• 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

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Do you support school choice?

Yes
Yes but with certain exceptions. Please list those exceptions.
no, students should only go to schools in their public school district.
other
maybe


School choice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Open enrollment

Open enrollment refers to educational policies which allow residents of a state to enroll their children in any public school, provided the school has not reached its maximum capacity number for students, regardless of the school district in which a family resides.
Open enrollment can be either intra-district or inter-district. Intra-district choice allows parents to send their children to any school within their designated district. Parents can enroll their children in schools outside of their catchment area. Inter-district school choice allows parents to select public schools outside of their resident district.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Inequality of Open Enrollment

An open enrollment policy allows parents to choose the school they want their children to attend from any of the schools in their area, provided there is space for them. This definition gives the impression that everyone has an equal opportunity to choose a school, but the reality of such equality has been called into question.[SUP][2][/SUP] For example, in rural areas the option of taking advantage of open enrollment is greatly diminished because of limited access to alternate schools.


Vouchers

Main article: School voucher
When the government pays tuition to a private school on behalf of the parents, this is usually referred to as a voucher. A voucher is given to the family for them to spend at any school of their choice for their child's study. The two most common voucher designs are universal vouchers and means-tested vouchers. Means-tested vouchers are directed towards low-income families and constitute the bulk of voucher plans in the United States.
Tuition tax credits

A tuition tax credit is similar to most other familiar tax credits. Certain states allow individuals and/or businesses to deduct a certain amount of their income taxes to donate to education. Depending on the program, these donations can either go to a public school or to a School Tuition Organization (STO), or both. The donations that go to public schools are often used to help pay for after-school programs, schools trips, or school supplies. The donations that go to School Tuition Organizations are used by the STO to create scholarships that are then given to students. These programs currently exist in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island in the United States.[SUP][8][/SUP]
Charter schools

Main article: Charter school
Charter schools are public schools with more relaxed rules and regulations. These relaxed rules tend to deal with things like Teacher Union contracts and state curriculum. The majority of states (and the District of Columbia) have charter school laws. Minnesota was the first state to have a charter school law and the first charter school in the United States, City Academy High School, opened in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1992.[SUP][9][/SUP]
Dayton, Ohio has between 22–26% of all children in charter schools.[SUP][10][/SUP] This is the highest percentage in the nation. Other hotbeds for charter schools are Kansas City (24%), Washington, D.C. (20-24%) and Arizona. Almost 1 in 4 public schools in Arizona are charter schools, comprising about 8% of total enrollment.
Charter schools can also come in the form of Cyber Charters. Cyber charter schools deliver the majority of their instruction over the internet instead of in a school building. And, like charter schools, they are public schools, but free of many of the rules and regulations that public schools must follow.
Magnet schools

Main article: Magnet school
Magnet schools are public schools that often have a specialized function like science, technology or art. These magnet schools, unlike charter schools, are not open to all children. Much like many private schools, there are some (but not all) magnet schools that require a test to get in.
Home schooling

Main article: Homeschooling
"Home education" or "home schooling" is instruction in a child's home, or provided primarily by a parent, or under direct parental control. Informal home education has always taken place, and formal instruction in the home has at times also been very popular. As public education grew in popularity during the 1900s, however, the number of people educated at home using a planned curriculum dropped. In the last 20 years, in contrast, the number of children being formally educated at home has grown tremendously, in particular in the United States. The laws relevant to home education differ throughout the country. In some states the parent simply needs to notify the state that the child will be educated at home. In other states the parents are not free to educate at home unless at least one parent is a certified teacher and yearly progress reports are reviewed by the state. Such laws are not always enforced however. According to the federal government, about 1.1 million children were home educated in 2003.[SUP][11][/SUP]




I do support school choice.The future of our kids is more important than any job security of any teacher. We can not wait until they fix **** at the local level while our children's education suffers because unions do not want to allow us to easily fire bad teachers or reform their teaching programs. Plus the tax dollars used to educate that child should follow that child regardless if that child goes to a public school,charter school or a voucher for a private school.
 
Absolutely. People should have a selection where they can educate their child. The only people that oppose this are statists that don't want competition between schools. Taking someone's money then forcing their kid to go to an inferior school when a better one is available is distinctly anti-liberty.
 
Do you support school choice?

Yes
Yes but with certain exceptions. Please list those exceptions.
no, students should only go to schools in their public school district.
other
maybe


School choice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Open enrollment

Open enrollment refers to educational policies which allow residents of a state to enroll their children in any public school, provided the school has not reached its maximum capacity number for students, regardless of the school district in which a family resides.
Open enrollment can be either intra-district or inter-district. Intra-district choice allows parents to send their children to any school within their designated district. Parents can enroll their children in schools outside of their catchment area. Inter-district school choice allows parents to select public schools outside of their resident district.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Inequality of Open Enrollment

An open enrollment policy allows parents to choose the school they want their children to attend from any of the schools in their area, provided there is space for them. This definition gives the impression that everyone has an equal opportunity to choose a school, but the reality of such equality has been called into question.[SUP][2][/SUP] For example, in rural areas the option of taking advantage of open enrollment is greatly diminished because of limited access to alternate schools.


