School Voucher Debate Thread (1 Viewer)

[EMNofSeattle]

1. School vouchers are government funded, and therefore take up resources that would be better allocated to public schools. The tidbit about active families refers to the fact that families would opt to enroll in a charter school tend to be more active in school life, and therefore the public school is deprived of their contributions.

2. Many solutions haven't been attempted. Just because reforms that have been attempted don't work doesn't mean all possible reforms are failures. Many changes could be made to our school system (replacing Common Core and NCLB with a more decentralized curriculum that gives more power to the teachers, abolition of standardized tests, and a more secure form of public education funding, to name a few) that would affect it positively.

3. You'd have an argument if public schools taught a certain religion. Religion does not belong in the education system. If a student wants to learn about a certain religion, let them do it in an after school club or outside of school. Don't force children to be taught a certain religion as if it is fact just because their parents want them to believe that.

So it is okay for a parent to teach their kids their religion as long as they call it something other than school?

Your idea to ban private schools is absolutely ridiculous by the way, these parents help public education, they still have to pay property taxes to support the local school district and their kid is not taking dollars from the local school district because they're not sitting in the school it's a win-win for the public school system when parents send their kids to private schools

 

[Fiddytree]

1. People are upset with common core because it's a ridiculous amount of steps to achieve the answer to the problem. There's nuclear technicians that can't explain why it should take 12 steps to add 16 and 2... Just an example

That's not Common Core, though. That's a worksheet based on the teachings of New Math.

2. Common core creates ridiculous high standards and level of thought process that children of 5 years old have to go through, and then the child will be stuck in a gridlock because they will be required to pass a class that they can't pass because the teachings are insanely impractical. I fear it's dumbing down America and it's the purposeful dumbing down of America to advance a more predominate police state, but that position isn't necessary for this thread, and I'm sure very debatable.

In some areas, perhaps, but in most others no. These are just standards. The biggest contributor legal contributor to the status of education would be Race to the Top or No Child Left Behind. Beyond that it's how your individual state has implemented curriculum, what strategies they promote, and (of course) the individual teacher's methods. The police state talk, to be frank, has nothing to do with education policy.

3. Well in all reality what would of been conservative would have been dismantling the dep. of education and not increasing the power of e federal government.

That would be one conservative viewpoint out of many. Conservatism in the United States also means big government solutions. It's not meant to be isolated to one view of government's reach.

They have no Authority to federally create expectations on state schools.

If they accept the highly desirable levels of federal funding, they do. They also have to follow other federal laws which create less numerous expectations regardless of their funding status.

The plain fact that you argue to appeal to nationalism shows that the term conservative has been completely lost. Being an American conservative is being an individualistic free market thinker. If you are a nationalist you can not be an individualist or a free market thinker. We can obviously see with our high drop out rates and high rates of crime and high school drug abuse that this system clearly needs improvement. So why not set up an alternate system? Decide if less federal regulation might actually effect a school and education in a positive manner rather then just ignore it like the adopted step child in the corner of the room

Conservatism is an attitude which long predates broad-based liberalism. Statism, nationalism, and noblesse oblige have been part of the conservative viewpoint for millennia and centuries, respectively. It wasn't until the development of political Liberalism that we thought that big government may not be a desirable thing. Conservatism in the United States, although part of the liberal experience, still clung onto the statist viewpoint until the 20th century. It was then that conservatism slowly began to change into holding onto the viewpoints of liberals like Thomas Jefferson rather than an Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, or Henry Clay. This became especially apparent by the 1940s, when the more modern conservative movement began to coalesce around the newly-formed American libertarian movement, social conservatism, and hawkish foreign policy for the bourgeoning Cold War. What many conservatives think is conservatism is but one of many attitudes or dispositions toward government and society.

As to what we do about the current state of American education, I already stated I support vouchers. I also support public subsidies toward parochial schools. Nevertheless, despite some of the excesses in its thought, the conservative education accountability movement of the 1980s and early 1990s is something I consider a proper viewpoint toward education.

 

[Libertie76]

That's not Common Core, though. That's a worksheet based on the teachings of New Math.



In some areas, perhaps, but in most others no. These are just standards. The biggest contributor legal contributor to the status of education would be Race to the Top or No Child Left Behind. Beyond that it's how your individual state has implemented curriculum, what strategies they promote, and (of course) the individual teacher's methods. The police state talk, to be frank, has nothing to do with education policy.



