You are destined to defend school vouchers because it is a bankrupted policy. Allow me respond where appropriate.
It is probably not a smart choice for a family trying to get by on a single minimum
wage income. But I would not say it is not an alternative for "the poor". Another
poster pointed out the family with two $7/hour incomes who put their kids through
private school. I read a guy on the homeschooling newsgroup who claimed to
homeschool 7 kids on a $25K income. Again, it depends on how important it is to you.
I know a man who claimed to have jumped out of a B29 over Germany during World War II without a parachute and survived (at the cost of the life of the German Soldier he landed on.), but I wouldn't argue that bomber crews throw away their parachutes.
This is vouchers first problem. It doesn't reach every one. The poor still has to struggle while the wealthy that already have their children in privet schools get a rebate. I noticed you did not respond to that criticism.
I suspect such have been proposed, but who cares? If school choice is a good idea, I
do not see why it is better as a privilege only for poor people.
"Who Cares?" This is an odd position for some one who is reported to be in support of vouchers. And suspecting that a better program has been proposed isn't food on the table. As for "School choice," so far this is nothing but a bumper sticker without any real meaning behind it.
I have already offered a point that erodes the "choice" for the poor end of the spectrum, and I can't see you arguing that the wealthy do not currently have school choice outside of voucher programs, so the spectrum of parents this is intended to address has already shrunk significantly. And as further argument will show, it will shrink even more.
Tutitions at private schools probably would rise after instituting voucher plan, but
only in the short term. Soon there would be more private schools and prices would
fall again. This is basic economics, not a dirty conspiracy.
You're trying to pass of a market based system as a superior alternative to accountability. Firestone tires functions in the market place as well, and we know where they are today. But this is besides the point in that tuition's are not currently market based. If they were, then their tuition would be lower in order to compete with public schools as they now stand. Instead the opposite is true. Tuition for most privet schools are extremely high. A cheap privet school starts at 10,000 dollars a year per student and goes up from there. The most generous voucher I have seen is only 8,000 dollars and drops from there.
Perhaps a few private schools use tuition to screen students, but most of them use
tuition to pay operating expenses. They even make some effort to keep their tutition
low and affordable. That way they get more students. Really. I'm serious.
Oh, of course you're serious. You have to be because this fact is the largest deal barker among parents for voucher programs. It all looks great until they learn that there is no guarantee that a privet school will even take their chilled. And you still haven't addressed admissions exam scores. An omission I was expecting you to make. And I can just imagine how eager a privet school will be to accept student who was expelled because of a ZT law, or worse, with a real police record. Again, public education is required by law to take these students. Privet schools are allowed by law to discriminate on bases of sex, finical stature, sexual orientation, religion, and mental capacity.
In the end, all parents have is your "promises" that privet schools will serve the over all public good. We already see this not happening in other free market sectors. Why would a free market education be any different?
I doubt this is correct, except perhaps in extreme cases of physical handicap.
Even more erosion. Pubic education is required by federal law to educate all students, including those with the most extreme handicaps. So such requirements are place on privet schools.
I suspect that most existing private schools will accept children with "ordinary"
physical handicaps, and I suspect they would under voucher plans too. Likewise for
ordinary learning disabilities, though the way a private school deals with slow
students may be different than the public schools, which suits me.
One of the first things you need to know about the handicapped is that there is no such thing as an "ordinary handicap." If they were ordinary, then they wouldn't be handicapped. Oh I am sure it is nice to see a wheel chair ramp out front here and there, but not all of the handicapped are in wheal chairs. For the handicapped to get vouchers is of little good if the school in question is not equipped to handle their needs. Witch I might add is the very intention voucher programs are supposes to provide.
Only if you take the standpoint that educational money should support public schools
merely for existing, and not for teaching students. With vouchers, the money follows
the student. The school that does teach the student gets the money, and the school
that does not teach the student does not get the money. It seems bizarre to me to
say that the non-teaching school is therefore subsidizing the school doing the
This just goes to show that a conservative is not a spendthrift with other peoples money. I noticed you're used of "educational money" in the place of a school districts monitory recourses. I ask you, can you possibly expect a school board to collect taxes from their districts, only to deport the receipts outside the district? Isn't this a common rant among republicans that tax funds are being deported?