Vouchers

Main article: School voucher
When the government pays tuition to a private school on behalf of the parents, this is usually referred to as a voucher. A voucher is given to the family for them to spend at any school of their choice for their child's study. The two most common voucher designs are universal vouchers and means-tested vouchers. Means-tested vouchers are directed towards low-income families and constitute the bulk of voucher plans in the United States.
Tuition tax credits

A tuition tax credit is similar to most other familiar tax credits. Certain states allow individuals and/or businesses to deduct a certain amount of their income taxes to donate to education. Depending on the program, these donations can either go to a public school or to a School Tuition Organization (STO), or both. The donations that go to public schools are often used to help pay for after-school programs, schools trips, or school supplies. The donations that go to School Tuition Organizations are used by the STO to create scholarships that are then given to students. These programs currently exist in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island in the United States.[SUP][8][/SUP]
Charter schools

Main article: Charter school
Charter schools are public schools with more relaxed rules and regulations. These relaxed rules tend to deal with things like Teacher Union contracts and state curriculum. The majority of states (and the District of Columbia) have charter school laws. Minnesota was the first state to have a charter school law and the first charter school in the United States, City Academy High School, opened in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1992.[SUP][9][/SUP]
Dayton, Ohio has between 22–26% of all children in charter schools.[SUP][10][/SUP] This is the highest percentage in the nation. Other hotbeds for charter schools are Kansas City (24%), Washington, D.C. (20-24%) and Arizona. Almost 1 in 4 public schools in Arizona are charter schools, comprising about 8% of total enrollment.
Charter schools can also come in the form of Cyber Charters. Cyber charter schools deliver the majority of their instruction over the internet instead of in a school building. And, like charter schools, they are public schools, but free of many of the rules and regulations that public schools must follow.
Magnet schools

Main article: Magnet school
Magnet schools are public schools that often have a specialized function like science, technology or art. These magnet schools, unlike charter schools, are not open to all children. Much like many private schools, there are some (but not all) magnet schools that require a test to get in.
Home schooling

Main article: Homeschooling
"Home education" or "home schooling" is instruction in a child's home, or provided primarily by a parent, or under direct parental control. Informal home education has always taken place, and formal instruction in the home has at times also been very popular. As public education grew in popularity during the 1900s, however, the number of people educated at home using a planned curriculum dropped. In the last 20 years, in contrast, the number of children being formally educated at home has grown tremendously, in particular in the United States. The laws relevant to home education differ throughout the country. In some states the parent simply needs to notify the state that the child will be educated at home. In other states the parents are not free to educate at home unless at least one parent is a certified teacher and yearly progress reports are reviewed by the state. Such laws are not always enforced however. According to the federal government, about 1.1 million children were home educated in 2003.[SUP][11][/SUP]




I do support school choice.The future of our kids is more important than any job security of any teacher. We can not wait until they fix **** at the local level while our children's education suffers because unions do not want to allow us to easily fire bad teachers or reform their teaching programs. Plus the tax dollars used to educate that child should follow that child regardless if that child goes to a public school,charter school or a voucher for a private school.

I suppose all but vouchers to religious church rule schools. That should not be paid by tax dollars nor a basis for tax deference or avoidance.
 
I neither support or oppose school choice as such, but I certainly don't see it as the magical solution to the wider problems with any education system. While there is a fixed supply and quality of education provision, any time one child is offered a "better" place, all the other children between them get shuffled down a step.

In real-world practice, such systems just mean the parents with the time, money, ability and determination can lock out all the best places. Once they have them, they've no interest in improving the wider system, only maintaining the status quo. It's even explicitly stated sometimes, with suggestions that "bad" schools are actively denied resources and allowed to die out, ignoring the harm to all of the children attending them while this is happening. A lot of the people (especially parents) strongly supporting choice see themselves in this position (regardless of whether they recognise or admit it). They wouldn't stand for it if their children were at one of these "bad" schools being slowly wound down but don't seem concerned about other children in that situation.

There is plenty to fix and improve in education but I don't see this as the way to do it. It's about "my children", not "our children".
 
Absolutely. People should have a selection where they can educate their child. The only people that oppose this are statists that don't want competition between schools. Taking someone's money then forcing their kid to go to an inferior school when a better one is available is distinctly anti-liberty.

