School Voucher Debate Thread (1 Viewer)

[AJiveMan]

Really? Warren? Clinton? I would worry about you guys..

Another CONServative telling other people what to worry about, why am I not surprised?

 

[AJiveMan]

We've got a couple of newbie live ones here. They love Walker, Gohmert, guns, hate DEMS and GOP elites and neocons--and did I mention they cant stand lefties or teacher unions? Chase down the OP's gun stuff when you get s chance. Makes TD look moderate .

I'll do that, thanks for the tip, always appreciated neighbor.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

What is MY PARTY?

Party or group you favor which ever applies...

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Another CONServative telling other people what to worry about, why am I not surprised?

Hey I really do hope you ignore us.

 

[American]

School vouchers drain both money and active families that school districts need from existing schools and allow public schools to continue to suffer. If there's a problem with public education (and there are many problems with public education), you should focus on fixing those problems, not allowing the system to further suffer.

Moreover, all private schools should be prohibited as well, because most of the time, they are either allowing the rich to segregate themselves from everyone else and buy themselves a better education and/or indoctrinating children with religious teachings.

Finally someone from the Left confesses what they've wanted to do all along.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Finally someone from the Left confesses what they've wanted to do all along.

If only they were this honest all the time...

 

[American]

If only they were this honest all the time...

I don't think it's really honesty as much as screwing up and letting it slip.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

I don't think it's really honesty as much as screwing up and letting it slip.

Over Confidence or Freudian Slips?

 

[AmericanSpartan]

I will say this in summation...This thread really do show the lack of points and facts for those that oppose school vouchers.

 

[SocialDemocrat]

if it could what has it not already if funding is the issue?

More over why not switch to a superior system.

There are more issues than just a lack of funding, as I've stated numerous times. Finnish education is the superior education system, because they're the Number 1 education system in the world. All you've really said is that "public education has failed" without giving examples of why school vouchers would be superior.

Or we could give them vouchers and all of those things to happen really fast instead of waiting years on end for nothing.

Let me guess raising taxes?

The problem with curriculums in school vouchers is that essentially have free reign as to what classes they're going to teach. I support a decentralized system in which the teachers have more control over the methods in which they teach, while what classes are taught each year and the general content remains unchanged in each school. That is not the same as school vouchers. Furthermore, if school vouchers give schools near absolute power over what and how they teach, what's to stop a charter school from using standardized test on their own. School vouchers do not accomplish the reforms I'd like to see to the educational curriculum.

Nah, you could just as easily move things around in the budget and cut spending in other areas.

Nope, answer now Should the military be allow to collectively bargin and strike if they do not get their way?

Do public employees get to hold the public hostage?

Off-topic dude. I don't think the military should be allowed to go on strike if it makes you feel better, but this is for another thread.

So no answer just laughter..




Hey if your beliefs are better why not compete against other, lesser beliefs?

Is not wanting to send kids to failed and dangerous school "bias"?

I don't favor shoving my beliefs down the throat of the citizenry via public education. I don't know where you got that from. No it's not "bias" because my beliefs about public education are not going to be in any educational curriculums.

YET YOU OPPOSE A MEANS TO GIVE THEM A QUALITY EDUCATION, THE FACT YOU CAN NOT SEE THIS IS REALLY SAD, AND THE FACT THAT OTHERS HAVE TO SUFFER FOR IT IS EVEN SADDER.

I think you need to calm down and realize that I'm just some dude on a laptop somewhere, and it won't be the worst thing in the world if I don't agree with you. Public education is a means to get a quality education.

That is not a issue if we had vouchers, it would allow the poor to get a leg up, but "some people" refuse to allow it.

Private schools would still exist under the voucher system you favor, so no it doesn't eliminate the issue.

You are preventing a system that would increase options and quality to people who need it most, yet you oppose..

See second paragraph of this post

 

[Fiddytree]

School vouchers drain both money and active families that school districts need from existing schools and allow public schools to continue to suffer. If there's a problem with public education (and there are many problems with public education), you should focus on fixing those problems, not allowing the system to further suffer.

Moreover, all private schools should be prohibited as well, because most of the time, they are either allowing the rich to segregate themselves from everyone else and buy themselves a better education and/or indoctrinating children with religious teachings.

Your state will continue to work on addressing its internal weaknesses regardless of the presence of private institutions. The thing to remember is that what ails public education can in no way be solved by funds alone. Many times there are a number of issues at stake in a given school or district, including the quality of staff and its orientation toward different educational issues.

