• 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
Why would you eliminate admission requirements?

It's not particularly complicated though I can see how many people miss it. It's not the most obvious solution.

Private schools generally out perform public schools NOT because they are private, but because they are not forced to deal with the same student populations as public schools. When you look at the average test scores from private schools, those scores are based upon the students the schools chose to enroll. Public schools do not have the option of declining to admit a student. Therefore public school test scores will always be lower regardless of the efforts of the staff.

If we were to institute a voucher system WITHOUT eliminating admissions requirements, we would be creating a system that segregates students based upon achievement and limits internal competition that promotes better results. A school full of gifted and talented students competing against a school with students in remedial reading is not a competition at all.

Let us also assume for a moment that we move towards a system where all schools are private or charter schools. In such a case, there will be students that both schools refuse to service. Where do those students go? Will there be sufficient funding to create a school for them? Likely not. Students will special academic needs require more money and thus the school would not be profitable and thus no one would want to open it.

There are dozens of more reasons, but all track back to a level playing field so that competition can work to improve the schools AND meet the needs of students who are not always desired but still have a right to be educated under our mandatory education system.
 
It's not particularly complicated though I can see how many people miss it. It's not the most obvious solution.

Private schools generally out perform public schools NOT because they are private, but because they are not forced to deal with the same student populations as public schools. When you look at the average test scores from private schools, those scores are based upon the students the schools chose to enroll. Public schools do not have the option of declining to admit a student. Therefore public school test scores will always be lower regardless of the efforts of the staff.

If we were to institute a voucher system WITHOUT eliminating admissions requirements, we would be creating a system that segregates students based upon achievement and limits internal competition that promotes better results. A school full of gifted and talented students competing against a school with students in remedial reading is not a competition at all.

So you think schools that specialize in educating kids of similar ability is bad?

To me it sounds incredibly efficient and may even improve the lot of the kids who have problems learning.


Let us also assume for a moment that we move towards a system where all schools are private or charter schools. In such a case, there will be students that both schools refuse to service. Where do those students go? Will there be sufficient funding to create a school for them? Likely not. Students will special academic needs require more money and thus the school would not be profitable and thus no one would want to open it.

That's not likely to happen, money laying idle, someone will have an answer and it will be light years more efficient that what we have today.

There are dozens of more reasons, but all track back to a level playing field so that competition can work to improve the schools AND meet the needs of students who are not always desired but still have a right to be educated under our mandatory education system.

I don't think your admissions requirements level it at all, seems to be the same thing we have now but privatized.
 
So you think schools that specialize in educating kids of similar ability is bad?

To me it sounds incredibly efficient and may even improve the lot of the kids who have problems learning.

I do not think that it is inherently bad. I think the problems that come from created segregated schooling is the real problem.

That's not likely to happen, money laying idle, someone will have an answer and it will be light years more efficient that what we have today.

It is likely to happen if we maintain a philosophy that high achievement is the only goal of education.

I don't think your admissions requirements level it at all, seems to be the same thing we have now but privatized.

Actually, it forces innovation. If you have two similarly positioned schools and one is out performing the other, it's not because of stacking the deck, it's because of better practices.
 
But why is this true? First it is true that if you cannot pay or do not get a scholarship, you likely will not be attending a private school. Vouchers might change that, however without forcing private schools who accept tax dollars to have an open enrollment policy, you cannot guarantee an improvement in education results for students who are not currently in private schools.

Mayor Snorkum sees no movement in the public to force what you call "open enrollment" on colleges currently under the voucher system, why would such a silly idea be imposed on high schools and kindergartens? Parents are going to want to choose schools for their children that are better. That means there's going to be competition for seats in the better schools and that means there's going to be, finally, pressure put on the parents to put pressure on their children to learn something and begin preparing themselves for life.

Believe it or not, competition is a good thing. It's the lack of competititon that's created a lack of excellence in student performance.

