The anxiously awaited Foxpaws' school voucher thread
- Thread starter foxpaws
- Start date
Frogman
Dedicated LVC Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,987
- Reaction score
- 1
Damn it! I need one of them school voucher things! I wants to get me edjumakated! 
Frogman
Dedicated LVC Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,987
- Reaction score
- 1
Damn...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Most authoritarians are.
Cal-I did just what you asked - yes or no - and a sentence.
So, there are lots of whys (will this be more 'entertaining' somehow?) - lets work from the bottom up. One at a time...
At the bottom, I really hate taxation without representation. Taking my money and giving it to a private school is taxation without representation.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Rich parents have school choice for their children. Poor parents should have choice as well.
Private schools are typically superior to government schools. If government schools were competitive, then you'd have an argument.
Private schools are typically superior to government schools. If government schools were competitive, then you'd have an argument.
Foss - is it taxation without representation? That is my first argument against it.
Your post doesn't address that.
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
I disagree with you, I graduated from a Detroit Public School, I have a friend who went to U of D Jesuit, tuition was like 7500 a year, guess who is a manager at McDonald's making maybe 30,000 a year (not me). Just because you go to a private school doesn't make your education experience better that a public school, its all on the student, if the student is motivated and driven, they will suceed.
Can you elaborate on that point?
Because I don't think that's an apt description of it. At least not by our current interpretation of those words, certainly no more than any other kind of government spending or entitlement..
Is it taxation without representation when the government distributes food stamps?
I'd also ask, does this interpretation of your also apply to college funding? Should all students who receive government funding or aid be forced to only attend their local state colleges?
No one is going to argue with you on that point. I think we'd all agree on that point. And I think the point that you're making applies in many circumstances of life, not just which school they attended.
But that's also not the point that Fossten was making either.
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
He was saying private schools are superior the public schools, and I saying private schools aren't. Just because you send you child to a private school doesn't mean they WILL suceed.
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
In addition, why should my tax dollars go towards sending kids to a private, why should my tax dollars go toward sending any kid to any school? LOL Last question was a joke. So the government was me to pay for healthcare, pay for housing, pay for a new car, pay for food, and now send kids to private schools, not to mention the assistance that the government gives to parents to attend college on our tax dollars.
Some private schools are.
But they don't guarantee outcome.
You are right, some aren't.
You're absolutely right.
But noting that YOU had superior drive and motivation, might you have had an ever greater advantage or opportunity had you gone to a better school?
You say it's a joke, but is it?
But if we are going to pay for education for children, does it matter which school that the students go to?
Why does it need to be a government run school? Why should choice be so limited like that? And why should government be in the business/service of buying, building, maintaining, and running schools too? Why do we need to support a government monopoly with our tax dollars.
And usually, when you talk about vouchers for private schools, a portion of what the community spends on public school education is refunded to the parent to spend on the school of their choice. So, if the town spend $7k per student, the parent might get a voucher for $3500 back. So it's not like the taxpayer has to pay twice. it's just a matter of the most efficient use of the money they are already committing to spend.
Cradle to Grave.
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
The choices are limited, because you aren't the only one paying for your childs education, "rich" people can afford to pay to send their kids to private institutions.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I made my own argument in favor. Why don't you address my argument?
Why don't you address mine foss? I stated one of my reasons - you headed off in a totally different path. Do you not have an answer for 'taxation without representation'?
Unlike public schools which have an elected board, private schools do not. I do not have any say over how my money gets spent within a private school.
Cal, food stamps are part of a government program, you are allowed to pressure your representative to discontinue the food stamp program, you can elect government officials that say they will repeal any food stamp program. You have representation in that case.
I do not have any representation at a private school. No board to which I can voice my concerns, or work to have removed by democratic process.
Colleges that have students paying tuition with federal loans or grants have to abide by government regulations and standards, regulations and standards set by my elected officials, I have representation.
Currently private k-12 schools don't have to match the same regulations that public schools are required to maintain. All k-12 voucher programs I have seen do not require private schools to conform to government standards.
Most private schools in fact balk at such government interference.
You're arguing in support of the status quo because it's the status quo.
The choice are limited as they are because that's the system we have right now. You haven't explained why that shouldn't change.
It's not our business how a private institution spends it's money.
The price is dictated by market forces. They can't simply appeal to the city council and attempt to raise our property taxes to generate more money to fuel their wasteful spending, as public schools do. If a private school misuses resources, it goes out of business.
You've conveniently ignored my point entirely.
You have no input in how the entitlement money is spent, or how the vendors who collect the money spend their earnings or run their business. Are you saying that entitlement programs, like foodstamps, are also a form of taxation without representation, and that you are currently opposing them as well?
And to elaborate further regarding education- the public would still have "representation" no different than any program where the county hires a private contractor. A school that has inferior standards or outcomes would be subject to both free market principles as well as being responsible to the community.
To continue your logic, is it taxation without representation when a government outsources the work to be performed? When a private company is hired to run the prison, or fix the road, or collect trash? Why is it so vastly different for government to outsource the assumed responsibility of education as well. And why is it wrong if individuals make the personal educational choices associated with their children, and let the market forces enhance efficiency and competition lead to greater quality.
You've really made an embarrassingly weak argument, foxpaws.
You might as well move on to your next "point."
