What kinds of private schools would you support vouchers for?

OhReally? said:

So you assert that non-discrimination rules should include academic performance in relation to admittance in schools that get vouchers?

Click to expand...

No... academic performance isn't discrimination. There will be the numerous base charter schools that would accept anyone because they want the money from the vouchers and there will be a market for them because numerous charter school will want that voucher money.

celticwar17 said:

No... academic performance isn't discrimination. There will be the numerous base charter schools that would accept anyone because they want the money from the vouchers and there will be a market for them because numerous charter school will want that voucher money.

Click to expand...

Academic performance is discrimination. Public schools are not permitted to reject a student based upon academic performance. Private and charter schools are. Just because the charter school wants money doesn't mean they will accept a student that takes more resources to educate. So again, we have a group of students who are not required to be accepted and that violates the mandatory education laws.

OhReally? said:

Academic performance is discrimination. Public schools are not permitted to reject a student based upon academic performance. Private and charter schools are. Just because the charter school wants money doesn't mean they will accept a student that takes more resources to educate. So again, we have a group of students who are not required to be accepted and that violates the mandatory education laws.

Click to expand...

the majority schools will not decline on the basis of academic performance. There WILL still be multiple schools trying to fit the niche population they go for, the most successful of those will be the one's that accept any applicants because they have the biggest consumer base.

Even if you are right... there will still be the base charter schools which are like half/business half/public... you could mandate a specific application for base schools that accept any applicant to get a tax break or something.
THERE ARE WAYS AROUND THIS. It's not impossible to conceive.

celticwar17 said:

the majority schools will not decline on the basis of academic performance. There WILL still be multiple schools trying to fit the niche population they go for, the most successful of those will be the one's that accept any applicants because they have the biggest consumer base.

Even if you are right... there will still be the base charter schools which are like half/business half/public... you could mandate a specific application for base schools that accept any applicant to get a tax break or something.
THERE ARE WAYS AROUND THIS. It's not impossible to conceive.

Click to expand...

So at the end of the day you are forcing someone to take the students that no one else wants? And then how do you expect those schools to perform?

celticwar17 said:

THERE is where your Liberal comes out...This charter and private school system will make people more accountable for their choice's, it is not simply chosen for them. Parent's and their child will not willingly go to a bad school if they know they have a choice. Why do you think there is a lot of protest in poor african american communities on their education?

Click to expand...

Some parents and community members protest in those neighborhoods. Unfortunately, they aren't the ones whose children are the primary failing students in the education system. It's the parents who don't protest, who are in jail, on drugs, etc. with kids who primarily fail in school.

The parent's and the child have a personal responsibility to desire quality education. If you do not demand it, you will fail in the real world.

Click to expand...

That is my point. And this is where your callousness and true concerns come out (I would say your Conservative comes out, but that would be stereotyping and a lot of conservatives aren't like you).

My priority is to improve the education system so that every child will receive a quality education. Parental involvement is a huge factor in providing quality education.

Unfortunately, children in poor neighborhoods born to uninvolved parents don't have a good chance of succeeding in school and life. So it's callous to say "if you don't demand it, you will fail in the real world" because you're saying that to children who were born into a situation that all but promises them failure. Maybe it's "Liberal" of me, but I have a desire make sure these kids have an education that serves their unique needs as well and not just leave them up to social darwinism.

Many of their parents won't demand quality and so the same kids who are failing in the current system will continue to fail under yours....but it appears that your less worried about actually fixing the entire education system and more worried about making sure a few kids who got the right parents and the right vouchers get to join the privileged.

I, on the other hand, want kids with uninvolved parents (who won't "demand it" and who will "fail") to have the same shot at a good education as kids with involved parents. The problem is, many public schools have not tailored their programs to the needs of such kids (more literacy coaches, more tutors, etc.). The ones that have, have improved education in low-income public schools. We need to learn from them.

celticwar17 said:

the majority schools will not decline on the basis of academic performance. There WILL still be multiple schools trying to fit the niche population they go for, the most successful of those will be the one's that accept any applicants because they have the biggest consumer base.

Even if you are right... there will still be the base charter schools which are like half/business half/public... you could mandate a specific application for base schools that accept any applicant to get a tax break or something.
THERE ARE WAYS AROUND THIS. It's not impossible to conceive.

Click to expand...

Private schools and charter schools always get rid of kids with low academic performance - if they didn't, their numbers would be low and they would look unappealing. As a result, the poorly performing students will go to the crappy private/charter schools and we'll be back at square one.

The problem is not public vs. private/charter. The problem is that our society does not value poor kids as much as rich kids - this lower value isn't necessarily malicious, it's just based in the fact that parents worry mostly about their own children. Therefore, wealthy/middle-class parents will fight for good education in their own neighborhoods, but not in lower-income neighborhoods. So at the end of the day whether it's a fully private or public system, the problem of education won't be solved until someone takes up the fight for poor kids in the same way rich people take it up for theirs.

OhReally? said:

So at the end of the day you are forcing someone to take the students that no one else wants? And then how do you expect those schools to perform?

