• 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
brothern said:
That's not really what I'm asking ... let me restate it?

If a failing public school loses enrollment, and thus loses federal money & the ability to hire good teachers; what happens to the kids that CAN'T move? I don't care about the teachers or their jobs. I'm asking what's the solution for the kids that CAN'T afford to seek out another "better" school, when they've been left behind by all the kids that CAN afford it?
Click to expand...

I said it in the post in answer to your other post. Every family pays taxes into the system and every child has a dollar amount tied to them. That money can be moved from one school to the other. So any private school that opens will enroll that student. If they want to stay in the public school that they are already in, those tax dollars will still go to that school.

But you haven't answered my question...

Are you saying that we have to keep all of the kids that are presently in failing public schools in order to protect the teachers that are causing the school to fail?

Here's another question...

Are you saying that we have to keep kids in a failing school that could otherwise be put in good schools in order to cater to those that don't want/ can't go to better schools? How does that help the country's problem with lost competitiveness due to failing education?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Well look at it this way. If the government IS going to fund education from a central pool of money, what difference does it make where the parents choose to place the vouchers that replace direct funding to the school? It wouldn't be establishing or restricting religion so there would be no constitutional problem with the vouchers going to a parochial school.

But no voucher is going to cover all the cost to a parochial or private school, so the parents will have to pony up the money to cover what the voucher doesn't. But that voucher might allow the parent to get their kids out of a failing public school and into a parochial or private school that they could not otherwise afford.

If the public school loses so many of its students that it cannot open its doors, then it choses and we have eliminated one more failing school. How can that be a bad thing? It will certainly be a win for the kids.

But if the public school decides to improve its standards and effectiveness to compete with that parochial or private school, and the parents can put the vouchers with the public school and then pay nothing additional for their kids to be well educated, then won't most parents choose to do that? How can that be a bad thing? Win win for everybody.
Click to expand...

The emphasis for improving education should be on making all public schools equally high quality. Resources should not be directed towards providing more choices until the quality level is excellent and equally good throughout the USA. If anything, more resources should be provided to the schools with the most difficult students such as the poor, English learners and the children of uneducated parents.

Both vouchers and charter schools reinforce educational inequality and serve a hidden agenda to bust unions, privatize education and provide taxpayer funding for religious organizations. The voucher scheme is also a gift to those religious groups that are opposed to providing the scientific facts about evolution and sexuality in the schools.

I compare vouchers to the following situation: A small town has problems with the quality of the water it provides to residents. Instead of directly addressing the cause of the quality problem it subsidizes coupons sent to residents so that they can get a discount on the purchase of bottled water. The result is that the wealthier people in town buy more bottled water, the poor still can't afford bottled water even with the discount, and the quality of the publicly provided water never improves because all of the money that could have been used for improvements was spent on subsidizing the coupons.
 
mac said:
Catholic schools are also separate organizations from the Church, and they are not prohibited from promoting their religion.
Click to expand...

Catholic schools do not get government funds directly and shouldn't. The voucher scheme was created as a way to circumvent the first amendment to get the religionist vote and to kill public education and get rid of union employees to get the conservative/libertarian vote.
 
Cephus said:
Which doesn't mean they aren't a pain in the ass while they're there. Those worst behaved kids who drop out are the ones that society will be handing a monthly government check to. I'd rather see them out in the cold where they belong, having done it to themselves.
Click to expand...

Why not just kill them or put them in prison work camps as soon as they start acting up?
 
disneydude said:
Creative attempts to circumvent that which the Constitution prohibits.
Click to expand...

The constitution in no way prohibits state and local government giving money to their citizens.
 
Hard Truth said:
Why not just kill them or put them in prison work camps as soon as they start acting up?
Click to expand...

If and when they break the law, we arrest them. If and when they commit a capital crime, we execute them. That's how our system works. While it's probably obvious which way they're going to go eventually, we don't proactively arrest people because we think they might do something wrong.
 
Hard Truth said:
The emphasis for improving education should be on making all public schools equally high quality. Resources should not be directed towards providing more choices until the quality level is excellent and equally good throughout the USA. If anything, more resources should be provided to the schools with the most difficult students such as the poor, English learners and the children of uneducated parents.

Both vouchers and charter schools reinforce educational inequality and serve a hidden agenda to bust unions, privatize education and provide taxpayer funding for religious organizations. The voucher scheme is also a gift to those religious groups that are opposed to providing the scientific facts about evolution and sexuality in the schools.

