• 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!

What kinds of private schools would you support vouchers for?

What kinds of private schools would you support vouchers for?

  • Any religious private school that included religious education/indoctrination.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Specific religious private schools that included religious education/indoctrination.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Religious private school that only use tax dollars for secular education.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    27
Public schools aren't a monopoly...because private schools exist.

Right, I misspoke re monopoly. There would be many more -- and more affordable -- if vouchers were available. And in schools in those poor neighborhoods you reference? Maybe private schools would step away from a one-size-fits-all mentality and turn out kids who could actually read, write and speak proper English. AND be trained to do something after high school other than run drugs.
 
Right, I misspoke re monopoly. There would be many more -- and more affordable -- if vouchers were available. And in schools in those poor neighborhoods you reference? Maybe private schools would step away from a one-size-fits-all mentality and turn out kids who could actually read, write and speak proper English. AND be trained to do something after high school other than run drugs.

Private schools AND public schools have turned out educated kids from poor neighborhoods. Examples of both exist, which is why there is no reason to scrap public education.
 
If I had never seen a regular public school that educated its students well, I would agree with you. But I have, so I can't see the reason in abandoning a system that works in some districts. Also, I have seen private schools and charter schools fail - so it seems to me that the type of school isn't the real problem.

Just because it works in some places doesn't make successful. And off course private and charter schools fail... it's a business and businesses fail, but a private a charter school has 10X more motivation to do well and stay in business, because they are reliant on the customer bass. The only reason charter/private schools fail today is because the public school system still exists. And it's okay for a private/charter school to fail, it's actually a good thing, because you have weeded out the bad school/business that has the bad policies, and the better schools will survive. Since people will have a choice you can transfer to a school you think is better if a private or charter school is crap.
 
It's a very bad thing for a public school to fail... but a good thing for private/charter school to fail.
 
I oppose voucher programs for the reasons already mentioned in this thread. Public money should be kept for public schools, and not used for private schools.
 
Private schools AND public schools have turned out educated kids from poor neighborhoods. Examples of both exist, which is why there is no reason to scrap public education.

Ah, but give me a reason to keep them.
 
I oppose voucher programs for the reasons already mentioned in this thread. Public money should be kept for public schools, and not used for private schools.
Your wrong, the private/charter schools will become the public schools. The money would be the same except people will have a more successful system and have the choice of school they would like to attend.
 
Just because it works in some places doesn't make successful. And off course private and charter schools fail... it's a business and businesses fail, but a private a charter school has 10X more motivation to do well and stay in business, because they are reliant on the customer bass.

And vouchers piss off that customer base. People who pay a lot of money to send their kids to private schools where other kids can pay less with vouchers will move their kids to private schools that don't accept vouchers, esp. if the new kids bring in new problems. Then the problem will start all over again.

It's just like when states move people from housing projects into the suburbs...the suburbanites move to different suburbs or back to the city and the old suburbs decrease in quality.

Therefore, the better solution is to focus on improving ALL schools that way nobody will even want a voucher.

The only reason charter/private schools fail today is because the public school system still exists. And it's okay for a private/charter school to fail, it's actually a good thing, because you have weeded out the bad school/business that has the bad policies, and the better schools will survive. Since people will have a choice you can transfer to a school you think is better if a private or charter school is crap.
The problem is that competition only works when parents know that they can compete and when parents have the desire to compete. A huge problem in low-income schools (where the worst schools usually are) is that parents aren't going put forth the effort to compete and their children will still be stuck with the crappy schools.

My main point is this: We need to improve all schools so that no student would even have reason to use a voucher.
 
Your wrong, the private/charter schools will become the public schools. The money would be the same except people will have a more successful system and have the choice of school they would like to attend.

This logic is only correct if the private/charter schools have the same requirements in terms of admission.
 
And vouchers piss off that customer base. People who pay a lot of money to send their kids to private schools where other kids can pay less with vouchers will move their kids to private schools that don't accept vouchers, esp. if the new kids bring in new problems. Then the problem will start all over again.

It's just like when states move people from housing projects into the suburbs...the suburbanites move to different suburbs or back to the city and the old suburbs decrease in quality.

Therefore, the better solution is to focus on improving ALL schools that way nobody will even want a voucher.


The problem is that competition only works when parents know that they can compete and when parents have the desire to compete. A huge problem in low-income schools (where the worst schools usually are) is that parents aren't going put forth the effort to compete and their children will still be stuck with the crappy schools.

My main point is this: We need to improve all schools so that no student would even have reason to use a voucher.

There will always be richer people who can send their kids to richer schools. (there will still be a market for schools that accept voucher's)

The poorer kids STILL can go to the school of their choice, there will STILL be the motivation to be the best school. The new public schools will be in competition to be the best. When there is a crappy school... why would you send your kid there?
 
Last edited:
This logic is only correct if the private/charter schools have the same requirements in terms of admission.

No, there would be a separate market between schools who accept any voucher and school who accept the voucher +more money. There will STILL be a school who will want to be better then that other school to get more students= more voucher's= more money.
 
Ah, but give me a reason to keep them.

Complete privatization of schools is just as bad as having all public schools. There needs to be a balance so that students don't just become corporate or government tools. Part of me wants the Republican dream of all privatization to work so that you guys can see how horrible it is, but then I remember I care more about education than B.S..
 
No, there would be a separate market between schools who accept any voucher and school who accept the voucher +more money. There will STILL be a school who will want to be better then that other school to get more students= more voucher's= more money.

