low quality. Without rapid feedback needed for competition, this can be fatal.
Additionally, there would still be a significant portion of students who would, even with a voucher, not be able to afford a private school.
What you say can be true, about the cost of educating a child vs. cost of tuition. And I think I understand what you are saying about cheapness and competition (tho i might not...its REALLY early in the morning here, and I'm sorry if i accidentally misinterpret or misconstrue your words). Sometimes being cheap does equal having low quality, and sometimes it is just an example of being more efficient with funds.

I think the private schools you and I are thinking of are very different. I am thinking mostly of the parochial grade schools in the Philadelphia area which irc cost about $1,200 per student, with a price adjustment for families with more than one student in the school. A voucher for something like $1000 would have made it a lot easier for many students to attend some of the best schools in Philadelphia. As it was, I know of parents who didn't eat to send their kid to school. I had a classmate who always smelt badly, because his family couldn't afford to pay the hot water bill so he'd try not to shower. A voucher would've greatly assisted families such as these. My sisters' grade school has something like 40% of the student population living at or below what the government establishes as the poverty line. Would paying tuition still be a burden for those families with a voucher? Yes. Of course it would. But it does not seem right to me that such families be forced to do things like not eat or not pay water bills so that their kids can get a decent education.

they can kick a student out for not making the grades they demand. So lets look at a little picture.
The private school only keeps students who get a C+ or better. The public school cannot deny anyone an education. There is a small population of students who cannot afford the private school even with their vouchers.
Funding is based directly off of performance. The private school, by restricting who goes to their school, outperforms the public school. Funding is further decreased to the public school. The private school continues to improve its scores, while the public school continues to fall. And there are still those children in the public school who may be the most intelligent, but could not afford a decent education.
Now, as the private school gets more students, one of its major benefits is lost: small class size.
The wealthy parents move their children on to new private institutions, using the money they would have spent on education anyway, plus the voucher.

You end up with a hierarchy. The rich attend supreme schools, the middle class decent schools, and the exceptionally poor get the remnants, or worse, nothing.


Vouchers attempt to blend two systems that cannot work together due to the fact that while similar, they are ultimatly vastly different systems.
I see what your saying. But that hierarchy already exists, tho perhaps not to the extent you foresee.

All through grade school my classes had about 30 students. Is this considered a small class size? (I'm not trying to be sarcastic, this is an honest question, since I know my perspective is skewed, since I see this as the norm) My response to your comment about class size depends on whether approx. 30 students per class is considered small.

What do you propose is a better solution that vouchers?

Hi! How are you? I've never really talked to you before, i dont think, but i've heard about you.....you've many fans :-)

Change your location. It breaks the page.
Oh, thats whats breaking it! Sorry. Thanks for telling me. *goes to change location*

School Vouchers in theory, like most things are a good idea. I think creating competitions between schools is a great thing. But the money should not be given to parents who wish to send their kids to:

Any kind of religious school
Any kind of military school
Any kind of school which teaches one type of ideology/doctrine over another


Why not? In some areas these schools offer the best education. If a parent feels comfortable sending the kid there, why shouldn't he or she get assistance in paying tuition?

Would it make a difference to you if the religious or military or idealogical school were acredited (sp??) by some organization, so that you knew it were teaching the fundamentals in addition to the religion etc?

The main objection I have to vouchers is the use of public funds on private institutions. This amounts to nothing more than yet another layer of welfare and business subsidization. Plus, where the king's money goes, so goes the king's regulations, requirements, and bureaucracy.

So, if the ultimate goal is expansion of the welfare state, increasing wasteful subsidization and associated lobbying and general cronyism, and crapification of the private educational system to the same extent as the public system, then vouchers are the way to go.

And besides, the issue has less to do with funding and more to do with the compulsory nature of public k-12 education. A compulsory system requires schools to try to include those who neither want nor deserve attention, thereby wasting resources on a massive scale. A voluntary system means that troublemakers and underachievers can be tossed to the curb where they belong, allowing resources to be shifted from babysitting and behavioral correction, to, say, actually educating people.

This solution seems so incredibly simple because it actually is. This is why the politicians and bureaucrats couldn't understand it if it was pasted on the side of a brick and applied to the centers of their faces with great force. If anything, the bureaucrats and politicians should all be hung, and the educational system returned to parents, teachers, and the community where it belongs.

(edit: I am not necessarily against public education, public funding, or public assistance; there is a well established corelation between higher education levels and lower levels of crime and other social ills; public education is reasonably a matter of law and order, which is in turn a legitimate function of government. That said, I would seek ways to minimize public funding as much as possible, in order to minimize waste as well as the necessary use of force (taxation) in the collection of said funding. State assistance where necessary, not as a rule.)
Ooh, use that speech in Congress, school vouchers will never pass. You used the main keyword several times that gets things done in the government: welfare. Oh no, there is a welfare state, do this, don't do that, do it quickly before we turn into Soviet Russia and zombie Reagan comes and destroys the country.

Why are some people against School Vouchers? I mean I think it's a great system. Here is how the system works. Lets say you have a kid in public school, however the public school that they're in (like most in this country) sucks. So you want to send him to a better school, a private one, but you don't have the money. Even if you do get the money, you still have to pay for the public school system through taxes. What Vouchers do is they give you a certain amount of money and you use that money towards your child's education. Not only does this system gives initatives for parents to get involved in their child's education, and lift some of the fianical burden off of the parents, it also creates competition between the schools. Public schools will have to start performing better, or simply cease to exist since they can't compete. Teachers will have to compete too, thus creating better teachers with better training. For those who aren't better, or don't get better trainings, they don't get jobs. So, what's wrong with having school vouchers? What's wrong with competition? I mean without competition, and people always trying to do better than the other guy, we wouldn't have all the stuff that we have now. So what do yall think?


