School vouchers come in many forms, but all of them would provide parents with money to spend on the schools of their choice. We all want to provide our children with the best education possible -- but are voucher programs tools of change or misguided panaceas?
The question presents vouchers as the only alternative to Public Education. I think that it should be ended. No one should be forced to pay for someone else's education . Also, there will always be a bias among those teaching, whether they are private or public schools . Right now, the Unions control the public schools, and they are pumping out leftist diatribe in such volume it is staggering. They are doing more indoctrinating than educating. On the other hand, private schools are not a whole lot better. Many of them are run by hard-righters who are seeking an alternative bias to the public option . They also often have a religious bias. Abolish the public school system, it is a money pit that has consistently failed to produce results. With the advent of online homeshooling, it is well within the means of the vast majority of Americans to educate their kids for much less than what is spent per child in the public system, and with better results.
The voucher programs are great for childern in the intercitys so they can go to a safe school to learn.With out fear of being killed,rape,and robbed by there class mates.The teachers dont even feal safe in the class rooms.And there unions dont even care.
The idea of subsidizing private schools is tempting. Instead of having a public school system that is open to all and providing a good education for the whole society, you will have a scheme designed to balkanize education. Catholics will have Catholic schools, Protestants will have Protestant schools. Jews will have their schools and Muslims will have their madrassas. Education and children will be split along class and sectarian lines. As for the poor, they'll have to make do with a public system that is even less supported than it is at present.
When you have education split along class and sectarian lines, social discrimination will be enhanced. In a world that is increasingly divided on class and sectarian lines, funding social exclusion is sowing the wind. And that increases the risk of reaping the whirlwind.
M. Glass
Mr. Glass claims that subsidizing private schools would "sow the winds of sectarianism and social exclusion." He's absolutely correct. That's exactly the difference between subsidizing private schools and giving people vouchers. If you give the poor a voucher, they can go to the same private school that their wealthier peers can. In the current system, most kids go to public school, while the wealhty send their kids to private school. If you give vouchers, the poor will be able to attend whatever school they wish. It will admittedl probably increase division along religious lines, but it will drastically decrease division along class lines. It would probably also allow techers to promote religion and morality, which is dangerously lacking in modern society, mostly due to Political Correctness, though religious schools are not the only private schools, there are many secular private schools that would be an option. In the end, it comes down to competition and the free market being good things.
If we give "the poor" a voucher and say travel two hours to get to school that is worth while, the schools are not equal. No amount of shuffling students back and forth will make them equal. The "better" (i.e. richer) school will only get better and the poorer school will only fall into further despair. Reform is needed to equalize schools and vouchers won't do it. It will only increase the disparities between the schools. "The poor" students are still not getting an equal education. They are not wearing the same clothes. They will not speak the same. They will not have laptops to do their on-line assignments on. They will be ostracized by the wealthier students. They will rebel. They will be looked down upon by teachers unconsciously or even intentionally..they will be dismissed. It happens now to the odd "poor" who finds himself within the intentionally drawn that way school district line (intentionally so as to keep the undesirables out), what makes you think this would change?
If only 13.2% of Americans do not claim any religion at all, it would appear that religion is the cause of problems, not the solution. Allowing teachers to teach religion and morality above reason and observation is probably not the best route one could come up with.
What does that do to the statistics?
I was responding to this statement:
"It would probably also allow teachers to promote religion and morality, which is dangerously lacking in modern society,"
As if it's because of lack of religion that society is the way it is.. as if religion and the morals that accompany it would "fix" society.
Well it's silly to say that lack of religion in society is to blame for its ills, since most people claim to have a religion.
The fact that F2XL fails to realize that is not inherent to schools does not mean anything.
Sorry, I went to public schools.
Blaming your public school for your lack of desire for an education and you non-commitment to material only removes your personal responsibility towards education.