Why can't public schools educate?

Never mind your answer, it's crap. The reasons public schools won't educate (not can't, won't) is because the elitists have thrown away all the methods proven to work. Mayor Snorkum had the great good fortune to be educated in the sixties by the last generation of real teachers this nation had. Old ladies, who started teaching in the 1930's and 40's. No baloney, Mayor Snorkum knew the first names of all his first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade teachers. They were Mrs. Miss. Mrs. Mrs. Mr. and Mr., respectively. They weren't Mayor Snorkum's friends, they were his teachers, and they acted as teachers, not buddies.

That's one reason.

The other reason is the TEACHERS taught, using methods proven to work from the 1930's. Phonics, by golly, and those dreaded addition and multiplication tables. We were never allowed to use a calculator. That they didn't exist isn't relevant.

And most importantly of all, they didn't give a rat's behind about our feelings or our pride or any other nonsense. They had the maturity to know that pride comes with accomplishment, so they did their best to make sure we accomplished something, and if we didn't accomplish what we were supposed to, they didn't make the mistake of sending us on to the next grade. Failure was the biggest shame of all.

100% of all Mayor Snorkum's classmates learned how to read. 100% 100% could do the class requirements in math. Our time in class was spent learning, not playing. There was very little free unstructured time, and we spent more hours in school then that they do today.

Going back to the basics. Increasing the length of time spent in school to what it used to be. Demanding performance from the students, refusin to pass those that won't perform. That's what works.

That's how education will be improved and that's the only way education will be improved.

You are making the assumption that private schools will take students. Again, they are not required to do so. Until that point your assertion is merely hoping that things will change.

Well, naturally private schools will never accept more students than they have today. After all, accepting more students would mean increased revenues and greater profits for those schools. Why the hell would they ever want more students?

Not exactly. Again without putting private schools on an equal playing field, none of this will happen. Beyond that, you are leaving students who's parents cannot pay the difference to languish in the public system.

Well, you mean parents might gain an incentive to work more effectively and earn more money to get their kids in schools where they can learn something? That's an awful thing to require parents to do.

Outside of that, right now parents don't have any choice at all, and Mayor Snorkum does not see how vouchers or any other alternative to ending the near monopoly the government has on the children's minds is worse then the current situation in which children are trapped in a system that treats them as nothing more than cash counters in a union driven power game.

Mayor Snorkum taught his fifth grader algebra, becuase that was simpler than the ridiculously complicated nonsense she was being fed in school. Mayor Snorkum encouraged her to read The Hobbit, and now she's reading hte Lord of the Rings, in the sixth grade, because the public schools suck and the best are held back. No vouchers here, just work at home. She's approaching the end of The Fellowship of the Ring and has become aware of how crappy the movie rendition of the characters really was. And she hasn't even discovered the real Faramir, yet.

No way can we continue to allow public schools, infested with unions, to hold American children hostage.
 
I do not think that it is inherently bad. I think the problems that come from created segregated schooling is the real problem.

I see no problem with ability segregation.
Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the high ability students get bored to death waiting for the others to catch up.

It is likely to happen if we maintain a philosophy that high achievement is the only goal of education.

That should be the goal.

But getting poorer performing students to achieve higher is the goal, so again, why would the money lay idle?

Actually, it forces innovation. If you have two similarly positioned schools and one is out performing the other, it's not because of stacking the deck, it's because of better practices.

Specialization has been shown the give greater results (in most other areas) than making an average.

Schools that specialize in identifying the short coming of poorer performing students would greatly raise their ability of achieving higher education.
 
Not discrimination based on race, etc., discrimination based on academic ability and behavior problems....

Yeah, the law requires Stanford to accept applicants with SAT scores of 150 or lower. Yep, that sure explains how Chelsea got into Standford....
 
I see no problem with ability segregation.

