I understand the concept but as it is, there is alot of infrastructure that is soley based on public education that would become redundant. Should districts be forced to sell off their stock or operate underperforming, inefficient schools. Then what happens if there is a backlash against the charter school and the demand returns for public schools. Should the public schools have to buy their former property at a profit to the crappy chater school. Or do they build more buildings and thus we have a glut of schools which again is contrary to the efficiency expected from a voucher system? Should Joe Taxpayer be forced to pay for a 120 mile round trip for individual students all around a state. It seems highly inefficient. If the transportation becomes the parent's problem, then that discriminates against the people you are trying to help, that is those without cars and those who can't afford to drive their kids to school because they are working. These are not secondary problems. These must be addressed before any system comes into place. Otherwise we are stuck with the road paved with good intentions. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. We should have sports based schools, art based schools, science based schools, etc. That's how the high schools work ing NYC and it is quite effective.Just look at Brooklyn alone. Football Player? Go to Sheepshead Bay or Midwood. Actor? Go to Murrow. Great success!
No, school systems should not be FORCED to sell off their equipment/property. Would some schools shut down, yes. Would some have to later be re-opened, probably yes. That happens now. I said no to this before, but stipulated, that it could possibly be the case. This is similar to most of the problems people seem to have with vouchers. That some will get left behind because lower middle class will be able to supplement their voucher with what blessings they do have, where as the lower income cannot. So apparently we should just let more people suffer because that's more fair than giving some the option/hand to help them improve their lot. Also who's to say that the schools that the kids go to won't be willing to bus the kids themselves. Yes this will still be a problem in rural areas though. Actually i went back and forth on whether I really thought that was a negative or not. I still think it is. I think one of the great things about the U.S. educational system is that kids are not shoehorned into a roll when they're 8 years old. I think some specialized corsework in HS is great as kids prep for college/life after school, but sports should not be the business of the schools. How many college sophmores really know what they want to do as a career, let alone HS juniors. Schools need to get back to teaching kids a broad base of knowledge. How many kids graduate know much of anything about even American history?
By giving some people the option to improve their own lot, you're redistributing money that would otherwise go into the public school system. Thus, the public schools that remain--and that the really poor kids whose parents can't drive them to school--suffer. You're "helping" some families at the expense of other families, and those other families already have the fewest opportunities and greatest number of challenges. In other words, this is a de facto redistribution of money and resources from the have-nots to the have-mores and the haves. Screw that.
Can anyone cite examples where voucher programs have been detrimental to public schools or the underpriviledged?
No, schools still get the same money per student. The only place they lose money is kids already in privite school will then get the voucher. Plus it will all depend on how the system is set up. I saw/read something about one plan (admittedly this was 5-10 years ago), where a student would be given a portion of their tax money (somewhere around 60%) and the schools they left actually ended up with more money per student.
I'm not sure the program is wide enough to make a case for success or failure quite yet. My plan would be to make all public school funding a state matter and students may get their choice of public high schools within their county. Then each student is guaranteed 20 miles of bussing in any direction with a per mile rate established for any trip further. So if your kid wants to go to one school across the county, you have to sack up and pay for the extra transportation (tax deductably, of course) Private schools will not be involved. I fear that over time a voucher program will lower the quality of private schools, bringing all schools to an average level. Just what America needs . We need places to remain exceptional if we are to remain exceptional. Are you working at wal-mart and you believe that your kid deserves to go to the Deerfield Academy? Tough. That's life.
Not to mention that voucher programs differ a fair amount, too. Tens of thousands of parents would raise hell if such a program was accepted, considering the effort that parents make to geographically isolate themselves from poor-performing or violent schools. You'd likely have the same resistance that bussing received in the 70s. I can't believe that moonbat me and Libertarian Matt see eye-to-eye on this issue. Every kid should have the right to a decent education, but private education is a lovely privilege, and nobody should expect to have that privilege subsidized, especially when it means fewer dollars for public schools. And as other people have suggested on here as well, public dollars should not be spent on religious education. Period. And I don't want to say "I told you so" the first time that a radical Islamic school accepts public dollars.
I found quite a few success stories on the web of school vouchers for parents and kids being used to improve educational opportunities but no detrimental accounts... not a one! Surprise surprise!
Fuck em! And remind them of the property tax cut they will receive . Education needs to be funded through state sales taxes so that all people, legal and illegal, renter and owner, young and old pay for it.
On the other hand, if half of a public school's pupils leave for the Swaggart academy, they aren't in overcrowded schools anymore, so stop your sniveling.
Don't know about that, the Milwaukee program has been in place since 1990 and seems to be a success. It was expanded 50% last year.
Explain the logic please. If it costs $10,000 to pay for a public education and $5,000 voucher allows a student to go to a school of his choice it seems to make economic sense to offer vouchers.
Already happens. Ever hear of Evangel Academy? They give scholarships and have had nationally ranked football teams.
Having grown up in private schools, this is my fear. At what point do the lawsuits start rolling in because the private school's tests are too difficult for the kid from the projects? Or because they don't teach about my two dads?
Not to be snarky, nor an asshole, but is the fault of the state government she had 5 kids to support in the first place? IMO, what the government should be doing is working on proletariat population control, to hopefully reduce the number of fatherless timebombs in the first place, which would make the schools your siblings had to suffer through a little more bearable in the first place...
Oh, puhleeze. Unlike you, I actually read experts and understand them. You on the other hand admire people who spin ideas our their own heads well...because you have no capability of understanding logical thought.
Not sure I understand your reasoning. Private schools often have eligablity and enrollment requirements. If a student can meet those requirements and pay the tution why wouldn't a private school want to accept them?