I blame shitty parenting for a failing education system.. Seriously, if your child can't read by the time he or she is in the 5th grade, there's something wrong with you. Children should be reading before school starts.. or parents aren't doing their jobs.
But that was 30 years ago. My kids went to private schools. Now they are on full-ride academic scholarships at state funded universities. A merit based voucher of sorts. However, I'll admit that I rely on spell check too much, when I can't get one of my Nat Merit Scholars on the cell. Not all public schools are bad, but the bad ones should be shut down by students who have the freedom to leave and take their funding with them.
The funding of students should be equal through out the state.. yet it isn't.
Schools are not equal, and until they are equalized in terms of materials and class size, how can you say that problem lies in the schools? How can you judge schools when the factors are always varied? There is no empirical evidence, for there are too many variables.
I'm still of the school of thought that the greatest responsibility lies in the parents. If a child is failing at school, it always comes back to the 'rents.
You and I agree that parents have the biggest impact of all. I think we also agree that not all schools are equal, be they public or private. The variables include teachers, funding, and politics. In big cities like Dallas, the legal fees for racially motivated lawsuits, highly paid yet incompetent administrators, "teacher first" NEA policies, and other overhead, take as much as 50% of the funding before a penny is spent on education. Throwing more money at the schools doesn't help because the lawyers, administrators, and the union get their cut before the kids and teachers. Some private schools are terrible also, but they tend to close when the parents pull their kids out. The best ones tend to spend nearly 90% of their budgets on teacher salaries. The teachers make less than they could in public schools, yet they stay for the overwhelming difference in job satisfaction. There are many stories, but a personal story of two public school teachers who were sanctioned by their union for volunteering to tutor at risk kids is a big indicator that the system is broken. Vouchers are one way that would allow parents to vote with their feet. You are correct that vouchers won't pay the whole tuition at a private school. In fact, I don't know of a single private school that can cover its budget with tuition alone. Donations cover a big part of it. Also, most of them give needs based scholarships to motivated students. Vouchers would allow those scholarship funds to be used for many more students.
Dude, unions are NOT funded by tax-payer dollars unless you want to say that because a teacher pays for it himself, and he's paid by tax-payer dollars (including his own) that we all pay for unions.
And private teachers are paid more, usually.. not the other way around.
If you were take a test state.. say.. North Dakota.. And give ALL schools there the same materials and give them ALL small class sizes.. carefully document teaching styles.. and collect other such appropriate, measurable data. This might be helpful.
Then it would identify what schools are really failing, but more importantly, would give better indicators of WHY. It may be that schools are failing in certain areas because of socio-enviro-eco factors rather than the school itself. But we can't say because we don't REALLY know. But I'll be damned if it's a good idea to publicly fund religion. Sorry. It's just..
why not send kids to a school where we instruct them for an hour a day on the reality of Santa? Education and Religion should not Mix.
1) I was a member of the United Steel Workers Union, so I know how Unions are funded and how they operate. They do good and they do bad, like any organization, including religious denominations. That isn't the issue here.
2) A handful of elite private schools that would never agree to the strings attached to vouchers, pay their teachers more than public schools. By far, the majority of private school teachers make less in pay and benefits than public school teachers.
3) Take a test case.say..Kansas City. where a judge ordered all the things you asked for above and caused hell on earth in the public schools. Go look at the data.
4) The whole line of reasoning that this is a religious issue is bogus. Yes, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and people of many other faiths are extremely concerned about their children's education. But trying to argue that this concern makes the issue a religious issue simply demonstrates how poorly educated the so called "no" experts are. Vouchers put the power of choice into the hands of parents and wrests it away from politicians. If you were a kid would you rather have a parent decide things for you or would you want to be a ward of the state? Granted, the public education system has been broken for so long that many of the parents are poorly equiped to make the decisions. Is that the "no" voters position? Continue the cycle because it is broken? Absurd!!