Click to expand...

easy... because those schools want those students... and if they don't make their school good... people will leave and the school will fail.

celticwar17 said:

easy... because those schools want those students... and if they don't make their school good... people will leave and the school will fail.

Click to expand...

The schools don't want bad students. It's why private schools discriminate based upon performance. If you truly believed that schools want students then you would eliminate the discrimination abilities.

theplaydrive said:

Private schools and charter schools always get rid of kids with low academic performance - if they didn't, their numbers would be low and they would look unappealing. As a result, the poorly performing students will go to the crappy private/charter schools and we'll be back at square one.

The problem is not public vs. private/charter. The problem is that our society does not value poor kids as much as rich kids - this lower value isn't necessarily malicious, it's just based in the fact that parents worry mostly about their own children. Therefore, wealthy/middle-class parents will fight for good education in their own neighborhoods, but not in lower-income neighborhoods. So at the end of the day whether it's a fully private or public system, the problem of education won't be solved until someone takes up the fight for poor kids in the same way rich people take it up for theirs.

Click to expand...

THATS THE WHOLE REASON FOR A CHARTER/PRIVATE SYSTEM.
YOU the consumer are in CONTROL.
This gives poor people a CHOICE and power to where their money is going. What school will they want their voucher going to? A sucky school that doesn't care about their students or the school that cares about their students (customers) and will try and help anyway they can. The school WILL fail if it sucks.

OhReally? said:

The schools don't want bad students. It's why private schools discriminate based upon performance. If you truly believed that schools want students then you would eliminate the discrimination abilities.

Click to expand...

the Students have money that they want! money is money, and that's what they have with the voucher. You just have a pre-concieved notion on how our current school system works. Current schools don't want bad student's because they will not get funding otherwise.
Different schools will have different specialties. If it's a school that is known to help struggling students... THAT IS A GOOD THING... people will want to go to that school... especially if you have a struggling child. You have money in your power with the voucher.

celticwar17 said:

the Students have money that they want! money is money, and that's what they have with the voucher. You just have a pre-concieved notion on how our current school system works. Current schools don't want bad student's because they will not get funding otherwise.
Different schools will have different specialties. If it's a school that is known to help struggling students... THAT IS A GOOD THING... people will want to go to that school... especially if you have a struggling child. You have money in your power with the voucher.

Click to expand...

You assume that someone will want to create a school for bad students though it is a fact that bad students cost more to educate and thus are not as profitable. Why would someone want to reduce their profit? Doesn't make sense. Unless of course you eliminate the discrimination ability and require schools to take students.

celticwar17 said:

THATS THE WHOLE REASON FOR A CHARTER/PRIVATE SYSTEM.
YOU the consumer are in CONTROL.
This gives poor people a CHOICE and power to where their money is going. What school will they want their voucher going to? A sucky school that doesn't care about their students or the school that cares about their students (customers) and will try and help anyway they can. The school WILL fail if it sucks.

Click to expand...

Let's try this again. Obviously the consumer is in control...Unfortunately, the consumer is in control now as well.

A huge part, if not the biggest part, of the reason why poor schools perform much worse than rich schools is because parents in rich schools would never allow their children to get the kind of education that uninvolved parents in poor schools do.

Parents always have the choice to organize and protest and force changes they way they did in my suburb (middle class) and the way they didn't in the neighborhood a few miles away (inner city). With privatization, parents will be able to choose a school. The students of the attentive parents will do well and the students of inattentive parents will not do well and will end up in the crappy private schools with the other children of uninvolved parents.

Competition only works when the consumer demands a product - uninvolved, drug addicted, jailed parents will not demand - so we need to create schools that address the needs of students with these types of parents and do not depend on them to demand something that they aren't going to.

I think we should just keep on blaming the parents so that nobody has to actually teach the little criminals.

sazerac said:

I think we should just keep on blaming the parents so that nobody has to actually teach the little criminals.

Click to expand...

Waaaaaah?

10 chars.

theplaydrive said:

Let's try this again. Obviously the consumer is in control...Unfortunately, the consumer is in control now as well.

A huge part, if not the biggest part, of the reason why poor schools perform much worse than rich schools is because parents in rich schools would never allow their children to get the kind of education that uninvolved parents in poor schools do.

Parents always have the choice to organize and protest and force changes they way they did in my suburb (middle class) and the way they didn't in the neighborhood a few miles away (inner city). With privatization, parents will be able to choose a school. The students of the attentive parents will do well and the students of inattentive parents will not do well and will end up in the crappy private schools with the other children of uninvolved parents.

Competition only works when the consumer demands a product - uninvolved, drug addicted, jailed parents will not demand - so we need to create schools that address the needs of students with these types of parents and do not depend on them to demand something that they aren't going to.

Click to expand...

Again... even the poorest communities are protesting for better education. You don't care when you don't have a choice. A private/charter school could never thrive on people making crappy choices. Since people have a choice they will always pick the better option. It is only so long a school could get away with doing that before people would boycott it and go (with their money) to a better school.
personal responsibility. You fail if you don't care, and you succeed if you do. You can't force people to care. And it is unconstitutional to.

