Last edited by Moot; 07-01-15 at 09:12 PM.
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
― Stephen R. Covey
jallman: "It's all good. At least you have a thick skin and can take being poked fun back at without crying. "
School vouchers and privatization are saving the poor from failing public schools? That's rich. The poor aren't going to be able to afford to pay for tuition at a more successful private school. What school vouchers do is give the upper class parents an out so that they can segregate their children from those who can't afford to enroll in a prestigious private school. So while all of the money, volunteer time, and other forms of attention that higher incomes parents provide towards the schools their children are enrolled in is taken away from public schools and directed towards private ones, public schools are going to suffer from dwindling resources. And then when testing season comes around, the affluent private school will pass with flying colors, while the public school suffers, which shouldn't be unexpected. How do you expect poor kids to perform better than rich kids when the poor probably haven't even had an adequate amount of food to eat that day? Half of all students enrolled in public school are in poverty, after all.
Last edited by SocialDemocrat; 07-01-15 at 11:47 PM.
Social democrat is no longer an accurate description of my views.
There are plenty of areas that don't allow vouchers. We spend more per student in America than most nations, and yet our performance is poor. To claim all that's needed is more money is naive in the extreme. And to limit the options of parents is downright criminal. Vouchers are a fair and equitable solution because they allow all parents to choose, poor and rich alike.
There should be no farm subsidies, and there should be no free lunch for able bodied people. Able bodied people on welfare should be put to work by the government performing needed tasks throughout the community.
Again, throwing more money at the problem is always the lib solution. But it never works.
The rich can can afford to send their kids wherever they choose. It is the poor and middle class who benefit from vouchers. Duh.
And does spending more money per student than any other nation include money spent on private education and school vouchers? Whether or not spending is effective does not depend on the spending rate being high or low. It matters what the money is being spent on. You're essentially saying that we spend a lot of money on education, so education will be more effective if we spend less money on it without any evidence to that effect. One has to look specifically at what's being purchased and invested in and examine what needs to be invested in and what is a waste of money. You haven't addressed my previous post about the flaws in studies claiming that our education is poor in comparison to other countries, so don't go around touting the "public education is a failure" narrative, when there is no evidence to support it.
Vouchers don't create an option for parents. They create an option for parents that can afford it. It makes no sense to claim that school vouchers help poor families; they don't help them whatsoever. It's been generally accepted for a century now that education is a right and access to it should not depend on someone's ability to pay. Vouchers are a direct violation of that because enrollees in private schools under vouchers are still required to pay tuition. And vouchers subsidizing a large portion of a private school's costs to run gives them an excuse to raise costs so they can rake in more profit. We are talking about a capitalist institution: they are running these schools to make a profit, not out of the goodness of their hearts.
Your opposition to farm subsidies and food stamps are irrelevant to the larger point. People pay for services they do not use. Let's use the example of a couple who chooses not to have children for whatever reason: whether education is public or private and funded through vouchers, they are paying for a system their children are not enrolled in. Infrastructure is another good example; a new highway is being built in the Midwest. I live on the west coast and won't regularly use the highway; should I have to pay taxes to fund it? Regardless, ideally all students would be enrolled in the public education system, so you wouldn't have to worry about parents whose students are enrolled in private schools paying for an education system they don't use.
Vouchers and moreover the privatization of public education are contributing to the decline of public schools because it's not a solution that everyone can use. Do you understand that even if a superior private school comes in and offers education to the community, people aren't going to opt to enroll their kids if they can't afford it? I believe I've already gone into this in detail, so I'm not sure why you're asking me to explain it again. It creates an option for the upper class families that can afford it, and those who can't are trapped in a public school with dwindling resources because of families leaving. So no, it's not as simple as "we're not spending enough money." We're spending money on private education, which is an utter waste of money. Voucher funds should be redirected towards public education.
"Again, throwing more money at the problem is always the lib solution. But it never works."
Again, with the grand sweeping statements with no evidence behind them. Do you not understand that it requires money to run a school? If a school cannot even have the basic supplies necessary for teaching, as many schools do not, they're going to fall behind. I think you may be in support of vouchers because you dislike the idea of high spending on education, but your tax dollars are still paying for vouchers.
"Lib talking points" sounds like an excuse to avoid addressing the points I've addressed. I don't think you understand the concept of poverty. I provided a source, but sure, your evidence can be muh grocery store on the 1st. In other countries, you are put to death for practicing certain religions or speaking out against the government, but according to you, tyranny is rich parents not being able to segregate their children from the masses? Your hyperbole is frankly offensive to people who actually suffer being in the unfortunate position of living under a tyrannical government.
Social democrat is no longer an accurate description of my views.