A: Removes tax money from public schools.

2: Forces ME to fund peoples religious education via my taxes.

A lot of posters here are demonizing religious schools.

I've no doubt there are some religious schools that fail to teach basic things like science. That doesnt mean all religious schools are bad.

Irelivant. Religious schools should not be funded with tax money.

What's wrong with School Vouchers?
What's wrong with the short-attention span of people these days?
And what's wrong with using the search function in jolt?

To put it more succinctly:
http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/03/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

If you really want to know why school vouchers are a waste of time and money:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2054

Why not? In some areas these schools offer the best education. If a parent feels comfortable sending the kid there, why shouldn't he or she get assistance in paying tuition?
Why shouldn't they?
Because of a little thing called seperation of Church and State.


It's the parents choice to have their kid indoctrinated in religion, why should the taxpayer be helping them?

Why are some people against School Vouchers? I mean I think it's a great system. Here is how the system works. Lets say you have a kid in public school, however the public school that they're in (like most in this country) sucks. So you want to send him to a better school, a private one, but you don't have the money. Even if you do get the money, you still have to pay for the public school system through taxes. What Vouchers do is they give you a certain amount of money and you use that money towards your child's education. Not only does this system gives initatives for parents to get involved in their child's education, and lift some of the fianical burden off of the parents, it also creates competition between the schools. Public schools will have to start performing better, or simply cease to exist since they can't compete. Teachers will have to compete too, thus creating better teachers with better training. For those who aren't better, or don't get better trainings, they don't get jobs. So, what's wrong with having school vouchers? What's wrong with competition? I mean without competition, and people always trying to do better than the other guy, we wouldn't have all the stuff that we have now. So what do yall think?

A) Private schools don't provide a better education. They keep their averages up by kicking out kids with low averages. It's a shell game.

B) The reason some public schools suck is that they don't have funding. (Don't give me bullshit about how they have all the funding they need. Nothing functions without money. If the problem is bureaucrats taking all the money then the schools are still underfunded.) A voucher program will only serve to siphon more money away from public schools making them worse. This will cause the education of the general school-going public to suffer for the sake of one kids education.

C) What makes that one kid getting the voucher so special? If the government is paying for kids to go to private school then what makes them private?

D) If the program is going to be expanded to send any kid to private school then why should the government spend so much more on a private school education when a public school one is just as good for so much less? If the funding is going to be provided to send kids to private schools, why not just use it to make the public schools better?

C

Low socioeconomically grouped children underperform their average and high SES counterparts. In other words, poor children don't do as well in school as their richer classmates. This means that schools in lower income areas will generally do poorly on testing, particularly high stakes testing that is tied to funding. This, under your plan, would lead to lower funding for schools that need it most. And that would basically be the problem with NCLB.

Being poor is not an excuse. It's also not a merit that must somehow be rewarded. I was poor. I did well in school. End of story. Socioeconomic background is always an excuse. If you want to change cultural factors, spend money on changing culture (because culture in America is completely
created by marketing). You are fogetting that I also said that the public schools must be given extra money (I believe it was a 25% over their maximum voucher value).

A lot of posters here are demonizing religious schools.

I've no doubt there are some religious schools that fail to teach basic things like science. That doesnt mean all religious schools are bad. It doesnt mean all private schools are bad. In some (urban, i know, perhaps other) areas, religious schools offer the best education for all subjects, including math, science, history, and literature. So the school also teaches about the a certain faith. Parents should have the option of sending their kids to that school if they are comfortable with it. It is unfair to deprive a student of a good education because his or her parents cannot afford it. In such an instance, I think it'd be fabulous for the parent to have a voucher to help pay for the tuition.

It is unfair, however, (even unconstitutional) to make the tax payers to pay for promoting other people's faith. Remember many (although not all) faiths consider practicing other religions an act of sin. Can you not understand why people may not want to have a conflict between paying taxes and not living in sin?

vouchers don't work for several reasons.

Primary reason for their failure is because education does not have instant results. the soonest you will have results for an incoming freshman into high school is four years. Even then, they are not accurate results, as their performance in college will be more telling than test scores. So figure a minimum of five years. In order for proper competition to occur, you have to have visible results in a short time frame.

Vouchers also do not pay for private school. They pay what would have gone to public schools, which is a very small ammount. Poor families still will not be able to afford private schools.

Every citizen is promised a free and adequate education in the least restrictive of environments (IDEA laws). If a public school goes under in a small town, say...upstate New York, is it fair that those children will have to travel over an hour or more to and from school?

Competition is also only plausable in urban environments. Small and moderately sized towns are unable to populate multiple schools. As such, it would be impossible for a new school to open and become profitable in any reasonable amount of time. This ties back to my first point.

It is misleading to say private schools are better than public schools. They are two different systems. Public schools must serve everyone. Private schools can pick and choose who they take. Additionally, those who are good enough to get in but slack off ultimatly get expelled.

There is also the fact that families of private school students are more involved in their childrens educations. Parental involvement and value of education are both two of the best indicators for student success.

Additionally, if public money is going to private schools, the public deserves a say in what happens at that school. Same say we have at public schools.

Schools mirror society, not the other way around. You cannot fix schools untill you fix society. Get society to care about their education and their future, and you will see schools improve.

ETA: Also, there IS competiton between schools already. Moving to a better school district is one of the top reasons cited for families moving to a new town.
Well, that takes care of what I was going to say quite nicely and then some. Thanks for saving me the typing time. :p

And just to throw this in the mix too, does anyone know how charter schools stack up against private and public schools? I'm curious, and don't know much about them at all.