I don't see a problem with ability segregation WITHIN a school. I have a problem with ability segregation to get INTO a school. That is an important difference.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the high ability students get bored to death waiting for the others to catch up.

I tend to agree. Efforts have been made in public and private schools to combat this problem. It is a significant problem for smaller school districts that do not have the resources to devote significant resources to a handful of children. That would be true in private or public schools.

That should be the goal.

That should be ONE of the goals.

But getting poorer performing students to achieve higher is the goal, so again, why would the money lay idle?

It is difficult to get lower performing students to achieve higher goals with competition. If the lower performing students are relegated to the only schools that will accept them while the higher achieving students are funneled to private schools, it destroys the internal competition motivations.

Specialization has been shown the give greater results (in most other areas) than making an average.

Yes and no. Specialization is important, but it is also important to realize that some students need the challenge of schools they cannot get into.

Schools that specialize in identifying the short coming of poorer performing students would greatly raise their ability of achieving higher education.

Only if those students can see the achievement. It's not really an achievement if you're smartest person in a group of under achievers.
 
I don't see a problem with ability segregation WITHIN a school. I have a problem with ability segregation to get INTO a school. That is an important difference.

I don't agree with that.
In my experience, being the smart kid in a mixed school, meant you had to endure harassment from the other kids.
It kept me from going into the somewhat more challenging program.

I tend to agree. Efforts have been made in public and private schools to combat this problem. It is a significant problem for smaller school districts that do not have the resources to devote significant resources to a handful of children. That would be true in private or public schools.

Now I would agree with that, more rural areas would find it more challenging, but I still think it's worth a try.
It doesn't mean that mixed ability schools won't develop, especially in rural areas.

That should be ONE of the goals.

Learning and high order thinking should be the goal, that's all tied to high achievement.

It is difficult to get lower performing students to achieve higher goals with competition. If the lower performing students are relegated to the only schools that will accept them while the higher achieving students are funneled to private schools, it destroys the internal competition motivations.

Yes and no. Specialization is important, but it is also important to realize that some students need the challenge of schools they cannot get into.

Only if those students can see the achievement. It's not really an achievement if you're smartest person in a group of under achievers.

Well, I don't think the lower performing students should be competing in the traditional sense.

I think the schools should, identify the short coming, group students of similar deficiency and address those students until the deficiency is relieved.

It may be inherent in the child, it may be a misunderstanding of the child or it may be poor parental performance during the pre admission to schooling.
 
I don't agree with that.
In my experience, being the smart kid in a mixed school, meant you had to endure harassment from the other kids.
It kept me from going into the somewhat more challenging program.

I understand your concern. However, that experience was an important part of your development as well. It was of mine.


Now I would agree with that, more rural areas would find it more challenging, but I still think it's worth a try.
It doesn't mean that mixed ability schools won't develop, especially in rural areas.

It may be worth a try, but again, on a level playing field. If you don't level the playing field to create fair competition between the schools, you are creating a "false" achievement system.

Learning and high order thinking should be the goal, that's all tied to high achievement.

Those are again, some of the goals.

Well, I don't think the lower performing students should be competing in the traditional sense.

I think the schools should, identify the short coming, group students of similar deficiency and address those students until the deficiency is relieved.

It may be inherent in the child, it may be a misunderstanding of the child or it may be poor parental performance during the pre admission to schooling.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander correct? How do you expect these children to succeed if they aren't competing with higher achieving students?
 
First, you cannot compare financial aid for college to basic funding for primary and secondary schools.

Mayor Snorkum just did. That's because financial aid is a voucher system. You may not like it, but in all honesty, that's what it is.


They are two different animals.

No. They're both means of distributing taxpayer dollars to the individual student's preferred educational institution.

College is not mandatory while primary/secondary education is.

So? Makes no difference.

Because college is not mandatory, they are permitted to set standards for entrance.

