• 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
But the concept of vouchers to improve education is pretty simple.

If you have the choice of handing over a voucher plus a few thousand more dollars in tuition to a parochial or private school . . . or. . .

You can have the choice of handing over a voucher to a public school that will provide a positive environment and educate your child as effectively as the parochial or private school and you pay nothing additional. . . .

Which school will you most likely choose?

And if teachers, administrators, and school boards want to stay in business, what might they be willing to do to improve education sufficiently that the parents will turn in those vouchers to the public school instead of the parochial or private school?

As I said, for those willing to provide a top notch education for the kids, it's a win win proposition all the way around.

Actually, most private schools provide a better education at lower cost per student than do public schools. So, if my county gave me a voucher equaling what they spend per student, I'd have about $3,500 extra per kid, per year.
 
I disagree. What needs to happen instead is we need to make the necessary investments to improve the inner city schools themselves.

The only actual way to do that is to make schools compete for students.
 
The only actual way to do that is to make schools compete for students.

Which isn't going to happen under a liberal system.
 
We aren't talking about forced bussing or anything against anybody's will are we. That's a separate issue and a separate discussion. Totally non sequitur to the thread topic.

This discussion is on the pros and cons of CHOICE, not coercion or social engineering. We're talking about a kid who wants a good education and parents willing to do whatever is necessary that they can to see that he/she receives it.

And the whole purpose of school choice is to put the money where kids are being educated. And if the failing schools want to keep getting that money, they are advised to clean up their acts and start doing what is necessary to educate the kids. Otherwise they close. As they should.

Social engineering is exactly what it is. Under this system, parents will no longer be able to relocate to areas where they know their kids will be safe and get a good education. Vouchers would mean that any kid from the inner city could show up at a nice suburban school.

I have nothing against the inner city, the kids from there, or their families. I'm sure some of those families are great. But as a future parent, this kind of talk really concerns me. I don't want my kids to grow up around drugs, violence, bullying, and so forth.

My kids are not lab rats. I have every right to protect them and the system that currently benefits them.

Experiment somewhere else, and don't dump your inner city problems on my neighborhood.
 
Not even close to being true.

Of course it is. Giving vouchers to the average American gives the average american all the power that the rich American has. At least in regards to the education of their children.
 
It's only school choice if parents truly get to choose which school they want their child to attend. Most of the best schools are "filled" and/or only selected based on who you know, etc....subpar schools may have availability. At least in my state. The wealthy will always have the best schools including public funded ones. The poor will not. The wealthy public schools are impossible to get into because there are no available slots. School choice is just another false term that sounds great to the ear. In reality, it is a euphemism for displacement. The outcome is social stratification on a large scale. Once upon a time public education was suppose to give opportunity to escape such stratification not actually be breeding grounds for it.
 
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.

As a lifelong agnostic I made the mistake of sending my oldest 2 children to public school until I finally realized how pathetic the schools are. Sent the 3rd child to a Catholic school and it was the best decision made. He went on to earn a Master's Degree while the other 2 basically ended up with GED and HS diploma. The tuition of $9K/yr was certainly not tax deductible or part of some tithe. Catholic schools are extremely good and well worth the cost. It would help if government helped pay. After all, they have more money for the students left in public schools. And it helps reduce income inequality when more than just the wealthy have access to a good education.
 
Social engineering is exactly what it is. Under this system, parents will no longer be able to relocate to areas where they know their kids will be safe and get a good education. Vouchers would mean that any kid from the inner city could show up at a nice suburban school.

I have nothing against the inner city, the kids from there, or their families. I'm sure some of those families are great. But as a future parent, this kind of talk really concerns me. I don't want my kids to grow up around drugs, violence, bullying, and so forth.

My kids are not lab rats. I have every right to protect them and the system that currently benefits them.

Experiment somewhere else, and don't dump your inner city problems on my neighborhood.

I can't see anybody talking about any experimentation. But okay. I understand that you consider your kids too good to go to school with a kid who just wants a better deal than he had and/or no inner city kid could possibly be suitable for the school your kids attend. I'm sure others share that point of view. But I thank goodness that most people don't.
 
It's only school choice if parents truly get to choose which school they want their child to attend. Most of the best schools are "filled" and/or only selected based on who you know, etc....subpar schools may have availability. At least in my state. The wealthy will always have the best schools including public funded ones. The poor will not. The wealthy public schools are impossible to get into because there are no available slots. School choice is just another false term that sounds great to the ear. In reality, it is a euphemism for displacement. The outcome is social stratification on a large scale. Once upon a time public education was suppose to give opportunity to escape such stratification not actually be breeding grounds for it.

I'm pretty sure that if there is money to be made, there will be sufficient good schools for all who want a good school. Evenso, just to get a kid out of a failing school into a better one would be a huge blessing for many parents. It wouldn't have to be the best.
 
Of course it is. Giving vouchers to the average American gives the average american all the power that the rich American has. At least in regards to the education of their children.

How do you know it won't just water down the good schools?
 
I can't see anybody talking about any experimentation. But okay. I understand that you consider your kids too good to go to school with a kid who just wants a better deal than he had and/or no inner city kid could possibly be suitable for the school your kids attend. I'm sure others share that point of view. But I thank goodness that most people don't.