Under your approach, the local zoo could ask for school funds to teach monkeys to balance on balls. Just because a privets school deals with education, dose not entitle it to public funds, any more than McDonalds is entitled to Burger King profits because it has to do with burgers.
Is it, or is it not the position of vouchers to compete with public schools for students? If it is so, then how can you justify insisting that public subsidize their competitors? This is not a free market system but a racketeering ploy. Voucher proponents then reply that it is the parents prerogative, but the parents are only the vehicles for the subsidies in question. Making the parents unwitting dupes to drain funds from public schools (who must produce the funds for the vouchers) and deposit them into the coffers of privet school who make no sacrifice under the plan.
A side point: I have heard of several voucher plans where vouchers were less than
the per-capita funding received by the public schools. Say the system spends $6000
yearly per student. The voucher might be for, say, only $4000. So the school that
teaches the student gets $4000 and the public school system gets $2000, just
Would you consider that a subsidy to the public school system?
Sounds more like a hypothetical than an "I have heard." The truth of the mater is that public schools receive a lot of finical aid form the state and the federal level. But this aid is under a variety of conditions that the funds are used as they are intended. And yes, they are tied to student enrolment. But this is the whole point of the unfairness of vouchers because they are NOT tied to enrolment. According to the proponents, a voucher will allow the student to leave the school, while taking the money tied to the student with the voucher. Mean while, the public school is left holding two bags. Not only do they see moneys leave with the voucher, but the loss of the student on the register means the moneys promised to that student will not be submitted.
The point isn't weather public schools receive subsidies from outside, but why it is supposable fair to force public schools to subsidize their own competition? You have not answered this.
If this is my conclusion, than logic demands that I resist vouchers because they
would do harm to education for the poor.
I don't think your conclusion follows from your arguments, even if I agreed with your
Oh, so now my opinions must meet with your approval? I don't think so. Homey don't play d'at.
but I think dragging a 11 year old off in handcuffs because he
draws a picture of a gun is more of a left wing stupidity.
This is classic conservative propaganda. These draconian ZT laws are also passed under the watch of conservative school board members who receive ideological support from the Republican party. And as the three second pill anecdote demonstrates, the dracondean ZT laws and the ZT drug laws are one and the same.
"Good laws are written by conservatives and bad laws are written by stupid left wingers" is an argument of Rush Limba quality.
It would be interesting if it were true. It would be even more interesting if the same
conservatives that supported ZT were now criticizing the schools for it (i.e. instead
of different conservatives taking different positions). If it were true, I don't think I
would assume an evil conspiracy as my first explanation, but to each his own. In any
case, I have my doubts about the accuracy of this statement.
LOL. Instead of splitting hairs you are trying split ideologue. It isn't a contradiction because two people are involved in two positions instead of just one? That also sounds like support for the conspiracy argument to me. Really, do you honestly expect me to take this as an honest argument?
My original question still stands. If you are as in favor of improving public education as you might claim to be. Then explain how is it that you see fit to raise the issue of school vouchers in the face of draconian zero tolerance laws, and NOT take the more logical approach and argue that the laws need to ether be relaxed or enforced more intelligently? It should be noted that school vouchers do not even address this issue, and is irrelevant. Your attempts to dismiss my questions only leave it unanswered. I might remind you that it was YOU who mentioned school vouchers.
You claim zero tolerance laws are born out of hysterical fear of students. And you have already argued that once solution is the voucher program. IE: Parents faced with ZT laws should leave public education." You then put foreword vouchers as a mechanism to make this possible. However, I have yet to hear you argue that ZT laws need to be relaxed or change. How is it that you can critique something, but not be a proponent for changing what you criticize?
I also noticed you evaded my charge that vouchers only raises the stakes for failure with public education and offers nothing in terms of viable solutions to the many problems that public education faces. Without such a proactive solution to an existing problem then how can vouchers possibly be seen as a solution to any thing?
(_¬¬) Truth dispatched by mer logic, was never truth to begin with.
[ Parent ]