• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:#2026]School's out forever: Arizona moves "to kill public education" with new universal voucher law

Then it was a swing and a miss. In general, yes they do perform better. Family support makes a difference, but it goes beyond that.
No, in general, they discriminate on the kids they take.
Private schools tend to be more lean - focused on education.
You mean they don't have to offer special services for students with disabilities?
In our state, half the employees are in non classroom positions (from 30% a few decades ago.)
...I'd love to see a cite for that source.
Smaller class sizes make a difference.
But I know many public schools in the area with smaller class sizes than the private schools. Which is why I threw this out.
Teachers? Yes. I happen to know a lot of public school teachers, and in general, they are hard working and dedicated. (Although there is a certain amount of mediocre ones that are coasting).
Both statements which would apply to private schools as well.
It's the schools and the school districts that have a lack of focus.
I'd bet your next paycheck you have no idea how wrong you are on that.
Perhaps because you missed the point?
I did not. My point was that you cannot specify a single concrete example of why a private school would be better than a public school, if the private school dealt with the same students the public school deals with. You've crafted two posts, neither of which comes close to supporting your position. And there's a reason for that.
 
This is fantastic. Whatever kills the progressive infrastructure fastest is best for America. Until every last woke leftist institution is destroyed, we cannot stop.



Meet the intolerant right. Cry more.
Ive already met your kind, the klukkers didnt return.
 
With respect:

The last paragraph of the article:

Quote:

In 2006, just a few years after DeVos infamously called on conservative Christians to adopt "school choice" as a cause and a means of "greater Kingdom gain," Arizona passed two voucher programs. But three years later, both were found to be unconstitutional means of redirecting public funds to private schools.
That was the plan all along
 
Private schools tend to have smaller class sizes than public schools.

Smaller class sizes means that more work can be covered IN class, and less homework necessary.

Being in a school with a smaller population and class size will give Johnny the opportunity to have more attention paid to Johnny while at school…and give the kid a chance at life that he may not have it he continues on in a public school with larger class sizes and being shuffled along, barely passing.

I can tell you around here the Arizona program would do zilch for Johnny.

#1 the tuition is about twice the voucher rate specifically to keep kids like Johnny out of the school.

#2 That doesn’t include the extra $2,000 per year if you want transportation to and from school.

#3 There is an academic admissions test which Johnny wouldn’t be able to pass.

#4 Not only if there an application there is an interview process that Johnny has to go through. The the parent has to go through a separate interview. Johnny isn’t likely to pass and the lack of parental involvement will definitely not pass.

#5 Johnny is the type of student private schools are designed to keep out so the wealthy can segregate there children. That and they don’t want students like Johnny lowering their test scores or their college acceptance rates.

WW
 
Last edited:
I can tell you around here the Arizona program would do zilch for Johnny.

#1 the tuition is about twice the voucher rate specifically to keep kids like Johnny out of the school.

#2 That doesn’t include the extra $2,000 per year if you want transportation to and from school.

#3 There is an academic admissions test which Johnny wouldn’t be save to pass.

#4 Not only if there an application there is an interview process that Johnny has to go through. The the parent has to go through a separate interview. Johnny isn’t likely to pass and the lack of parental involvement will definitely not pass.

#5 Johnny is the type of student private schools are designed to keep out so the wealthy can segregate there children. That and they don’t want students like Johnny lowering their test scores or their college acceptance rates.

WW
I'm just quoting this because I'm hoping more people will read it. In particular, I hope people read #5 multiple times.
 
No, in general, they discriminate on the kids they take.

You mean they don't have to offer special services for students with disabilities?

...I'd love to see a cite for that source.

But I know many public schools in the area with smaller class sizes than the private schools. Which is why I threw this out.

Both statements which would apply to private schools as well.

I'd bet your next paycheck you have no idea how wrong you are on that.

I did not. My point was that you cannot specify a single concrete example of why a private school would be better than a public school, if the private school dealt with the same students the public school deals with. You've crafted two posts, neither of which comes close to supporting your position. And there's a reason for that.
download.jpg
 
It was interesting to reach your comment after just making the exact opposite point. I haven't been in school for decades but it seemed to me that the kids who struggled (and I'd sure agree they tended to have the worst and most uninvolved, uninterested parents) usually graduated high school still struggling. The top kids never did slow down or suffer based on public education.
I think the difference we might most notice is that the average kids might often really exceed their public school potential if in a private school environment.