While I am skeptical about the ability of the market to be the magic solution, the simple fact of the matter is when you give the public schools a larger portion (even if it doesn't meet their demands) of the budget while simultaneously removing other options for families, we are placing an unwarranted amount of faith in the existing structures to self-correct to the desired extent.

Bad schools will exist with or without private competition. There is no magic bullet, no budget that will change the course of events in those districts. Sometimes the only thing you can do is offer a private or another non-traditional option. It is better to do that than just throw money at the problem and cut off any alternative solutions.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Your state will continue to work on addressing its internal weaknesses regardless of the presence of private institutions. The thing to remember is that what ails public education can in no way be solved by funds alone. Many times there are a number of issues at stake in a given school or district, including the quality of staff and its orientation toward different educational issues.

While I am skeptical about the ability of the market to be the magic solution, the simple fact of the matter is when you give the public schools a larger portion (even if it doesn't meet their demands) of the budget while simultaneously removing other options for families, we are placing an unwarranted amount of faith in the existing structures to self-correct to the desired extent.

Bad schools will exist with or without private competition. There is no magic bullet, no budget that will change the course of events in those districts. Sometimes the only thing you can do is offer a private or another non-traditional option. It is better to do that than just throw money at the problem and cut off any alternative solutions.

Thank you..

 

[Libertie76]

Thank you..

Federal sponsored tax voucher programs would only initially steal from the middle to lower class to help pay for the other members of society. How can we advocate this and end of centrally forced wealth distribution? I would argue for more of a federal tax credit. We have to be careful with a federal educational voucher it would bring in more central regulations and take more of the power from the local communities

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Federal sponsored tax voucher programs would only initially steal from the middle to lower class to help pay for the other members of society. How can we advocate this and end of centrally forced wealth distribution? I would argue for more of a federal tax credit. We have to be careful with a federal educational voucher it would bring in more central regulations and take more of the power from the local communities

What other ideas do you have?

 

[Libertie76]

What other ideas do you have?

Well obviously we need to stop the department of education, obviously we need to pay attention to the standards vs. funding for schools. The education system needs some serious serious work, however it hate to admit it schooling is not a constitutional power even given to the federal government. I mean I guess you can argue how it gives addition to the idea of social welfare, but still education is not a right and not a federally mandated power. However, I do think the federal government can help with tax credits on students in the household with realistic tax credits so people can take that money and invest it into local schools. So it would be very similar to a voucher program but more of a tax credit. If local governments want to raise taxes for schooling I am all in favor of that, but get the fed out of education as much as possible

 

[Fiddytree]

Well obviously we need to stop the department of education, obviously we need to pay attention to the standards vs. funding for schools. The education system needs some serious serious work, however it hate to admit it schooling is not a constitutional power even given to the federal government. I mean I guess you can argue how it gives addition to the idea of social welfare, but still education is not a right and not a federally mandated power. However, I do think the federal government can help with tax credits on students in the household with realistic tax credits so people can take that money and invest it into local schools. So it would be very similar to a voucher program but more of a tax credit. If local governments want to raise taxes for schooling I am all in favor of that, but get the fed out of education as much as possible

The Federal Dept of Education is quite useful in shaking things up for the better. It's true they have also demonstrated moments of delusional thinking, but that's not the whole story.

As conservatives like to remind the public about the system of checks and balances and how that works throughout the country, so too does this play out with the education system.

There's been plenty of times where without federal incentives or mandates, state departments of education wouldn't pounce on an idea that turned out to be good. In fact, even though states tend to largely (again, largely) run the show, they do often not move on something unless the Feds start barking about it. Some of this is of course about the money, but other parts of it are also just because they are slower to adopting it or never considered it. This could be rather obvious with aiming for certain results benchmarks (you can thank your Reagan admin Feds for that little number) or in regard to data collection and dispersement of that data. With the latter example, even though it's less sexy, you can be fairly certain that without the Feds wanting that data, they would be a heck of a lot less interested in building up such an informational infrastructure to begin with. Without that data, we often find out they are flying blind.

 

[Libertie76]

The Federal Dept of Education is quite useful in shaking things up for the better. It's true they have also demonstrated moments of delusional thinking, but that's not the whole story.

As conservatives like to remind the public about the system of checks and balances and how that works throughout the country, so too does this play out with the education system.