Excuse me, you said "Throwing more money at the schools doesn't help because the lawyers, administrators, and the union get their cut ". Then you say it's not an issue? Whatever... you use it as a reason as to why schools are failing. IF the even are (since we say they are with no empirical evidence).
That is NOT what happened in Kansas City. It was a voucher program.
The whole line of religious reason is not bogus. It is not the job, nor the function of government to fund religious upbringing. This is a fundamental issue. Thank you for trying to make it appear as it this is not important. When clearly it is an issue with the separation of church and state. Government does not fund religious enterprise.
"If only 13.2% of Americans do not claim any religion at all, it would appear that religion is the cause of problems, not the solution."
The correct answer is more along the lines of 4/10th's of a percent to 1%, assuming of course you mean belief in god as a form of religion.
Nonetheless, it seems as if you are both distorting the relevance of this issue and the context at which it would apply to our current system (see next point at the bottom).
"Allowing teachers to teach religion and morality above reason and observation is probably not the best route one could come up with."
BREAKING NEWS!!!
Religion has been effectively banned from the schools since 1987 at the very least after the Edwards/Aguillard case on Creationism. No school led prayer, no bibles, no 10,000 year old earth, no religious anything. Even secular concepts such as Intelligent Design are discourage from biology and physics classes. If you can find such an approach being utilized in a public school education system today (where religious teachings are used), then please feel free to enlighten me.
BREAKING NEWS!!
IT WAS A RESPONSE TO A STATEMENT SOMEONE ELSE MADE!
In case you hadn't noticed, I was replying to another person who said "It would probably also allow techers to promote religion and morality, which is dangerously lacking in modern society, mostly due to Political Correctness"
Try reading the full thread before you warm up your sarcastic fingers, okay? Thanks, thanks.. that'd be greeeaaat.
..and this is in spite of the fact that I've attended public school. :?
"IT WAS A RESPONSE TO A STATEMENT SOMEONE ELSE MADE!"
Tell me something I don't know.
"In case you hadn't noticed, I was replying to another person who said "It would probably also allow techers to promote religion and morality, which is dangerously lacking in modern society, mostly due to Political Correctness""
See the above point.
"Try reading the full thread before you warm up your sarcastic fingers, okay? Thanks, thanks.. that'd be greeeaaat."
Okay, so you made the following claim: "If only 13.2% of Americans do not claim any religion at all, it would appear that religion is the cause of problems, not the solution." I responded in kind by pointing out that religion in schools is not the cause of problems because it was never there to begin with in today's present system. Just adding my 2 cents.
"If we give "the poor" a voucher and say travel two hours to get to school that is worth while, the schools are not equal."
They don't have to under this system, they won't need to under a voucher system either. You can expect schools to increase in number if the state/federal interference is eliminated. Schools would become as common as a typical fast food chain at the very least, and let's not forget that if a student lives in a rural area with no school for hours, they have the option of using their voucher money for some form of home schooling, including classes via the net (something I took for a few semesters).
"No amount of shuffling students back and forth will make them equal."
If by shuffling you mean allowing them to switch between schools until they find one they are most comfortable with, then I would have to disagree. Should students be given a CHOICE in school they will have the same opportunities as a rich clown who lives in a private estate.
"The "better" (i.e. richer) school will only get better and the poorer school will only fall into further despair."
That's kind of the whole point, a school which does not deliver well and LOSES customers/students will be forced to either shape up or pack up. Schools which serve students best will naturally receive the most money and thus become the most successful. Having schools fail in the same manner that a business does is just as important as having a school improve; it tells potential students that they have the wrong set-up and thus should not be around to waste everyone's time.
"Reform is needed to equalize schools and vouchers won't do it. It will only increase the disparities between the schools."
The only way this would be true is if a school under a voucher system is doing POORLY and thus students decide not to waste their money on it.
""The poor" students are still not getting an equal education."
For the record, the poor kids would now have the SAME options as some rich f#$@ who goes to private school. Nothing unequal there.