I don't mean the higher kids would slow down. They tend to hold their own. I think more could be done with the kids who are high achievers at my school. We focus almost exclusively on the lower kids.
 
The benefit will be giving many more parents a choice - including a lot of middle and lower class kids the opportunity to go to better schools.
It will take me some time to sort through your evidence.
 
I think the difference we might most notice is that the average kids might often really exceed their public school potential if in a private school environment.
This isn't based on anything other than your feelings.
 
I think we've broken this dcsports account. It's now quoting and replying to itself.
lol. No, That reply was to Josie, who was unsure what her point was. And we're all waiting for you to get to your point. Thanks!
 
What are some of the studies?

Private schools outperform public schools almost universally. Yes, a good portion of that is due to parents and kids who want to go to school, and the ability of the schools to focus most of their resources on education, but they do better. Why shouldn't families who make less be able to take the tax dollars allocated to them from the state and go to a better school?

And most aren't 'fancy'. Lots of private schools service middle class families, and doe it on a shoestring.

Here is a large scale study done by Statistics Canada that found that educational outcomes are far more dependent on the socioeconomic status of the parents. On average, the only reason private schools perform better is they have better quality students.
 
No, in general, they discriminate on the kids they take.
False


You mean they don't have to offer special services for students with disabilities?
No, things like a bloated administration and support staff.

...I'd love to see a cite for that source.
You should look then. Here's a chart for you though



But I know many public schools in the area with smaller class sizes than the private schools. Which is why I threw this out.
Sure - probably in specialized or magnet schools. In general though, it's one area where private and charter schools focus.


Both statements which would apply to private schools as well.
It's a lot harder to simply coast in a private school. There is a certain amount of competition there - and these schools don't want to keep poor performing teachers.


I'd bet your next paycheck you have no idea how wrong you are on that.

I did not. My point was that you cannot specify a single concrete example of why a private school would be better than a public school, if the private school dealt with the same students the public school deals with. You've crafted two posts, neither of which comes close to supporting your position. And there's a reason for that.

LOL - you would loose that bet.

I've provided many. You want to keep tossing out and ignoring the reasons why many private (and I would add charter) schools are better than the majority of public schools. As I said several times - selection of students (the parents have to want to put their kids there) is a factor, but hardly the only one. Why should parents who want to take advantage of those opportunities -- and use the education dollars for their students to help make that choice - be denied?
 

Here is a large scale study done by Statistics Canada that found that educational outcomes are far more dependent on the socioeconomic status of the parents. On average, the only reason private schools perform better is they have better quality students.
That's actually NOT the conclusion the study reached.

Finally, two factors accounted for a substantial portion of the differences between the public and private sectors in all of the academic outcomes examined: socio-economic characteristics and peers. The province of school attendance accounted for a substantial portion of the differences in academic outcomes at the high school level (test scores and graduation rates), but less at the postsecondary level. School resources and practices played little to no role in the differences in each academic outcome observed.
 
That's actually NOT the conclusion the study reached.
Did you read what you quoted? The conclusion is that it is not the private schools that are better but the students that attend them. School resources and practices are where private schools differ from public ones on how they function and the study found it made little to no difference.
 
You can feel confident all you want, but nutball leftist schools have had multiple drag shows.
And if they have it is 100% wrong and if it is a school employee both they and the Principal that allowed it should be fired and banned from education.
You can disbelieve your lying eyes or you don't.
I am not sure how that makes sense...
 
Did you read what you quoted? The conclusion is that it is not the private schools that are better but the students that attend them. School resources and practices are where private schools differ from public ones on how they function and the study found it made little to no difference.
Yes, but I'm thinking you didn't? That socioeconomic factors are "a substantial portion" of the difference? That's NOT the same as "the only reason".

