• 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
"....If the school accepts the voucher then they are automatically covered under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The only cases where I could find where discrimination was allowed by law were in cases of private, sectarian or non, that accepted no state or federal money, such as one in Hawaii that would not accept any white students. ......

"At the end of its 2001 Term, the Supreme Court settled one of the most contentious educational debates in recent history, ruling in Zelman v . Simmons-Harris that the inclusion of religious schools in a state school voucher program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. 1 There are, however, complex constitutional questions about vouchers that linger in Zelman ’s wake. This Note addresses one such issue that has only just begun to receive scholarly attention: Can states require private voucher schools—including religious schools—to comply with anti-discrimination policies, or would the enforcement of those policies violate the First Amendment rights of the schools? 2 For example, could a state require a private school to admit racial minorities, women, and gays and lesbians as a condition for eligibility in a state voucher program? What if the school administrators object on principle—perhaps religious principle—to racial integration, coeducational schooling, or homosexuality? Doesn’t the First Amendment protect the schools’ views?

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence does not provide easy answers to these questions, and the relevant body of case law is inconsistent......

Consider, for example, the four existing voucher statutes that allow for the participation of religious schools. Ohio’s statute only requires that participating schools “not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or ethnic background.” 12 It further mandates that schools not “teach hatred of any person or group on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.” 13 Florida’s program requires schools to comply with Title VI, which only bans discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. 14 Wisconsin’s voucher statute contains the same requirement. 15 Civil rights advocates in Wisconsin have been unsuccessful in their repeated efforts to include a more comprehensive anti-discrimination policy in that state’ s voucher law, despite the fact that Wisconsin public schools are held to one of the most expansive anti-discrimination laws in the nation. 16 Colorado’s voucher law—the most recently enacted of voucher laws—bans discrimination in participating schools only on the basis of “race, color, religion, national origin, or disability.” 17 A vague but potentially expansive provision of Colorado’s law also bans schools from “teach[ing] hatred of any person or group.” 18

Most proposed voucher bills include civil rights protections that would ban discrimination by voucher schools on the basis of race and national origin but do not contain provisions banning discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation. 19 One obvious explanation for this pattern is that discrimination against religious groups or gays and lesbians is more often considered justified by religious teachings, and legislators wish to respect religious schools’ rights to free exercise of religion. Another obvious explanation for the exclusion of sexual orientation is simply that in many parts of the country such discrimination is still socially and politically acceptable, regardless of whether there is a religious motivation. Despite these obstacles, legislators concerned about civil rights have not given up on efforts to include classifications like religion and sexual orientation in voucher laws. 20

Voucher legislation also tends not to ban discrimination based on sex, 21 perhaps because of the common—though certainly not universal— acceptance of single-sex schools as consistent with anti-discrimination norms. Some voucher legislation not only lacks civil rights protections altogether, but also includes provisions that could, among other things, affirmatively protect a school’s “right” to discriminate. For example, voucher legislation proposed in Kansas includes a provision stating that “[n]othing in this act shall be applied or construed in any manner so as to regulate or prohibit free exercise in matters of curriculum, creed or practice of any nonpublic Kansas school of choice.”

Opposition to vouchers is driven not only by legislators’ tendency to exclude comprehensive anti-discrimination provisions from voucher proposals, but also by a fear that private schools would be constitutionally exempted from anti-discrimination policies even if legislatures attempted to impose them. .....

In 2000, the Supreme Court held that the free speech right of expressive association exempted the Boy Scouts of America from New Jersey’s public accommodations law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 28 It is still unclear how broad Dale ’s reach will be. If it does extend into the realm of private schools, the consequences for antidiscrimination laws and voucher programs may be enormous. Voucher schools, like the Boy Scouts, may argue that their discriminatory practices entail the constitutionally protected expression of their viewpoints, and that this free expression may not be burdened or disfavored by the government.........."
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/375.pdf (bold type added by Hard Truth)
 
..... Additionally, are you sure that there would be harm if any school were to be naturally segregated? I am not talking about the "natural segregation" such as occurred under Willis in Chicago, but honest to God done purely by the choice of the students/parents? I seem to recall a study that showed that a segregation of boys from girls resulted in higher academic results, so might not there be a similar result along race line? Is there any study that shows, outside of forced segregation, that harm will come to students of a segregated school? I am willing to bet that most issues that came from segregation, aside from freedom of choice issues, were more about proper funding and resources given to the "minority" schools.....