I think you're missing the argument. The argument is that private/charter schools do not HAVE to take a student yet we have mandatory education laws. This means that we would be creating a class of student unwanted by the higher achieving schools because they take more time and effort. This means that the higher levels of achievement is an illusion as the lower achieving students are not factored in.
 
Your wrong, the private/charter schools will become the public schools. The money would be the same except people will have a more successful system and have the choice of school they would like to attend.

No, actually they would not become public schools, unless you think that they will suddenly be under public control, which would not be the case.
 
There will always be richer people who can send their kids to richer schools. (there will still be a market for schools that accept voucher's)

The poorer kids STILL can go to the school of their choice, there will STILL be the motivation to be the best school. The new public schools will be in competition to be the best. When there is a crappy school... why would you send your kid there?

The problem is private schools run on two things: 1.Money 2.Demand for Quality.

When both things are in play, competition will work and everything that you say will happen. School quality will increase.

However, because so many poor parents aren't going to demand quality, the not-so-nice private schools will go for the money without the quality and we'll be stuck where we are now - poor kids with crappy parents get crappy education. Education will become a for-profit industry where people who have no actual interest in educating will get involved and be able to take advantage of students whose parents aren't active enough to demand quality.

The problem of education is that wealthy/middle class parents are more likely to demand a good education for their students, while low-income parents are not. Unless they (including people like me and my parents) demand the same quality for low-income schools, the problem will persist whether it's in a wholly public or private system. I'm arguing that we should just end this problem now by making government take care of all students and schools equally.
 
No, actually they would not become public schools, unless you think that they will suddenly be under public control, which would not be the case.
You misunderstood my comment... They will become the "public schools", there role as the main educational tool, meaning replacing them
 
The problem is private schools run on two things: 1.Money 2.Demand for Quality.

When both things are in play, competition will work and everything that you say will happen. School quality will increase.

However, because so many poor parents aren't going to demand quality, the not-so-nice private schools will go for the money without the quality and we'll be stuck where we are now - poor kids with crappy parents get crappy education. Education will become a for-profit industry where people who have no actual interest in educating will get involved and be able to take advantage of students whose parents aren't active enough to demand quality.

The problem of education is that wealthy/middle class parents are more likely to demand a good education for their students, while low-income parents are not. Unless they (including people like me and my parents) demand the same quality for low-income schools, the problem will persist whether it's in a wholly public or private system. I'm arguing that we should just end this problem now by making government take care of all students and schools equally.

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? 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.
 
You misunderstood my comment... They will become the "public schools", there role as the main educational tool, meaning replacing them

If they want to be "public schools", they need to be under public control. If they are not, they are private schools and not a place for our education dollars.
 
I think you're missing the argument. The argument is that private/charter schools do not HAVE to take a student yet we have mandatory education laws. This means that we would be creating a class of student unwanted by the higher achieving schools because they take more time and effort. This means that the higher levels of achievement is an illusion as the lower achieving students are not factored in.

That isn't even an argument. That is a simple fix, to make school not be able to decline you on the basis of race, gender, wealth, residence... but only on performance/ and extra money requirements(if it is a school that requires it). Again there will be seperate markets for schools that accept voucher's and schools that require more( just like high performance and private schools are today in comparison to public.) The new "public school" will be the vouchered charter school.
 
If they want to be "public schools", they need to be under public control. If they are not, they are private schools and not a place for our education dollars.

You still misunderstand... I was measly commenting on the role. The new "public school" will be the vouchered charter schools; meaning people get all of there education from either charter or private schools. There are still Public laws that put boundaries on charter/ and private schools.
 
Last edited:
Complete privatization of schools is just as bad as having all public schools. There needs to be a balance so that students don't just become corporate or government tools. Part of me wants the Republican dream of all privatization to work so that you guys can see how horrible it is, but then I remember I care more about education than B.S..

You can still enforce general public rule in charter schools... it won't become THAT ridiculous unless you let it.
 
That isn't even an argument. That is a simple fix, to make school not be able to decline you on the basis of race, gender, wealth, residence... but only on performance/ and extra money requirements(if it is a school that requires it). Again there will be seperate markets for schools that accept voucher's and schools that require more( just like high performance and private schools are today in comparison to public.) The new "public school" will be the vouchered charter school.

But under the current laws you cannot require charter schools to take all applicants. So you still run into the problem of not having schools for students who need to meet the mandatory education requirement. Plus, discriminating on academic performance creates false statistics.
 
But under the current laws you cannot require charter schools to take all applicants. So you still run into the problem of not having schools for students who need to meet the mandatory education requirement. Plus, discriminating on academic performance creates false statistics.

All of those are easily fixed with laws enforcing non-discrimination.

"So you still run into the problem of not having schools for students who need to meet the mandatory education requirement."
Your reasoning? The majority of people will only rely on the voucher money. Basically all the the people in public schools today will be in the schools that accept voucher's. There will be a huge market for it.
 
All of those are easily fixed with laws enforcing non-discrimination.

"So you still run into the problem of not having schools for students who need to meet the mandatory education requirement."
Your reasoning? The majority of people will only rely on the voucher money. Basically all the the people in public schools today will be in the schools that accept voucher's. There will be a huge market for it.

So you assert that non-discrimination rules should include academic performance in relation to admittance in schools that get vouchers?
 
I don't support vouchers at all.

Voucher programs only divert much needed funds away from public schools - putting the burden on those of us who do what we can to make public school work.

Good, now if we can throw out PSAT, allow teachers to teach by example with their own methods and grading, they might be able to return to the good old days before "No child left behind."

ricksfolly
 
Back
Top Bottom