So, if a community establishes basic standards that have to be met, you'll support it?
A good private school will balk at the intervention of the government in their criteria, curriculum, or culture, not at academic standards. The government shouldn't force a catholic school to stop mentioning God, but it's fair to say that all 9th graders should be able to read and do basic algebra.
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
It shouldnt change because there is no promise that spending more of our tax dollars to send kids to a "private" school will help them in the long run. Why not raise the pay of public school teachers?
There's no promise of anything in this world, however there is strong evidence to suggest that introducing choice and competition into the market of education would be beneficial to everyone.
The cities and towns that have experimented this have shown it to be successful.
And the "Charter Schools" that some areas have established, which is a step in the right direction, have proven to be a beneficial as well.
That wouldn't accomplish anything.
And,frankly, I think public school teachers are paid quite well. Especially after they've spent a few years in the position.
I think I read that the average teacher in Washington, D.C. made $58,000, with benefits, with around three months of vacation time.
Washington,D.C. has the worst schools in the country.
The best school in the country, according to Newsweek Magazine, was the basic Charter school in Tuscon, Arizona. And they make about $40,000 year.
They say they spend $8,322 per student in the D.C. schools, but apparently it's closer to $25,000. according to the Washington Post. Keep in mind, D.C. has the worst schools in the country. But the private school, Sidewell Friends, the school that Clinton sent Chelsea and Obama sends his girls, charges about the SAME AMOUNT per student, while making a profit and returning a world leading education and opportunity to it's students.
The answer to our education problems isn't money.
It's how it's being run. The government doesn't do particularly well.
It has to outsource garbage collection, yet leave it the sole responsibility of educating our children??
I tend to think that one reason politicians and some 'academics' are reluctant to give parents more choice because it would make it more difficult for them to indoctrinate them.
It also tends to reduce the amount of power they have, and it pisses off the extremely political teacher's union.
But, it is my resources it is misusing Cal - it is my business how a private institution who has my money is spending it. If they don't want the government's interference, and telling it how to run its business, then they shouldn't take government funds.
Entitlement programs were voted in by our representatives, they can be taken away if there is enough support for that. We are represented Cal - entitlement program or not. Foodstamps are taken only at vendors who apply for the ability to take them. A government regulated program. They are only allowed for food - not for cigarettes. They are very controlled.
Public education is regulated by the government - just as the quality of roads... But, private schools are not regulated. They currently don't have to meet any standards. Roads have to be inspected by state inspectors and have to conform to the requirements. My tax dollars are being 'represented', the construction must comply to a certain code. The prison you mention - once again, it has to meet government standards for level of care, security, etc. Even the trash collector has to met government requirements - the government sends out a bid, which has requirements stated in it, the trash company has to met the conditions in the bid, or they don't get paid. My tax dollars would not be represented in a private school. There isn't a bid or code that has to be met.
No, I haven't - you haven't shown me where in other places where my tax dollars are being spent that I am being not represented, whether directly by my elected officials, and their votes and laws, or by codes and standards that have been set by government agencies.
But, private schools balk all the time at conforming to government standards. If secular schools would match public school standards across the board, allow for inspections and testing, and also comply to all laws that the public schools have to follow - I think a above line/below line tax credit like college tuition has (a far more fair solution than the voucher system) would be something to look into further - it probably could work.
Last edited by a moderator:
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
Cal have you ever lived in D.C, I just left D.C, I made $62,000, but with the cost of living being so high, I actually made nothing. My 2/2 townhome ran me 1625 a month alone. My stepmom has been teaching in Detroit Public Schools for 15 years, she just started clearing $85,000.
I think that if the Government started holding schools to higher standards, stop trying to cut corners with spending, and started getting these teachers that don't care out of the classrooms, the schools will be alot better, I actually though about getting out of the military and doing a program in Michigan call troops to teachers, but I would be making less and have to put up with more crap than ever. Maybe if vouchers were given to kids that have proven themselves to be deserving of a "private school" education, (which I thinhk is the same as a public) then I would agree to giving those select kids a voucher.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've spent a lot of time in the D.C. area, so I am familiar with the cost of living up there. But thanks for correcting me on the salary information. I understated it.
...or we could just give less affluent families a choice and the opportunity to send their children to schools that do that already.
First, let's note that spending isn't the problem. Japan spends a fraction of what we spend per student yet has one of the best educated populations in the world.
Here's a report on
Does Spending More on Education Improve Achievement
Washington, DC I believe spends the most money per student of anywhere in the country, but they have the worst results.
The education system needs teachers with real world experience, not a bunch of green kids straight out of college with worthless degrees in "education."
What's the point of that?
It doesn't cost the taxpayer more to present the family the opportunity to help send their child to private school. All of the proposals I've seen have had only a fraction of the school districts "cost per student" being made available to the parent for education purposes. So the local school still gets a share of that students budget despite the fact they aren't in the public system.
You readily acknowledge that there are deficiencies in some of the public schools. Especially in less wealthy areas, there's no competition for the education dollars, so the schools have no reason to improve. The only loser then is the student. If there were multiple education providers, you'd see costs go down and quality go up as everyone fought for the business.
As it is now, schools have the efficiency of government, and because of the politics and unions, they have a vested interest in preventing reform. And unfortunately, this is especially true in the most depressed of areas.