And that's an arbritary position to hold. You've failed to provide any reason why lower echelon schools should not require academic standards for entrance. Used to be a time when the academic standard for getting into the fourth grade was actually passing the third grade, and not every student did that. Now, every student passes the third grade whether they learned anything or not, and we see people decrying the existence of academic standards.

As Mayor Snorkum noted in a more recent post, competition for entrance will be the best thing to happen on the American educational scene since Thomas Jefferson correctly pointed out that the Federal Government is not allowed by the Constitution to spend money on education.

Since when has competition been bad? In education it will ensure students are placed in with their academic peers. That means a child reading The Lord of the Rings in the sixth grade won't have to be slowed down in a "Language Arts" class with students struggling with the complexities of a Beverly Cleary novel.

That also means that students struggling with Beverly Clearly will be with their peers and the teacher's efforts can be more focused on that particular achievement level.

Clearly beneficial all the way around, that competition stuff.

And colleges DO discriminate on sex and religion.

So? Hillary's alma mater, Wellesley, was sooooo evil, wasn't it? Explain why that should not be allowed on the high school level when you've just admitted that it's allowed on the college voucher level. Fact of the matter is that such bizarre sociopathic anamolies are just that, anomalous, and hence rare and inconsequential. In the year 2011 the only group to use the word "coed" are the pornographers.

Then again, it's amazing, isn't it, that Catholic high schools don't teach about Allah, but their schools outperform the union operated schools.. It's a voucher. It's for the student to determine how to use it, not the elitist snobs who's desire to control American public schools has turned them into the most embarassin institutions in the industrialized world.
 
I understand your concern. However, that experience was an important part of your development as well. It was of mine.

It encouraged me to drop out as soon as I could. :shrug:


It may be worth a try, but again, on a level playing field. If you don't level the playing field to create fair competition between the schools, you are creating a "false" achievement system.

Not really, achievement is an individual affair, not really a group thing, while we may group like with like, it only for the ease of administration.
The different skills of the individuals would have their work tailored to them and their progress would be managed as such.

And not just that but for preference of the student, I know we think that all kids need British Lit, but when it was required I thought (and still think) it was entirely useless for me.

You're not gonna keep kids interested in school as long as it is regimented as it is now.


What's good for the goose is good for the gander correct? How do you expect these children to succeed if they aren't competing with higher achieving students?

They are trying to achieve their own goals, not bothering with other students.
 
Mayor Snorkum just did. That's because financial aid is a voucher system. You may not like it, but in all honesty, that's what it is.

In a different arena entirely perhaps.

No. They're both means of distributing taxpayer dollars to the individual student's preferred educational institution.

On a very foundational level this is true.

So? Makes no difference.

It makes EVERY difference.

And that's an arbritary position to hold. You've failed to provide any reason why lower echelon schools should not require academic standards for entrance. Used to be a time when the academic standard for getting into the fourth grade was actually passing the third grade, and not every student did that. Now, every student passes the third grade whether they learned anything or not, and we see people decrying the existence of academic standards.

It's not arbitrary, it's based upon the mandatory education requirements under the law.

As Mayor Snorkum noted in a more recent post, competition for entrance will be the best thing to happen on the American educational scene since Thomas Jefferson correctly pointed out that the Federal Government is not allowed by the Constitution to spend money on education.

Competition for entrance does not comport with mandatory education requirements. Beyond that, you keep going back to a Constitutional argument when the truth of the matter is that the federal government has very little to do with funding the education of the average student.

Since when has competition been bad? In education it will ensure students are placed in with their academic peers. That means a child reading The Lord of the Rings in the sixth grade won't have to be slowed down in a "Language Arts" class with students struggling with the complexities of a Beverly Cleary novel.

That also means that students struggling with Beverly Clearly will be with their peers and the teacher's efforts can be more focused on that particular achievement level.

Clearly beneficial all the way around, that competition stuff.

It's perfectly fine to have competition. I believe in competition. It's why I want a level playing field so the competition can really produce results under a mandatory education system.