"They are not wearing the same clothes."
So you're a fan of school uniforms I take it? Nonetheless, I find the apparel one wears at their discretion to be completely irrelavent to the quality of education they recieve.
"They will not speak the same."
The hell does this have to do with education? Are you talking with respect to designated language or dialect, or vocabulary?
"They will not have laptops to do their on-line assignments on."
Voucher schools are more then capable of providing such assets to their students just as many online options do today. They can choose a school which provides flexibility for DIFFERENT needs, something a totally socialized and heavily regulated system cannot provide us.
"They will be ostracized by the wealthier students."
Did I mention voucher schools have the financial (along with moral) incentive to stop bullying on the spot? Students who feel more safe and confortable at a given school will naturally attract more students.
"They will rebel."
Or they can use their voucher money to find a better school service. Nothing out of Karl Marx necessary here.
"They will be looked down upon by teachers unconsciously or even intentionally..they will be dismissed."
No they won't, the reason being that if a school discourages students on the basis of their personal or family income, the student will choose not to attend, and thus they will lose money as a result. A McDonald's doesn't discriminate against poorer customers for the same reason. However, under the tax-funded system we have now, teachers can get away with all sorts of things and still get the same paycheck at the end of the month.
"It happens now to the odd "poor" who finds himself within the intentionally drawn that way school district line (intentionally so as to keep the undesirables out), what makes you think this would change?"
What makes me think it would change? See the previous paragraph for my answer. If a school wants to stay in business, they will make the smart choice and treat all incoming students fairly.
The ideas that vouchers can equalize education is based on the vain hope that the vouchers supplied by the government will cover the whole cost of education, public or private. Not likely. If there are fees for private schools then this will immediately act as a social filter, leaving the poorest students to the public system.
Even without the filter of fees, there are a number of other ways that private schools can and do exclude those who are more difficult to teach. Any child who proves to be too unruly for the school to handle can be asked to leave. Any child who challenges the school's ethos, for instance, by being critical of the school's religious policy, can be asked to leave. Any child whose parents are too uppity can be asked to leave. Any child who gets into trouble with the law can be asked to leave. Any child whose marks are not up to standard can be asked to leave. And where do these children go? To the public schools, of course. As a result, these schools will inevitably cream off the easier to handle, the easier to teach and the wealthier children while they exclude or dump the poor or the more difficult to handle children, who will be left for the public system to educate.
Competition and the free market are all very well, but cherry picking the wealthy and easier to educate while dumping the poor and more difficult to teach is a recipe for social exclusion and division.
M. Glass
Whether the voucher system would discriminate against unruly, unlawful, and difficult students is not the question. The current system does that as well. The question is whether it would give those less economically fortunate the same opportunity to succeed and improve the overall quality of education in the United States. Whether those students choose to make use of or squander that decision is up to them, and if they choose to squander it, it is not the fault of the system. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Also, assuming that children of lower income families are inherently more unruly is a problem. The statement either reflects the bias of the writer and is untrue, or is true and reflects the problem in the family dynamic among lower income families that is responsible for their predicament. The school system can't fix that, and was never designed to. Furthermore, wealthy children come with their own set of problems for educators, tending to be uppity, spoiled, know-it-alls who think they can do whatever they want. How many students with wealthy parents go to a high-end, expensive, and highly exclusive civilian college and blow all mommy and daddy's money on alcohol and partying?
It is one thing to blithely dismiss the unruly students and their parents as unworthy. However, expecting vouchers to be the magic bullet for educational equality is a vain hope. A public education system cannot offer equal opportunity between the child from a family which is comfortably off and full of books and a poor family where the parents may be struggling to feed and clothe their children, let alone buy them books. However, bringing in vouchers won't change that. What it will do is bring in schools that discriminate against the harder to teach. Also, if the schools receiving vouchers are also allowed to charge extra fees for such things as tuition, or building funds, or a donation to the church that runs the school or whatever, the system will be clearly discriminatory, simply by charging fees. Vouchers have the potential for making an unequal system even more unequal. Furthermore, vouchers have the potential for dividing children on sectarian lines.
