- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 12,353
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Re: Are you in favor of vouchers for children to attend private schools? (high/gramma
!*WARNING*! Massive wall of text! !*WARNING*!
As I see it, having schools which cater to a specific type of student has both positives and negatives to it.
Perhaps if there were specific, tailored schools which taught the students which fit that category certain subjects, but once or twice a week the students would attend a class with all other types of students? I can imagine students dividing into groups, calling those from other groups various names...
Perhaps students could be taught in tailored teaching environments up to a certain point and then tossed into the sea which is middle/junior high/high school or whatever.
^ Me thinking while typing. ^
This is reasonable, perhaps. But what if the teaching style they use does not fit the student they are required to accept? I doubt that any student learns the same way as another. The ideal, of course, would be to have each student have 1 teacher. That is the role parents are supposed to take when their child is dealing with homework.
Reasonable. But what limits will be placed on how they deal with said student? And my previous response also has some bearing.
What are the requirements for teaching credentials? Are they reasonable to the level of teaching? Who sets the requirements? Are teaching unions involved in any way in setting the requirements for teaching credentials? If so, would this not give them leverage on private schools who did not have unionized teachers?
I personally think that better education is a key if not THE key to solving most if not all of those "problems epidemic in our broader society".
I think I agree with this statement.
I think standards for various areas of study are needed. But the danger is that teachers may "teach by the test", or something. This, I have read, is a problem in some areas of the world. Not to mention some areas of the USA.
I don't see how tailoring their education program to a certain type of student prevents them from "doing their part in meeting society's goal of educating ALL of the populace." Yes, they aren't teaching all types of students, but that in and of itself might be one of the reasons they could possibly do better at teaching the ones they DO teach.
In my mind, there are certain things which should be supported by taxes. National Defense, of course, as that is THE main reason for a government to exist.
Everything else, IMO, is debatable. This is not to say that any of them are not necessary, as many of them are. I just am using this general answer to avoid going through all of them. :mrgreen:
I don't think anyone, after at least SOME thought on the question, would support an unregulated voucher system...:shock: The horror that could occur.
!*WARNING*! Massive wall of text! !*WARNING*!
Yes, they would have to accept any student the public schools are required to accept.
As I see it, having schools which cater to a specific type of student has both positives and negatives to it.
- A positive is that a more specific and tailored teaching environment has the potential to, in the end, produce a better educated graduate.
- A negative is that students in such a tailored , specific teaching environment would have little to no contact with other types of students...something essential in my mind to producing a well-educated graduate.
Perhaps if there were specific, tailored schools which taught the students which fit that category certain subjects, but once or twice a week the students would attend a class with all other types of students? I can imagine students dividing into groups, calling those from other groups various names...
Perhaps students could be taught in tailored teaching environments up to a certain point and then tossed into the sea which is middle/junior high/high school or whatever.
^ Me thinking while typing. ^
What about them? Let them teach using whatever philosophy they wish, Let them teach whatever emphasis they wish. As for gender specific, I have no objection, just make them accept people from the gender on a first come first serve basis.
This is reasonable, perhaps. But what if the teaching style they use does not fit the student they are required to accept? I doubt that any student learns the same way as another. The ideal, of course, would be to have each student have 1 teacher. That is the role parents are supposed to take when their child is dealing with homework.
The only effect is that they would have to deal with the difficult students. If the school is going to be publicly funded, then it must address the issue of educating difficult students.
Reasonable. But what limits will be placed on how they deal with said student? And my previous response also has some bearing.
No, I do not think that private schools should have to deal with a Union if their school has not been unionized. However, I think I might require a private school to only hire teachers with teaching credentials... that is, if they want to accept vouchers.
What are the requirements for teaching credentials? Are they reasonable to the level of teaching? Who sets the requirements? Are teaching unions involved in any way in setting the requirements for teaching credentials? If so, would this not give them leverage on private schools who did not have unionized teachers?
Good.There is room for that in the system I have described.
The schools that are not teaching well aren't failing at this task due to not being specialized enough. It is mostly due to the fact that they have to deal with problems epidemic in our broader society. Requiring private schools to have to address those problems too would help prevent society from shoving those broader problems under our collective rug.
I personally think that better education is a key if not THE key to solving most if not all of those "problems epidemic in our broader society".
The day we forget completely that we are all in this together will be the day just prior to our complete failure as a society, and deservedly so, in my view.
I think I agree with this statement.
Perhaps. But, my recommendation would help that situation in any event.
I think standards for various areas of study are needed. But the danger is that teachers may "teach by the test", or something. This, I have read, is a problem in some areas of the world. Not to mention some areas of the USA.
Nope, that's not what I said at all. I am, however, preventing public money from going to schools that would refuse to do their part in meeting society's goal of educating ALL of the populace.
I don't see how tailoring their education program to a certain type of student prevents them from "doing their part in meeting society's goal of educating ALL of the populace." Yes, they aren't teaching all types of students, but that in and of itself might be one of the reasons they could possibly do better at teaching the ones they DO teach.
Yes, I want to continue the 'confiscation of tax' for all sorts of things, like national defense, the FDA, student grant/loan programs, etc. etc. If YOU don't want to live in a society, then go someplace where there isn't one, like... Somalia. I am fairly certain you could completely avoid paying taxes there... however, your next door neighbor might take your stuff from you. But, hey, at least you wouldn't have the guv'ment pushing you around and taking your money.
In my mind, there are certain things which should be supported by taxes. National Defense, of course, as that is THE main reason for a government to exist.
Everything else, IMO, is debatable. This is not to say that any of them are not necessary, as many of them are. I just am using this general answer to avoid going through all of them. :mrgreen:
An unregulated voucher system would not be a compromise.
I don't think anyone, after at least SOME thought on the question, would support an unregulated voucher system...:shock: The horror that could occur.