That would be one conservative viewpoint out of many. Conservatism in the United States also means big government solutions. It's not meant to be isolated to one view of government's reach.



If they accept the highly desirable levels of federal funding, they do. They also have to follow other federal laws which create less numerous expectations regardless of their funding status.



Conservatism is an attitude which long predates broad-based liberalism. Statism, nationalism, and noblesse oblige have been part of the conservative viewpoint for millennia and centuries, respectively. It wasn't until the development of political Liberalism that we thought that big government may not be a desirable thing. Conservatism in the United States, although part of the liberal experience, still clung onto the statist viewpoint until the 20th century. It was then that conservatism slowly began to change into holding onto the viewpoints of liberals like Thomas Jefferson rather than an Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, or Henry Clay. This became especially apparent by the 1940s, when the more modern conservative movement began to coalesce around the newly-formed American libertarian movement, social conservatism, and hawkish foreign policy for the bourgeoning Cold War. What many conservatives think is conservatism is but one of many attitudes or dispositions toward government and society.

As to what we do about the current state of American education, I already stated I support vouchers. I also support public subsidies toward parochial schools. Nevertheless, despite some of the excesses in its thought, the conservative education accountability movement of the 1980s and early 1990s is something I consider a proper viewpoint toward education.

1. It's not a worksheet on common core, what it is is the new style of teaching expressing how you got there. Essentially if you can argue the case that 13+2 = 16 and you can show rational steps the teacher will tell you you're right for your steps but the answer is wrong. Thats how common core math is now being taught

2. Yes it's the additional federalization of schooling something the constitution tried to stop from happening for a reason

3. Neo-con is big government

4. Where in the constitution does it suggest this?

5. You're right, however I'm suggesting a real American conservatism. The conservatism definition changed with the progressive era because it brought in the new left, the progressives, so conservatism by definition changed to the original liberal message of people like Jefferson. However conservatives in that time were people who wanted to retain the monarchy in a sense.

 

[Fiddytree]

1. It's not a worksheet on common core, what it is is the new style of teaching expressing how you got there. Essentially if you can argue the case that 13+2 = 16 and you can show rational steps the teacher will tell you you're right for your steps but the answer is wrong. Thats how common core math is now being taught

I'm trying to tell you there is no Common Core math teaching style. New Math is one option to teach mathematics. The worksheets you have seen are not Common Core.

2. Yes it's the additional federalization of schooling something the constitution tried to stop from happening for a reason

This doesn't make much sense if I am understanding your statement to mean that it tried to stop federalized education. There was no real schooling infrastructure across the colonies to begin with.

3. Neo-con is big government

Correct. It's a unique amalgamation of political orientations, however, sees itself in the tradition of those historical figures I mentioned earlier.

4. Where in the constitution does it suggest this?

If you want to peruse the Supreme Court's rulings and rationale of such matters, I'd suggest looking at cases relating to the EHA. Otherwise, I've learned a long time ago to not get into discussions about what the Constitution does or does not provide when it is absolutely evident that all three levels of the federal government, and all levels of state and local government follow the precept that with federal funds comes federally-endorsed responsibilities.

5. You're right, however I'm suggesting a real American conservatism. The conservatism definition changed with the progressive era because it brought in the new left, the progressives, so conservatism by definition changed to the original liberal message of people like Jefferson. However conservatives in that time were people who wanted to retain the monarchy in a sense.

There isn't really a true (or as you put it "real") American conservatism. However, if there was, I'd suggest it would be more about big government than small government, as you folks are pretty recent to the game.

 

[Libertie76]

I'm trying to tell you there is no Common Core math teaching style. New Math is one option to teach mathematics. The worksheets you have seen are not Common Core.



This doesn't make much sense if I am understanding your statement to mean that it tried to stop federalized education. There was no real schooling infrastructure across the colonies to begin with.



Correct. It's a unique amalgamation of political orientations, however, sees itself in the tradition of those historical figures I mentioned earlier.



