• 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

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
I don't support vouchers at all.

I pay my property tax and participate in every fund raiser in order to help cover the costs of education for my children. If I have problems and concerns - I take an active role in changing the broken system.

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.
 
Scrap Vouchers.

My argument would be simply that when tax payer money is in play, accountability is paramount, and you do not get that with vouchers when you start handing money hand over fist to private businesses (Which is what private schools are, lets not get that mistaken) that do not have to report how that money is used.

Another argument is that those students will benefit from a private school as they're generally better then public schools.

Having been to both kinds across 3 different continents, I can tell you that it's simply, a case by case basis for the schools. There were some teachers at my public school in Canada that were 10000X better then some teachers at the 150 year old boarding school I went to in England and then the same in the over crowded public school I went to in South Africa.

All in all.
 
Last edited:
I didn't see my option: I support vouchers for all public schools. If you want to attend a private school you are on your own.

School choice is a good thing.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
I can't say that I would support any voucher program as it wouldn't fix the problems we are having in education.
 
Vouchers are just as unconstitutional as the present system of transferring taxpayer money to educrats.

Also, the nation already has in place a system of educational vouchers, and it's done nothing but make education more unaffordable and chaotic. That system is known as "how the United States government funds college tuition for the masses". Thanks to that voucher system, college tuitions have risen at two or even three times the rate of inflation.

The problem with public education is that the government is running it. Education could best be fixed by getting the federal government out of the unconstitutional practice of funding it.
 
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.

Except, of course, that the tax exists to provide education the child. That the child's parent declines to send their child to a gangster-infested drug distribution center that cannot teach the three R's does not divorce the child from the state's assumed responsibility to provide funds to educat him.

Also, since the story is that it costs $8000 a year to educate a child in a public school, then removing the child from that school should reduce the cost to the state by eight grand and there's no valid reason the money allocated for that child should not stay with him. His departure should not provide a net profit to the school system, thereby inflating the cost of education to the taxpayers on a per capita basis.

How about if the federal government gets out of the education business, since, as Thomas Jefferson said in his sixth State of the Union address, the Constitution does not allow it there anyway?
 
Let’s speak candidly about vouchers for a moment.

1. Vouchers run the risk of improving education even if vouchers are not a single bullet solution. Competition amongst schools creates an incentive to improve education outcomes.
2. The problem with vouchers as it is commonly discussed is related to the understanding of how education is funded. The bulk of education spending in most school districts is directly linked to property taxes. Every property owner pays property taxes (or will suffer consequences), but not every property owner has children in school. This means that a large portion of the money spent to educate children is not coming from the parents of the child in question. It is not for the parents of a child to make a decision to remove funds from a school district BEYOND what the parents paid into the school district. This essentially means that those who rent do not get a choice and those who own only get a partial amount of the funds spent to educate their child.
3. If parents want to use a voucher based upon the funds they paid into the system as property owners, I have no problem with them sending their child to any education facility AS LONG AS the facility has an open door policy. You cannot create true competition without having a level playing field. This means that we either eliminate the laws that require public schools to educate every child that enters their doors OR we force private schools who would accept vouchers to have an open door policy.
4. Failure to level the playing field will create an undue burden on public schools. Public schools will not be able to compete, not because they cannot create a quality product, but because they are forced to take the children the private schools refuse to take. This allows private schools to take the “cream of the crop” so to speak and leave those with special needs for the public schools to educate. When you create that environment, you are preventing the public schools from creating the same level of quality outcomes as the private schools simply because you are creating a false statistical grouping.
 
I don't support vouchers. Taxes go to public schools and we should work on fixing poor performing public schools, not on helping a few lucky kids go to private schools while the unlucky ones stay in the crap schools.
 
I support vouchers. If parents are spending money for their kids to go to private school they aren't receiving government funding that would go towards their child if they did. I have no problem with that money being given to families in the form of vouchers. Personally, I support scrapping public education and making all schools private that would be funded by parents and vouchers. Our current education system is failing.
 