Also worth noting that your study wasn't about voucher programs (going back to your previous claim), but about the difference in general. That would actually support a program where more people who are at a socioeconomic disadvantage could take advantage of a school that isn't run by a public district. Worth noting that we actually have public schools - not run by school districts - in Texas, and at least in the Houston area, they also out perform the average school district schools. That's despite them being funded by the state allocation, no cost to students, and taking kids from the same socioeconomic groups as the district run schools.
 
Yes, but I'm thinking you didn't? That socioeconomic factors are "a substantial portion" of the difference? That's NOT the same as "the only reason".

Also worth noting that your study wasn't about voucher programs (going back to your previous claim), but about the difference in general. That would actually support a program where more people who are at a socioeconomic disadvantage could take advantage of a school that isn't run by a public district. Worth noting that we actually have public schools - not run by school districts - in Texas, and at least in the Houston area, they also out perform the average school district schools. That's despite them being funded by the state allocation, no cost to students, and taking kids from the same socioeconomic groups as the district run schools.
You missed the whole point of the study. If private schools have to to take everyone there would be little to no difference in the outcomes, therefore there is no point to private schools, period. In the case of the program in AZ, elite private schools will just increase their prices to keep them exclusive. All while public money is being moved from public schools and subsidizing private ones. They are just making public schooling worse.
 
You missed the whole point of the study. If private schools have to to take everyone there would be little to no difference in the outcomes, therefore there is no point to private schools, period. In the case of the program in AZ, elite private schools will just increase their prices to keep them exclusive. All while public money is being moved from public schools and subsidizing private ones. They are just making public schooling worse.
That statement is false. See post #644.

You are also operating from a false premise that all private schools are 'elite'. Most aren't.
 
That statement is false. See post #644.

You are also operating from a false premise that all private schools are 'elite'. Most aren't.
Then per the study there is no advantage to attending the probate school then. All the voucher program does is funnel money away from the public school system making it actually worse.
 
No, it's true. I was literally friends with a boy in school who was kicked out of his private religious school (for behavior reasons). Private schools absolutely discriminate in who they take.
No, things like a bloated administration and support staff.
...we'll ignore administration for a second...do you have any idea what support staff do? Why they are important? Why there are more of them than there used to be? I'll give you a hint...a significant part of it goes back to the students with disabilities I mentioned earlier.
You should look then. Here's a chart for you though
What state am I looking for? Also, I'm VERY curious who all is included in the "All Staff" category. I do appreciate the source but you do understand that support staff is often in classroom positions, correct? For example, one of our special education classrooms will have a certificated instructor and two or three aides who are there to assist in education. But those aides would not be included in the certificated teachers column (which I know for a fact the "Teachers" column represents because I cross checked it with DESE's website).

So...without knowing exactly who is included in "all staff", I do not believe your source supports your initial claim that "half the employees are in non classroom positions".
Sure - probably in specialized or magnet schools.
Nope. Straight public schools like the ones we're discussing. Here's a link to school enrollments in Missouri (I believe every public school will be on the list, but there will be some private schools who are not):


Notice how many come in under 100 students in grades 9-12.
It's a lot harder to simply coast in a private school.
No, it is not. And that's coming directly from my father, who has taught in both public and private schools. Again, it depends entirely on the school itself.
There is a certain amount of competition there - and these schools don't want to keep poor performing teachers.
No one wants to keep poor performing teachers. That doesn't make private schools special or unique.
LOL - you would loose that bet.
Not based on the posts you've provided in this thread thus far.
I've provided many.
No you haven't. You've provided empty rhetoric, false claims, and meaningless statements that apply to nearly all schools.
You want to keep tossing out and ignoring the reasons why many private (and I would add charter) schools are better than the majority of public schools.
Because they are not. Because if they dealt with the same students public schools deal with, they would fare no better and likely much worse than the public schools. But because private schools discriminate in which students they allow to enter their school, they can create the myth that the school is somehow better.
As I said several times - selection of students (the parents have to want to put their kids there) is a factor, but hardly the only one.
It's easily the biggest one. Again, Johnny is doing no better in the private school than in the public school. But the private school doesn't have to take Johnny.
Why should parents who want to take advantage of those opportunities -- and use the education dollars for their students to help make that choice - be denied?
No one is saying parents cannot put their kids into private school, we're just saying they shouldn't get to use taxpayer money to do it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom