Vouchers Poll: Whatddya think?

Tony

Feel free to go on any tirades you want as long as this thread is afloat. I love it.

 

Warning: Opinion to follow.

I don't like vouchers. I see them as a means of routing public money to private schools (and the families that use them).

I like the notion of competition. I recognize the moribund nature of the public school system. But I don't think making it easier for some (not all) students to go to private school makes those schools better. Not all students will be able to use vouchers. The vouchers often don't cover the full costs, and the other issues--some simple like transportation, some complicated like culture clash--will also get in the way. And what about students who cannot get into these private schools? The way I see it, vouchers will lead to a system where the public schools are left with the uneducable, the poor, and so forth. This will make it even harder to carry out their mission when all they have left are problem students. That won't make them better schools.

There was a time when schools didn't try to educate everyone. Dropping out of school to find work was much more common. But now, schools have become day care centers, juvenile halls, counseling centers, soup kitchens, and a whole lot more. I suspect the best and the brightest are better and brighter than ever before. But the median student's capabilities have dropped tremendously. Why? Because 40 years ago, he or she would have dropped out of school. But now he or she hangs around until turning 18, then dropping out or graduating with a diploma that represents a lot less than it used to. It has to; if standards would return to older levels, many students would not graduate. The hue and cry would still be that our school systems are letting our children down. Bull. We've got students we who shouldn't be there, and punk-assed parents who defer the raising of their kids to the school system. And this is going to raise the quality of schools?

Oh, and let's pay out teachers at a level commensurate with out expectations of them. What do you want for $15 bucks an hour?

 

I am categorically opposed to vouchers on religious grounds. By introducing, even in a backhanded fashion, state money into our parochial schools, vouchers would render our schools vulnerable to heresy and false doctrine, not to mention the influence of those whose genteel hatred of religion leads them to denounce it as hagridden bebop while denying with fine-tuned indignation any imputation of anti-religious bias.

Now if vouchers were only a matter of purely secular public/private/charter schools squabbling over who gets which kids, fine. Could not care less.

 

"Our" teachers. "Our," not "out." Of course, "our" teachers might have kicked me "out" for doing that twice in one sentence.


My school was tough. In English class, the teacher asked "What comes at the end of a sentence?" One kid said, "You file an appeal!"

Rodney Dangerfield

 

Unk~~

Unk, this is what I'm worried about.

But here's my question for you. Do you really think that religion would be hampered by vouchers when so many scholarships go to students at religious undergraduate schools without strings attached? Or, is that just my misperception that such is the case? If not, please tell me why.

Chris

 

Yup, I really think that. Really.

My religion is very definitely not part of any of the several consensuses of American civil religion--
old mainline
generic evangelical dominance
Roman Catholic dominance
Utah LDS dominance
diversitarian anything-but-Christianity PC-ness
genuine pluralism (Hawaii, perhaps?).

We do not accept the idea that blurring doctrinal borders is OK as long as "we all agree on the really important stuff", or some such.

We did not take the king's shilling (sic) in Prussia.
We do not want Bush's bounty here.

Really.

 

The good thing is that vouchers will give a choice to those who do not have one. You can still send your kids to the schools you choose. Although I do agree that better educated kids will lead to less of a dependence on religion, it's not for the reasons you have stated. But that is another thread. Here is the deal vouchers lead to choice, which leads to competition, which leads to quality improvements.

What is so wrong with that?

 

Perhaps I did not make myself clear.
"Couldn't care less" means couldn't care less.
What the public/private/charter schools do by way of funding is a matter of complete indifference to me.
I do not think that it is right for government money to go to any religious schools.
I do not want government money going to my religion's schools.
I do not want my tax money, explicitly or by default, going to support in any way the teaching of false doctrine and heresy.
I do not want government officials--or voters--having any influence as such over the teaching of religion in my religion's schools.
You most certainly do not agree with me when you say "better educated kids will lead to less of a dependence upon religion."
I do not share your faith that "choice...leads to competition which leads to quality improvements."
I do not believe (while I'm at it) that vouchers are the only way for choice to be exercised by parents in regard to their children's education.
Other than that, our views are in harmony, in that you say "you can still send your kids to the schools you choose." I agree.