I don't support vouchers. Taxes go to public schools and we should work on fixing poor performing public schools, not on helping a few lucky kids go to private schools while the unlucky ones stay in the crap schools.

Doesn't vouchers allow the unlucky kids to go to private schools instead of staying at crap schools? Besides that why would you want those unlucky kids to be stuck at crap school instead of going to a private school?
 
Doesn't vouchers allow the unlucky kids to go to private schools instead of staying at crap schools? Besides that why would you want those unlucky kids to be stuck at crap school instead of going to a private school?

They will be stuck in the public schools because the private schools can discriminate on admission. This means that the private schools don't have to take children who might need a little extra work.
 
Fine arguments.

Misses the point that right now the private schools are not skimming the cream, and yet public schools are simply not able to educate those capable of being taught. Therefore, if the private schools were allowed to take the "cream of the crop", more children capable of being educated would be educated, which is the putative goal of public education spending, and those who cannot be educated will be no worse off. The median level of education would rise, the number of students exposed to crass unionism would decline, the number of parents aware that their children are receiving a crappy education in that publicly funded warehouse would rise, and overall, the pressure to improve education without spending even more tax dollars would increase, which would in turn improve the quality of educatoin at the public warehouses...er schools.
 
Doesn't vouchers allow the unlucky kids to go to private schools instead of staying at crap schools? Besides that why would you want those unlucky kids to be stuck at crap school instead of going to a private school?

I agree with OhReally?.

Also, there are public schools all over the country that work and produce good students. It seems to me that we should focus on implementing what already works in those schools in the poor performing schools. I also have a problem with paying taxes so that kids can go to private schools instead of the public schools that the government has the responsibility and the ability to make better.

I get that vouchers would help some students get a better education, but it seems like putting a bandaid on a gaping wound.
 
Fine arguments.

Misses the point that right now the private schools are not skimming the cream, and yet public schools are simply not able to educate those capable of being taught.

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. Why can't public schools educate? Because their primary goal has been forced to change. Public schools are unfortunately the primary "parent" for many of their students. They are forced into advanced babysitting the students who are problem causers. In addition, increased class sizes don't help the teachers ability to work with the students.

Therefore, if the private schools were allowed to take the "cream of the crop", more children capable of being educated would be educated, which is the putative goal of public education spending, and those who cannot be educated will be no worse off.

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.

The median level of education would rise, the number of students exposed to crass unionism would decline, the number of parents aware that their children are receiving a crappy education in that publicly funded warehouse would rise, and overall, the pressure to improve education without spending even more tax dollars would increase, which would in turn improve the quality of educatoin at the public warehouses...er schools.

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.
 
They will be stuck in the public schools because the private schools can discriminate on admission. This means that the private schools don't have to take children who might need a little extra work.

Oh, they can?

That's nonsense. The current voucher system in use strictly prohibits discrimination on race, sex, religion, blah blah blah. Any idiot can go to college these days. That some schools have stricter academic entrance requirements than others isn't strange. They have standards to meet and an image to maintain.

But I don't see anyone complaining that Stanford has a more restrictive entrance policy that UC Davis. The voucher system for the lower levels of public education funding will introduce much needed competition into the education market. Right now only the rich can send their spawn to private schools, (for the sake of argument we're going just ignore the catholic schools that perform much much better than public schools for less than half the money) and people with smart children and no money are doomed to see their child's future squandered on a sub-standard publicly funded education system that views each child as nothing but a head to be counted for money in homeroom who must be kept in his age related peer group throughout school.

Enabling vouchers, if the unconstitutional practice of federal funding for education is continued, allows those gifted children unlucky enough to be born to rich parents, the opportunity to show the rich brats that money can't buy brains. Now, you're an obvious proponent of class envy, you should be happy to give the wealthy this tweak on their upturned noses.

But you're not. You want to see talented children held back and stifled to preserve a status quo that's beneficial to no one but educrats and union members. Why is that?
 