Remember since it would be private there would also be advertising and the whole market of education would grow tremendously. It is proven that private business is more efficient with money then the government, which includes charter schools( it's actually why there is charter schools).

celticwar17 said:

Again... even the poorest communities are protesting for better education.

Click to expand...

Again, SOME people in the poorest communities are protesting for better education. These are usually the same parents who raise successful students IN SPITE of the system. Unfortunately, MANY people in the poorest communities do not protest and they are the ones losing in the education system - they are the ones who don't demand now and won't demand in a private school/voucher situation.

You don't care when you don't have a choice. A private/charter school could never thrive on people making crappy choices. Since people have a choice they will always pick the better option. It is only so long a school could get away with doing that before people would boycott it and go (with their money) to a better school.
personal responsibility. You fail if you don't care, and you succeed if you do. You can't force people to care. And it is unconstitutional to.

Click to expand...

Once again, they already have a choice. The choice is not in choosing schools but in choosing to make the schools you already have better. Rich parents CHOOSE to protest, organize, demand, etc. in order to make their schools good. Uninvolved parents (who exist moreso in poor areas) do not make that choice.

It is the responsibility of the government to provide adequate education for its citizens. Unfortunately, the government only fulfills this responsibility when taxpayers DEMAND that they provide a proper education. I'm not arguing that the government should "force people to care" (I neither said nor implied that), I'm arguing that the government should be made to provide quality education even when parents don't care and don't demand a quality education for their children.

Remember since it would be private there would also be advertising and the whole market of education would grow tremendously. It is proven that private business is more efficient with money then the government, which includes charter schools(it's actually why there is charter schools).

Click to expand...

We need to have a system where students are given an education that doesn't depend on their parents' demand for it - because the students that fail are often the children of parents that do not demand and will not demand. Our education system needs to exist in such a way that no individual has any reason to need a voucher.

If I'm limited to vouchers or the current method, I'll totally chose,

"I support school vouchers regardless of the type of school.It should be the parent's choice what type of private school they want to use the vouchers for."

As long as it includes home school.
My kids secular home school program cost me $775, with the addition of another $2500-$5000, we could expand it to much larger depths.

I also have to ask, for those of you so resistant to vouchers.

Just how long should we wait for positive change?
This topic of ****ty schools has been going on for nearly 30-40 years.
Should we wait another 30 to find improvements, when they still haven't materialized?

I think there is something people are missing in this discussion is that if voucher are given for private schools it will cause the demand to up. The more demand you have with a limited supply the costs will skyrocket. More buildings and teachers and the quality will suffer. Of course the charlatans will be out in force trying to make a quick buck. Overall, this a loser all the way around - poorer public schools and private schools with less quality education. There is now such thing as a free lunch.

pbrauer said:

I think there is something people are missing in this discussion is that if voucher are given for private schools it will cause the demand to up. The more demand you have with a limited supply the costs will skyrocket. More buildings and teachers and the quality will suffer. Of course the charlatans will be out in force trying to make a quick buck. Overall, this a loser all the way around - poorer public schools and private schools with less quality education. There is now such thing as a free lunch.

Click to expand...

Huh?

Can't they just build more private schools?
Why will the quality suffer?

What is your solution, if not this?

Harry Guerrilla said:

Huh?

Can't they just build more private schools?
Why will the quality suffer?

What is your solution, if not this?

Click to expand...

Of course the can build more schools, but it will drive up the costs. More students and shyster operators will effect quality

My solution: Don't offer vouchers.

I'm fairly new to vouchers, but how/does this differ from a tax break for going to a private school? Ron Paul recently imposed the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act. Homeschoolers and people whose kids are in private school might stand the chance of getting some of their money back if the bill passes, $5000 to be exact.

Read more: $5000 tax credit for homeschoolers and private schoolers - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum

pbrauer said:

Of course the can build more schools, but it will drive up the costs. More students and shyster operators will effect quality

My solution: Don't offer vouchers.

Click to expand...

What parent would continue to send their kid to a "shyster" operation?

Cost's are already high for government schools.
How do you know they won't lower costs?

Again, what is your solution?
Don't offer vouchers is a non answer.

Harry Guerrilla said:

What parent would continue to send their kid to a "shyster" operation?

Cost's are already high for government schools.
How do you know they won't lower costs?

Again, what is your solution?
Don't offer vouchers is a non answer.

Click to expand...

As I stated earlier, offering vouchers is a partial solution that will only work by eliminating admissions requirements.

DontDoIt said:

I'm fairly new to vouchers, but how/does this differ from a tax break for going to a private school? Ron Paul recently imposed the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act. Homeschoolers and people whose kids are in private school might stand the chance of getting some of their money back if the bill passes, $5000 to be exact.

Read more: $5000 tax credit for homeschoolers and private schoolers - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum

Click to expand...

A tax break allows the wealthy to keep their own money, something the left hates with a passion.

A voucher allows a peon to spend money due to him on a school he chooses, and freedom of choice is something leftists hate.

However, the leftists hate giving the peons more freedom more than they hate letting the rich keep a few pennies, because the rich can always be robbed later, but if the peons get a little bit of freedom from the elites, they'll keep wanting more.