Agree and I believe the tax money should follow the child. No one should have to double pay.
 
I support parents being able to send their kids to public schools, private schools, magnet schools, or homeschooling if they choose to do so. I only think vouchers should be available when the local public school system is failing. Otherwise if you want your kids to go to a private school, it should be fully on your own dime. It seems to me that many of the people that are in favor of vouchers are not parents in the inner city, though some of them are for good reason, but rather conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists that oppose teaching evolution and other aspects of modern science in school and thus want the taxpayers to pick up the tab for their kids to go to a religious school that shares their views. For example, the public school district our kids are in outperforms every private school in the metro by every statistical measure, yet you have fundamentalists in the district that want a voucher system because they want to send their kids to a school that teaches creationism.
 
Otherwise if you want your kids to go to a private school, it should be fully on your own dime.

Sounds good, just let them opt out of taxes paying for other kids.
 
School "vouchers" are often accompanied by too many restrictions, but can also have too few restrictions.

One example of too many restrictions is making the issue of a voucher depend on the "performance" of the normally assigned public school (compared only to other public schools) - that is insane since the voucher could be used anywhere.

One example of too few restrictions is for a voucher to be used by a "home school" parent or an "educational" institution that is never inspected/evaluated for its educational outcome - perhaps the voucher could be paid after the fact, based on the educational improvement of that individual student.

In general, vouchers should never be for the full amount of the public educational expense and probably should not exceed 80% of the average, per pupil, public educational cost.
 
Sounds good, just let them opt out of taxes paying for other kids.

That is not how society works anywhere. You don't get to choose which taxes you want to pay. Its not a cafeteria plan. You tend to argue things like the world should work how you imagine it, rather than how it is.
 
That is not how society works anywhere.

I know, private school parents pay for everyone's kids to go to school through taxation, and they pay for their kid to go to school with after tax funds.
 
I neither support or oppose school choice as such, but I certainly don't see it as the magical solution to the wider problems with any education system. While there is a fixed supply and quality of education provision, any time one child is offered a "better" place, all the other children between them get shuffled down a step.

In real-world practice, such systems just mean the parents with the time, money, ability and determination can lock out all the best places. Once they have them, they've no interest in improving the wider system, only maintaining the status quo. It's even explicitly stated sometimes, with suggestions that "bad" schools are actively denied resources and allowed to die out, ignoring the harm to all of the children attending them while this is happening. A lot of the people (especially parents) strongly supporting choice see themselves in this position (regardless of whether they recognise or admit it). They wouldn't stand for it if their children were at one of these "bad" schools being slowly wound down but don't seem concerned about other children in that situation.

There is plenty to fix and improve in education but I don't see this as the way to do it. It's about "my children", not "our children".

What's wrong with "parents who have the time, money, ability and determination" seeing that their children get the best education possible? Or should everyone be forced to settle for mediocre?

If public schools had to compete for students, public schools would change.
 
I support parents being able to send their kids to public schools, private schools, magnet schools, or homeschooling if they choose to do so. I only think vouchers should be available when the local public school system is failing. Otherwise if you want your kids to go to a private school, it should be fully on your own dime. It seems to me that many of the people that are in favor of vouchers are not parents in the inner city, though some of them are for good reason, but rather conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists that oppose teaching evolution and other aspects of modern science in school and thus want the taxpayers to pick up the tab for their kids to go to a religious school that shares their views. For example, the public school district our kids are in outperforms every private school in the metro by every statistical measure, yet you have fundamentalists in the district that want a voucher system because they want to send their kids to a school that teaches creationism.

Who gets to decide what "failing" means? If one student is permitted to graduate HS, while reading at only an 8th grade level, then that school system has failed, IMHO. To say that if 80% are performing at grade level then that school is "passing", only applies to that 80% - the other 20%, of the students, are being failed by that "satisfactory" public school.
 
I know, private school parents pay for everyone's kids to go to school through taxation, and they pay for their kid to go to school with after tax funds.

Actually if private school parents send their kids to a Catholic School, most likely they tithe their tuition and thus its a deduction for them. Public schools are an investment society makes in the next generation. Just like you don't get to opt out of paying for infrastructure you don't use, you don't get to opt out of paying for paying for public schools because for whatever reason you choose to send your kids to a private school.
 
Actually if private school parents send their kids to a Catholic School, most likely they tithe their tuition and thus its a deduction for them. Public schools are an investment society makes in the next generation. Just like you don't get to opt out of paying for infrastructure you don't use, you don't get to opt out of paying for paying for public schools because for whatever reason you choose to send your kids to a private school.

"Actually if private school parents send their kids to a Catholic School, most likely they tithe their tuition and thus its a deduction for them."

Sorry, no, it is not tax deductible.
 
