School vouchers: For or against?
 

Yeah, so... discuss. I can't believe I haven't seen this on the board yet.

4

against

4

against

***

Against. They take public school/tax money and fund private/religious schools even. Tax money isn't for private ventures. I know you are gonna use that money for your private school rich boy frat keggers tweedyburd you son of a bitch!

Heh, I love how your imagination works, Mayfuck.

I've heard the first amendment argument a lot, and it has problems on several levels. One, the money doesn't necessarily go to religious schools only--it's the parent's choice. And the money is not funneled directly to any school, again, it's parent's choice. The parent acts as median between the two, thus there is no direct link between church and state even if they do send their child to a religious school.

And to quote an excellent essay from The New Republic:

"School choice critics counter that, while the programs look neutral, they really aren't, because most of the funds end up being spent at religious schools. But this is like claiming that putting out a fire at a church is unconstitutional because the firefighters are primarily helping the church. Looking at education or firefighting as a whole, we see the bulk of the money goes to nonreligious institutions. Roughly 90 percent of all schools throughout the country, public or private, are secular. To follow the fire analogy, it's as if the government used to exclude private schools from fire protection but recently switched to a more even-handed approach--which hardly qualifies as expressing a preference for religion."

That, and you're just limiting poor children's options by not allowing them the opportunity.




[This message has been edited by tweedyburd (edited 07-07-2002).]

Even if parents choose where the money goes, I guess it's the thought of MY money, POSSIBLY going to private institutions that still links this issue with the first amendment. There's no avoiding that. And it's nice and all that you want to give children more options, but the already problematic public school districts don't need to be ensured that they will never be fixed. Public schools are underfunded as it already is.

Now don't get the idea that I endorse throwing money to schools automatically fixes the problem, but I know well enough from my own experience that a lot of public schools are fucked up and it really is a distraction to getting an education. But I guess that's for another argument.

well if your taxes are going towards a shitty school that your kid is legally required to go to, wouldnt you want the chance to use that money towards soemthing better?

gubment cheese shouldnt be the only option

This is hardly the first case in which tax dollars may possibly go to religious causes. How about an old lady who gets her Social Security, and is already fairly well off, and decides to donate that to a religious charity or institute? That, and many other such things, go on ALL THE TIME.

Maybe they are now, but the public school system has had decades to improve itself on several years of decent budgets, with very little improvement.

So if money doesn't fix the problem, then what's the problem with vouchers? If that same money going to fees for that student at a public school doesn't change the school or help it, why limit the child's options?

for.

:-/

Even if you completely ignore the first amendment issue, you still come up with major problems that you are choosing to ignore. First of all, I personally do not think one should use taxpayer money to send a child to a private school, whether or not the private school is religious. Public education exists for a reason, and public monies go to pay for the public education, and for the improvement of public education. It doesn't exist so when the public education gets screwed up you bail out completely and send the kids to some snotty rich kids school. Besides, and this does sort of have to do with the first amendment issue, as far as I know private school curriculums are not regulated by the state. Why should government money pay to send a child to a school to teach them things God knows what? Again, if you want to learn something not approved by the states, use your own money and don't use the public's. And money is if not all-important I think it is still key to fixing ailing schools. With money you get better textbooks, better teachers, better technology, better-lighted buildings, better food, and one would HOPE better-educated students. Vouchers are NOT the solution.

[This message has been edited by Mayfuck (edited 07-07-2002).]

Harry Browne is not gonna be too pleased.

yeah and we are all going to get all of the social security money we paid in

Vouchers don't necessarily guarantee putting poor kids into good private schools. Not only that, but private schools still have jurisdiction over who they want and who they don't want to accept in their schools. And I would imagine private schools might want to consider their independence being threatened if they start accepting money from the government. All this while taxes increase and school budgets are cut. It's a very shaky venture. Why not just continue to improve public schools so they are on par with private schools?