I compare vouchers to the following situation: A small town has problems with the quality of the water it provides to residents. Instead of directly addressing the cause of the quality problem it subsidizes coupons sent to residents so that they can get a discount on the purchase of bottled water. The result is that the wealthier people in town buy more bottled water, the poor still can't afford bottled water even with the discount, and the quality of the publicly provided water never improves because all of the money that could have been used for improvements was spent on subsidizing the coupons.
Click to expand...

The problem with your analogy is that you are comparing buying a tangible product with changes in behavior of a far more intangible nature.

Equality in education is of no virtue if it is all equally bad. We should have learned by now that throwing money at it is not the way to improve education. But if schools have to improve the quality of education in order to attract customers (students) to the school just as businesses have to offer a quality product to be successful, then it is a win win situation. Poor schools will close as they should. The schools that are actually educating the children will prosper as they should.

The goal is not to achieve equality. The goal is to educate the children.
 
Hard Truth said:
Catholic schools do not get government funds directly and shouldn't. The voucher scheme was created as a way to circumvent the first amendment to get the religionist vote and to kill public education and get rid of union employees to get the conservative/libertarian vote.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. I disagree with it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The problem with your analogy is that you are comparing buying a tangible product with changes in behavior of a far more intangible nature.


Equality in education is of no virtue if it is all equally bad. We should have learned by now that throwing money at it is not the way to improve education. But if schools have to improve the quality of education in order to attract customers (students) to the school just as businesses have to offer a quality product to be successful, then it is a win win situation. Poor schools will close as they should. The schools that are actually educating the children will prosper as they should.

The goal is not to achieve equality. The goal is to educate the children.
Click to expand...


I made clear that improving the quality level of underperforming schools is the goal.

When everything else is equal, better funded schools do better. Yes, it is possible to waste money and produce no results. Yes, parental involvement and the parent's educational background will have a great impact on the effectiveness of education. But a well run school with money will do better with even the toughest students than an equivalent challenged school that is underfunded. Fully funding schools with challenging students to he point that they attract the best teachers has barely been tried, but it does work when done properly. Giving up on the challenge of educating the difficult kids is not acceptable unless we want to sustain or increase the ranks of our underclass criminals and prisons. (an outcome acceptable only to selfish and heartless conservatives and libertarians) Vouchers, charter schools and other privatization schemes are all plans to help the privileged by refusing to provide poor and challenged kids with an education at the same quality as provided to everyone else.

The goal should be to educate all children.
 
mac said:
That's your opinion. I disagree with it.
Click to expand...

Tell me if wrong, but my impression from your posts is that your opinion is that it is acceptable to provide government funds to religious organizations that discriminate and promote religion.
 
Cephus said:
If and when they break the law, we arrest them. If and when they commit a capital crime, we execute them. That's how our system works. While it's probably obvious which way they're going to go eventually, we don't proactively arrest people because we think they might do something wrong.
Click to expand...

Since most of the kids that you want to see "out in the cold where they belong" will end up getting "a monthly government check" from society or end up criminals or in prison, why waste time?

How about instead of throwing kids away like they are trash we fund programs that deal with their behavioral and psychological problems while they are young and can get back on track with their education? There are programs that have been proven to work. They are expensive but cheaper than the cost of providing a lifetime of welfare and/or incarceration to those kids.
 
Tetelestai said:
Maybe I wasn't clear about my answer. I'll try to explain further. Yes, teachers will be laid off. Unfortunately, in the unionized states, it will be done by seniority. The buildings are already there, so that's not an issue. Funding will fall, but so will enrollment, so costs go down as well. I believe that things will change very quickly at this point. Public school will retool, retrain and revamp into a smarter, more efficient and fiscally responsible format in order to compete. If done right and at the right time, I don't think there will be a lasting negative impact on the remaining students. Plus, I think that more local private schools will be started in order to try and claim the tax moneys that those students represent. There will be a place for them. The money is already there. What would help even more is to take school funding off the property tax and make it a new sales tax. That way everybody is paying into the system, rather than just the property owners. I don't even think it would take that much of a sales tax.
Click to expand...
I don't care about teachers being laid off. I'm from Wisconsin; and voted for Scott Walker twice. What I'm only worried about the kids that are left in failing schools ... there's still a large number of kids that don't have the advantage an hour morning trek out of their school district, or nifty options to go to private schools. In Wisconsin, that includes most all children in the inner cities, kids the most rural parts of the state and on the Indian reservations.