Why not? In some areas these schools offer the best education. If a parent feels comfortable sending the kid there, why shouldn't he or she get assistance in paying tuition?

Would it make a difference to you if the religious or military or idealogical school were acredited (sp??) by some organization, so that you knew it were teaching the fundamentals in addition to the religion etc?


Under no circumstances should a state give money for this. If you want your kids to learn religion etc send em to Sunday school.
Religion doesn't belong in education, government or business.
As for ideologies and military: well if you don't allow money for religious schools than why allow it for military etc.
I can see where you're coming from with acrediting the schools, but again religion doesn't belong in schools.

A) Private schools don't provide a better education. They keep their averages up by kicking out kids with low averages.

B
C


Bullshit. Have you gone to a private school? No I didn't think so. Private schools are better because 1) They ensure that teachers maintain a certain standard 2) Classes are smaller 3) They give kids with lower academic abilities to widen their skills not just academic skills 4) The kids from private schools are generally more confident, not in a cocky way, more socially developded.

I realise this isn't the case with all schools. Some public schools are exceptional in every area. Some private schools are rubbish and should be shut down.

Irelivant. Religious schools should not be funded with tax money.
The way I see it, the school isn't recieving funding. The parents are being given an opportunity to offer their kids a decent education where their child might be able to actually learn things like math, science, and spelling. It's not like the government is saying, here, let me give all catholic schools a new chemistry lab. Tax money should be used for educating students.

A: Removes tax money from public schools.

2: Forces ME to fund peoples religious education via my taxes.

:cool:

As well as other low income families who cannot afford to send their kids to private schools. So public schools get even crappier than they already are and the ones who can't afford to pay the difference that the vouchers dont cover end up sending their kids to a shit hole while being forced to fund the private education of the better off kids.

For those of you who says that the Public School system should get more money. Look at this. This is Charlotte/Meck. Public School system budget.

http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/discover/2006-07ProposedBudgetRequest.pdf

Go to page 17.

The 2005-2006 adopted budget grand total was. $ 943,977,703

The 2006-2007 proposed budget grand total is. $ 1,034,668,676

Still think we need to throw more money into a system that already proved itself to be incompetent?

Why shouldn't they?
Because of a little thing called seperation of Church and State.


It's the parents choice to have their kid indoctrinated in religion, why should the taxpayer be helping them?
Religious schools do more than indocrtinate children - at least some do. The educate children. The taxpayer should be helping them to get their kid into a decent school, regardless of whether the school is Hindu or Baptist or Buddhist or Catholic. Every child deserves a decent education. And in some places, public schools simply do not offer that.

A) Private schools don't provide a better education. They keep their averages up by kicking out kids with low averages. It's a shell game.

B) The reason some public schools suck is that they don't have funding. (Don't give me bullshit about how they have all the funding they need. Nothing functions without money. If the problem is bureaucrats taking all the money then the schools are still underfunded.) A voucher program will only serve to siphon more money away from public schools making them worse. This will cause the education of the general school-going public to suffer for the sake of one kids education.

C) What makes that one kid getting the voucher so special? If the government is paying for kids to go to private school then what makes them private?

D) If the program is going to be expanded to send any kid to private school then why should the government spend so much more on a private school education when a public school one is just as good for so much less? If the funding is going to be provided to send kids to private schools, why not just use it to make the public schools better?

C
I'll start with D. In many places, a public school is NOT just as good for so much less. In fact, its horrendously worse yet costs even more.

Your proposed solution, it seems, is to fix public schools. Which is awesome, I one hundred percent agree with you that public schools ought to be fixed. But how? And what happens to the students in the public school system in the meantime? If schools are underfunded, how do we better fund them?

I don't think that the government should regulate what is being taught at the private/parochial school, though perhaps requiring that a third party acredit them is not a bad idea. I also do not think that the government should directly pay teachers, handle the school's budget, take care of maintainance, or anything else involved in running the school. It would still be private. The only difference would be some students would be using a voucher to help pay for tuition.

It is unfair, however, (even unconstitutional) to make the tax payers to pay for promoting other people's faith. Remember many (although not all) faiths consider practicing other religions an act of sin. Can you not understand why people may not want to have a conflict between paying taxes and not living in sin?
Yes. I can see where the problem lies. I'm trying to think if I can work my way around it, but as of yet if I tried to articulate my thoughts I'd sound like an ignorant asshole. So, suffice to say, though i still disagree with you, I can see your point and understand where you are coming from.

Under no circumstances should a state give money for this. If you want your kids to learn religion etc send em to Sunday school.
Religion doesn't belong in education, government or business.
As for ideologies and military: well if you don't allow money for religious schools than why allow it for military etc.
I can see where you're coming from with acrediting the schools, but again religion doesn't belong in schools.
Religion does not belong in public education, you are correct.
My concern is not the promotion of private or religious schools over public schools. My concern is a decent education for kids. I am unsure as to how true this is in the rest of the world, but in Philadelphia, public schools in general do NOT offer kids a decent education. For some families the options are a terrible education at public school, or a decent education at a private, parochial, or charter school which they may not be able to afford. This means the family has no option at all, but to send their children to a public school which may not teach them much of anything at all. And as I said earlier, I am all in favor of fixing the public school system. But until we figure out how, and implement it, students are suffering.

Education belongs in schools.
Bullshit. Have you gone to a private school? No I didn't think so. Private schools are better because 1) They ensure that teachers maintain a certain standard 2) Classes are smaller 3) They give kids with lower academic abilities to widen their skills not just academic skills 4) The kids from private schools are generally more confident, not in a cocky way, more socially developded.

