Thread: School Vouchers

Originally Posted by Chase

I just don't understand how its religious indoctrination. Their parents are still making the choice of which school to send their children to. A lot of parents send their kids to Catholic school despite being Jewish, Muslim, etc., but that's because it's a much better school than the public alternative. If they're doing an effective job of teaching what needs to be taught, then we're already making progress.

When a parent sends their child to a religious/private school now it's on their own dime. The taxpayers are not asked to pay for it.

But if the parents use vouchers then we all could potentially be paying for little Johnny to get a Catholic indoctrination with his schooling, and little Aamir to get a Muslim indoctrination, and little Matthew to get... Okay you see what I mean.

And about the Catholic dogma thing, like I said, if students know about evolution and are able to demonstrate the necessary knowledge of it, then the teachers can teach them creationism too. The real world will dictate what knowledge they need, and so long as they possess it then no harm, no foul.

Same problem as above. If tax payer money is used to pay for a child's education then we need to keep all religions out of it. If we teach one religion, we'd have to teach'em all.

Most of the schools that are "failing" are in lower-income areas. They suffer from a lack of funding and they serve children who have all kinds of disadvantages that school cannot overcome. We could start by equalizing funding, not nationally, but at least over wide areas that include both wealthy and poor areas. But that won't happen, since wealthy people live where they do partly as an investment in better schools.

The problem with funding private education with vouchers (other than the first amendment problem with religion) is that often private schools (particularly better private schools) don't want to deal with the regulation and rules that come with public money. They do just fine on their own.

I like Minnesota's system. Any Minnesota student can go to any Minnesota public school his/her parents want--transportation is the family's problem, but they can send their child to a preferred school if they can get him/her there.

Originally Posted by Rassales

Most of the schools that are "failing" are in lower-income areas. They suffer from a lack of funding and they serve children who have all kinds of disadvantages that school cannot overcome. We could start by equalizing funding, not nationally, but at least over wide areas that include both wealthy and poor areas. But that won't happen, since wealthy people live where they do partly as an investment in better schools.

The problem with funding private education with vouchers (other than the first amendment problem with religion) is that often private schools (particularly better private schools) don't want to deal with the regulation and rules that come with public money. They do just fine on their own.

I like Minnesota's system. Any Minnesota student can go to any Minnesota public school his/her parents want--transportation is the family's problem, but they can send their child to a preferred school if they can get him/her there.

I like that idea, the Minnesota system.

Originally Posted by Groucho

I'm in favor of it, because it allows poorer families to be able to get private education that normally would be unavailable to them.

Massachusetts elects a Republican senator and you and I agree. Maybe that 2012 movie was on to something after all... :P

Originally Posted by Rassales

Most of the schools that are "failing" are in lower-income areas. They suffer from a lack of funding and they serve children who have all kinds of disadvantages that school cannot overcome. We could start by equalizing funding, not nationally, but at least over wide areas that include both wealthy and poor areas. But that won't happen, since wealthy people live where they do partly as an investment in better schools.

If there is one thing that we can learn from comparative studies it's that funding is no where near the dominant factor in quality of education. Feel free to compare Utah with Washington D.C. if you wish to see an example of funding per student v. quality of education. I don't buy the lack of funding argument. It seems designed merely to pump more cash into teacher's unions.

The problem with funding private education with vouchers (other than the first amendment problem with religion) is that often private schools (particularly better private schools) don't want to deal with the regulation and rules that come with public money. They do just fine on their own.

Then they are free not to take the vouchers and no one is left worse off than they were before.

I like Minnesota's system. Any Minnesota student can go to any Minnesota public school his/her parents want--transportation is the family's problem, but they can send their child to a preferred school if they can get him/her there.

hmm so your main argument against vouchers is that it would funnel money to private schools? If you want parents to be free to take their child to the best educational establishment they can get to why bias against private institutions?
But I like it as well, as it introduces some level of competition and freedom for the parents. Are state funds distributed on a per student basis?