Moreover a school that is stripped of its funding cannot "retool, retrain and revamp". You're making an absolutely stupid claim that schools will be able create better curriculums, buy new and better textbooks/equipment, hire solid teachers and maintain the necessary physical facilities without funding. That’s laughable and quite frankly impossible, and it sacrifices the educations of hundreds of kids.

As if any business, government, football franchise or any other institution can complete revamp itself without having a dollar to its name; you CAN'T poach new employees, new coaches/managers, have the necessary systems and equipment without funding.

Tetelestai said:
But you haven't answered my question...

Are you saying that we have to keep all of the kids that are presently in failing public schools in order to protect the teachers that are causing the school to fail?

Here's another question...

Are you saying that we have to keep kids in a failing school that could otherwise be put in good schools in order to cater to those that don't want/ can't go to better schools? How does that help the country's problem with lost competitiveness due to failing education?
Click to expand...
You're trying to derail.

1. No, we need to keep funding in schools to protect our kids. Again, I'm from Wisconsin. Gov. Walker got rid of tenure and our public school systems have the complete freedom to fire poor performing teaches at will. You're the one making this about teachers, and ignoring the kids.

2. Kids that are deprived of education usually grow up to be gangbangers and shoot up our cities. You seem to believe that we only ought give an primary-level education to those that can afford to have a primary-level education; which is completely contradictory to the whole fracking reason we have compulsory education and a public school system in the US.

There will always be the option to pay a tuition and go to a private school, or to homeschool. That's completely reasonable and is two ideas that I fully support. However if you wish to take a hatchet to the enrollment numbers of our public schools by forcibly deporting kids out of poor performance schools; the most you're going to accomplish is decimating education funding by spreading it paper thin, and making everyone worse off and less educated in the process.
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
I made clear that improving the quality level of underperforming schools is the goal.

When everything else is equal, better funded schools do better. Yes, it is possible to waste money and produce no results. Yes, parental involvement and the parent's educational background will have a great impact on the effectiveness of education. But a well run school with money will do better with even the toughest students than an equivalent challenged school that is underfunded. Fully funding schools with challenging students to he point that they attract the best teachers has barely been tried, but it does work when done properly. Giving up on the challenge of educating the difficult kids is not acceptable unless we want to sustain or increase the ranks of our underclass criminals and prisons. (an outcome acceptable only to selfish and heartless conservatives and libertarians) Vouchers, charter schools and other privatization schemes are all plans to help the privileged by refusing to provide poor and challenged kids with an education at the same quality as provided to everyone else.

The goal should be to educate all children.
Click to expand...

No, 'better funded' schools is not the answer. If 'better funding' was the answer, the USA would be in the top 1 percentile of school excellence in the world because we are in the top 1 percentile of funding per capita in the world. Only Denmark, Switzerland, and Austria outspend us and they only by a very small amount ranging from less than $100 to a few hundred dollars. But we are way down on the list in all the core subjects. Even some third world countries beat us. Washington DC has the highest per capita spending per student in the world and yet is among the cities with the worst performing public schools.

Funding won't solve the problem. Only a total attitude change re education will solve the problem. And we can begin by getting the federal government out of it altogether.
 
Hard Truth said:
Since most of the kids that you want to see "out in the cold where they belong" will end up getting "a monthly government check" from society or end up criminals or in prison, why waste time?
Click to expand...

Because that's not the way the system works. We don't got to extremes like that.

How about instead of throwing kids away like they are trash we fund programs that deal with their behavioral and psychological problems while they are young and can get back on track with their education? There are programs that have been proven to work. They are expensive but cheaper than the cost of providing a lifetime of welfare and/or incarceration to those kids.
Click to expand...

I'm entirely fine with that, the problem is that there are a lot of people out there who don't want such programs because they fear telling poor parents and sub-cultures that their techniques and cultures have failed. They don't want to tell ghetto parents that the way they've chosen to live their lives for generations is damaging. It might make them feel bad! I absolutely think we should teach children how to live responsible lives, regardless of what they hear from their parents who have a hand out to the government. Unfortunately for the Democrats, if we do that, we cost them future voters.
 
brothern said:
I don't care about teachers being laid off. I'm from Wisconsin; and voted for Scott Walker twice. What I'm only worried about the kids that are left in failing schools ... there's still a large number of kids that don't have the advantage an hour morning trek out of their school district, or nifty options to go to private schools. In Wisconsin, that includes most all children in the inner cities, kids the most rural parts of the state and on the Indian reservations.

