• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support school choice?

Do you support school choice?


  • Total voters
    88
It's not "tax money." It's my money.
We could have fifty threads covering that discussion - but that's not the focus of this thread. It's also MY money and I will never have another child in the school system.

However, I can still attend school board meetings, make comments and suggestions, petition for changes - almost (but not quite) everything a parent can do. In addition, I vote for school board members every 2 years, so I'm helping to decide who runs the school system that's getting public money. I have none of those options at all at a private school.
 
Perhaps, but I prefer a system that provides people with the ability to make their own choices about how to use their limited means, not one in which these choices are made for them by others.

By not taking away people's ability to choose, schools are required to compete with other schools for customers. When firms have to compete against other firms for customers, quality rises and prices fall.


The decision to have a public school system accessible to all was not one of individual choice but of societal choice . Public schools are NOT private firms and should not be compared to them.

Theory - and that is what you are presenting us with - fails miserable in real life if the choice is between crap and manure or between mediocrity and more mediocrity. Sadly, that is often the choice between the public and private school.

I strongly suspect based on my 33 years experience in the public school system plus my years of experience in state government, that if you took many Detroit parents who now have kids in charter schools and told them they could send their kids to Grosse Point Public Schools - they would be there in a heartbeat. But that is not the choice they have.

On the other side of town there was a popular minister named Horace Sheffield who opened up his own mega charter school several years ago. He made lots of money and ran it into the ground and it closed after less than five years in business. In Detroit - this happens far too frequently.

So this mantra of CHOICE - is often not cracked up to what it is advertised at. And like I said - if you look into why the charter movement changed their main theme of operation - it will reveal tons of secrets about the real motivation behind many of them. But that does require looking behind the meme of the moment.
 
I have none of those options at all at a private school.

You have all of these options, it is accomplished by choosing to pay for them or not.
 
You have all of these options, it is accomplished by choosing to pay for them or not.
I choose not to give any tax money to private schools. So does the vast majority of the population where I live. Problem solved. :)
 
We could have fifty threads covering that discussion - but that's not the focus of this thread. It's also MY money and I will never have another child in the school system.

However, I can still attend school board meetings, make comments and suggestions, petition for changes - almost (but not quite) everything a parent can do. In addition, I vote for school board members every 2 years, so I'm helping to decide who runs the school system that's getting public money. I have none of those options at all at a private school.

So. Are you the guy we should blame for crappy inner-city schools?
 
In order for me to agree with you, I'd need to know by what criteria you categorize a particular good as infrastructure.

I can't see any good reason to establish a monopoly socialized firm as opposed to multiple competing private firms competing against each other to offer the best quality and price.

Its obviously subjective. However, I see infrastructure as investments a community, state, or nation makes that benefit all of its citizens and foster economic growth: roads, airports, railways, and an educated workforce.
 
It's not enough just to “Like” this. This needs to be repeated and emphasized.

Statists think of tax money as money that belongs to the state, and which the state is entitled to collect and use as it sees fit, regardless of the interests of those who are forced to pay it.

That's wrong.

Tax money belongs to the people from whom it is taken, and those people are entitled to have that money used to their benefit.

When the state collects taxes, and then uses them in a way that does not benefit the people from whom these taxes are collected, then the state is simply stealing. That's not legitimate government; that's crime under the false guise of government.
Where I live we vote on school taxes and those taxes are used only for schools. I'm sorry you chose to live in an area where that is not true. Take some personal responsibility - move if you don't like where you live.
 
The decision to have a public school system accessible to all was not one of individual choice but of societal choice .

Yes, we all understand that. We are, on this political discussion board, talking about the idea of changing that choice through changes in legislation.

Public schools are NOT private firms and should not be compared to them.

Yes, they are socialized firms, and as such, they cannot compare to private firms. Private firms are forced to innovate in order to produce higher quality at lower cost. Firms that cannot satisfy customer demand are driven from the market, because customers withhold funds by favoring alternatives.
 
Well, nobody except for every parent who sends their child to a private school, and has to pay tuition to that school as well as having to pay taxes to support the failing public schools that they aren't using.
Nobody HAS to send their child to a private school. That's the whole point of public schools.
 
Most definitely YES!!!!!! It is the ONLY way to get children out of their failing schools and for them to get an good education. It would also FORCE the teachers unions to stop siding against the community the teachers serve (the operating word there is "serve") as they are responsible to give a reasonable return on the communities investment. They side against ensuring their teachers are providing for the education of the children. Where tenure is used to ensure a teachers job, even if they don't do anything to provide for a proper learning atmosphere for the children to learn. They even protect pedophiles in some cases. This would all change if there was school choice and student left to go to better schools with the tax dollars following them to those schools. Competition is everything!

i've seen repeated bashing of the teachers' unions, as if they were the problem causing poor educational outcomes
but look at the student performance scores from states with teachers unions and those without, and for the most part, states with teachers' unions performed better - according to student testing outcomes - than schools in states that are without such unions
that tells me the teachers' unions are not the problem with the ed system
 
Nobody HAS to send their child to a private school. That's the whole point of public schools.

The whole point of public schools is to nationalize a market.
 
I'm surprised you do not allow students to switch public schools, it is how it works here. I see no reason they should not be able to. What if a school does not offer a course you need?
 