And the first amendment issue thing still stands. It's pretty concrete: Public money going to private/religious institutions. Does it even have to be OUR money? Can't we use private scholarships, tax credits and such?



[This message has been edited by Mayfuck (edited 07-07-2002).]

http://www.lp.org/issues/program/edu.html

"It's no surprise that poor children suffer the most under the current system. Wealthy parents can afford to send their children to better or safer schools. Poor parents have no choice. Their children generally end up in the schools with the worst problems. These children end up at a public school, which is obligated to accept every local student, even those who are not interested in learning or who have a reputation for being disruptive or dangerous. The current system traps poor children in poor schools. This is just one reason that many parents have given up hope that their children will escape the poverty they have known.

To solve a crisis, you must recognize and eliminate its cause. The crisis in education is no different. The most important step is to end government control of education. We must move toward a system where parents have good, safe, affordable choices for educating their children."

that doesn't really say how they're going to get the money to pay for poor children to go to a privatized school system, though. they have some things like financial incentives for business and personal sponsorship of schools and students, but i don't know if that would ever work.

First of all, again, 'the public school system has had decades to improve itself on several years of decent budgets, with very little improvement'. So it's not as if this is 'all of a sudden' or anything. It's not like some of these school's simply have a cold and they're gonna get better in a week or so.

And what this really comes down to for some people is class warfare. It's not about the child's opportunity, it's about class and irrelevantly 'fighting the good fight', and it's about whether some think they shouldn't give in to 'some snotty rich kids school.' Some people have too much pride.

There are countless statistics that show that children who graduate from private schools go on to do better in college, have higher GPAs and SAT scores, etc etc. It's not like their standards are not up to par.

Actually, they have been working quite well in the areas that have been trying them. That's why it was passed in the Supreme Court.

Look, I agree that public education is there for a reason and all that hoopla, and if it's possible for a child to succeed by going to a public school, great. That's the point. But, put yourself in that position. If your child was in a school where he was so distracted by elements he could not control, and the school was simply failing on every concievable level, and his/her future looked as grim you fear, don't tell me you wouldn't give him/her a better opportunity if you had the chance.

well, it's public money, which has been appropriated for education. it is being used for education, and the type of education is being allowed to be decided by the parents of the child. i don't see what's unconstitutional about it.

an atheist paying money for some kid to learn about how god made the world in 7 days is no different than a christian paying for some kid to learn about evolution, as far as religious rights go.

What kind of public relations disastor would that be if a private school didn't accept a qualified child into their school off a voucher?

You're right, these places have standards, but there are competing levels of standards.


Um, no. You're spinning that into something that it's not. It doesn't say in the first amendment anything about 'private', just religious. Take the Social Security analogy. People get that check in the mail each month, and no one cares how they use it, even if it goes to religous charity or institute. It's the same difference as giving money to a parent and then letting them spend it at whichever school they choose.




[This message has been edited by tweedyburd (edited 07-07-2002).]

Oh, um EDIT^

HEY YOU ARE QUOTING ANOTHER WEBSITE TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. THAT MEANS YOU ARE STUPID AND CANNOT FORMULATE YOUR OWN IDEAS.

>:I

Who cares? So long as the kids get what they need to succeed in college, that's all that matters.

If some Muslim kid wanted a voucher to go to an Islamic private school, I wouldn't care. I wouldn't care what they taught (short of jihad, of course), so long as the general education requirments were met and he learned and made it into college.

The social security and vouchers comparison doesn't work. Social Security and vouchers aren't the same however. Vouchers are to fund EDUCATION. Now while the money goes to parents who then decide what they want to do with it, the basic idea is to fund EDUCATION. Social Security is OLD AGE PENSION and works as insurance. That money is intended to fund individuals, not institutions, therefore that is why it is different when Social Security money ends up being used for charities, etc.

And what if they did teach Jihad? http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/wink.gif

(That was me posting as Suze by the way. Forgot to log out of her sn while snooping her PMs :x )

Right? I mean that's what the idiots here said about Suze. Oh looks like tweedyburd did the same too. I guess he doesn't have a mind either!