Moreover a school that is stripped of its funding cannot "retool, retrain and revamp". You're making an absolutely stupid claim that schools will be able create better curriculums, buy new and better textbooks/equipment, hire solid teachers and maintain the necessary physical facilities without funding. That’s laughable and quite frankly impossible, and it sacrifices the educations of hundreds of kids.

As if any business, government, football franchise or any other institution can complete revamp itself without having a dollar to its name; you CAN'T poach new employees, new coaches/managers, have the necessary systems and equipment without funding.


You're trying to derail.

1. No, we need to keep funding in schools to protect our kids. Again, I'm from Wisconsin. Gov. Walker got rid of tenure and our public school systems have the complete freedom to fire poor performing teaches at will. You're the one making this about teachers, and ignoring the kids.

2. Kids that are deprived of education usually grow up to be gangbangers and shoot up our cities. You seem to believe that we only ought give an primary-level education to those that can afford to have a primary-level education; which is completely contradictory to the whole fracking reason we have compulsory education and a public school system in the US.

There will always be the option to pay a tuition and go to a private school, or to homeschool. That's completely reasonable and is two ideas that I fully support. However if you wish to take a hatchet to the enrollment numbers of our public schools by forcibly deporting kids out of poor performance schools; the most you're going to accomplish is decimating education funding by spreading it paper thin, and making everyone worse off and less educated in the process.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand why you can't comprehend what I am saying. It's quite frustrating, really. I said that there are tax dollars that are spent on each child. Say, for example, it's $10,000 a year per child. Unless the child's parents "voluntarily" (that's what school choice means. Nobody ever said anything about "forcing" anybody to go private) move them to another school. The tax dollars for that child that moves would go to the new school. Any child that does not move, their tax dollars would remain with the school they are in. Therefore NOBODY CUTS OFF ALL FUNDING. All this does is forces teachers and public school systems to compete for the privilege to teach our children. rather than just continuing to throw money into a failed system and FORCING our children to go there. If I send my child to private school, my tax dollars are still going to the public school and I am paying twice... just because the teachers and their unions refuse to make common sense changes that make the system more efficient and fiscally responsible. Thus it is you that is forcing a child to go to a particular school through economic control, rather than me.
 
Hard Truth said:
Tell me if wrong, but my impression from your posts is that your opinion is that it is acceptable to provide government funds to religious organizations that discriminate and promote religion.
Click to expand...

A school associated with a religion is not a "religious institution" it is a school. And SCOTUS says, yeah, it's acceptable. What wouldn't be acceptable is govt picking and choosing which religious affiliated schools that voucher can be used in. For instance, only if it's a Jewish school, or only if it's a Catholic School, etc, etc.
 
disneydude said:
Nope. The Supreme Court has said otherwise. Schools associated with religions are still "religious institutions" under the Constitution. That is just more attempted creativity to skirt the Constitution, but it has already been recognized as violative by the SCOTUS. Try again.
Click to expand...

No, seriously, please show me SCOTUS's proclamation you claim exists.
 
But the concept of vouchers to improve education is pretty simple.

If you have the choice of handing over a voucher plus a few thousand more dollars in tuition to a parochial or private school . . . or. . .

You can have the choice of handing over a voucher to a public school that will provide a positive environment and educate your child as effectively as the parochial or private school and you pay nothing additional. . . .

Which school will you most likely choose?

And if teachers, administrators, and school boards want to stay in business, what might they be willing to do to improve education sufficiently that the parents will turn in those vouchers to the public school instead of the parochial or private school?

As I said, for those willing to provide a top notch education for the kids, it's a win win proposition all the way around.
 
Hell no.

Good public schools are a big reason why certain property values are high. People want to live in the good school districts so that their kids can go there and get a good education, so they pay a premium for it.

If you start bussing kids in from the inner city, that crashes the property values in pretty much every suburban development in America.

Screw that.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Hell no.