I realise this isn't the case with all schools. Some public schools are exceptional in every area. Some private schools are rubbish and should be shut down.
:eek: someone who agrees with me? Interesting....
But yeah, seriously, you are right. I am not sure why the Catholic schools in Philly are so much better than the public ones, especially because the classes are similar in size, i believe. I think it has to do with maintaining a certain standard of teachers, tho I'm not sure.

What you say can be true, about the cost of educating a child vs. cost of tuition. And I think I understand what you are saying about cheapness and competition (tho i might not...its REALLY early in the morning here, and I'm sorry if i accidentally misinterpret or misconstrue your words). Sometimes being cheap does equal having low quality, and sometimes it is just an example of being more efficient with funds.Another way of putting it is price is a form of marketing. If you truly have the best product, you can demand a premium price. An example of this in action are the theme parks in the Orlando area. Conventional wisdom would say that the cheapest would make the most money. Practice demonstrates that having the lowest ticket price sends the message that the park is inferior to its competition.

I think the private schools you and I are thinking of are very different. I am thinking mostly of the parochial grade schools in the Philadelphia area which irc cost about $1,200 per student, with a price adjustment for families with more than one student in the school. A voucher for something like $1000 would have made it a lot easier for many students to attend some of the best schools in Philadelphia. As it was, I know of parents who didn't eat to send their kid to school. I had a classmate who always smelt badly, because his family couldn't afford to pay the hot water bill so he'd try not to shower. A voucher would've greatly assisted families such as these. My sisters' grade school has something like 40% of the student population living at or below what the government establishes as the poverty line. Would paying tuition still be a burden for those families with a voucher? Yes. Of course it would. But it does not seem right to me that such families be forced to do things like not eat or not pay water bills so that their kids can get a decent education.There would still be families that could not afford it. And those students would be stuck in now grossly underfunded public schools recieving the worst education imaginable.


I see what your saying. But that hierarchy already exists, tho perhaps not to the extent you foresee.There is the hierarchy with one exception: public schools can afford to function currently. Every citizen deserves an education. If the public school closes, then there are many students who either could not afford or could not get into a private school.

All through grade school my classes had about 30 students. Is this considered a small class size? (I'm not trying to be sarcastic, this is an honest question, since I know my perspective is skewed, since I see this as the norm) My response to your comment about class size depends on whether approx. 30 students per class is considered small.30 is a massive class. A small class size is 10-15 or less. Consider this: you are a teacher. You have 30 kids who do not want to learn that day. Now, get them under control. Good luck.

What do you propose is a better solution that vouchers?Hi! How are you? I've never really talked to you before, i dont think, but i've heard about you.....you've many fans :-)Placing an actual value on education is the best solution. IE, fix the society. As I said, school mirrors society. Not the other way around.

Other options are latin schools, charter schools, and magnet schools...however, I haven't researched those enough to really be sure what the costs and benefits of each system are.
I have fans?! COOL! haha...I'm quite well. and yourself?


Why not? In some areas these schools offer the best education. If a parent feels comfortable sending the kid there, why shouldn't he or she get assistance in paying tuition?Public money has absolutly no place going to a religiously backed institution. Period. It is part of the establishment clause.

Would it make a difference to you if the religious or military or idealogical school were acredited (sp??) by some organization, so that you knew it were teaching the fundamentals in addition to the religion etc?No. If you want to pay to shelter and indoctrinate your child, do so on your own dollar. Get a scholarship, a grant, whatever. But don't use my money to get your religion.
Being poor is not an excuse. It's also not a merit that must somehow be rewarded. I was poor. I did well in school. End of story. Socioeconomic background is always an excuse. If you want to change cultural factors, spend money on changing culture (because culture in America is completely
created by marketing). You are fogetting that I also said that the public schools must be given extra money (I believe it was a 25% over their maximum voucher value).You said that public schools should get more funding, but also said that should be tied to performance. Additionally, being of low SES isn't an excuse, but it is the number 1 predictor for success and failure. When you don't know if you'll be having dinner that night, or even a house and bed to sleep in, learning grammar hardly holds significance.

Bullshit. Have you gone to a private school? No I didn't think so. Private schools are better because 1) They ensure that teachers maintain a certain standard 2) Classes are smaller 3) They give kids with lower academic abilities to widen their skills not just academic skills 4) The kids from private schools are generally more confident, not in a cocky way, more socially developded.

I realise this isn't the case with all schools. Some public schools are exceptional in every area. Some private schools are rubbish and should be shut down.[/QUOTE1) No, actually, there is absolutly no restriction on who can teach at a private school Atleast public schools require certification. There is ZERO requirement across the board at a private school. 2) yep, that would be a major advantage. And that comes with being able to decide how many students you take per year. And that decision comes down to a) who can pay, and b) who has the grades. 4) depends what kind of private school. I promise you that Chote is not accepting any students of "lower academic abilities". 4) Actually, they tend to be more sheltered.
I'd also add that when your family is paying several thousand for your education, the parents tend to care alot more. That is both the fact that they find education valuable enough to pay for it seperate, and the fact that they have an investment in it. Parental involvement is among the most important factors in student success.

[QUOTE=Wilgrove;11621193]For those of you who says that the Public School system should get more money. Look at this. This is Charlotte/Meck. Public School system budget.

http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/discover/2006-07ProposedBudgetRequest.pdf

Go to page 17.

The 2005-2006 adopted budget grand total was. $ 943,977,703

The 2006-2007 proposed budget grand total is. $ 1,034,668,676

Still think we need to throw more money into a system that already proved itself to be incompetent?
And how many students are there? Those numbers in and of themselves say nothing to me at all. I want to know per student spending.

And it isn't about throwing money into the system. No one has even implied that. It is fixing the system we have rather than trying to create a new one that has its own numerous inherant problems.

it seems to me that there are some very definite ideas here about which type of schools are good and which are not. It can't be generalized.

If private schools can teach what they want, and you find one that matches what you find important...you are going to think that is a good school. It is true that teachers do not necessarily need the same licensure in private schools...and universities are making it more and more difficult to get (and keep) a teaching degree.


What's good about private schooling:
Private schools can pick and choose students...and do not have to provide special programming for special needs students....that keeps costs down...

numbers are lower in the private arena, so attention to students is greater....that's a plus.

kids who act up can be removed without a great deal of legal problems.

What's the problem with public schools:
the numbers in classrooms is huge....26-33 on average

there is an increasing of students with special needs. (social, emotional, academic)...and the funding to "fix" these issues is not available...

the government puts so many demands on curriculum, there is no time in a day to cover it all.....
face it, when we went to school, we had reading, language, math, science, social studies, art, PE, music.....

now, don't take any of that away....but add: computers, character education, writing added to grammar, technology education, career awareness, foreign language, guidance, health, etc, etc, etc,....

the problem in all schools:
we can't fix the problem with education until we fix society. (that has been mentioned in this thread before, and I couldn't agree more!)

educators are faced with so much more than just teaching their classes: they must teach core values, tolerance of diversity, basic skills when entering school, etc. (the things we learned from our parents, but today's parents don't always have the time with their kids that ours had)

teachers must be health care professionals - teaching about clean clothes and showering....and checking for head lice

teachers must be counselors....teaching techniques for problem solving and working cooperatively with others...

teachers must compete with the fast-paced TV, video-game world, with flashing lights and color....and a change of scenery every 7 minutes for a commercial....and they are expected to have a class of 30 all pay attention and learn.

this is a hard job....much more than giving information and correcting papers. What makes it even more difficult is when there is no appreciation or support for the efforts of the educator.

there are good and bad schools and good and bad teachers in all areas and all types of schools...to generalize is to be unfair...

I just think it is important to "walk a mile" before judging, or condemning.

I come from the only high school in my county to receive an "A" grade, and from the first class to make it an "A" school. I think in my county the grade a school gets affects its funding.

What bugs me is that sometimes funding for public schools is designated to be spent on certain areas and only those areas. Which means that, instead of getting, you know, enough textbooks, we got a new bell noise installed that pretty much everyone hates.

Overall, though, I feel that I am receiving a good education at my public school that is probably comparable if not better than the private schools in the area. I am taking six college-level courses (it's my junior year) and I have about a 4.6 cumulative weighted GPA. I don't know what other public schools are like, but mine seems to be pretty good overall.

For those of you who says that the Public School system should get more money. Look at this. This is Charlotte/Meck. Public School system budget.

http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/discover/2006-07ProposedBudgetRequest.pdf

Go to page 17.

The 2005-2006 adopted budget grand total was. $ 943,977,703

The 2006-2007 proposed budget grand total is. $ 1,034,668,676

Still think we need to throw more money into a system that already proved itself to be incompetent?
*sighs* And how many students are in the district? How many physical plant costs are being covered with that budget? How many mandates (funded or otherwise) are crammed into that thing? Tossing the numbers around means very little, try giving a breakdown of those numbers (the second of which is the dream number which you should know is never awarded) before you make such a wonderful and meaningless statment.

it's more like those tickets you can redeem for rides at a carnival

Ohhh, right, cupins.

And just to throw this in the mix too, does anyone know how charter schools stack up against private and public schools? I'm curious, and don't know much about them at all.
A recent (as in I read about it two weeks ago) stated that charter schools actually perform below public schools in many aspects. However, it should be noted, that this was the first study of its kind and we have no idea if this is a trend or a norm.

And, as stated, the real measurement is performance outside of school and charter schools just haven't been around long enough yet to get a good baseline.

I come from the only high school in my county to receive an "A" grade, and from the first class to make it an "A" school. I think in my county the grade a school gets affects its funding.

Waht bugs me is that sometimes funding for public schools is designated to be spent on certain areas and only those areas. Which means that, instead of getting, you know, enough textbooks, we got a new bell noise installed that pretty much everyone hates.

Overall, though, I feel that I am receiving a good education at my public school that is probably comparable if not better than the private schools in the area. I am taking six college-level courses (it's my junior year) and I have about a 4.6 cumulative weighted GPA. I don't know what other public schools are like, but mine seems to be pretty good overall.

Wow. I have a 2.1 weighted GPA, the most advanced course I'm taking is Algebra 2 (no honors or AP classes), and I'm a sophmore. Is that bad?

Waht bugs me is that sometimes funding for public schools is designated to be spent on certain areas and only those areas. Which means that, instead of getting, you know, enough textbooks, we got a new bell noise installed that pretty much everyone hates.
That's the problem with looking at the whole numbers on the budget, much of that money is earmarked for the various mandates given by federal, state, and local laws or programs.

Education funding is a mess and a half, really.

a) vouchers do not cover tuition. They are a check for a set value. If tuition is still more than that value, the familiy must still pay
b)private schools can, at any time, refuse to accept a child for nearly any reason, or no reason at all. Just because you can afford to pay for a school does not, by any means, mean they want you there.

As a matter of fact, several of my family members were "disinvited" by various private schools... and they had plenty of money.

;) What they didn't have was 'discipline'.

As a matter of fact, several of my family members were "disinvited" by various private schools... and they had plenty of money.

;) What they didn't have was 'discipline'.

haha...mine too...some for behavior (my family has a slight rebelious streak), some for grades (the kid is a dunce.)

haha...mine too...some for behavior (my family has a slight rebelious streak), some for grades (the kid is a dunce.)
*sigh*

I swear to God, I went through your big post and point by point responded. I pushed submit. And Jolt destroyed the post!!!! :mad:

I guess thats what I get for trying to post something meaningful and not spamming.

