Vouchers

[Kandahar]

OK, we all know that American primary and secondary education sucks. Why is this? Because the government monopolizes the system, assigning students to a school and unable to fire even the worst teachers.

In nearly every other modern country in the world (all of whom outperform American schools), public education money is attached to the student rather than to the school. Even in the United States, we have a voucher system for college education...and the American college system is the envy of the world.

It makes sense to switch all of our public education to a voucher system, so that schools have to compete for students (and therefore for money). All of them would improve as a result, except for the worst few which would go out of business entirely.

 

[Herkilon]

Ah, but the public school teachers don't want parents to be able to exercise their parental rights, they are more concerned with protecting their turf then the education of kids.

So they give heavily to the Democratic party and they come out with propaganda ad peices to dupe stupid people.

 

[jfuh]

OK, we all know that American primary and secondary education sucks. Why is this? Because the government monopolizes the system, assigning students to a school and unable to fire even the worst teachers.

In nearly every other modern country in the world (all of whom outperform American schools), public education money is attached to the student rather than to the school. Even in the United States, we have a voucher system for college education...and the American college system is the envy of the world.

It makes sense to switch all of our public education to a voucher system, so that schools have to compete for students (and therefore for money). All of them would improve as a result, except for the worst few which would go out of business entirely.

I see this both ways.
The schools are inadequate because of exactly what you say. In that funds are given to schools per the district. Also public officials simply can't be fired - thus completely retarded teachers in many schools.
Another aspect is there is too much parent involvement in interfering with theachers ability to teach - ie "I don't want you teaching evolution to my child in science class" Hell they might as well say I don't want my child knowledgeable in science.
On the other hand though, if we indeed have a voucher for schools, there exists yet another if not greater problem. Simply those born into the bottom of the social ladder would then never have any ability to rise up. Why? how would they get to the "better schools"?

IMO the only reason that US elementary and intermediate schools are so messed up is because of a willingness of the family to place as much emphasis on education as it does with other matters - ie who won the super bowl.
Highschools in the US let out at 2pm in the afternoon, just what the hell do you expect kids to learn from 8 to 2 with a 1 hour lunch break in between? Then what do you expect them to do between the hours of 2 and 5 or later before the parents get home?
Is it then any wonder of teen pregnancies? drug abuse and so on? They've nothing to do.
Our education system seems to place far more emphasis on sports and other irrelevancies rather then on academics and knowledge.
In essence, the real ones needing to be educated are the parents to place more emphasis at home of learning school material.

 

[Bullets]

On the other hand though, if we indeed have a voucher for schools, there exists yet another if not greater problem. Simply those born into the bottom of the social ladder would then never have any ability to rise up. Why? how would they get to the "better schools"?

because they are smart enough. Just like in college, you need to show some aptitude for learning, and if yoy are smart, you can get into a better school, and you qualify for scholarship money and such. Its actually really easy for them to move up. Then the stupid/bad kids get filtered out and there are schools of just smart kids, and ones of just bad kids.

Highschools in the US let out at 2pm in the afternoon, just what the hell do you expect kids to learn from 8 to 2 with a 1 hour lunch break in between? Then what do you expect them to do between the hours of 2 and 5 or later before the parents get home?

i went to a private catholic high school in NJ, cost 10k a year. I can now go to college comfortable in the knowledge that i would be ready. Ive written 10-15 page papers at the age of 15. Ive read the works of shakespear, dante, Kafka, and Tolstoy. Ive studied advanced physics, calculus, and advanced math, all for less then it cost to send a kid to public school in NJ. School started at 830 and ended at 230, and im not a drugie, a father, or a criminal.


So how is it possible that the kids who graduate from schools like mine go on to become masters of industry, CEO's and the like, and somehow we manage to get a better HS education, for less money per year? Teaching and personal drive. Some kids just dont care, and that hurts the kids who do.

 

[Kandahar]

On the other hand though, if we indeed have a voucher for schools, there exists yet another if not greater problem. Simply those born into the bottom of the social ladder would then never have any ability to rise up. Why? how would they get to the "better schools"?

It's the current system that most harms the people at the bottom of the social ladder. They're assigned to a terrible school and they can't even move up to a mediocre school. With vouchers, they'd be able to attend any school they wanted to. Thus they'd be able to get into better schools the same way that a poor high school graduate is able to go to an excellent college: through hard work and being accepted at that school, and the government picking up (at least most of) the bill.