There's been plenty of times where without federal incentives or mandates, state departments of education wouldn't pounce on an idea that turned out to be good. In fact, even though states tend to largely (again, largely) run the show, they do often not move on something unless the Feds start barking about it. Some of this is of course about the money, but other parts of it are also just because they are slower to adopting it or never considered it. This could be rather obvious with aiming for certain results benchmarks (you can thank your Reagan admin Feds for that little number) or in regard to data collection and dispersement of that data. With the latter example, even though it's less sexy, you can be fairly certain that without the Feds wanting that data, they would be a heck of a lot less interested in building up such an informational infrastructure to begin with. Without that data, we often find out they are flying blind.

I understand your point but most funding for schools came at the state and local level. The federal government and the dept. Of education have standardized curriculum, so even if things that local governments dont agree with being taught they are still forced to like common core. The Fed also redistribute wealth based on test scores. So you're a poor urban inner city minority you're paying for a rich suburban student. Rather than you're a poor inner city minority paying for you're own child's school

Bush signed no child left behind, Jed Bush is in favour of common core. This is why neo cons, like Reagan, aren't factual conservatives by practice. Reagan tried to but I argue he ended up being succumbed by the puppet masters in Washington. However all of this is for a different thread

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Well obviously we need to stop the department of education, obviously we need to pay attention to the standards vs. funding for schools. The education system needs some serious serious work, however it hate to admit it schooling is not a constitutional power even given to the federal government. I mean I guess you can argue how it gives addition to the idea of social welfare, but still education is not a right and not a federally mandated power. However, I do think the federal government can help with tax credits on students in the household with realistic tax credits so people can take that money and invest it into local schools. So it would be very similar to a voucher program but more of a tax credit. If local governments want to raise taxes for schooling I am all in favor of that, but get the fed out of education as much as possible

And how do we advance this?

 

[AmericanSpartan]

I understand your point but most funding for schools came at the state and local level. The federal government and the dept. Of education have standardized curriculum, so even if things that local governments dont agree with being taught they are still forced to like common core. The Fed also redistribute wealth based on test scores. So you're a poor urban inner city minority you're paying for a rich suburban student. Rather than you're a poor inner city minority paying for you're own child's school

Bush signed no child left behind, Jed Bush is in favour of common core. This is why neo cons, like Reagan, aren't factual conservatives by practice. Reagan tried to but I argue he ended up being succumbed by the puppet masters in Washington. However all of this is for a different thread[/QUOTE]

 

[Libertie76]

And how do we advance this?

I don't understand what you mean...

 

[jamesrage]

School vouchers drain both money and active families that school districts need from existing schools and allow public schools to continue to suffer. If there's a problem with public education (and there are many problems with public education), you should focus on fixing those problems, not allowing the system to further suffer.

So you want your children's education to suffer because you want to wait for a school system to get better which may take years or even decades to fix?

Moreover, all private schools should be prohibited as well, because most of the time, they are either allowing the rich to segregate themselves from everyone else and buy themselves a better education and/or indoctrinating children with religious teachings.

You can't get the best education money can buy so **** everyone else?

 

[spangledbanner]

How do you decide who gets a voucher? A lottery? That is absurd. A scholarship type system? That is not giving help to the children that need it the most.

If you corporatists want Charter Schools to work them make all public schools like the Hitler Youth. And make them funded by private-public partnership.

People that want vouchers for children to attend private schools just want public money to be used to fund your private schools. Clearly.

( in Australia the government funds private schools. They give private schools money from our budget. Half of the education budget goes to private schools, and half to public. So the private schools get public money as well as their fees. You Americans couldnt do it though because only a small percentage of you use private schools.

Datablog: private schools are winning over Australian parents | Australia news | The Guardian

You Americans only have about 10%. Plebs.

edit- See in Australia it is possible to have this as an election issue. Parents of children that attend private schools want the government to pay for them.. Which seems poor form to me. I think most are plebs that can barely afford the schools that their kids are attending. Parents of day scabs mostly. I am pretty sure that since our government started funding private schools the amount of them has increased. Because they know that a certain number of students will bring a certain amount in funding. The idea of the state funding private schools seems pretty stupid to me. Ever since Kim Beazley ( labor ) decided that Labor supported this it has been pretty much bi-partisan. Much of labors base/target audience actually use private schools.

edit- Charter schools are for plebs. This is why the idea is popular in USA.