So? Hillary's alma mater, Wellesley, was sooooo evil, wasn't it? Explain why that should not be allowed on the high school level when you've just admitted that it's allowed on the college voucher level. Fact of the matter is that such bizarre sociopathic anamolies are just that, anomalous, and hence rare and inconsequential. In the year 2011 the only group to use the word "coed" are the pornographers.

Then again, it's amazing, isn't it, that Catholic high schools don't teach about Allah, but their schools outperform the union operated schools.. It's a voucher. It's for the student to determine how to use it, not the elitist snobs who's desire to control American public schools has turned them into the most embarassin institutions in the industrialized world.

This rant has nothing to do with the topic really. Beyond that, I didn't say that discrimination didn't exist on the college level. I proved that it did. However the college level is different than the primary/secondary level because of mandatory education requirements.
 
"Instead of actually doing something serious about the public schools we are going to help people avoid the schools instead. "

Fix the damn school system! No cop outs like vouchers!
 
I favor school vouchers. Parents who are not rich should have options for their children other than the failing taxpayer supported schools. As it stands now you have to support both the tax-supported school and the private school if you want your kids to have a choice.

I realize it's silly to expect the union-organized, lifetime employment tax-supported schools to compete, though.

You cannot compare a public school to a private school though. Public schools are required, by law, to take all comers. Private schools get to pick and choose which students they take. Public schools very rarely can expel a student permanently, except under the most extreme circumstances. Private schools can kick you out for any reason. Public schools typically have parents who don't give a damn about their kid's education. Private schools, because the parents have to pay out of pocket, have active parents who work with their children to get better grades.

You can't compare apples and oranges. Put them both on a level playing field and both will perform approximately the same.
 
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.

What makes a school fail isn't usually the school, but the parents. If you have active, engaged parents who care about their child's education and are committed to working with their child to get a good education and holding the child accountable, then that child will get a good education. If you don't, then there is little the school can do to force a child who doesn't care, and parent(s) who don't care, to do something they don't care about. The only people who will transfer to a private school are those who already give a damn, people who can already get a decent education where they are. If you pull the people who give a damn out of the schools, they will only sink further into the quagmire because the only ones left behind will be the ones who are only in school because the law requires it.
 
easy... because those schools want those students... and if they don't make their school good... people will leave and the school will fail.

I went to a private school, back in the day, and there were strict performance guidelines. If you failed classes, they didn't want you, you were not accepted for the next year and no matter how much money you had, you couldn't go to the school. That's the only reason these schools look like they are superior performers, they keep out the educational riff-raff.
 
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?

The only way you're going to see improvement is to force parents to be involved and you really can't do that. Without parental involvement, no school can possibly succeed, you can't teach kids who don't want to learn. Personally, I'm entirely in favor of cutting off any and all public assistance for kids who refuse to get passing grades in school. Take away the gravy train and you'll see parents pushing their kids to perform.
 
Wait, wait, wait. I understand that teachers have nothing to do with children learning and neither do educators in management. Teachers unions are a negative. The professionals and their apologists deny any responsibility for the problems or the solution. Schools exist to employ teachers who fund the unions who fund the politicians.

So, since the responsibility is usually put on the parents, why don't we pay the parents? A little training, books and supplies, and we're off and running.
 
If people want to send their kids to a private school they need to use their own money. Taxes paid for public schools need to stay that way - its part of the Commons.

exactly. if poor kids are desperate to escape a failing system then they should have thought of that before they were born black.
 
The only way you're going to see improvement is to force parents to be involved and you really can't do that. Without parental involvement, no school can possibly succeed, you can't teach kids who don't want to learn. Personally, I'm entirely in favor of cutting off any and all public assistance for kids who refuse to get passing grades in school. Take away the gravy train and you'll see parents pushing their kids to perform.