Half of it was me saying you had a valid point. The other half was me respectfully disagreeing with you. You'll just have to believe me until i've enough energy and time to do it all again. (which I may not)

Anyways, yeah, I'm good, thanks for asking! Today was a most excellent day!! :) :fluffle: I think you have fans....I'm not sure....I'm blonde....easily confused.....

Anywho, yeah. Thanks for arguing so nicely with me! It was fun till Jolt ate my post *shakes fist at Jolt*

*sigh*

I swear to God, I went through your big post and point by point responded. I pushed submit. And Jolt destroyed the post!!!! :mad:

I guess thats what I get for trying to post something meaningful and not spamming.

Half of it was me saying you had a valid point. The other half was me respectfully disagreeing with you. You'll just have to believe me until i've enough energy and time to do it all again. (which I may not)

Anyways, yeah, I'm good, thanks for asking! Today was a most excellent day!! :) :fluffle: I think you have fans....I'm not sure....I'm blonde....easily confused.....

Anywho, yeah. Thanks for arguing so nicely with me! It was fun till Jolt ate my post *shakes fist at Jolt*

sometimes if you use the "back" button, you can get it back again.

glad today was good, and no problem for the debate...me and NERVUN have done I think four of these threads together, and its something I'm very interested in (English ed. major...yeah...), so really, anytime.

sometimes if you use the "back" button, you can get it back again.

glad today was good, and no problem for the debate...me and NERVUN have done I think four of these threads together, and its something I'm very interested in (English ed. major...yeah...), so really, anytime.
Yeah I tried. I think its cuz God hates me (lol, apparently all those years of Catholic school didn't help me any! :p )

Yeah, I've seen them around, but I like to read a thread in its entirity (sp???), so if I stumble into a thread and its already been going on for a while, I dont usually bother. It's something I'm interested in, too, because it is terrible that students dont have any options for getting a real education. English ed sounds interesting. I wanted to read Hamlet with my friend tonight (she needs to read act 123 for tomorrow, and I was like we can read parts!) but she didn't want to :(

For those of you who says that the Public School system should get more money. Look at this. This is Charlotte/Meck. Public School system budget.

http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/discover/2006-07ProposedBudgetRequest.pdf

Go to page 17.

The 2005-2006 adopted budget grand total was. $ 943,977,703

The 2006-2007 proposed budget grand total is. $ 1,034,668,676

Still think we need to throw more money into a system that already proved itself to be incompetent?

What does that work out to per student?

Last year, the student enrollement for CMS was 123,370.

So taking the $ 943,977,703 and dividing it with the 123,370 students. That gives us. $7,651.60 per student.

Last year, the student enrollement for CMS was 123,370.

So taking the $ 943,977,703 and dividing it with the 123,370 students. That gives us. $7,651.60 per student.
Not quite, like I said, it's not a matter of take this number and divide by this, what's the per-student of the district, then look at the physical plants as well.

Last year, the student enrollement for CMS was 123,370.

So taking the $ 943,977,703 and dividing it with the 123,370 students. That gives us. $7,651.60 per student.
and how many special needs/g&t students? those students take much more funding per student than the average.
As well as NER's point about the physical plant

Call me a cold heartless bastard if you want, but I do not see the benefit in ‘educating’ these ‘special needs’ students.

One great thing about private schools is that they can get rid of disruptive students and focus on good students who actually want to learn.

My local school system tries to mainstream everybody – that means you have good students lumped into a classroom with a student with behavioral problems (the students are terrified that they will do something – even just answering a teacher’s question with the wrong tone of voice will set him off – and get stabbed) as well as with ‘special needs’ student who, for all intents and purposes, has no higher brain function. These are extreme cases, but they illustrate the point well.

Not everyone should be shoved through the same schooling. Everyone should have the opportunity to receive a good education – this does not mean everyone should be given a good education. Resources should be focused where they will do the most good, and that is on students who work hard and actually want to learn. Those that do not want to learn, those who are disruptive, those who hold everyone else back, should not be in the same classroom. Disruptive students should be segregated from good students, and if they continue to show a complete lack of interest in education we should stop trying to cram it down their throat and just let them go. You can lead a horse to water…

Why should we give a substandard education to good students because we have to focus resources on students who militantly do not want to be in school or on children who lack the mental capacity to learn?

Wow. I have a 2.1 weighted GPA, the most advanced course I'm taking is Algebra 2 (no honors or AP classes), and I'm a sophmore. Is that bad?

Well, that's a C-average, right? So, it's passing. It's much better than some people I've seen, but it's certainly not the best. Probably within an average range.

But you still have three years to bring it up, and at least you're not like some people at my school. They actually break Algebra 1 into two years (Algebra 1A and Algebra 1B), and learn all of the material students usually learn in 8th or 9th grade (whenever they take Algebra 1. I took Honors in 8th) in the freshman and sophomore years. Which I think is absolutely ridiculous. Mostly because it'll just put them at a disadvantage when they have to take the standardized test in their sophomore year that most everyone is required to pass for graduation. The test covers up to geometry, so if they haven't taken it yet, they'll just be behind before they even start.

That's the problem with looking at the whole numbers on the budget, much of that money is earmarked for the various mandates given by federal, state, and local laws or programs.

Education funding is a mess and a half, really.


Yes, it is. I remember in middle school they cut funding, and it came out of my Advanced Academics class (basically gifted class). So I had to give up Wheel (art, technology, music, etc., probably would have been fun) and take P.E. (pointless!) so that I could still take the gifted class and be with the same other teachers.