Oh, they can?

That's nonsense. The current voucher system in use strictly prohibits discrimination on race, sex, religion, blah blah blah.

Not discrimination based on race, etc., discrimination based on academic ability and behavior problems....
 
Oh, they can?

Yes, absolutely.

That's nonsense

No, it's a sad fact.

The current voucher system in use strictly prohibits discrimination on race, sex, religion, blah blah blah. Any idiot can go to college these days. That some schools have stricter academic entrance requirements than others isn't strange. They have standards to meet and an image to maintain.

First, you cannot compare financial aid for college to basic funding for primary and secondary schools. They are two different animals. College is not mandatory while primary/secondary education is. Because college is not mandatory, they are permitted to set standards for entrance. And colleges DO discriminate on sex and religion. It is why we have all female colleges like Wellesley or Christian colleges.

But I don't see anyone complaining that Stanford has a more restrictive entrance policy that UC Davis.

Because they do not participate in a level of education that is mandatory.

The voucher system for the lower levels of public education funding will introduce much needed competition into the education market.

On this we can agree.

Right now only the rich can send their spawn to private schools

Not exactly true. Most private schools offer academic scholarships for students who are excellent in terms of academics.

(for the sake of argument we're going just ignore the catholic schools that perform much much better than public schools for less than half the money)

Let's not ignore them. Let's talk about them. Catholic schools have the right to refuse service to students they don't want. Public schools do not. Public schools must find some accommodation for students.

and people with smart children and no money are doomed to see their child's future squandered on a sub-standard publicly funded education system that views each child as nothing but a head to be counted for money in homeroom who must be kept in his age related peer group throughout school.

False, see above. Smart children can apply for scholarships to private schools. In addition, there are valid reasons that both private and public schools try to keep children with their age group for at least part of the day. It promotes positive social interaction on a developmental level for which the student is prepared.

Enabling vouchers, if the unconstitutional practice of federal funding for education is continued, allows those gifted children unlucky enough to be born to rich parents, the opportunity to show the rich brats that money can't buy brains.

I don't dispute that enabling vouchers CAN help children. I have stated that in virtually every post relating to vouchers. I also noted that the bulk of funding for education comes from the LOCAL level so the question of Constitutionality is virtually void. Federal funds make up a small portion of the budget in schools when viewed as a whole.

Now, you're an obvious proponent of class envy, you should be happy to give the wealthy this tweak on their upturned noses.

Funny, the only way I would be an obvious proponent of class envy is if you failed to actually read my posts.

But you're not. You want to see talented children held back and stifled to preserve a status quo that's beneficial to no one but educrats and union members. Why is that?

Again, you failed to read. I am all for vouchers if the playing field is level. You cannot improve public schools without putting their competition on the same level. If you want public schools to perform at the levels of private schools, eliminate mandatory education and the requirements for public schools to take all who wish to be educated. I frankly don't care which way you do it, but the playing field must be level lest you create the class envy you claimed I have.
 
i completely support the voucher system for any private school religious or non-religious... i even think it should be extended to healthcare too.
 
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 support vouchers for any grade school/high school a parent would like to send their children to. Our public schools are failing. Time to get rid of the monopoly.
 
I don't support vouchers. Taxes go to public schools and we should work on fixing poor performing public schools, not on helping a few lucky kids go to private schools while the unlucky ones stay in the crap schools.
I propose the change in the system altogether, make any child be able to attend a private school and make all public schools charter schools.

So everyone has a choice to go anywhere
 
I support vouchers for any grade school/high school a parent would like to send their children to. Our public schools are failing. Time to get rid of the monopoly.

Public schools aren't a monopoly...because private schools exist.

Public schools aren't failing...SOME public schools are failing. Some public schools also do well...in wealthy neighborhoods.
 
I propose the change in the system altogether, make any child be able to attend a private school and make all public schools charter schools.

So everyone has a choice to go anywhere

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom