• 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
You can point the finger a lot of different places on that one. Which one would you like to pick? Apathetic parents? Terrible working conditions, which means lower quality teachers? The required education commitment our society has? Inner-city flight, which was caused by cheap gas and racism/ignorance? You can even blame our economic system. Take your pick or add your own, lots of blame to go around.

You forgot one important component: the policy of every inner-city public school to keep thugs in the classroom so they can get their per-pupil reimbursement.
 
You forgot one important component: the policy of every inner-city public school to keep thugs in the classroom so they can get their per-pupil reimbursement.

Oh, I think that ought to stop. In fact, I think that anyone who is expelled from school and they or their parents are receiving any public money on their behalf, that money ought to dry up. These parents need a strong incentive to keep their kids on the straight and narrow. Kicking the parents in the pocketbook for failing to control their spawn is a fine idea. Failure ought to hurt.
 
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.

I do not support vouchers for private schools and I am also opposed to charter schools and most other special schools. Those special schools provide an illusion of progress by selecting their students and by attracting the parents and students most likely to succeed. 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.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I think that ought to stop. In fact, I think that anyone who is expelled from school and they or their parents are receiving any public money on their behalf, that money ought to dry up. These parents need a strong incentive to keep their kids on the straight and narrow. Kicking the parents in the pocketbook for failing to control their spawn is a fine idea. Failure ought to hurt.

I couldn't agree with you more. And your solution? Perfect!
 
I couldn't agree with you more. And your solution? Perfect!

But, of course, under the current liberal system, it would never be implemented because it makes sense. Responsibility is a bad word for the liberals.
 
Not really. If the child has a good academic and discipline record and if the parent pays school taxes to the district of the school they attend, it would be ok. I also don't mind tuitioning as long as the tuition is equal to what residents in that district pay in school taxes and the student meets the previous restrictions on performance and behavior.

Personally, I hate the way I see things done. Students with exceptional IQs should not have to attend a school catering to "normals". There should be at least two options in schools in any areas, exceptional potential and all others. If possible, three would be best. Non-exceptional-non-college bound, Non-exceptional-college bound and Exceptional. This would of course require the way school districts, at least in Texas, get their money and would require a more centralized control statewide instead of independent districts.

A forth option could also be added, "IQ doesn't matter your parents are liberal/leftist idiots and if you follow them you will end up a low wage moron anyway" could be the 4th type of school available. Basically, children of Liberals/leftist would be required to attend inner-city welfare district schools so that they will learn the life skills need for where they will likely end up.
 
Not really. If the child has a good academic and discipline record and if the parent pays school taxes to the district of the school they attend, it would be ok. I also don't mind tuitioning as long as the tuition is equal to what residents in that district pay in school taxes and the student meets the previous restrictions on performance and behavior.

Personally, I hate the way I see things done. Students with exceptional IQs should not have to attend a school catering to "normals". There should be at least two options in schools in any areas, exceptional potential and all others. If possible, three would be best. Non-exceptional-non-college bound, Non-exceptional-college bound and Exceptional. This would of course require the way school districts, at least in Texas, get their money and would require a more centralized control statewide instead of independent districts.


A forth [sic] option could also be added, "IQ doesn't matter your parents are liberal/leftist idiots and if you follow them you will end up a low wage moron anyway" could be the 4th type of school available. Basically, children of Liberals/leftist would be required to attend inner-city welfare district schools so that they will learn the life skills need for where they will likely end up.

What skills can such a school teach, that will be useful in prison?
 
But, of course, under the current liberal system, it would never be implemented because it makes sense. Responsibility is a bad word for the liberals.

Absolutely.

What about the chillllldrennnn????
 
Absolutely.

What about the chillllldrennnn????

It will be good for the children. In fact, it will produce more intelligent, rational, critical thinking children. That's something the political powers that be fear.
 
i've seen repeated bashing of the teachers' unions, as if they were the problem causing poor educational outcomes
but look at the student performance scores from states with teachers unions and those without, and for the most part, states with teachers' unions performed better - according to student testing outcomes - than schools in states that are without such unions
that tells me the teachers' unions are not the problem with the ed system


This is a long read, but very enlightening. It is very objective by pointing out the pro's and cons of unionized and un- unionized schools. In my opinion, I still think teachers unions are a burden on the elderly and disabled. They, according to this paper, increase total spending with little or no real impact on student achievement. They also fight changing the tax structure that would allow the elderly and disabled to be exempt from property taxes that would allow them to stay in their homes. How would you like to be on a limited income and then be forced from your home because the teachers wanted a raise in salary? That is what many elderly and disabled face in unionized school districts today... including the one where I live. I know a teacher in a non- unionized school district. They have performance levels ABOVE that of where I live and the tax structure exempts the elderly and disabled from property taxes. They aren't losing their homes to make life better for the teachers. It's not fair or equitable for teachers to demand the elderly and disabled to lose their homes and go live with family or in the homeless shelter. Or, short of that, to skip their medication and/ or eat dog food because they can't afford real food and/ or their medications. Give them a break!
 
I have a question. Clarification on your opinion, actually.

What happens to the kids whose parents can't afford to move out of a failing school? - parents with restrictive jobs, rural schools, widowed/divorced parent homes, etc. Say a school of 500 students loses half of its funding and most of its teachers because 300 kids leave; and then the school gets even worse. What do the remaining 200 kids that can't move do? Suck it up, or something?

Actually, if there was competition, I believe that the teachers will get better and money will be used more wisely. The teachers that get laid off can get jobs in the schools that are growing due to school choice. That, of course, will mean that they have to be good teachers. I think most teachers are/ want to be good. But the problem with their performance is the bureaucracy that is the teachers unions.

My question is for you is... Are you saying that we have to keep all the kids in the failing school to protect the jobs of those that are causing it to be a failing school?
 
i've seen repeated bashing of the teachers' unions, as if they were the problem causing poor educational outcomes
but look at the student performance scores from states with teachers unions and those without, and for the most part, states with teachers' unions performed better - according to student testing outcomes - than schools in states that are without such unions
that tells me the teachers' unions are not the problem with the ed system

I may have forgotten the link. Here it is...
http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1853&context=etd_hon_theses
 
You say poorer families should pay more to come to richer schools.
The poor schools are poorer because of lower property values.
Got catch-22 ?

Look at it from the obverse.

The high performing schools aren't performing well because they exist in a vacuum.

A lot of it has to do with the money the community is pumping into the school, and a lot of it has to do with the type of people living in the community.

Dilute the school with a lot of out-of-towners and take away the funding and all you'll accomplish is turning the high performing school into the kind of school people are sending their kids there from out of town in order to avoid.
 
Actually, if there was competition, I believe that the teachers will get better and money will be used more wisely. The teachers that get laid off can get jobs in the schools that are growing due to school choice. That, of course, will mean that they have to be good teachers. I think most teachers are/ want to be good. But the problem with their performance is the bureaucracy that is the teachers unions.

My question is for you is... Are you saying that we have to keep all the kids in the failing school to protect the jobs of those that are causing it to be a failing school?
You missed the point of my question. 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. I'm wondering what your solution is for the kids that can't afford private schools, or can't afford to move to another school?
 
Not really. If the child has a good academic and discipline record and if the parent pays school taxes to the district of the school they attend, it would be ok. I also don't mind tuitioning as long as the tuition is equal to what residents in that district pay in school taxes and the student meets the previous restrictions on performance and behavior.

Personally, I hate the way I see things done. Students with exceptional IQs should not have to attend a school catering to "normals". There should be at least two options in schools in any areas, exceptional potential and all others. If possible, three would be best. Non-exceptional-non-college bound, Non-exceptional-college bound and Exceptional. This would of course require the way school districts, at least in Texas, get their money and would require a more centralized control statewide instead of independent districts.

A forth option could also be added, "IQ doesn't matter your parents are liberal/leftist idiots and if you follow them you will end up a low wage moron anyway" could be the 4th type of school available. Basically, children of Liberals/leftist would be required to attend inner-city welfare district schools so that they will learn the life skills need for where they will likely end up.

You could just do statewide funding per student like we do here then they can attend any school they want. There problem solved. They do have schools that specialize in certain things in large cities like Toronto. Some of our inner-city schools are pretty good and most are better than rural schools.
 
A whole lot of info that doesn't really address my point. In my school district, revenues were $18,000 per student. Of that 79.5% ($14,292) was local, 18.5% ($3325) was state and 2% was federal ($359) was federal. Why couldn't the $3684 ($3325+$359) follow the student where ever they may attend school (assuming in the same state)?
All of it addressed your point - but I'll try again. The Fed money pays for Fed programs - it's not a per-student distribution and, as such, shouldn't be following a student unless they're participating in those programs. If private schools don't support those programs then they should not get the money for them. And example of a Fed program paid by the Fed is JROTC. If a private school doesn't offer JROTC then they shouldn't get moeny for it, either. I can't make it any more plain than that.


As for State money, that's up to each state. I don't think we should be giving money to private schools but we are trying charter schools in some districts that can't meet state standards/accreditation. If state money does go to private schools at some point, then those schools should have to meet all the standards of public schools including open enrollment.
 
You forgot one important component: the policy of every inner-city public school to keep thugs in the classroom so they can get their per-pupil reimbursement.
I see no reason that would change with private schools if they were publicly funded. They'd still be getting paid on a per student basis, wouldn't they?

A no child (at least here) is required to attend school after 16, so those "thugs" you're talking about must be 15 or younger. I doubt the 16 and up "thugs" would bother.
 
Oh, I think that ought to stop. In fact, I think that anyone who is expelled from school and they or their parents are receiving any public money on their behalf, that money ought to dry up. These parents need a strong incentive to keep their kids on the straight and narrow. Kicking the parents in the pocketbook for failing to control their spawn is a fine idea. Failure ought to hurt.
So the parent that work 12 hours a day and still qualifies for food stamps will also have to, what, quite their job to make sure their child gets to school? Tell their employer to **** off if that employer doesn't let them attend school functions like parent-teacher conferences and behavior talks with the principal? That doesn't seem reasonable for many situations unless you also force employers into the scheme so parents don't get fired.
 
You missed the point of my question. 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. I'm wondering what your solution is for the kids that can't afford private schools, or can't afford to move to another school?

Perhaps they'd be able to afford private schools if their parents weren't being forced through taxation to pay for the failing public schools.
 
I see no reason that would change with private schools if they were publicly funded. They'd still be getting paid on a per student basis, wouldn't they?

A no child (at least here) is required to attend school after 16, so those "thugs" you're talking about must be 15 or younger. I doubt the 16 and up "thugs" would bother.

If people got to spend that money as a voucher, they wouldn't put their kids into schools that did that. As to the 16-and-up thugs not bothering? Are you saying that inner-city high schools only have kids 16 and younger? Thugs stay in school if you're counting their warm bodies in the seats.
 
All of it addressed your point - but I'll try again. The Fed money pays for Fed programs - it's not a per-student distribution and, as such, shouldn't be following a student unless they're participating in those programs. If private schools don't support those programs then they should not get the money for them. And example of a Fed program paid by the Fed is JROTC. If a private school doesn't offer JROTC then they shouldn't get moeny for it, either. I can't make it any more plain than that.


As for State money, that's up to each state. I don't think we should be giving money to private schools but we are trying charter schools in some districts that can't meet state standards/accreditation. If state money does go to private schools at some point, then those schools should have to meet all the standards of public schools including open enrollment.

I can see your point somewhat although not all Federal money has the same kinds of strings attached ( Archived: 10 Fact About K-12 Education Funding).

If it is in the interest of the state to have an educated population, which I think it is, and taxes are collected for that purpose, I don't have a problem with some of the money following the student without the strings you want to have attached. As the educator of last resort, I think the public schools should still get a decent chunk of the tax dollars.

The same principal is applied here in PA. When far enough away from school, all students get bussed regardless of public or private. I don't think that is the case in many places.
 
If people got to spend that money as a voucher, they wouldn't put their kids into schools that did that. As to the 16-and-up thugs not bothering? Are you saying that inner-city high schools only have kids 16 and younger? Thugs stay in school if you're counting their warm bodies in the seats.
Why would a 16 yo thug stay in school?
 
Those on the left are wise to warn us of the abusive power of monopolies.

It is unfortunate that they are blind to the same possibilities when those monopolies are major political supporters :(. But, I suppose, humanly understandable.


Parents should have the right to choose where their children go to school. If this results in schools that aren't teaching kids dying off.... well, good. Get those kids out of those crap holes as fast as possible.


However, that isn't going to uniquely solve our education crises - which is at least equally a social crises. Single parents simply don't have the same free time and energy to dedicate to little junior's studies as married parents do - and they are also more likely to be relatively uneducated (and thus less likely to be able to, or even see the need to) themselves. The increasing portion of our populace being raised in these families decrees the continuation of an education crises no matter how many improvements we make to our system of provision.


BUT, you can't change that strictly with policy. You CAN improve our provision of education with policy. So, focus on what you can do instead of letting the mythical perfect being the enemy of the good
 
Back
Top Bottom