Most people around my school seem to think that too much funding goes towards athletics (especially football) rather than academic extracurricular activities and the arts. I think (but I'm not entirely sure) that the sports teams and the cheerleaders get buses to their games provided for them, but that the choir has to raise the money for a bus to a choir competition, and so do all the academic clubs. Which, and maybe this is just my opinion, should be much more important than any sport (the academics, at least)

Call me a cold heartless bastard if you want, but I do not see the benefit in ‘educating’ these ‘special needs’ students.

One great thing about private schools is that they can get rid of disruptive students and focus on good students who actually want to learn.

My local school system tries to mainstream everybody – that means you have good students lumped into a classroom with a student with behavioral problems (the students are terrified that they will do something – even just answering a teacher’s question with the wrong tone of voice will set him off – and get stabbed) as well as with ‘special needs’ student who, for all intents and purposes, has no higher brain function. These are extreme cases, but they illustrate the point well.

Not everyone should be shoved through the same schooling. Everyone should have the opportunity to receive a good education – this does not mean everyone should be given a good education. Resources should be focused where they will do the most good, and that is on students who work hard and actually want to learn. Those that do not want to learn, those who are disruptive, those who hold everyone else back, should not be in the same classroom. Disruptive students should be segregated from good students, and if they continue to show a complete lack of interest in education we should stop trying to cram it down their throat and just let them go. You can lead a horse to water…

Why should we give a substandard education to good students because we have to focus resources on students who militantly do not want to be in school or on children who lack the mental capacity to learn?

Why shouldn't we euthanize these kids with severe behavior problems and lack of capacity to learn. It would save lots of respources. Those with behavior problems will have an incentive to work harder and behave. The rest are probably potential criminals and ne'er do wells. Those who lack mental capacity to learn are just resource dumps of society. Save us all from the cost of taking care of them.
We should probably euthanize the elderly too. They're a big drain of resources and drive up health-care costs for us all.
Save resource, cut cost, kill these folks.

Call me a cold heartless bastard if you want, but I do not see the benefit in ‘educating’ these ‘special needs’ students.

Because many special needs students do not have severe disabilities, but only need a wee bit of help to thrive.

Dr. Stephen Hawking leaps instantly to mind, a second behind myself (I manged to hit all three special education catagories, LD/ADHD, Sec 504, and GT. I'm special).

Where do we draw the line to say this child can, but this child cannot? What do we do with them if we don't try to give them the tools they need.

And finally, honestly now, would you like it if I, as a teacher, told you point blank that your child was dumb and I refuse to have him or her in my class?

I have no problem with educating students who have a slight disability.
What I have a problem with is mainstreaming children with the highest expectation is that one day they will be able to remember how to tie their own shoes.

Education should be focused on what you are capable of achieving. Not everyone is capable of being a nuclear physicist.

There should be a renewed focus on vocational education, rather than running a high school under the premise that every student is going to college. Many of the students would be much better off if their teenage years were spent learning functional and practical skills (actually I think everyone should be taught practical skills, but there is little time). The result of this push on everyone going to college is that many students who are never going to college do not get a more suitable education and those who do go to college have a dumbed down university experience.

I dated a teacher of severely disabled children and was appalled at what was going on. Some of those students were highly disruptive (they would scream wildly and some would even become violent) and they gained nothing from being in a classroom of normal students. When a 14 year old is making extraordinary progress because he can recognize 12 letters (though sometimes mixes up which is which), there is negligible benefit of having him in a classroom of normal students being taught Shakespeare. Their outbursts, and even their very presence, disrupts the education of the 25 normal students – all under the theory that somehow being surrounded by normal students will magically make special needs students better.

A couple I know has a child lacking a frontal lobe. This child is physically incapable of higher cognitive function – why is the school system spending tens of thousands of dollars a year to have it sit (and I use that term loosely) in a classroom of normal children her age? The parents are entirely convinced that their child is intelligent (severe denial) but simply lacks the ability to communicate.

Which also brings up a non-school related point – the state pays huge sums to keep this thing alive because it needs 24-7 care or it may die. It could have a coughing fit or something at any moment so a nurse is close by every minute of every day, not to mention it has many other severe health problems requiring a couple trips to the hospital every month. Insane amounts of money are being spent to keep this vegetable alive – why? The parents being in a state of denial keep anyone from just letting it die. Hundreds of thousands of dollars could be better spent elsewhere.

Back to education…

Resources are not infinite. We should focus those resources where they would do the most good. Not all students are going to med school – why should we treat them all as if they were? Preparing a child who will end up in a blue collar job with vocational training does that child far better.

Schools should be focused on the education that will benefit a student the most. Vouchers would allow students to choose a school which best fits their needs. Had I the opportunity I would have gone to a private school (there is one in the area which charges the same tuition as the public school receives in funding) or even to the public school in the neighboring county.

While there will be some areas too small to have a multitude of schools, even allowing parents to setup alternatives of their own would be better than nothing. Groups of parents could use that money to hire a private teacher.

Arguing that it will create class stratification is also a joke because it already exists. The only way to eliminate that would be to ban all private schools and prohibit home schooling (in which case everyone is equal – everyone gets an equally pathetic education). Vouchers would open the door for all families to have a choice in their schooling – so arguing against vouchers is basically arguing that only the highest socioeconomic classes should be allowed to have a private school education.

Money should be spent reforming and centralizing the education system, not throwing it at religiously motivated organizations.

Money should be spent reforming and centralizing the education system, not throwing it at religiously motivated organizations.

US Schools already spend twice what they spend ten years ago - resluts are worse. Money cannot fix a broken system. School choice is a part of nearly every sucessful school system in the world. The poorest students suffer the most. RIch kids CAN get school choice if needed - they move. Poor kids are stuck with their area code - and schools in poor neighborhoods which have adequate or even excessive spending still produce no better results.