But even then there are a great many parents that think the primary job of the school is to educate their child and that shouldn't have to lift a finger.
Cutting off public assistance to those won't work.

Not only that but the schools don't cater much to those who want to excel.
That evident because we spend more of those with learning disabilities than we do on those without.
Parents are the majority of the problem but the regimented design of the school systems are the secondary problem.
 
But even then there are a great many parents that think the primary job of the school is to educate their child and that shouldn't have to lift a finger.
Cutting off public assistance to those won't work.

Not only that but the schools don't cater much to those who want to excel.
That evident because we spend more of those with learning disabilities than we do on those without.
Parents are the majority of the problem but the regimented design of the school systems are the secondary problem.

Let's fix the parental problem first, then worry about the rest. I think that by targetting low-income parents, which is where the majority of help is needed, and getting them involved in their child's education, you can make a serious dent in the problem. I'll take what improvements I can get, I don't pretend that since we can't fix it all in one go, we shouldn't try at all.
 
What kinds of private schools would you support vouchers for?

Any religious private school that included religious education/indoctrination.

Specific religious private schools that included religious education/indoctrination. (please specify and why object to one religious school and not another)

Religious private school that will only use tax dollars for secular education. Meaning they promised not to use tax payer dollars for any religious education or indoctrination.They either charged the parents for the religious education/indoctrination, use private donations to fund religious education/indoctrination or or a combination of the two or use volunteers to do the religious teaching/indoctrinating.

Any religious private school whose education is secular.(in other words they may be a school ran by a religious organization but they have no religious education/indoctrination)

Non-religious private schools.

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.

I do not support school voucher at all regardless of the private school.





I support vouchers to private schools and I think it should be the parent's choice regardless if they want to send their child to a atheist,Christian,Jewish, Muslim, Catholic or what ever private school.

I haven't read the rest of this thread, but, to be honest, I'm a bit torn on this issue.

Ideologically, I'm against school vouchers. I don't think that public school money should be going to private schools.

However, ideologically, I'm also against boards of education on the level of school districts. I don't think that a centralized authority should have that much control over the policy of so many individual public schools.

Instead, I think all schools should instead have policy be determined by a board of directors. This board will be made up of an equal number of 1) teachers who work at the school, 2) administrators, 3) parents elected by the other parents who have kids in the school, and 4) students who are seniors or juniors who are elected by the students.

This way, individual schools will be able to make the policies for their own children and own teachers without getting politicos who don't have any children in those schools involved. If you ask me, THAT is what's ****ing up our public school system the most = too many people telling too many teachers how to teach and telling too many students what to learn even though neither of those things are any of their businesses since they don't have kids in a school.

However, I'm also a believer in realpolitik. Since private schools have more independence from school district boards, I should be supportive of private school vouchers. But I'm not. I think money for public schools should be spent on public schools, and be spent in different ways too.

For instance, paying students to go to school. I think we should pay school kids for making good grades. And those who don't want to go to school we shouldn't force to go to school after the 10th grade. Instead, they should have to go to a trade school or get an internship.

There's a ton of better educational reforms we could do than vouchers for private schools. Vouchers won't change any of the deeper problems of the modern American education system. Vouchers will only treat the symptoms, and not the disease.
 
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.

What if vouchers would increase competition and standards between schools? Everyone would gain. Why would you oppose funding something if it would mutually benefit everyone?

I am just trying to show you that your argument needs a little more substance than, it is not a place for public money. You need something like, it would not improve education, thus we should not fund it.
 
Last edited:
For anyone that is interested, this is a video of a man in India who tried experiments with child directed education.

In one notable experiment, he left a computer and instructed the 12 year old children to learn about biotechnology.
The rub was that these children did not speak English and that the program was in English.

When he came back, 2 months later, he found that the kids scored a 30% on a test about biotech, when before they couldn't even read the material.


Personally, I think it's time for a total revision, of how we educate kids.
 
Back
Top Bottom