I will disagree with the "unfairly" qualifier. If a person chooses to not belong somewhere because of the racial composition of the place then they are the ones who are harming themselves and as such they need to suffer the consequences of it. In this day and age, there would be very few schools that would allow segregation, especially along racial lines, but in general as well. Those that do will very quickly find themselves either serving niche markets or obsolete.

Without consideration of the effects of segregation within a school, there is already plenty of harm from being denied the opportunity to attend a chosen school. It doesn't matter much to the kids and families locked out of the best funded schools whether it because of the law, their income, the fact that they aren't accessible with affordable transportation, or because a group of parents don't want kids with their color or religion in their school. Another effect is that it is insulting to know that people choose to discriminate against you.
 
Any parent in my district that wants their child's fed money for private school can have all $240 of it. I don't care and neither would anyone else. :lol:

PS
However, I disagree about the fed using no money for education. Just like many other kinds of R&D the fed needs to do the basic educational R&D and they need to gather and publish unbiased statistics.

I have no problem with a general federal data gathering agency--I don't think you would need one devoted strictly for education--but I would see such data gathering agency as being in the interest of the general welfare. It could provide easy objective and unbiased access to information for those of us who plan to locate to know what the taxes, cost of living, average wages, quality of schools etc. are in a new area. Local school boards could access the data base to see how their schools are stacking up against others, what the tuition is and entrance requirements are for colleges across the country so that local curricula could be designed for students to qualify.

But any federal influence over the education process itself I see as inappropriate federal meddling that should just not exist.
 
I think it is inevitable that the price of private schools will increase with widespread availability of vouchers because it will increase demand and raise the amount many people will be willing to the pay (voucher value plus what they can afford compared to what they can afford only without vouchers).

There is something to this. It is almost a guarantee that once big government starts funding something, the cost of that something will significantly increase. Which is why vouchers should be administered locally only and not by large states or the federal government. It is impractical for each school to collect taxes to support the individual school so it is reasonable that taxes for a school district will go into a central fund and then be distributed among the various schools - or - in a voucher system among the various kids in the system. Vouchers simply put the power in the hands of the parents instead of government when it comes to education. And if the failing public schools want their share of that money, they will have to raise their standards to provide an education comparable to the private and parochial schools and/or the successful public schools and attract those students.

Most parents will almost certainly put their voucher with a good local school in their own neighborhood and pay nothing additional for tuition rather than pony up the extra tuition the voucher won't cover for the parochial or private school miles away - IF - the local school will educate their child well and there is little advantage to incurring extra expense and/or inconvenience. But if the local school isn't working for the child, at least school choice gives parents an extra tool to see that the child has access to a better education.

I also grew up when the local public school did not have to deal with the 'bad' or disruptive student. The child and his/her parents would be put on notice of a probation or suspension. And the parent would generally see that it didn't happen again. But if the child was so disruptive to interfere with the education of all the others, he or she would be expelled. And it would be left to the parent to figure out how to get him/her educated.

With school choice should also come the responsibility for both the parents and the child to benefit from the opportunity and not infringe on the rights of others.
 
Millions of extra students will require billions more in funding, money that is not guaranteed to appear - and current funding isn't guaranteed to last for that matter. The bottom line is you don't know what private school costs are and have no clue what charities will remain in place once the flood gate opens.


You've shown nothing to that effect. I fact, you've not shown in any way that private schools are more efficient than public schools without some basic change to the rules each must follow. If the rules for private schools are better then lets have public schools follow those same rules. Lets eliminate public school busing for starters, let the parents get their kids to school as best they can just like private schools do. That alone will make a huge dent in the cost of public education. Then we'll let public schools decide who can and can't come in their doors. If we make those two basic changes, which is where private schools get all their cost savings, then public schools would be some of the best schools in the country.

There is a private school right down the street, A National Blue Ribbon school, that only takes special needs and learning disabled students. They are the kids that private schools "choose not to take." They're doing pretty well. :Shrug:
 
There is a private school right down the street, A National Blue Ribbon school, that only takes special needs and learning disabled students. They are the kids that private schools "choose not to take." They're doing pretty well. :Shrug:

Apple to orang comparison. A specialized school that can cater to a specific clientele is quite different than one that must take them all in and give the same specialized services a specialized school gives. Now try that with cut funding.
 
There is something to this. It is almost a guarantee that once big government starts funding something, the cost of that something will significantly increase. Which is why vouchers should be administered locally only and not by large states or the federal government. It is impractical for each school to collect taxes to support the individual school so it is reasonable that taxes for a school district will go into a central fund and then be distributed among the various schools - or - in a voucher system among the various kids in the system. Vouchers simply put the power in the hands of the parents instead of government when it comes to education. And if the failing public schools want their share of that money, they will have to raise their standards to provide an education comparable to the private and parochial schools and/or the successful public schools and attract those students.

Most parents will almost certainly put their voucher with a good local school in their own neighborhood and pay nothing additional for tuition rather than pony up the extra tuition the voucher won't cover for the parochial or private school miles away - IF - the local school will educate their child well and there is little advantage to incurring extra expense and/or inconvenience. But if the local school isn't working for the child, at least school choice gives parents an extra tool to see that the child has access to a better education.

I also grew up when the local public school did not have to deal with the 'bad' or disruptive student. The child and his/her parents would be put on notice of a probation or suspension. And the parent would generally see that it didn't happen again. But if the child was so disruptive to interfere with the education of all the others, he or she would be expelled. And it would be left to the parent to figure out how to get him/her educated.

With school choice should also come the responsibility for both the parents and the child to benefit from the opportunity and not infringe on the rights of others.

Raise their standards or change their clientele? Most people I know pay for private school because they want their children with other children who are high achieves rather than to mix them in with problem kids. That is why these vouchers create this sort of stratification. That is exactly what happened in Chile.
 
Apple to orang comparison. A specialized school that can cater to a specific clientele is quite different than one that must take them all in and give the same specialized services a specialized school gives. Now try that with cut funding.

Think about what you just said.
 
Without consideration of the effects of segregation within a school, there is already plenty of harm from being denied the opportunity to attend a chosen school.
That wouldn't be segregation within a school but between schools, unless you meant within a given school system.

It doesn't matter much to the kids and families locked out of the best funded schools whether it because of the law, their income, the fact that they aren't accessible with affordable transportation, or because a group of parents don't want kids with their color or religion in their school.

Ok this is happening whether we stick with the current system or go to the voucher system, at least with how you are claiming how the voucher system would work. So this is a non-point with regards to whether or not we go to a voucher system.

Another effect is that it is insulting to know that people choose to discriminate against you.

Wah, bloody wah. There exist no right to not be insulted and people choose to discriminate against others for all kinds of things in all areas. How is this a point at all?

Sorry, I just don't see where any of your above comments addressed mine.

This part:
If the school accepts the voucher then they are automatically covered under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The only cases where I could find where discrimination was allowed by law were in cases of private, sectarian or non, that accepted no state or federal money, such as one in Hawaii that would not accept any white students.

If they want the public money, then there are strings attached.
 
Raise their standards or change their clientele? Most people I know pay for private school because they want their children with other children who are high achieves rather than to mix them in with problem kids. That is why these vouchers create this sort of stratification. That is exactly what happened in Chile.

So what do you do with the "problem kids" who aren't being challenged enough and are acting out based upon it. Your system will leave them trapped in a school that can do nothing for them
 
Apple to orang comparison. A specialized school that can cater to a specific clientele is quite different than one that must take them all in and give the same specialized services a specialized school gives. Now try that with cut funding.

By the way, had you attended a private school...you probably would have spelled orange correctly. Just sayin'.
 
That wouldn't be segregation within a school but between schools, unless you meant within a given school system.



Ok this is happening whether we stick with the current system or go to the voucher system, at least with how you are claiming how the voucher system would work. So this is a non-point with regards to whether or not we go to a voucher system.



Wah, bloody wah. There exist no right to not be insulted and people choose to discriminate against others for all kinds of things in all areas. How is this a point at all?



This part:


If they want the public money, then there are strings attached.

1. I meant that without discussing how segregation impacts the quality of education, unpopular minorities are harmed just by being denied an opportunity to attend a particular school because of the color of their skin, religion etc.

2. Currently it is illegal for public schools to discriminate based on race, religion etc., although there still is much de facto segregation. Vouchers will enable even more middle class white families to afford private schools, with some of those schools having discriminatory admission policies. This will leave the poor, especially poor minorities, stuck with even more under-funded schools than we have today.

3. There are many good reasons why racial, religious etc discrimination is illegal. Everyone has a right to be free from illegal discrimination by government, larger businesses and business establishments open to the public. Vouchers are a scheme to bypass those prohibitions on discrimination for the benefit of whites, Christians and more prosperous families.

4. The law is unclear and unsettled (see post#501), but it is likely that private schools will be able to continue their discriminatory policies even if they accept vouchers.
 
By the way, had you attended a private school...you probably would have spelled orange correctly. Just sayin'.

Oh come on now fair's fair. Are you telling me that you've never posted a typo before?
 
Think about what you just said.

Yes, depleting funds from public schools and expecting them to perform like a specialized school (which take those funds) is a set up for failure and not a fair comparison.
 
That wouldn't be segregation within a school but between schools, unless you meant within a given school system.



Ok this is happening whether we stick with the current system or go to the voucher system, at least with how you are claiming how the voucher system would work. So this is a non-point with regards to whether or not we go to a voucher system.



Wah, bloody wah. There exist no right to not be insulted and people choose to discriminate against others for all kinds of things in all areas. How is this a point at all?



This part:


If they want the public money, then there are strings attached.

Those laws are limited in scope when dealing with learning disabilities. Only IDEA covers very specific mandates that addresses the education of a child with learning disabilities. That of course is just one example of no strings attached. How about mandated state testing which is used as a high stake metric? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
Last edited:
Yes, depleting funds from public schools and expecting them to perform like a specialized school (which take those funds) is a set up for failure and not a fair comparison.

You're not "depleting" funds from the public school since the student (cost) disappears with the funding. And the parents can send their child to a school with a system optimized for the child's needs. Optimized=more efficient. Not to mention removing the burden from the public school.
 
So what do you do with the "problem kids" who aren't being challenged enough and are acting out based upon it. Your system will leave them trapped in a school that can do nothing for them

Oh, I see. Problem kids act out because they are not being challenged:roll: Not what I call 'problem'. Let's try and stick a child with behavioral issues in a posh private school and their problem behavior starts interfering with other children. I say they last less than a month.
 
By the way, had you attended a private school...you probably would have spelled orange correctly. Just sayin'.

Sad to see you had to find a typo to prove some lame joke. Is that all you have?
 
You're not "depleting" funds from the public school since the student (cost) disappears with the funding. And the parents can send their child to a school with a system optimized for the child's needs. Optimized=more efficient. Not to mention removing the burden from the public school.

Those costs are not really a true cost per child. As someone already stated, transportation is a huge cost. That money can be used toward something else in a private school since many won't transport the child. Same goes with special education costs. Those costs are mandated and if there is not enough money to meet those mandates out of the special education budget, the costs often come out of the regular education budget. Then you have other unfunded mandated costs like the NCLB Act has pushed on the public schools.
 
You're not "depleting" funds from the public school since the student (cost) disappears with the funding.....

Public school funds would be depleted because public schools have many fixed costs for building maintenance and utilities, non-teaching staffing, administration etc. It would take several years of reduced enrollment and a lot of process to lay off the unneeded employees and sell the under used and unused properties. Public schools also have mandates to provide special education and disability access for the students that need it, and those students are unlikely to be attractive to private schools since many of them would bring down the test scores and/or cost more to accommodate and educate. Also, the cost of instruction for a class of ten is roughly the same as for a class of thirty since it still just one teacher doing the work.
 
Last edited:
Those costs are not really a true cost per child. As someone already stated, transportation is a huge cost. That money can be used toward something else in a private school since many won't transport the child. Same goes with special education costs. Those costs are mandated and if there is not enough money to meet those mandates out of the special education budget, the costs often come out of the regular education budget. Then you have other unfunded mandated costs like the NCLB Act has pushed on the public schools.

Well, if all the kids bail, what are they transporting?
 
Public school funds would be depleted because public schools have many fixed costs for building maintenance and utilities, non-teaching staffing, administration etc. It would take several years of reduced enrollment and a lot of process to lay off the unneeded employees and sell the under used and unused properties. Public schools also have mandates to provide special education and disability access for the students that need it, and those students are unlikely to be attractive to private schools since many of them would bring down the test scores and/or cost more to accommodate and educate.

The decrease in students will decrease much of those ancillary costs.
 
Back
Top Bottom