 

voucher is a "red" herring

Here is the problem of the voucher argument.
At the public school where you "elect" the school board, you have a voice in running the school. If the school board does not provide the education that students need, you can vote them out.
What the voucher people seem to say, is that you will get better services for your child at a school in which you have not say in what the curriculum will be. This is clearly false.
The hidden agenda of the "voucher" people is that the want the state to pay for private religious schools. However, even at the private religious school, there is no gurantee that a citizen will gain any ability to control the curriculum.
I have sat on my local school board. I have never had a "voucher" supporter come to the school board and state what curriculum they feel the school lacks.
All the best!

 

Re: voucher is a "red" herring

I am quite possibly the least religious person on this forum. I have no hidden agenda. My goal is exactly as I stated...to have MY (not state) tax dollars go to the education that I choose for my children. It is foolish to think that the system works as you described. You make it seem like when Little Johnnie comes home with a book you don't like you can go to the polls the next morning and get rid of some bosrd member. I don't need a representative for me. I can express myself to the school just fine. Private schools are better prepared to address curriculum changes. If this whole thing is some religious conspiracy, what is so wrong with that? Why can't our tax dollars be spent in the way we choose. If a person doesn't like the doctrine of a school.................CHOOSE ANOTHER ONE. That's kinda the point here. We all need to let people worship the way they choose. Even as anti religious as I am, i do realize that separation of church and state does mean we should make it illegal for people worship in the way they choose.

 

Re: Re: voucher is a "red" herring

I'm sure that most tax dollars going to public schools is paid by people that do not have children. The point being that is not really just your tax dollars that we're talking about.

 

Re: Re: Re: voucher is a "red" herring

I don't know about "most tax dollars." Schools are funded largely by property taxes, and property taxes tend to be paid by families. But I sure do agree with the spirit of the above post.

Public education exists because we, as a society, recognize the benefits of an educated populace. That's why we all share in its costs--we all share in its benefits. The question then is "how," not "if." But how?

If I was convinced that vouchers served to create healthy competition in schools, bettering education for everyone, fine. But I'm not. Vouchers seem to be a program allowing those that are already using private schools to get some tax dollars returned to them. Also, vouchers may encourage other families to move their kids from public to private schools. But at what cost? The public schools will be disproportionately burdened with the kinds of kids private schools can turn away: the poor, the uneducable, special ed students, non-English-speakers, behavioral cases, etc. This will make public schools worse, not better. It will undermine the whole idea of public education.

If we want to switch to an a la carte system, fine. Let's shut down the public schools. Let's also shut down public health programs and facilities. (After all, the poor use these disproportionately compared to their ability to pay.) Oh, and let's get rid of fire and police departments and return that money to taxpayers, too. Then the ones who can afford it can buy private security. After all, I hardly ever call the cops....

Naw. See, these things exist because they serve all of society. The kid who learns something in school is less likely to break into my house or jack my car. Instead, he'll grow up, get a job, and pay taxes. Won't that be nice?

(Now, privatizing schools--charter schools--might be an idea whose time has come....)

 

I personally think the charter schools could be an idea whose time has come. Every argument of the current public school system includes the "draining away of students." This is the problem. Everyone by default recognizes an inferiority in the public school system.

People who want choice, are not necessarily the types of people who want to shut down free clinics and set the elderly on an ice flow. Some of these people even have given their time, effort and energy at some of these clinics.

It is about the where tax dollars go. If federal financial aid can go to a poor student at Notre Dame, why not the local catholic high school? We already have this model for education and the college sytem works quite well. The sky is not falling and the public colleges have existed for quite some time. If tax dollars can support a service man to go to these schools, why not the service man's son?

If this idea is bad, then financial aid should not go to any private university. If it is a good system, it should remain the same, and give our children the same benefit many of us had in college.

 

Rich,

You, as always, make some good points. However, I think there are some small problems with your arguments.

First.......you are still focused on making public schools better. public schools deal with the population that you described anyway. How does the "potential" of other kids going to different schools, thus leaving more time for the public school teachers to spend with this population hurt?


The plan that President Bush proposes does not help me. It says that parents in failing schools will have a choice. This means that if kids are at risk, they can go to another school, even if it is public. So it is not a way for private school parents to have some of their money returned to them.

What is healthy competition? Again, the goal is not to save schools, but to save students.


What is uneducable? If a kid can not be taught (which I do NOT believe) he/she should not be in school.

Don't the poor benefit by being able to have the dollars allocated to their childrens' education sent the the place that they choose? Won't vouchers help the poor by giving them a choice? WIll they really be left behind?

Nobody said that vouchers mean privatizing the system. In many cases public schools are great. Why should we shut them down?


Education is NOT like healthcare, fire service, or police service.
In the latter two cases, service is usually great. Without them, there would be chaos. The parallel you attempt to draw is not there. Healthcare still allows us a choice. Further, it is usually paid for by other means. I never said shut down free clinics, fire departments, or police departments. Nor did anyone propose shutting down the public school system. I'm sure, however, that your slippery slope will impress some......But I am still unconvinced.

In every place where pure (unregulated) competition has existed, quality has improved. We need to stop focusing on the poor public schools, which for those most part have a flawed educational paradigm, and instead focus on our kids.

 

As non-sectarian free public schools, charters would appear to be an easier pill to swallow than vouchers. Charters also bypass the "taking money from public schools" argument, since they ARE public schools. Since charters, by law, must admit all students that other public schools must admit, this argument is neutralized as well. The basic idea is that the money should follow the child.

Unfortunately, most states, including my own (California) have rendered the charter school movement impotent by putting the approval, oversight, funding and accountability systems in the hands of those whom the charter schools are supposed to compete. The vast majority of charter schools in California are simply magnet schools or independent study programs run by school districts.

the California Department of Education has become quite adept at losing paperwork, delaying processing and inventing new regulations to delay or cease funding to those few charter schools that operate as independent non-profit entities. As long as the charters look and act like other public schools, they are pretty well left alone. If they attempt anything that deviates from the "normal" pubic school system, they are attacked. Where is the reform in that? Where is the choice? How do students and parents benefit when the monopoly also controls its own competition?

Tony Piña

 

what did the sch. bd. & admin. actually do?

I do not have first hand information on locations where the "system" is not working.
I worked in several school systems and I sit on the school board for a five town supervisory union. I also am quite involved with my state's legislature.
The only instances that have been presented to the state legislature of a student, not getting a curriculum the parents want, is when they request a public school to offer a religious program.
There are many instances of students being "tuitioned" to a variety of schools expecting a curriculum and having the tuition receiving school change it. The tuition or voucher student has no recourse. They do not have a say in that schools governance.
I would advocate for people to attend their local school board meetings. Find out what it takes to get a curriculum in the school.
Occasionally a student or their parents want a school which is believed to have a better sports program. They hate being on "loosing teams". But is that academic?
All the best!

 

irat,

I have attended and presented at numerous local and county board of education meetings. My wife has made several presentations to the California State Board of Education.

In California, curriculum adoption is very big business, amounting to many millions of dollars for educational publishing companies and educational administration. Neither parents (nor teachers, for that matter) are involved in determining public school curriculum. Of the hundreds of parents that I have heard address local and county Boards of Education, none have been invited to "have a say in the school's governance" (although they are often invited to assist with fundraising efforts, serve on "advisory panels" with no decision-making authority or serve as classroom volunteers).

I cannot speak to your experiences in Vermont, but in California, parents and students with access to vouchers or (proper) charter schools would be the ONLY ones with school choice. Currently, public school is compulsory and the school that my children must attend is assigned by the district--not by parents. Any pseudo-choice options, such as inter-district transfers are only available "if there is space" (which, of course there never is).

If the money were allowed to follow the child, then parents would have the ultimate authority (that of consumers). This is where the charter school model (if implemented correctly) could work best. Public schools would have to maintain high quality or risk losing their students to a better public schools.

I do not care that much about the private school aspect of vouchers, but the idea that a "voucher school" would have less accountability to parents is nonsense. Parents would use their power as consumers to take their business elsewhere. In California, the bloated, top-heavy and union-influenced public school system has no accountability whatsoever. If parents are unsatisfied, they must now either pay for private schools or home-school their children. If their financial situation prevents these two options, they are stuck.

Perhaps, in Vermont, the situation is different.

Tony