M. Glass
America is a meritocracy, not a socialist state, so far. Vouchers allow choice for parents. Parents that care about their children's education should be allowed to seek better schools. Nothing is ever completely equal. Why cause so many kids harm while you wait for the "magic"? Not having vouchers means that parents must move to exercise a choice. How is that fair to the kids without the means to move?
Vouchers allow choice for parents in the position to choose. No all have this choice, and defining those with the power to choose as 'those who care' is self-serving. Parents, rich or poor, care about their children; what differs is their ability to provide for them. Bring in a voucher system, and unfairness is made worse. The other way of providing for children is to provide a good public system for all children, rich or poor. This is not perfect, of course, but it provides something for all children. Providing vouchers - and inevitably the vouchers will only cover part of the cost of a decent education - will entrench division on the grounds of wealth and of creed.
Common schools are part of the Western heritage. Classing this as socialism is doctrinaire nonsense.
M. Glass
The division is already here. Families with means either move to a good public school district or send their kids to a private school. Vouchers are for families in failed schools. Failed schools receive funding based on their head count. The only way they can stay open is to trap poor children who don't have the means to vote with their feet. Many of these children come to school just for the 1 or 2 good meals they receive. Don't call it a voucher if it makes you feel better. Call it redistricting, or charter schools, or magnet schools, but don't force kids to waste their education years with poor teachers that don't care. Break the cycle.
Vouchers are a way of diverting funds into schools that discriminate on the grounds of social position or on religion. Vouchers are a way of diverting support from children who, for whatever reason, are harder to teach. If children are going to school only because it is the only way to get a decent meal, then America is in dire straits, and those children need extra support, not less. Classing teachers in these schools as poor teachers who don't care is an easy but cheap shot at teachers who work in very difficult conditions. It's relatively easy to teach well-behaved, motivated children; it's not so easy to teach the unruly and the alienated. However, it is these very students who need the best teachers and the most support. And it is the teachers of these students who need support, not denigration. If the voucher system was a way of supporting these schools, it would be a wonderful advance. However, it's not. It's a system to support social and sectarian divisions.
M. Glass
Schools that discriminate on the grounds of social position and most religious schools don't want government vouchers or strings. Period. Take that argument and pack it away because those people aren't interested in vouchers. Vouchers are for poor kids, not kids that can afford the best education already.
By the way, there are many very good public schools in America. Parents choose them by paying more for a house in the district.
The private and charter schools that will take vouchers are set up to discriminate on merit, or learning differences, or musical talent, or whatever. Yes, some parochial schools will take them, but only if the kids and parents are of a like mind.
I sent 2 brilliant kids to great private prep schools and another just as brilliant one to a school set up to handle his learning differences. We like our house and the public school district we are in felt that it would be unfair to offer my kids like mine courses that were challenging because other kids wouldn't be able to handle the work load. My kids were board out of their skull. My left handed kid, that types 120 words per minute, was classified as different and they wanted to send him to a "special" campus with the unruly and the alienated kids you mention. His learning differences are no less common than being left handed, but it still made the public school classify him as "special". Fortunately for us, my bank account had some vouchers with pictures of Ben Franklin on them. Ain't America great? But what about the kids that are just as smart or left handed but don't have Ben Franklin vouchers? By the way, our new Prez is left handed.
Diverting funds from schools like I describe above would be the best thing that ever happened to the kids that are being held captive. My issue isn't with the teachers. My issue is with the, politicians, lawyers, and administrators that have built up bureaucracies that fail our kids. Well, yes, I do know some "teacher first" NEA members that I have an issue with also.
Give the parents a tool to get their kids out of the quagmire. Call it a voucher, or a charter school, or something, but please don't throw more good money at bad schools. Take the money away and give it to organizations that care about the kids.