It's not about being "too good" for anyone. The reason these kids live in the inner city to begin with is because their parents are having a hard time. Either they lack education, one of the parents is missing, or they're simply irresponsible in some way.

Either way, many of these families are troubled, or else they would just move out to the suburbs.... in which case they would be welcomed.

The kids that come from troubled families more often than not act out. I'm not trying to be a snob, but I work hard for what I have... and when I have kids I want to protect them from all of that stuff especially when they are young.

I finished school. I got a degree. I work hard every day and better myself. As a reward for that, I get to live in a nice part of town and one day my kids will go to a nice school because I earned that for them as a parent. Understand that I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm not going to allow anyone to take that away from me if I can help it.
 
But the concept of vouchers to improve education is pretty simple.

If you have the choice of handing over a voucher plus a few thousand more dollars in tuition to a parochial or private school . . . or. . .

You can have the choice of handing over a voucher to a public school that will provide a positive environment and educate your child as effectively as the parochial or private school and you pay nothing additional. . . .

Which school will you most likely choose?

And if teachers, administrators, and school boards want to stay in business, what might they be willing to do to improve education sufficiently that the parents will turn in those vouchers to the public school instead of the parochial or private school?

As I said, for those willing to provide a top notch education for the kids, it's a win win proposition all the way around.

Better yet, if the vouchers are sufficient for tuition to most private schools, then the public schools will have to be able to educate their students as well as those private schools, if they want to stay in business.

Why give the public schools any fiscal advantage over private schools? Let them have to work just as hard, and produce just as good a result, as any private school with which they are going to compete; or else let them fail, and leave more room for the schools that have what it takes to succeed.
 
Hell no.

Good public schools are a big reason why certain property values are high. People want to live in the good school districts so that their kids can go there and get a good education, so they pay a premium for it.

If you start bussing kids in from the inner city, that crashes the property values in pretty much every suburban development in America.

Screw that.

Isn't the purpose of taxpayer funding of education to insure that poor children have a comparable chance at a decent education to that which wealthier children have?

And doesn't the principle that you just defended defeat this purpose?

If all we're going to gain by having taxpayer-funded schooling is to tie the quality of a child's education to the income level of the neighborhood in which that child lives, then why don't we just do away with taxpayer-funded schools entirely, cut out the government middleman, and leave it to parents to pay directly for their own children's schooling out of their own incomes (which would then no longer be reduced by the amount that government taxes them to pay for education)?
 
Isn't the purpose of taxpayer funding of education to insure that poor children have a comparable chance at a decent education to that which wealthier children have?

And doesn't the principle that you just defended defeat this purpose?

If all we're going to gain by having taxpayer-funded schooling is to tie the quality of a child's education to the income level of the neighborhood in which that child lives, then why don't we just do away with taxpayer-funded schools entirely, cut out the government middleman, and leave it to parents to pay directly for their own children's schooling out of their own incomes (which would then no longer be reduced by the amount that government taxes them to pay for education)?


Schools are typically paid for out of the property tax which is tied to the local district. That is to say, the local residents pay for the local school. It's not like public schools are paid for by a giant pot of gold in Washington DC.

That's why wealthier areas typically have nicer public schools. Those schools get more tax revenue because the revenue they derive comes directly from the surrounding neighborhoods.

This voucher system and all the talk about bussing kids in from the inner city is just going to upset the apple cart.
 
Yeah, but private schools will still need to meet certain standards. For example, religious schools must still teach evolution, sex ed, etc.
 
Yeah, but private schools will still need to meet certain standards. For example, religious schools must still teach evolution, sex ed, etc.

I don't think they do. Or are you saying that's your opinion on how it should be?
 
As I said, for those willing financially able to provide a top notch education for the kids, it's a win win proposition all the way around.
There, fixed it for you ...
 
Actually, most private schools provide a better education at lower cost per student than do public schools. So, if my county gave me a voucher equaling what they spend per student, I'd have about $3,500 extra per kid, per year.
Only because private reject the kids they don't want. If they were stuck taking any student that walks in the door, they wouldn't do any better than public schools. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest that private schools don't even do as good as public schools when they can't screen their students.
 
OK. No, we allow for the freedom of religion in this country. Thanks for sharing your opinion though.

Freedom of religion =/= freedom from education

If the government is going to require schooling, it certainly needs to require for the sciences to be taught properly. As for sex ed, that is necessary for public health reasons. Crappy parents don't always teach their kids those things.
 
Freedom of religion =/= freedom from education

If the government is going to require schooling, it certainly needs to require for the sciences to be taught properly.

And the law.
 
Hell no.

Good public schools are a big reason why certain property values are high. People want to live in the good school districts so that their kids can go there and get a good education, so they pay a premium for it.

If you start bussing kids in from the inner city, that crashes the property values in pretty much every suburban development in America.

Screw that.

Isn't the purpose of taxpayer funding of education to insure that poor children have a comparable chance at a decent education to that which wealthier children have?

And doesn't the principle that you just defended defeat this purpose?

If all we're going to gain by having taxpayer-funded schooling is to tie the quality of a child's education to the income level of the neighborhood in which that child lives, then why don't we just do away with taxpayer-funded schools entirely, cut out the government middleman, and leave it to parents to pay directly for their own children's schooling out of their own incomes (which would then no longer be reduced by the amount that government taxes them to pay for education)?
 
Back
Top Bottom