Its obviously subjective. However, I see infrastructure as investments a community, state, or nation makes that benefit all of its citizens and foster economic growth: roads, airports, railways, and an educated workforce.

I can see the others as being considered infrastructure, but I'm not sure I can buy that an educated workforce is infrastructure, as a reason for socialized schools. Why not a well-shod workforce? Or a workforce with good manners or proper religion morals?
 
Where I live we vote on school taxes and those taxes are used only for schools. I'm sorry you chose to live in an area where that is not true. Take some personal responsibility - move if you don't like where you live.

I would think that you vote on local funds that are dedicated for schools, but I can only presume that you also get state funds which theoretically could follow the student, and federal funds which also could theoretically follow the student. Perhaps it is those funds which could follow the student and if there is any difference between the local school option for parents, then they could either pay or get back the difference.

Perhaps this could be one of those compromise thingies people keep referring to.
 
I can see the others as being considered infrastructure, but I'm not sure I can buy that an educated workforce is infrastructure, as a reason for socialized schools. Why not a well-shod workforce? Or a workforce with good manners or proper religion morals?

Frankly I think those comparisons are absurd. Companies typically don't choose to locate in a city or state because of good manners or the stylish shoes worn by the residents. Just like good roads, airports, sea ports, railways, energy infrastructure and so on, a skilled an educated workforce directly relates to the economic competitiveness of a city, state, or nation. For example, why do you think tech companies locate in areas like the Research Triangle, Silicon Valley, or Seattle? It is because of the skilled and educated workforce in those areas. It is no different than a shipping company operating out of Memphis because of the transportation infrastructure there.
 
Yes, we all understand that. We are, on this political discussion board, talking about the idea of changing that choice through changes in legislation.



Yes, they are socialized firms, and as such, they cannot compare to private firms. Private firms are forced to innovate in order to produce higher quality at lower cost. Firms that cannot satisfy customer demand are driven from the market, because customers withhold funds by favoring alternatives.

Again - theory. There is no evidence that charter schools on the whole are any more innovative or produce higher quality than public schools on the whole.

But I would welcome that evidence.
 
I can see the others as being considered infrastructure, but I'm not sure I can buy that an educated workforce is infrastructure, as a reason for socialized schools. Why not a well-shod workforce? Or a workforce with good manners or proper religion morals?

Companies rely on on pools of skilled labour and is another despite having the highest taxes in North America, Quebec's economy is still growing. Quebec is a centre of high tech and knowledge industries because their school system is the best in Canada and can turn out well educated graduates.
 
Again - theory. There is no evidence that charter schools on the whole are any more innovative or produce higher quality than public schools on the whole.

But I would welcome that evidence.

Any particular charter school could perform better or worse. However, competition between firms is what eliminates failures and allows successful firms to continue operating.

If it turns out that the local public school offers the best quality at the lowest price, then that is the school that will attract the most customers.
 
For each student, that opts for a voucher, the public school, that would have had to fund their education, gains (keeps) 20% of that funding but now must spend nothing on that vouchered student's education.

If I choose to buy a Ford automobile, should 20% of the purchase price go to General Motors instead of to Ford?

Does GM deserve to “win” by any other means than by offering a good enough product at a good enough price to compete honestly with Ford?
 
Frankly I think those comparisons are absurd. Companies typically don't choose to locate in a city or state because of good manners or the stylish shoes worn by the residents. Just like good roads, airports, sea ports, railways, energy infrastructure and so on, a skilled an educated workforce directly relates to the economic competitiveness of a city, state, or nation. For example, why do you think tech companies locate in areas like the Research Triangle, Silicon Valley, or Seattle? It is because of the skilled and educated workforce in those areas. It is no different than a shipping company operating out of Memphis because of the transportation infrastructure there.

Companies rely on on pools of skilled labour and is another despite having the highest taxes in North America, Quebec's economy is still growing. Quebec is a centre of high tech and knowledge industries because their school system is the best in Canada and can turn out well educated graduates.

If it's an educated workforce you are after, I still don't buy that monopoly socialized schools with no competition are going to produce a better educated workforce than private schools competing with each other.

As an aside, I find it somewhat disturbing that the poor should be taxed in order to subsidize corporations with educated workers.
 
If it's an educated workforce you are after, I still don't buy that monopoly socialized schools with no competition are going to produce a better educated workforce than private schools competing with each other.

As an aside, I find it somewhat disturbing that the poor should be taxed in order to subsidize corporations with educated workers.

Well first of all it makes public schools compete against each other. All of the top schools here in Canada are public. It is how the economy works, having a well educated populace benefits everyone.
 
Any particular charter school could perform better or worse. However, competition between firms is what eliminates failures and allows successful firms to continue operating.

If it turns out that the local public school offers the best quality at the lowest price, then that is the school that will attract the most customers.

Again - that is theory and the way it is suppose to be. In real life, it does not always work out that way as it can take years for a weak charter school to be exposed with data.
 
Well first of all it makes public schools compete against each other. All of the top schools here in Canada are public. It is how the economy works, having a well educated populace benefits everyone.

School choice will afford parents (especially low income parents) better options for educating their children. They won't be stuck with whatever socialized government school happens to be provided by their community.
 
Back
Top Bottom