The Parents!!!
It is plain we are arguing at cross purposes. You appear to be arguing for vouchers as a way of reforming the public school system; I am concerned that vouchers will only result in more social and sectarian division.
Parents decide whether a school is good or bad for their child. One school our son went to was driving him nuts. We got him out of that school quick smart! Now that happened to be a private, parochial school with a good reputation, but it did not suit our son. Another school provided him with a good education in a supportive environment.
Also, there are horses for courses. A school that suits one child may not suit another. Also, it's a fact that no school is perfect. Even the most expensive private schools have their problems and their limitations.
If vouchers were only available for schools that were open to all and that did not discriminate on the ground of religion and social position, there might be something to say for them. However, there is a problem if education is becoming more divided on class and sectarian lines. All students deserve a decent education. A system that does not provide such an education for all students is failing them. We both agree on that. Where we disagree is on the means of ensuring that every student has a chance to get a good education.
M. Glass
We agree on most of these points. Yes, I want to reform the broken schools, and you are arguing for social engineering. Vouchers will accomplish both because many of the schools you worry about are going to refuse the vouchers anyway because of the strings. Unfortunately, that takes some of the parent's control over their children's future away and puts the control into the hands of people who have a social agenda.
I am puzzled by your reference to social engineering. Providing good public schools or providing vouchers or subsidising private schools is all social engineering. What do you mean by this term?
M. Glass
I'm just saying my preference is to reform the schools by moving more control and choice into the hands of the parents and away from the people running the schools. Having the schools hold the head count hostage simply because of the geographic boundries has been a failure in many places. If the school is performing at a level that satisfies their customers (families) then more customers will want to use them as a provider. If they don't, then the customers should have the right to choose another vendor of educational services, without having to move to another district. I suppose that could be considered social engineering.
The idea of choice can easily be skewed. Wealthy people always have more choices in life than the poor, but a voucher system of funding education is bound to be discriminatory. Many of those who push this idea explicitly want funding for sectarian schools.
Here are ways that schools and school systems discriminate against students.
School fees, building levies and the like. This immediately discriminates against the less well off.
Religious tests for teachers, students and even families of students. In Australia, the anti-discriminataion laws apply in full force in public schools; private schools are exempt.
Asking students to leave. Private schools in Australia have sometimes pressured students into leaving if they do not measure up to the school's academic standards. Australian public schools have to cater for all comers.
Public schools have a responsibility to cater for students with disabilities; private schools can and do say they don't have the facilities.
The public school system has a responsibility to students regardless of their level of ability; private schools have no such responsibility.
The public school system provides, at considerable expense, distance education for students who cannot attend an ordinary school; private schools have no such responsibility.
The public school system has to provide for students who have behaviour disorders; private schools have the option of shunting off such students to the public system.
In short, the public schools are responsible for all children while private schools can and do cherry pick the easier to teach.
If vouchers were a way to reform public education there is a possibility they might work. However, I fear that they would trash public education in the interest of sectional and sectarian interests.
M. Glass
Michael,
It was a pleasure discussing this with you. We don't agree, but being free to disagree is one of the things that I love about America.
Thanks, joelinda, Freedom of speech an Aussie value, too.
M. Glass
Could someone reply back and read me the 1st Amendment? I seem to have forgotten it (and apparently some others too).
A no brainer for pro choice folks. Unless they intend choice to end at birth.
BTW: If McCain had associated with unrepentant abortion clinic bombers.. would anyone vote for him? If not.. why is anyone voting for Obama ?
If vouchers had passed in my state, I could have sent my son to a Montessori school, which is a style of education better suited to him than the overcrouded classrooms that public school would offer him. My son's learning style isn't suited to sitting in a desk facing a chalk board. We homeschool him instead.