Okay well people aren't gonna appreciate their money going to some kid's religious/not governmentally approved education. The government represents all people but they aren't doing that by using the people's money to pay for religion, or any other private matter.

I'm going to sleep. Be bax later.

[This message has been edited by Mayfuck (edited 07-07-2002).]

Of course they're intended for different things. What I'm saying is they can just as easily be paralleled. You're arguing about the means when you should be focusing on the possible results.

Students can spend G.I. Bills to attend private religious schools. There are plenty of other examples that never are called into consitutional question.

Well they've been wasting the taxpayer's money on public schools to a large extent for the past 30 years, so...

Sure they can be comparable but only if you want to make the argument you're making. They're just different. It's public education, it's public education being superceded by private education, by using the public's money. It's not social security, and it's not a person in the army going to college. We could go into specifics but I think it's enough to say that most situations aren't really comparable, and I've never really appreciated this sort of nitpicky analogy-making in order to prove a point. Because most cases cannot be simply analogized and filed and put away. Okay, sleep time for real.

i didn't say it. i like suze. except for when she hates me.

but i also only used one quote, and it wasn't even in support of my argument, since i'm not really even making one. i was just showing you the libertarian postition on public education. i don't know their specific stance on vouchers. i'm assuming for, based on that page.

blah blah blah, semantics semantics. ya know.

It's actually a very easy comparison to make, and it's not all that nitpicky, unless of course you're on the other end of the argument and just don't want to acknowledge it http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/wink.gif The same results happen in each circumstance, yet you seem to think they're totally unrelatable because the means are different. They are different, but only in how they're formulated, not necessarily how they're carried out.

The G.I. Bill analogy, in particular, works perfectly because it's governement funded dollars going into an educational institute of choice, whether that be state supported or private/religious.

[This message has been edited by tweedyburd (edited 07-07-2002).]

Isn't there a bonus awarded for picking a private school over a public one under this system?

Against.

(deleted text)

Against
the system is inherently racist. the only ones it's going to help are the middle class that can ALMOST afford to send their white kid to private school, but need that extra 2 or 5k to do so. it's not going to help the poor. and what about borderline (or maybe not so borderline?) racist districts that will keep the price for their school up just high enough so that the lower class (and in many areas minority areas) won't be able to afford it even with the vouchers. it benefits the upper middle class to rich only. ask any fucking public schoolteacher, and they'll all tell you the same thing: AGAINST.

what the hell is a school voucher? inform the canadian!

if you don't want to send your kid to public school, the govt will give you a certain amount of $$ to send it to a private (probably SECULAR) school because you're no longer using the tax dollars you have spent on the public system. to be fair, just because thes upreme court ok'd vouchers it doesn't mean the whole country has them.. it's a state by state thing (fortunately CA said NO THX) but it's still a breach of the first amendment, the 14th amendment and common sense to me.

[quote]Originally posted by Random Female:
[b]Against
the system is inherently racist. the only ones it's going to help are the middle class that can ALMOST afford to send their white kid to private school, but need that extra 2 or 5k to do so. it's not going to help the poor. and what about borderline (or maybe not so borderline?) racist districts that will keep the price for their school up just high enough so that the lower class (and in many areas minority areas) won't be able to afford it even with the vouchers. it benefits the upper middle class to rich only.

Quote:

Originally posted by Random Female: ask any fucking public schoolteacher, and they'll all tell you the same thing: AGAINST.

That's not why they're against it. The Dems are in bed with the teaching unions for a reason--votes. And that's why they're against this legislation. Which is strange because liberals are the supposed champions of fighting for the benefits/options of people on lower rungs of the economic ladder.

Oh, and 5k per semester is often plenty to send a child to a number of private schools. To be fair, it may be a distance, and that's the only real problem here.

And it's also funny to see the race card played when recent surveys have shown that 60% of black Americans support the voucher cause.