IMO the only reason that US elementary and intermediate schools are so messed up is because of a willingness of the family to place as much emphasis on education as it does with other matters - ie who won the super bowl.
Highschools in the US let out at 2pm in the afternoon, just what the hell do you expect kids to learn from 8 to 2 with a 1 hour lunch break in between? Then what do you expect them to do between the hours of 2 and 5 or later before the parents get home?
Is it then any wonder of teen pregnancies? drug abuse and so on? They've nothing to do.
Our education system seems to place far more emphasis on sports and other irrelevancies rather then on academics and knowledge.
In essence, the real ones needing to be educated are the parents to place more emphasis at home of learning school material.

I agree that that's part of the problem, but there's not really much that we as a society can do about the culture of ignorance as a whole. There's not much we can do to educate parents, other than make sure that the next generation of parents is better educated by the schools in the first place.

As you said, another problem is that school is definitely not in session long enough. Students should either go to school more hours during the day, or (as I would prefer) go to school more days in the year, or both. Perhaps the state could set a minimum number of days that a student must be in school and a minimum number of hours per day, but beyond that, parents/students could pick a school with any schedule they wanted.

 

[Bullets]

I.

As you said, another problem is that school is definitely not in session long enough. Students should either go to school more hours during the day, or (as I would prefer) go to school more days in the year, or both. Perhaps the state could set a minimum number of days that a student must be in school and a minimum number of hours per day, but beyond that, parents/students could pick a school with any schedule they wanted.

in NJ, kids are required to go 180 days at any public schools, and they have to go from 8-3, private schools do whatever they want.

 

[Kandahar]

in NJ, kids are required to go 180 days at any public schools, and they have to go from 8-3, private schools do whatever they want.

I think it's 180 days nationwide. That's clearly nowhere near enough, but I'm apprehensive of big government mandating a huge increase...Maybe the government could incrementally increase the minimum to, say, 210 days and allow schools to go even longer if they wanted to.

 

[Bullets]

People at your type of school do better because your type of school is better. Resources are distributed more effectively, due to the fact that your school competes in a competitive market, and thus it must effectively use its resources or it will fail. You get the best teachers for your money, you get the best administrators and equipment for your money, your school is better.

So unless you wish to claim that the quality of education you recieve has no effect on how well you do, your claims are preposterous.

i never went to private school until HS, i was a public school kid all the way. Throughout HS, i still hung out with the kids i met in Middle school, all who went to the public HS. They were amazed at the concept of a paper longer then 3 pages. Kids who were in many ways smarter then i was, were crushed in public HS. our teachers were paid less then public schoo, teachers, but they were better. Im not saying that i am a better human being then the kids i was friends with. Im saying that vouchers can help smart kids who cant financially afford a private school gain admitance.

My point is, in NJ especially, i am amazed at the waste that occurs in the school system. I want to stand there and scream, "see, it works, and its not expensive!" but nobody is listening. And there are schools in NJ, public ones, that are excellent schools, mostly in spite of the Teachers Unions and such. we need to stop using property tax as a fund for schools and we need to better regulate school budgets. I find it hard the believe that it cost 1mil more dollars to run the public school in my town then it did last year. They just keep adding money, with no visible results. If the budgest were regulated better, then the taxes would drop. If we got off of the property tax fund, things would get better. it needs to be run like the colleges. There is a way to get in to college for anyone, a good college too. we just need to adapt it on a larger scale for HS.

 

[jfuh]

It's the current system that most harms the people at the bottom of the social ladder. They're assigned to a terrible school and they can't even move up to a mediocre school. With vouchers, they'd be able to attend any school they wanted to. Thus they'd be able to get into better schools the same way that a poor high school graduate is able to go to an excellent college: through hard work and being accepted at that school, and the government picking up (at least most of) the bill.

I agree that the current "assignment" is largely a problem. I just don't see how the vouchers can be equaled. Here's my point.
say just for the sake of argument that each student gets a
$10000 voucher per year. $10000 is going to be very different for a student at the bottom of the ladder vs a student from a rich family.
When going through school myself, it didn't seem too important that we were all in the same class in the same school, what seemed more important was the back ground that the student came from and how thier family emphasized on education vs a family that just didn't give a damn about thier kid.
The remainder would follow bellow

I agree that that's part of the problem, but there's not really much that we as a society can do about the culture of ignorance as a whole. There's not much we can do to educate parents, other than make sure that the next generation of parents is better educated by the schools in the first place.

As you said, another problem is that school is definitely not in session long enough. Students should either go to school more hours during the day, or (as I would prefer) go to school more days in the year, or both. Perhaps the state could set a minimum number of days that a student must be in school and a minimum number of hours per day, but beyond that, parents/students could pick a school with any schedule they wanted.

We become our parents, one way or another, blood is simply thicker then water. This culture of emphasis on everyone becoming successful, sorry, it's just not going to happen. Everyone goes to college and get's a high paying job? Not gonna happen. We do not live with a cinderella happily ever after ending. Yet that is the very essence that is being pumped into kids minds. Then we have the perfect example of scandanavia, where everyone is secured from craddle to grave - in the end, no one has the motive to live on.
Ok, I'm rambling now, my argument was lost some where back there.
need to cool abit here and respond later I think.

 

[Kandahar]

I agree that the current "assignment" is largely a problem. I just don't see how the vouchers can be equaled. Here's my point.
say just for the sake of argument that each student gets a
$10000 voucher per year. $10000 is going to be very different for a student at the bottom of the ladder vs a student from a rich family.

I don't understand...how is a $10,000 tuition grant different? It is what it is...both the rich and poor student would be able to apply at any school they wanted. The rich student, of course, would be free to spend more than $10,000 to attend a private school if he wanted to, and the difference would come out of his pocket.

When going through school myself, it didn't seem too important that we were all in the same class in the same school, what seemed more important was the back ground that the student came from and how thier family emphasized on education vs a family that just didn't give a damn about thier kid.

That's certainly part of the problem, but it's beyond the control of public policy.

We become our parents, one way or another, blood is simply thicker then water.

This has less to do with (parental) upbringing and more to do with genes. While it's certainly true, a good education will help give people the best chance at success.

This culture of emphasis on everyone becoming successful, sorry, it's just not going to happen. Everyone goes to college and get's a high paying job? Not gonna happen. We do not live with a cinderella happily ever after ending. Yet that is the very essence that is being pumped into kids minds.

Vouchers would help to end that. If a student would be more comfortable at a vocational school or a non-college-prep school, he'd be perfectly free to spend his voucher money on those. Under the current system, he's stuck at whatever school district he happens to live in.

 

[jamesrage]

OK, we all know that American primary and secondary education sucks. Why is this? Because the government monopolizes the system, assigning students to a school and unable to fire even the worst teachers.

In nearly every other modern country in the world (all of whom outperform American schools), public education money is attached to the student rather than to the school. Even in the United States, we have a voucher system for college education...and the American college system is the envy of the world.

It makes sense to switch all of our public education to a voucher system, so that schools have to compete for students (and therefore for money). All of them would improve as a result, except for the worst few which would go out of business entirely.

I think a voucher system would be great,if you wanted to send you get to a religious school, leftist atheist school, right wing conservative school or just a regular public education school then so be it. I think parents should have those options.

 

[Nobones]

OK, we all know that American primary and secondary education sucks. Why is this? Because the government monopolizes the system, assigning students to a school and unable to fire even the worst teachers.

In nearly every other modern country in the world (all of whom outperform American schools), public education money is attached to the student rather than to the school. Even in the United States, we have a voucher system for college education...and the American college system is the envy of the world.

It makes sense to switch all of our public education to a voucher system, so that schools have to compete for students (and therefore for money). All of them would improve as a result, except for the worst few which would go out of business entirely.

I agree- first of all why should I have to pay for my childs education, and the education of the next door neighbors kids? Second, Any time you have the option of public domain vs. private domain, private companies kick the governments butt. Cheaper and more efficient.

 

[Patrickt]

I support the idea of vouchers. I'd rather give my tax money to the parents to spend on the students than to the school district to spend as they see fit.

I have seen schools deteriorating over the years and I think it's not only unfair to the students but damaging to the nation as a whole.

 

[jfuh]

I don't understand...how is a $10,000 tuition grant different? It is what it is...both the rich and poor student would be able to apply at any school they wanted. The rich student, of course, would be free to spend more than $10,000 to attend a private school if he wanted to, and the difference would come out of his pocket.

Then that defeats the whole purpose. Because the rich would still take that money for the "better" schools while the poor get stuck with what the 10000 can afford them. It'd only be a temporary solution to the current problems, but nevertheless it'd still result in the same problems we have today.

This has less to do with (parental) upbringing and more to do with genes. While it's certainly true, a good education will help give people the best chance at success.

I don't see how you can link upbringing to genetics. Give the case of an adopted child, they still grow up to be thier parents - genetics goes right out the window.

Vouchers would help to end that. If a student would be more comfortable at a vocational school or a non-college-prep school, he'd be perfectly free to spend his voucher money on those. Under the current system, he's stuck at whatever school district he happens to live in.