A 'charter school' is not a Private School. A charter school is for pleb children.

edit- In Australia we have elite schools that have heated swimming pools, and they get public funding, on top of what they bring in in fees. Pretty sweet for them.

edit- I was talking to Superman the other day, and he said that he is not coming. (

 

[Fiddytree]

I understand your point but most funding for schools came at the state and local level. The federal government and the dept. Of education have standardized curriculum, so even if things that local governments dont agree with being taught they are still forced to like common core. The Fed also redistribute wealth based on test scores. So you're a poor urban inner city minority you're paying for a rich suburban student. Rather than you're a poor inner city minority paying for you're own child's school

Bush signed no child left behind, Jed Bush is in favour of common core. This is why neo cons, like Reagan, aren't factual conservatives by practice. Reagan tried to but I argue he ended up being succumbed by the puppet masters in Washington. However all of this is for a different thread

To key you in, Common Core isn't worth the political battle it's turned into. The Common Core standards are largely not terribly different (although one could mostly argue they are now improved) from the previous state standards. Furthermore, despite the pretensions from proponents and opponents, the Common Core standards are not going to substantively change (for better or for worse) the education system. When all is said and done, standards are just standards and they are just about the last place I would look to improve education. They are incredibly vague, they don't tell a teacher what to teach (or really how to teach) beyond generalities.

The recent populist outrage at Common Core is misplaced anger toward publishing houses which merely used the Common Core name to sell some eager districts. Curriculum matters more and any given state's execution of that is going to differ. The worksheets and so on are a product of a different problem. It's not Common Core. They also presume that the Common Core is responsible for national standardized examinations, even though this was the evolution from No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. People that replace Common Core with their state standards aren't doing much better or worse than what existed beforehand.

Now, as to conservative by practice, I would argue that it is conservative. What was going on in the 1980s with education policy was two somewhat broadly contradictory ideas: 1) Increased emphasis on state and local control 2) Increased federalization in certain areas meant to address broad failings throughout the country. With the latter what the Fed Department of Education was doing was trying to ensure the best bang for the buck with taxpayer funding. They thought that for the money the public sends to these schools, we ought to ensure that they meet certain expectations in return. Then on top of that, they argued an even older traditional conservative message: the health of the Nation. By appealing to nationalism, conservatives were able to argue that the health of the State (especially against international competition) depended on an educated and productive citizenry. That's why the Federal Department of ED throughout the 80s released the A Nation at Risk Report, pushed standardized courses for graduation, demanded that schools better prepare certain populations for employment, and so forth.

 

[Libertie76]

How do you decide who gets a voucher? A lottery? That is absurd. A scholarship type system? That is not giving help to the children that need it the most.

If you corporatists want Charter Schools to work them make all public schools like the Hitler Youth. And make them funded by private-public partnership.

People that want vouchers for children to attend private schools just want public money to be used to fund your private schools. Clearly.

( in Australia the government funds private schools. They give private schools money from our budget. Half of the education budget goes to private schools, and half to public. So the private schools get public money as well as their fees. You Americans couldnt do it though because only a small percentage of you use private schools.

Datablog: private schools are winning over Australian parents | Australia news | The Guardian

You Americans only have about 10%. Plebs.

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.

 

[Libertie76]

To key you in, Common Core isn't worth the political battle it's turned into. The Common Core standards are largely not terribly different (although one could mostly argue they are now improved) from the previous state standards. Furthermore, despite the pretensions from proponents and opponents, the Common Core standards are not going to substantively change (for better or for worse) the education system. When all is said and done, standards are just standards and they are just about the last place I would look to improve education. They are incredibly vague, they don't tell a teacher what to teach (or really how to teach) beyond generalities.

The recent populist outrage at Common Core is misplaced anger toward publishing houses which merely used the Common Core name to sell some eager districts. They also presume that the Common Core is responsible for national standardized examinations, even though this was the evolution from No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. People that replace Common Core with their state standards aren't doing much better or worse than what existed beforehand.

Now, as to conservative by practice, I would argue that it is conservative. What was going on in the 1980s with education policy was two somewhat broadly contradictory ideas: 1) Increased emphasis on state and local control 2) Increased federalization in certain areas meant to address broad failings throughout the country. With the latter what the Fed Department of Education was doing was trying to ensure the best bang for the buck with taxpayer funding. They thought that for the money the public sends to these schools, we ought to ensure that they meet certain expectations in return. Then on top of that, they argued an even older traditional conservative message: the health of the Nation. By appealing to nationalism, conservatives were able to argue that the health of the State (especially against international competition) depended on an educated and productive citizenry. That's why the Federal Department of ED throughout the 80s released the A Nation at Risk Report, pushed standardized courses for graduation, demanded that schools better prepare certain populations for employment, and so forth.

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

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.

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. You could say that Reagan was forced to but I don't think so. They have no Authority to federally create expectations on state schools. 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