THe solution is to end the monopoly - end teacher tenure, and allow teachers the same freedom they so generously give their students - the freedom to fail.

For a real eye opener watch this;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA

*Snip*
Well, the laws call for all children to be mainstreamed as much as possible. The reasoning is two fold, one you have children who can handle some mainstream classes and deserve to be in with the regular kids as much as they can.

Two, and this is a bit more cynical on my part, it's also about educating the normal children that there are people with disabilities out there who are still people and still human and who do not deserve to be shut up in the dark somewhere (which was the previous method of education).

The problem stems from the law, as written, where parents MUST sign off of an IEP for a child (or sec 504). If you have parents who want the best for their child, it's usually not too much of a problem, but when you get ones who refuse to acknowlage a child's limitations or that they even have them...

All us teachers can do is grit our teeth and keep going. But I also understand why the laws were written the way they were, because previously kids would be locked up into a room somewhere and that was it, even those who needed just a small bit of help.

As for vocational ed, there's a problem. On one hand, yes, many kids won't be heading to college (though currently some 50% has some form of higher education beyond secondary), on the other though... the good part about the US system is that it does allow people to change their mind and go later on (Many countries don't allow something like this. My kids in Japan will choose technical, business, or academic high schools at the end of their third year and that's the choice they're stuck with, choosing their futures at age 15). There has been a drop off in the number of boys enrolling in colleges and a lot of it is attributted to the increase in boys going to technical jobs out of high school. The pay (starting at around $30k) sounds great for a kid out of high school who has never made that much money before.

But, 10 years down the line when it's only, say, $32k and you have a wife and kids and you realize that you can't go further on what you have... suddenly that high school paper that says you can go to college and get a BA and jump to $60K sounds pretty good.

Now, obviously this isn't true for a lot of people, but considering that non-traditional enrollment in colleges and universities are growing at a really silly rate, and night classes that allow someone to get a degree after work are more and more in demand, it's holding true for a lot of people.

Where this leaves secondary education is trying to ballance the needs of the kids who may have to face that choice down later on in the years, and still have them preparied to go on to college if need be.

It's a large fight in the education community and it'll be a fight that is going to take a very long time.

US Schools already spend twice what they spend ten years ago - resluts are worse. Money cannot fix a broken system. School choice is a part of nearly every sucessful school system in the world. The poorest students suffer the most. RIch kids CAN get school choice if needed - they move. Poor kids are stuck with their area code - and schools in poor neighborhoods which have adequate or even excessive spending still produce no better results.

THe solution is to end the monopoly - end teacher tenure, and allow teachers the same freedom they so generously give their students - the freedom to fail.

For a real eye opener watch this;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA

Thus, centralization. Do you know why schools in poor areas fail? Because the area is poor and the county can’t bring in enough property or sales tax. What we need is a centralized education system that can distribute taxes to all schools evenly based on their population and need. There is no excuse for schools in rich areas having laptops for their students while some schools don’t have enough text books.

Thus, centralization. Do you know why schools in poor areas fail? Because the area is poor and the county can’t bring in enough property or sales tax. What we need is a centralized education system that can distribute taxes to all schools evenly based on their population and need. There is no excuse for schools in rich areas having laptops for their students while some schools don’t have enough text books.

If you click on my reference you will see that not only is your presumption; " money is all that bad schools need to get better" is wrong - you will also see why centrealization is a poor idea which stifles innovation and creativity.

If you click on my reference you will see that not only is your presumption; " money is all that bad schools need to get better" is wrong - you will also see why centrealization is a poor idea which stifles innovation and creativity.

I'm not talking about centralization of the economy. Other countries, you know, the ones that trounce us in every academic category, centralize their education systems without a problem.

I'm not talking about centralization of the economy. Other countries, you know, the ones that trounce us in every academic category, centralize their education systems without a problem.

You mean, like Belgium? Maybe Germany? Australia? All of them offer school choice. Even the US college system is one of school choice - and it is far from centralized. Centralization is a very poor idea. You really ought to consider my link before posting a reply.

You mean, like Belgium? Maybe Germany? Australia? All of them offer school choice. Even the US college system is one of school choice - and it is far from centralized. Centralization is a very poor idea. You really ought to consider my link before posting a reply.

I'm not going to waist my time watching a special on 20/20. The profit driven can not report the news, period.
Those countries have centralized systems, by the way, and our universities are hardly an example of anything.

I'm not going to waist my time watching a special on 20/20. The profit driven can not report the news, period.
Those countries have centralized systems, by the way, and our universities are hardly an example of anything.

You seem far too intelligent to dismiss an item so readily before you even view it. All of these nations offer their students choice in schooling - they are not destined to a school by their zip code (or whatever regionality they use). US Colleges are among the best in the world - that is a spectacular example of what makes choice work. Anything in a competitive market has overwheaming potential to be superior to a non-competitive monopoly - profit is the natural reward for being the most competitive. Your cerdibility would be enhanced were you to recognize that economic reality.

You seem far too intelligent to dismiss an item so readily before you even view it. All of these nations offer their students choice in schooling - they are not destined to a school by their zip code (or whatever regionality they use). US Colleges are among the best in the world - that is a spectacular example of what makes choice work. Anything in a competitive market has overwheaming potential to be superior to a non-competitive monopoly - profit is the natural reward for being the most competitive. Your cerdibility would be enhanced were you to recognize that economic reality.
Except that you totally missrepresent the school choices offered, They're tracked schools, not general ala the US.

It's a different system with its own problems that make educators in those systems wish for some of the all inclusiveness of the US system at time.

BTW, good debunking of the 20/20 segment here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200003