When considering tax payer money, more isn't better if it isn't allocated correctly. My husband teaches at a charter school that does a lot more with less money than other public schools. They have not eliminated recess or the arts, encourage music and dance and hands on learning, and do not spend hours on end preparing kids for standardized tests, all with less money, and the kids score better than the other public schools around us.
Even with this charter schools benefits, we have seen that our son learns better with more autonomy, more hands on manipulatives, and by approaching one subject a day instead of several each day. Society should be most concerned with him actually being able to learn, not "where" he learns. The important thing is that he grow up to be a successful contributing member of society. Tax payer money would be best spent helping him go to a school where he would thrive.
The reason public schools are broken is that they don't have enough funding. Not nearly enough. I've only been out of high school five years, and experienced both public and private.
I can definitively state that private schools have a clearly negative impact on the psychology of students, while at the same time rarely providing a better education in any fashion.
Growing up with exposure to a rich diversity of cultures and attitudes really has no substitute. At least that's true in my experience, and the vast majority of teenagers I've met. Private schools just don't offer this, especially not religious schools.
Can't find anything that would support that.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/05/06/i-thought-the-schools-were-starving /
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9485
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
Regarding diversity:
"Private schools just don't offer this, especially not religious schools."
Have you attended one?
Public schools get enough money, yet teachers/students rarely see it. In 2007 each student has between $9,000-$12,000 being spent for their public school education. That is more than most private tuition. Charter schools do the same thing as private with less costs. Money is being spent unwisely.
With School choice the money tax-payers already spend on education would go with students to the school that fits them, whether it be public, charter, or private school. Students, parents and teachers would see how money is spent. Some kids would do better in all boy/girl schools, vocational, classical schools, etc. We chose restaurants and universities, why can't we chose elemetary and high school?
School choice, allows money to be used where it is needed. Programs work though corporate tax credit scholarships from businesses, open school districts and other programs. There are ways for it to work in states indiviually. Florida and Arizona have it; their schools are doing great!
Sounds like a made up boogeyman that generalizes attitudes of a huge number of Americans who make value judgements based on their faith. Seems an awful lot like a tired stereotype, in fact.
Find a new strawman, please!
The whole line of reasoning that this is a religious right issue is bogus. This is simply a parent's rights issue, period. Yes, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and people of many other faiths are extremely concerned about their children's education. But trying to argue that this concern makes the issue a religious issue simply demonstrates how poorly educated the so called "no" experts are. Vouchers put the power of choice into the hands of parents and wrests it away from politicians. If you were a kid would you rather have a parent decide things for you or would you want to be a ward of the state? Granted, the public education system has been broken for so long that many of the parents are poorly equiped to make the decisions. Is that the "no" voters position? Continue the cycle because it is broken? Absurd!!
Well said, Joe.
Would elementary school children then resort to qualifying? A good school can only accept so many children.
This year, one of the Denver Public Schools made what the newspapers heralded as a "bold choice"; they ended social promotion and required kids to pass their classes in order to advance to a higher grade. As I said in my blog, educators in other countries must be laughing their asses off at us.
In a city where it was reported excitedly that "42% of DPS high school students earned at least an average score in reading tests", meaning 58% are functionally illiterate, we are living proof that both the education system AND the mentality of those who run it are hopelessly broken.
Are charter schools and private schools the right way to fix it? While the early proof is overwhelmingly "yes", the long term answer might be "no". In many other countries attending a private school carries a stigma that your are a failure; that you couldn't handle the toughness required to make it in the public school. We could get there, but it would take leadership we simply do not have in this country.
In this country, attending a private school is generally viewed as a privilege. No one is fighting to get their kids into the public schools. You may have to survive metal detectors, drug dealers and gangs and be tough at public schools--but you certainly don't have to learn much to get out.
If the funding for the student went with the student, the school's would have incentive to improve. Right now, public schools don't have to do anything except meet minimal requirements. If you're in a good school district, great. If you're not, too bad.