Good public schools are a big reason why certain property values are high. People want to live in the good school districts so that their kids can go there and get a good education, so they pay a premium for it.

If you start bussing kids in from the inner city, that crashes the property values in pretty much every suburban development in America.

Screw that.
Click to expand...

How would that inner city kid prevent a good school from being a good school? And nobody would bus him. His parents would deliver him or send him on public transportation or whatever--anything to get the kid out of a failing inner city school.
 
AlbqOwl said:
How would that inner city kid prevent a good school from being a good school? And nobody would bus him. His parents would deliver him or send him on public transportation or whatever--anything to get the kid out of a failing inner city school.
Click to expand...

The good schools are only good because the kids perform better and the environment is safer and better for both teachers and kids.

The kids perform better because they come from solid families.

If you start bringing kids in to the school who have problems at home, who are used to violence on their streets, then they will bring those problems with them to the suburbs.

The suburban kids and parents didn't ask for that. It's not fair to them. So now you're going to lower the quality of their school and lower their property values at the same time.
 
Peter Grimm said:
The good schools are only good because the kids perform better and the environment is safer and better for both teachers and kids.

The kids perform better because they come from solid families.

If you start bringing kids in to the school who have problems at home, who are used to violence on their streets, then they will bring those problems with them to the suburbs.

The suburban kids and parents didn't ask for that. It's not fair to them. So now you're going to lower the quality of their school and lower their property values at the same time.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm not buying the argument. That inner city kid is not automatically subject to all the problems of the inner city. And any parent who cares enough about that kid to get him/her out of a failing school and into a good one, with all the logistical problems that will entail for the parent, is likely a parent that is going to see that the kid takes full advantage of that opportunity. We are not suggesting in any way that the school lower its requirements or standards to accommodate that inner city kid. But if the kid is up to meeting those requirements and standards, he/she deserves the shot. Certainly those kids that live in the immediate school district should have dibs on available slots in that school. And when it is full, it is full. But again, if there is room, and the inner city kid applies, he/she deserves a shot at the brass ring too.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Sorry, but I'm not buying the argument. That inner city kid is not automatically subject to all the problems of the inner city. And any parent who cares enough about that kid to get him/her out of a failing school and into a good one, with all the logistical problems that will entail for the parent, is likely a parent that is going to see that the kid takes full advantage of that opportunity. We are not suggesting in any way that the school lower its requirements or standards to accommodate that inner city kid. But if the kid is up to meeting those requirements and standards, he/she deserves the shot. Certainly those kids that live in the immediate school district should have dibs on available slots in that school. And when it is full, it is full. But again, if there is room, and the inner city kid applies, he/she deserves a shot at the brass ring too.
Click to expand...

I disagree. What needs to happen instead is we need to make the necessary investments to improve the inner city schools themselves.

On a personal note, we had kids who were bussed out to my school when I was growing up. I grew up in a suburb, we had good schools, all that. The kids who were shipped out to us were always sent out there against their will by their parents, they always caused problems.... vandalism, theft, fighting, bullying, drugs..... a number of them were expelled, held back, etc. A lot of those kids have disciplinary problems. That's just anecdotal but I've lived it myself.

These suburban people didn't ask for someone else's problems to be dumped on them. It's not fair. Clean up the inner city schools.... that's the right way forward.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I disagree. What needs to happen instead is we need to make the necessary investments to improve the inner city schools themselves.

On a personal note, we had kids who were bussed out to my school when I was growing up. I grew up in a suburb, we had good schools, all that. The kids who were shipped out to us were always sent out there against their will by their parents, they always caused problems.... vandalism, theft, fighting, bullying, drugs..... a number of them were expelled, held back, etc. A lot of those kids have disciplinary problems. That's just anecdotal but I've lived it myself.

These suburban people didn't ask for someone else's problems to be dumped on them. It's not fair. Clean up the inner city schools.... that's the right way forward.
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about forced bussing or anything against anybody's will are we. That's a separate issue and a separate discussion. Totally non sequitur to the thread topic.

This discussion is on the pros and cons of CHOICE, not coercion or social engineering. We're talking about a kid who wants a good education and parents willing to do whatever is necessary that they can to see that he/she receives it.

And the whole purpose of school choice is to put the money where kids are being educated. And if the failing schools want to keep getting that money, they are advised to clean up their acts and start doing what is necessary to educate the kids. Otherwise they close. As they should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom