School Vouchers - Good or bad idea?

[TragicMonkey]

My opinion is that we shouldn't allow the teaching of nonsense, but we shouldn't require teaching of topics they find offensive.

Well, if I were a college admissions committee, I'm not entirely certain I'd accept candidates from Heart of Christ Christian Academy of Christ High School for a premedical track when they got a 4.0 GPA in "The Glory of God's Creation" I and II, and Honors "Six Days He Wrought The World", and a lovely essay on "How the Bible Is the Complete and Only Truth".

No doubt concerned parents will sue the medical schools eventually.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yes, well, all you're doing is coming up with excuses for freeloading. You're demanding that parents who send their children to private school pay twice, while a parent with a child in government school only has to pay once. Society is still benefiting from the child in private school—in fact, arguably moreso, since the private schools continually perform so much better than the government schools.

The real solution is to end the involvement of government in our schools. You can have public schools without government, you know.

I think parents who want to choose private schools over public schools should pay twice. They're not content with what the rest of the public has, so instead of making it better, they bail out. Fine. That's their choice. Since we're a capitalist country, if they have the money, they can do what they like and pay for a different school. That doesn't excuse them from the social obligation to educate other people's kids. If you want to do a one-to-one accounting, and say Person A has two kids, and should only have to pay for two children's educations...then I guess I don't have to pay at all, since I have zero kids.

The solution is to improve the public schools, since it needs to be done anyway if they're so bad, because of the social obligation to the public school kids.

 

[Tmy]

Yes, well, all you're doing is coming up with excuses for freeloading. You're demanding that parents who send their children to private school pay twice, while a parent with a child in government school only has to pay once.

Heres what pisses me off about vocuhers. As a non parent IM THE ONE PAYING TWICE!

Talk about unfair tax burden. Not only do I provide FREE schooling for the kids of these parents (who by the way also get child tax breaks that I dont) They want me to FURTHER subsidise them becuase "boo-hoo, I dont like the free school. Gimme gimee gimmee." INGRATES!!!!!! This subject really burns me up. the voucher folks remind me of welfare moms who have an inflated sence of entitlement.

The icing on the cake...... schools are one of the few (only?) govt progrmams where the locals have control via school commitees. In short, if your school sucks its your own damn fault.


Imagine if I complained about the quality of the local mass transit sytem, and then demanded a government voucher so that I could buy a car. Friggen nonsense.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Here's a reason why their bad:

Let's say "Questioninggeller" wants to start the "Uri Geller is God High School". Because private schools aren't held to the same standards as public, me and my teachers get the vouchers and use your tax money to fund my cult.



It's a horrible idea that will encourage many BS religions and cults to brainwash kids to get money. Thus, it wouldn't offer better education, if fact only the opposite.

 

[Tmy]

I also object to the assumption that private schools are better than public. There are good and bad in both areas.

Frankly, i think the idea of our "failing public schools" is bogus.

 

[shanek]

I think parents who want to choose private schools over public schools should pay twice.

So then you want an unfair system that punishes parents who try to make the right choices for their child. You also want an unfair system that reduces the choices that poor parents have.

They're not content with what the rest of the public has, so instead of making it better, they bail out.

To quote Penn Jillette, you couldn't be more wrong if your name were W. Wrongy Wrongenstien. Study after study after study has shown that parents taking their kids out of government schools and putting them into private schools benefits the government schools, for two reasons: 1) the government schols aren't as crowded anymore and they can reduce the class size, and 2) the competition encourages them to improve the service.

No, you just want their money. You're selfish and greedy.

That doesn't excuse them from the social obligation to educate other people's kids.

And suddenly no one else has an obligation to educate their kids? You can't have it both ways.

If you want to do a one-to-one accounting, and say Person A has two kids, and should only have to pay for two children's educations...then I guess I don't have to pay at all, since I have zero kids.

Again, works for me.

The solution is to improve the public schools,

But that's not going to happen without effective competition.

 

[shanek]

Heres what pisses me off about vocuhers. As a non parent IM THE ONE PAYING TWICE!

Talk about unfair tax burden. Not only do I provide FREE schooling for the kids of these parents (who by the way also get child tax breaks that I dont) They want me to FURTHER subsidise them becuase "boo-hoo, I dont like the free school. Gimme gimee gimmee." INGRATES!!!!!! This subject really burns me up. the voucher folks remind me of welfare moms who have an inflated sence of entitlement.

What a load of crap! It's THEIR money, NOT yours!

 

[TragicMonkey]

So then you want an unfair system that punishes parents who try to make the right choices for their child. You also want an unfair system that reduces the choices that poor parents have.

So, my not paying for them to skip the education I'm already paying for their kids to have, in favor of a different education, is somehow unfair? I'm willing to pay for one education, provided it meets the requirements of being public--secular, and under supervision of the government, so I have at least a vestige of input as to how the education's going to be run.

The parents can chose whatever they want for their kid's education-- but that doesn't mean I have to pay for it. What, they don't like the free education, so I should buy them another one more to their taste?

To quote Penn Jillette, you couldn't be more wrong if your name were W. Wrongy Wrongenstien. Study after study after study has shown that parents taking their kids out of government schools and putting them into private schools benefits the government schools, for two reasons: 1) the government schols aren't as crowded anymore and they can reduce the class size, and 2) the competition encourages them to improve the service.

I'm not about to get into "study after study" with you, as you tend to flagellate the deceased equine with eternal links and it will all end in this thread being you versus Claus for nineteen pages of purgatory.

I'm arguing from principle here. If the public is paying for a public good, then the public should either accept it or be willing to spend their own money if they don't like it. Hard cheese if the parent's are satisfied--it's their brat, they can pay for extra if they want it.

No, you just want their money. You're selfish and greedy.

Good God, man, are you mistaking me for someone else? Or is sudden ad hom your petulent reaction to anyone daring to disagree with you? If you had bothered to read my posts, you'd have noticed that I've already stated I'm willing to pay for ONE education for other people's kids. It's hardly selfish and greedy to protest at paying TWICE!
And why is it "their" money? I'm paying taxes, too. You're the one who wants my tax money, apparently, to go where other people want it. Is that a Libertarian principle?

And suddenly no one else has an obligation to educate their kids? You can't have it both ways.

When did I say that? The parents of private schooled kids DO have a fully paid for, free education given to them. They're just not using it, which is certainly their choice, but they can hardly complain they have no choice and don't have the offer of public schools whenever they want them.

But that's not going to happen without effective competition.

It's perfectly possible to have decent services without requiring capitalistic competition to take a hand. It just requires effort and attention.


eta: Yeah, there are spelling and grammar mistakes. This is a long post for me, so I'm not bothering to fix them.

 

[Sushi]

There's no such thing as "government money." It's our money.

Quit beating me to the libertarian rhetoric!

 

[shanek]

So, my not paying for them to skip the education

They're not skipping the education. Why are you forcing them to pay for a choice they don't want?

Sure, we'll let you have Pepsi...but we'll still make you pay for Coke!

I'm already paying for their kids to have, in favor of a different education, is somehow unfair?

It is inherently unfair.

I'm willing to pay for one education, provided it meets the requirements of being public--secular, and under supervision of the government, so I have at least a vestige of input as to how the education's going to be run.

Again, it's not YOUR money. It's THEIRS. Your money isn't affected one way or the other. They just want THEIR money going to the school of THEIR choice.

The parents can chose whatever they want for their kid's education-- but that doesn't mean I have to pay for it.

You aren't. Unless, of course, you're selfish enough to consider that their money is somehow yours.

What, they don't like the free education,

It's not free. They're paying for it. And you're going to selfishly force them to pay for it even when they've secured other options.

so I should buy them another one more to their taste?

In no way whatsoever are you paying for it again, in any way, shape, or form. Get over your selfishness and greed and let these parents have THEIR money back.

I'm arguing from principle here.

There's nothing principled about your arguments. You want to take money by force from hard-working families. There's nothing at all principled about that.

If you had bothered to read my posts, you'd have noticed that I've already stated I'm willing to pay for ONE education for other people's kids. It's hardly selfish and greedy to protest at paying TWICE!

Your claim that you are paying twice when you aren't IS selfishness and greed! YOU'RE the one making THEM pay twice!

And why is it "their" money?

Because they worked for it! They earned it!

You're the one who wants my tax money, apparently, to go where other people want it. Is that a Libertarian principle?

No, I don't. Your tax money isn't affected at all. I want THESE PARENTS to have THEIR MONEY that THEY PAID INTO THE SYSTEM back if that system fails them.

It's perfectly possible to have decent services without requiring capitalistic competition to take a hand. It just requires effort and attention.

Can you provide an example? One example of a government project or program that lived up to its initial promises?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Can you provide an example? One example of a government project or program that lived up to its initial promises?

FDIC. The interstate system. Medicare. The military (had the US been conquered lately?). Public libraries.

We seem to have an impasse here. You keep talking about "their" money. What about "my" money? I don't have kids. I'm paying taxes to educate other people's kids. Is it "my" money? Do people with two kids pay twice as much as someone with one kid? The money doesn't belong to individuals when it's taken in taxes; it belongs to the whole, the society, the state, the nation, whatever, and is used accordingly. Education is quite properly, in my view, a worthy object of that expense. And education is in fact being provided, using that money. There are natural expectations for that education, given that it is being provided by the public, the nation, the society. That it act in accordance with the constitution of that nation, specifically the first amendment here, and that it been overseen and run by the government, acting on behalf of the public, state, nation, society (which is its job). I don't see what's so crazy about that.

If people don't like the education offered, they are very, very free to pursue something else for their children. They should not be free, in my opinion, to deduct their contributions as members of the public from the public institutition and say that since they're not playing, they don't have to pay the fee. Society works collectively, and we pool the expenses of public institutions whether we use them or not. I don't visit a lot of national parks lately, or wildlife sanctuaries, and there are a few interstates I'll never use. I can't opt out of paying for them, though.


eta: It seems the key point is that I'm regarding society as a collective, with the government acting as representative of the whole to provide services needed for the whole, but not necessarily for every individual. The opposite appears to be some sort of cafeteria civilization, where every citizen pays for what they use, and merely occupies the same dining room without a greater relationship to the other diners.

 

[Sushi]

So, my not paying for them to skip the education I'm already paying for their kids to have, in favor of a different education, is somehow unfair? I'm willing to pay for one education, provided it meets the requirements of being public--secular, and under supervision of the government, so I have at least a vestige of input as to how the education's going to be run.

I like how religious fundamentalists are having a say in what education some children can have (like evolution)!

You can have a say in education by whether you're willing to pay for education or not.

The parents can chose whatever they want for their kid's education-- but that doesn't mean I have to pay for it. What, they don't like the free education, so I should buy them another one more to their taste?

You forget they pay the taxes, too.

Also, you very wrongly suggest that they are taking up extra money. No, they're just getting their supposed "fair share" back, that is, what they put in, or at least should.

I'm arguing from principle here. If the public is paying for a public good, then the public should either accept it or be willing to spend their own money if they don't like it. Hard cheese if the parent's are satisfied--it's their brat, they can pay for extra if they want it.

They are spending their own money-- in taxes. Then they get a portion of it back saying "you must spend this for education". Later, there will probably be extra requirements for "standards".

Also, I like how you equate "public" with majority. Democracy at its finest!

Good God, man, are you mistaking me for someone else? Or is sudden ad hom your petulent reaction to anyone daring to disagree with you? If you had bothered to read my posts, you'd have noticed that I've already stated I'm willing to pay for ONE education for other people's kids. It's hardly selfish and greedy to protest at paying TWICE!
And why is it "their" money? I'm paying taxes, too. You're the one who wants my tax money, apparently, to go where other people want it. Is that a Libertarian principle?

Questioning one's MOTIVES for taking a position is not ad hominem. An insult is not ad hominem, either. Please learn your fallacies. There is no such fallacy as "saying something that makes me frown".

A much better solution is to just GET YOUR MONEY BACK and then NOT PAY IT IN THE FUTURE. But you don't want that, do you?

When did I say that? The parents of private schooled kids DO have a fully paid for, free education given to them. They're just not using it, which is certainly their choice, but they can hardly complain they have no choice and don't have the offer of public schools whenever they want them.

It's not "given", it's "offered", which means they are not using the resources.




Also, like shanek said, "public education" is possible without government involvement and without "forced donations."

 

[Sushi]

The money doesn't belong to individuals when it's taken in taxes; it belongs to the whole, the society, the state, the nation, whatever, and is used accordingly.

 

[shanek]

FDIC.

You mean the one that caused the S&L crash in the 1980s?

The interstate system.

You mean the one that's constantly in a state of disrepair, where new highways run way over costs and way past schedule?

Medicare.

You mean the one under which seniors are now paying twice as much out of pocket for medical care, even after adjusting for inflation?

The military

You mean the one that's in over 100 countries fostering terrorism, making enemies, and that can't even handle the insurgents in Iraq?

Public libraries.

You mean the ones that censor books and internet access?

You keep talking about "their" money. What about "my" money? I don't have kids. I'm paying taxes to educate other people's kids. Is it "my" money?

Yes. I've already addressed this. Twice.

Education is quite properly, in my view, a worthy object of that expense.

Even though our educational system went from first in the world to 24th since the state and Federal governments took it over?

That it act in accordance with the constitution of that nation,

Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to run an educational system?

I don't visit a lot of national parks lately, or wildlife sanctuaries, and there are a few interstates I'll never use. I can't opt out of paying for them, though.

Tu quoque fallacy.

 

[shanek]

[picture of Karl Marx]

Nicely done!

 

[TragicMonkey]

I like how religious fundamentalists are having a say in what education some children can have (like evolution)!

You can have a say in education by whether you're willing to pay for education or not.



You forget they pay the taxes, too.

Also, you very wrongly suggest that they are taking up extra money. No, they're just getting their supposed "fair share" back, that is, what they put in, or at least should.



They are spending their own money-- in taxes. Then they get a portion of it back saying "you must spend this for education". Later, there will probably be extra requirements for "standards".

See my eta above. I think the conflict here is because I'm viewing the nature of public entities as more than just services in exchange for taxes.

Also, I like how you equate "public" with majority. Democracy at its finest!

I'm not sure what you mean, here. Since this is a democracy, the majority will naturally enjoy some level of dominance. Fortunately there are laws and constitutions to restrict the tyranny of the majority.

Questioning one's MOTIVES for taking a position is not ad hominem. An insult is not ad hominem, either. Please learn your fallacies. There is no such fallacy as "saying something that makes me frown".

Alright then, it wasn't an ad hom. It was merely as rude as it was inaccurate.

A much better solution is to just GET YOUR MONEY BACK and then NOT PAY IT IN THE FUTURE. But you don't want that, do you?

I'm perfectly willing to shoulder my responsibilty, as a member of the public, to pay for the education of the public. I just wish that money to be used in a public institution. Is it so very, very odd to suggest that publicly funded institutions should be public in nature, scope, and control?

It's not "given", it's "offered", which means they are not using the resources.

Which still means they have a choice, and are choosing something else.

Also, like shanek said, "public education" is possible without government and without "forced donations."

Then perhaps you'll be starting up a non-governmental public school system, without government assistance or public funds, to show us how it's done?

 

[Tmy]

What a load of crap! It's THEIR money, NOT yours!

I wish it was "THEIRS". I wouldnt give a crap if the school costs only came out of the parents pockert. But its not just theirs. they take from me too. In fact they take more from me because I dont have kids to write off. So its really more of mine than theirs.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You mean the one that caused the S&L crash in the 1980s?

You mean the one that's constantly in a state of disrepair, where new highways run way over costs and way past schedule?

You mean the one under which seniors are now paying twice as much out of pocket for medical care, even after adjusting for inflation?

You mean the one that's in over 100 countries fostering terrorism, making enemies, and that can't even handle the insurgents in Iraq?

You mean the ones that censor books and internet access?

Shane, is there anything in the universe, any item, event, person, theory, concept, or thing that is flawless? Meaning that someone could not come up with a single criticism of it? The things above have flaws. I didn't say they were perfect. I said they worked.

Even though our educational system went from first in the world to 24th since the state and Federal governments took it over?

And what was the rest of the world like in education at that time?

Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to run an educational system?

I'm not a strict constructionist, and am perfectly willing to allow a country to evolve over the course of the centuries, provided it's not directly contradicting its own constitution. It can change that consitution, if so desired, after all.

Tu quoque fallacy.

I'm not sure why. Publicly funded services which I'm not using, but am still paying for. Why is it tu quoque?

 

[TragicMonkey]

(picture of Marx)

Sorry, is this the 1950's, that saying something sounds similar to Marx automatically makes it wrong?

I guess that the public funds, taken in taxes, don't then belong to the public as a whole, but to each individual, in proportion to how much they pay? So Oprah and Bill Gates are more invested in the civilization than you are, and therefore they are logically entitled to thousands, if not millions, of times more services?

I hate to break it to you, but the nature of civilization itself does have some communistic elements. It's people agreeing to work together and share some things in common.

 

[Tmy]

Even though our educational system went from first in the world to 24th since the state and Federal governments took it over?



.

Oh please. How do you objectivly rank worldwide education systems? BULLFLOP I SAY!!!!