If you want to peruse the Supreme Court's rulings and rationale of such matters, I'd suggest looking at cases relating to the EHA. Otherwise, I've learned a long time ago to not get into discussions about what the Constitution does or does not provide when it is absolutely evident that all three levels of the federal government, and all levels of state and local government follow the precept that with federal funds comes federally-endorsed responsibilities.



There isn't really a true (or as you put it "real") American conservatism. However, if there was, I'd suggest it would be more about big government than small government, as you folks are pretty recent to the game.

Well it's a whole new standard of math learning, common core. New math is the way teachers are teaching this new common core standard Mathematics Standards | Common Core State Standards Initiative

The constitution makes it clear, the federal government does not have a right to dictate funding and wealth distribution in local schools and local governments

I know it's really interesting, look at liberal too that concept has completely changed, socialism, all political thought changes with history. As of now, a neo con is a statist but a more legitimate conservative is after industrial revolution small government

I don't really care too much what the scotus considering the constitution dictates that the allowance of states comes to the state themselves. Now let's say a state decides it doesn't want federal funding in the schools would the fed listen to the state or continue to fund the schools

Well I agree today but as I said historically since the industrial revolution conservatism comes as limiting governmental role.

 

[spangledbanner]

1. If you base it on a tax system to transition away from a department of education you would base it on tax payers with students, I don't advocate for a voucher but a tax credit instead to ease away the dependency of federal government

2. Corporatism is a socialist collectivist thought not a capitalist. Firm theory lowers transactional costs in society however corporatism is a socialist I find it very hypocritical that you would call us corporatists when we advocate for free market competition

3. I agree with you but this would be in all principals of allocating state ran disbursement of wealth in education.

How do you advocate against voucher program because it causes people to pay for private schools then make a case example of how well Australia is by suggesting the people pay for both private and public schools even if they can't get into the private schools.

I am not against the voucher system because it forces people to pay. I am against it because it is unfair. And clearly I do not believe that private schools should get public money. Our private schools are moochers and taking public treasure that is needed for schools.

Once citizens believed that a decent education was a right. Most still do. Education is what public funds are for. You don't think that government should provide public education for the poor? And you Americans wonder why the world does not want you as leader?

You 'elites' and your cheerleaders are insane. You really think that you can privatize everything? It will never work. Only you Americans hate government. Europeans value it and so do us Aussies for the most part. People are going to push for expropriation and nationalization because you are trying to destroy society clearly. People won't have it. Your tactics will and are backfiring.

 

[spangledbanner]

In australia not so long ago we got free uni. Because of you Americans I believe that we have a good chance of electing a government that will again offer free uni. As a right.

 

[spangledbanner]

Does America want a new dark ages or something?

If your useless government can't provide public education then what is it for? What is it for? What can it do? What is it's responsibility? To provide nothing? Don't blame us if your government is run by monkeys.

What is your government for america? 90% of you use public schools.. Have you cheerleaders really thought this through?

Americans don't believe that public health is a right. And now you want to make education a business? Why even have a government? Let the corporatists openly rule you.

What is the government for in america? What? You conservatives don't want to pay for welfare. You don't want to pay for health. Or education. Isn't this situation what led to rebellion and overthrow of government in the past?

Americana are the most unpatriotic and petty people in all of history. You hate each other.

 

[Libertie76]

I am not against the voucher system because it forces people to pay. I am against it because it is unfair. And clearly I do not believe that private schools should get public money. Our private schools are moochers and taking public treasure that is needed for schools.

Once citizens believed that a decent education was a right. Most still do. Education is what public funds are for. You don't think that government should provide public education for the poor? And you Americans wonder why the world does not want you as leader?

You 'elites' and your cheerleaders are insane. You really think that you can privatize everything? It will never work. Only you Americans hate government. Europeans value it and so do us Aussies for the most part. People are going to push for expropriation and nationalization because you are trying to destroy society clearly. People won't have it. Your tactics will and are backfiring.

1. You have no idea how the actual functionalities of American political practices wOrk.

"LOcal government is responsible for education not federal"

2. It's a right in the pursuit of happiness but it's not a right for the central government to take control over

3. And how many tyrannical governmental regimes has America had compared to Europe just in the time of American inception? And you wonder why America remains sceptical of government

 

[Libertie76]

Does America want a new dark ages or something?

If your useless government can't provide public education then what is it for? What is it for? What can it do? What is it's responsibility? To provide nothing? Don't blame us if your government is run by monkeys.