What's wrong with "parents who have the time, money, ability and determination" seeing that their children get the best education possible? Or should everyone be forced to settle for mediocre?

If public schools had to compete for students, public schools would change.

Allow me to chime in both as a parent and as a 33 year former teacher in the public system. Of course, every parent has the right and duty to see that the education given to their child is the best that they can possibly give them. And if that means a school other than the local public school - so be it.

At the same time, we also have to accept and realize that there is a societal price to pay for that. The most motivated parents leave the public system and the contribution they could have made to that local public school is often never replaced or made by the less motivated or less educated or less involved parent who is still in the public system.

You multiply that times hundreds and thousands and millions and it becomes just like a big city like Detroit losing the tax payers over time and only keeping those who pay little but absorb much services. it has to have an overall negative effect on the system and on society.

It is not a win/win situation.

Maggie - I was a longtime union activist who went to the monthly meetings and screamed that the union get involved in improving the schools and setting high standards when the administration refused to do so. I was repeatedly told that such things were beyond the scope of unions. Thankfully, in the last ten years, this has started to change and now improving schools is seen as union business by the two major educational unions. Sadly, the damage has been done and for some districts, the situation may be impossible to reverse.
 
I know, private school parents pay for everyone's kids to go to school through taxation, and they pay for their kid to go to school with after tax funds.
As it should be.
 
I believe that there should be a limited version of school choice. I would definitely support the ability for parents to choose which school in the district their child attends. I grew up in a city with 7 elementary schools. The city was divided geographically as to who attended which elementary school. I would support parents having the right to choose which elementary school their kids attended. HOWEVER, I would also support the school district forcing the parents to either get the child to/from that school on their own or charge them the difference in expense for transportation if their choice is not their local school. I would not suggest that moving kids beyond their normal school district as a good idea.
 
"Actually if private school parents send their kids to a Catholic School, most likely they tithe their tuition and thus its a deduction for them."

Sorry, no, it is not tax deductible.

I went to catholic school for part of my childhood. Many parishes allow you to tithe rather than pay tuition. If you tithe, its tax deductible.
 
What's wrong with "parents who have the time, money, ability and determination" seeing that their children get the best education possible? Or should everyone be forced to settle for mediocre?

If public schools had to compete for students, public schools would change.
You can send your child to any school you want, just don't expect tax money to do so. Even though my child is grown I still have a say in our public schools. The same is not true of private schools.
 
I was a longtime union activist who went to the monthly meetings and screamed that the union get involved in improving the schools and setting high standards when the administration refused to do so. I was repeatedly told that such things were beyond the scope of unions. Thankfully, in the last ten years, this has started to change and now improving schools is seen as union business by the two major educational unions. Sadly, the damage has been done and for some districts, the situation may be impossible to reverse.
Even in the 70's, when our teachers went on strike, most of their complaints were related to school issues, not their personal lives.
 
I know, private school parents pay for everyone's kids to go to school through taxation, and they pay for their kid to go to school with after tax funds.

And people without kids have to pay for everyone kids to go to school without any benefit to themselves at all
 
I believe that there should be a limited version of school choice. I would definitely support the ability for parents to choose which school in the district their child attends. I grew up in a city with 7 elementary schools. The city was divided geographically as to who attended which elementary school. I would support parents having the right to choose which elementary school their kids attended. HOWEVER, I would also support the school district forcing the parents to either get the child to/from that school on their own or charge them the difference in expense for transportation if their choice is not their local school. I would not suggest that moving kids beyond their normal school district as a good idea.

That is how it is done here

You can send your kid to another school in the district, but getting the kid to school is then your responsibility if it is not on one of the school bus routes (if public school, the catholic schools use the public city buses)
 
What's wrong with "parents who have the time, money, ability and determination" seeing that their children get the best education possible?
Nothing in itself but there is a problem if it's to the detriment of other children. After all, on that principle, why bother fixing the state school system? Why bother having it at all? All the determined parents can use private schools and everyone else can rot in the gutter. It's a question of whether you're seeking good education for your kids or a good education system for society. I consider the former grossly short-sighted.

Or should everyone be forced to settle for mediocre?
Nobody should be forced to settle for mediocre. You're proposing that some children should be forced to settle for that or worse. I'm suggesting that the entire system for everyone should be improved. School choice won't achieve that (certainly not alone) but then it isn't intended to achieve that.

If public schools had to compete for students, public schools would change.
Certainly, but not necessarily in the manner you imply. Some would improve their game but others would in turn slowly (which is key) degenerate as they lost students, staff and resources. Some would spend money on hype and marketing to attract better students and staff without actually improving education. Some would resort to fraud and corruption (even more) to try to maintain the illusion of achievement. Overall, the picture would be different but not any better than it is now.
 
Back
Top Bottom