I indeed believe that it would end it, but along with it, I also believe several new problems would arrise. Anytime we give the government to do something, they absolutely must screw it up regardless of how simple it is. In the new system, I think it would turn the district problem into a problem of which school has more poor kids which has rich.

 

[Patrickt]

"Then that defeats the whole purpose. Because the rich would still take that money for the "better" schools while the poor get stuck with what the 10000 can afford them. It'd only be a temporary solution to the current problems, but nevertheless it'd still result in the same problems we have today."

Ah, perhaps we don't all have the same goal. Your goal seems to be for everyone to get the same education. Mine is for everyone to get an adequate education. I want children to come out of high school reading as well as they can, writing as well as they can, and doing math as well as they can. Then they can continue their schooling, go to work, and embark on a lifetime of learning.

 

[Kandahar]

Then that defeats the whole purpose. Because the rich would still take that money for the "better" schools while the poor get stuck with what the 10000 can afford them. It'd only be a temporary solution to the current problems, but nevertheless it'd still result in the same problems we have today.

It's not a problem in our college system, so there's no reason to think it would be a problem in our primary and secondary system. A rich student attending Harvard out of his own pocket doesn't make a poor student's state university education worse. They both get a great quality education for their money.

Contrast this with our primary/secondary schools. Many poor students may as well not even attend school for no more than they learn.

I don't see how you can link upbringing to genetics. Give the case of an adopted child, they still grow up to be thier parents - genetics goes right out the window.

Quite the opposite. Several studies have shown that there is zero correlation between an adopted child's personality traits and their adoptive parent's personality traits. They are much more like their biological parents.

I indeed believe that it would end it, but along with it, I also believe several new problems would arrise. Anytime we give the government to do something, they absolutely must screw it up regardless of how simple it is.

It is difficult for me to believe that they could possibly screw up vouchers worse than they have screwed up our current education system...especially considering that vouchers work quite well for our college system.

In the new system, I think it would turn the district problem into a problem of which school has more poor kids which has rich.

That is the problem we have now, which vouchers would eliminate. It would no longer matter what district you lived in, as you could attend school wherever you wanted.

 

[jfuh]

It's not a problem in our college system, so there's no reason to think it would be a problem in our primary and secondary system. A rich student attending Harvard out of his own pocket doesn't make a poor student's state university education worse. They both get a great quality education for their money.

Contrast this with our primary/secondary schools. Many poor students may as well not even attend school for no more than they learn.

That's not a good reason at all. Because not everyone attends colleges/universities. However primary/secondary schools are attended by everyone, or at least mandatory.

Quite the opposite. Several studies have shown that there is zero correlation between an adopted child's personality traits and their adoptive parent's personality traits. They are much more like their biological parents.

I'd like to see the studies, for all I've seen are nurture over nature.

It is difficult for me to believe that they could possibly screw up vouchers worse than they have screwed up our current education system...especially considering that vouchers work quite well for our college system.

HAhaha, wanna put money down on that? Because they just seem to screw up everything they touch.

That is the problem we have now, which vouchers would eliminate. It would no longer matter what district you lived in, as you could attend school wherever you wanted.

As I mentioned formerly, 10000 to a rich family would be very different from 10000 to a poor family. it would only raise the rates of a "good" education so that only those that could afford the extra fees would aquired the better education.
I think the better way would be for qualifying entrance examinations in conjunction with vouchers.
You have to meet the criteria in order to be allowed in in the first place. This would also be of course supplemented by a GPA evaluation. Otherwise it's just always going to be a "I've got money to spare" vs you don't got money to spare ordeal.

 

[Kandahar]

That's not a good reason at all. Because not everyone attends colleges/universities. However primary/secondary schools are attended by everyone, or at least mandatory.

OK, then instead of comparing our crappy, non-voucher primary/secondary system to our excellent, pro-voucher college system, allow me to draw a different comparison:

Compare our primary/secondary system to the European pro-voucher primary/secondary system. It's simply no contest. State-run monopolies are terrible, especially when you have no choice at all. Competition makes all of the schools better.

I'd like to see the studies, for all I've seen are nurture over nature.

Current research suggests genetics are the single most important component of our personality, accoutning for nearly half of it. Other "nature" things such as the fetal environment also play a role. Even among the fraction of our personality due to nurture, peers and siblings play the most important role. BAD parenting can play an important role, but aside from that, parental upbringing matters surprisingly little in determining a child's personality.

http://psikoloji.fisek.com.tr/others/genes.htm
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051002/HOME/110020018
http://scc.healthcentral.com/bcp/main.asp?page=video&id=13002&ap=408&brand=31

HAhaha, wanna put money down on that? Because they just seem to screw up everything they touch.

Nothing could possibly be as screwed up as our public education system. The possibility of the government screwing up a new system is not a valid reason to oppose it, especially when the current system could hardly be any worse, and there is valid reason to suggest that governments do a BETTER job with the voucher system than with the monopoly system (American vs. European schools, American schools vs. American colleges).

As I mentioned formerly, 10000 to a rich family would be very different from 10000 to a poor family. it would only raise the rates of a "good" education so that only those that could afford the extra fees would aquired the better education.

The goal here isn't to provide everyone with exactly the same education. The goal is to IMPROVE the education that everyone gets. If rich students are able to afford a more expensive private school, that's fine. It in no way detracts from the quality of education that everyone else gets.

I think the better way would be for qualifying entrance examinations in conjunction with vouchers.
You have to meet the criteria in order to be allowed in in the first place. This would also be of course supplemented by a GPA evaluation. Otherwise it's just always going to be a "I've got money to spare" vs you don't got money to spare ordeal.

That's fine; private schools should be able to set whatever admission criteria they want. Public schools should as well, although the government should ensure that there are enough to cater to everyone.

 

[RightOfCenter]

I think a voucher system would be great,if you wanted to send you get to a religious school, leftist atheist school, right wing conservative school or just a regular public education school then so be it. I think parents should have those options.

I think a voucher system would be great, but not so you could send your child to a religous school, or an atheist school or whatever. I think a child needs to be exposed to more than one type of ideas so they can make their own informed decisions, kind of how you shouldn't just watch Fox or MSNBC, you should watch, read, and listen to a little bit of everything.

 

[jfuh]

The difference with debating with you? I actually need to do some back ground work lol. good stuff, now back on topic.

OK, then instead of comparing our crappy, non-voucher primary/secondary system to our excellent, pro-voucher college system, allow me to draw a different comparison:

Compare our primary/secondary system to the European pro-voucher primary/secondary system. It's simply no contest. State-run monopolies are terrible, especially when you have no choice at all. Competition makes all of the schools better.

When you put it this way, no contest.

Current research suggests genetics are the single most important component of our personality, accoutning for nearly half of it. Other "nature" things such as the fetal environment also play a role. Even among the fraction of our personality due to nurture, peers and siblings play the most important role. BAD parenting can play an important role, but aside from that, parental upbringing matters surprisingly little in determining a child's personality.

http://psikoloji.fisek.com.tr/others/genes.htm
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051002/HOME/110020018
http://scc.healthcentral.com/bcp/main.asp?page=video&id=13002&ap=408&brand=31

I remain very sceptacle about this. Personality is not as clear cut a science as chemistry, environmental, math, physics, or so on.
There are many instances that nature over-rides nuture, however there are many other instances that the opposite holds true. The simplist case, why is is that identical twins could have completely opposite personalities? However on the flip side, identical twins seperated at birth could also have nearly identical personalities when reared in completely different environments. The best conclusion that one could come would be that some behaviors are indeed hereditory, however many other personalities are far from. Emphasis on education I feel is not something that is hereditory nor is the strife for education. Aside from music or mathematics, you can not be a natural genius at any other topic.
http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture.htm

Nothing could possibly be as screwed up as our public education system. The possibility of the government screwing up a new system is not a valid reason to oppose it, especially when the current system could hardly be any worse, and there is valid reason to suggest that governments do a BETTER job with the voucher system than with the monopoly system (American vs. European schools, American schools vs. American colleges).

I don't argue against it simply because the gov will screw it up. Many parts of it I belive would be a good step, for one thing it would relieve this compelte monopoloy the gov holds over K-12 education.

The goal here isn't to provide everyone with exactly the same education. The goal is to IMPROVE the education that everyone gets. If rich students are able to afford a more expensive private school, that's fine. It in no way detracts from the quality of education that everyone else gets.

The argument here is the minimum level to be met. I believe that everyone should have the oppotunity to obtain a high level of education. The simple point here is that I do not feel that the vouchers should be applicable to those who are wealthy enough to have afforded thier childeren to expensive private schools in the first place.

That's fine; private schools should be able to set whatever admission criteria they want. Public schools should as well, although the government should ensure that there are enough to cater to everyone.

There's already plenty to cater IMO. Here's a way to very very quickly dismantle the current completely corrupt and stagnant public school system - completely dismantle the teachers unions that prevent the firing of completely incompetent teachers.