Blame you? The federal government is responsible for the protection of rights and property when the state is not capable of

 

[AmericanSpartan]

I am not against the voucher system because it forces people to pay. I am against it because it is unfair. And clearly I do not believe that private schools should get public money. Our private schools are moochers and taking public treasure that is needed for schools.

Fair? You want children to be trapped in failed schools and you have the balls to talk about "fairness"?

The public sector had its chance, and failed epicly to the tune of millions of people getting a sub par education..

They had their chance, they blew it, game over, we replace it.

Once citizens believed that a decent education was a right. Most still do. Education is what public funds are for. You don't think that government should provide public education for the poor? And you Americans wonder why the world does not want you as leader?

We do want the poor to not only get an education, but the best education possible, and private schools teamed up with school vouchers do just that.

You assume we care what the world thinks, we do not. Hate us, love us, we could care less.

You 'elites' and your cheerleaders are insane. You really think that you can privatize everything? It will never work. Only you Americans hate government. Europeans value it and so do us Aussies for the most part. People are going to push for expropriation and nationalization because you are trying to destroy society clearly. People won't have it. Your tactics will and are backfiring.

Almost everything, and we do not think it is a fact.

What never works is Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Statiism. With billions in poverty, under tyranny and with a body count into the hundreds of millions it is a wonder that you and those like you still exist.

We hate it, distrust it, because it is a waster of time, crusher of innovation, and agent of usurpation of our rights..

We are trying to "destroy society"? Good one, how many societies has Collectivism murdered?

Russia
Germany
Korea
Cuba
South Africa
Laos
Cambodia
Venezuela

the demand for school vouchers are sky rocketing as also the results are, your lies will be burned in the light of truth, your myths dispelled, your ideals relegated to the trash heap of history only to be persevered to be warned against and mocked..

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Does America want a new dark ages or something?

You mean like the horrors of Statism in the USSR? No...

If your useless government can't provide public education then what is it for? What is it for? What can it do? What is it's responsibility? To provide nothing? Don't blame us if your government is run by monkeys.

It is only meant to persevere and defend the rights of the American people, that is all, not education.

What is your government for america? 90% of you use public schools.. Have you cheerleaders really thought this through?

We spend the most and have the worse test results and the dumbest students, this is not working, we are ending the cycle of insanity?

Americans don't believe that public health is a right. And now you want to make education a business? Why even have a government? Let the corporatists openly rule you.

It is not a right, the 13th Amendment says so.

Education is a need, and the government is not the best agent or provider of that need.

What is the government for in america? What? You conservatives don't want to pay for welfare. You don't want to pay for health. Or education. Isn't this situation what led to rebellion and overthrow of government in the past?

To protect and defend the rights of the citizenry that is all, healthcare is not a right, you do not have a right to the skills, labor, time and wealth of other people.

No, it was taxation without representation, but what really kicked it off was the attempt to disarm us, that is what triggered the American revolution.

Americana are the most unpatriotic and petty people in all of history. You hate each other.

Really? So throwing money into failed systems, taking on massive debt and stealing from future generations, and caring more about the options of other nations rather then Liberty and Freedom in our own is patriotic?

Caring about our well being, taking personal accountability and responsibility for approving our own lives and not forcing government to steal from others in the name of "fairness'it "petty"

We hate the following

Statist
Marxist
Communist
Socialist
Thieves
Liars
Fools
Traitors
Tyrants

If you are one of them, we hate you too.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

(Charter =/= Private. But apparently I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about lol)

Private schools aren't better?

For one, the cost per student is less than in public schools (in 2010 it was $11,749 vs $7,848 according to the Statistical Abstract of the United States)

Also this study found that private school kids schools scored higher than ones in public schools and were statistically significant (NAEP Studies - 2006461: Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling)

Even if you don't accept that private schools are better education, you can't deny that they cost less per student and aren't subject to the bureaucracy that public ones are.




I don't know what I'm talking about? Whatever makes you sleep better.

GOP talking points? You just can't form a sentence without adding a fallacy in. I weep for our education system.

And you think the school system isn't a mess? We increase our spending and employment, yet the results are not improving. We've been doing that same thing for decades too! That's insanity for you.

Funny how they have no come back for this..