School Vouchers

[Grammatron]

Works for me, but how do vouchers achieve that?

I can see the problems that might arise, as the school will probably have to jump through some hoops in order to get the voucher money. But it will most certainly be better than giving money to some over blown entity like LAUSD that goes through money faster than a college kid with a credit card, and it has almost nothing to show for it.

 

[Tmy]

Geez, parents are like old people. GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE. As if they dont get enough child based tax credits. At what point do you stop milking uncle sam.

The govt has to provide transportation to schools. Are you now entitled to a transportation voucher. The govt subsidizes lunch. You want a lunch voucher?? Do home schoolers get a big fat check too?

What is the point of school vouchers? To improve schools. What if your school district is performing just fine, how do you justify vouchers. What if a poor school improves to acceptable levels? Do you end the vouchers and pull Jr. back out of his private school?

 

[Upchurch]

You don't think Vouchers could improve the horrible inner city schools?

Well:

1) I was trying to point out the differences between the GI Bill and school vouchers.

2) I was also trying to show how school vouchers would equate to taxation without representation. I admit it's something of a stretch, but I do believe it's a valid argument.

3) I think vouchers will "improve" inner city schools by forcing them to close down with the additional consequences that such occurances hold. (The city of St. Louis just closed something like 16 of the city public schools, including one just down the street from my house. Trust me, it's been a nightmare. The community out cry alone, while misguided, has been amazing.)

4) I really like making lists.

 

[Grammatron]

Well:

1) I was trying to point out the differences between the GI Bill and school vouchers.

2) I was also trying to show how school vouchers would equate to taxation without representation. I admit it's something of a stretch, but I do believe it's a valid argument.

3) I think vouchers will "improve" inner city schools by forcing them to close down with the additional consequences that such occurances hold. (The city of St. Louis just closed something like 16 of the city public schools, including one just down the street from my house. Trust me, it's been a nightmare. The community out cry alone, while misguided, has been amazing.)

4) I really like making lists.

The idea is that private schools will open up because.... Well this is just too good of a business opportunity to pass up.

 

[Occasional Chemist]

The idea is that private schools will open up because.... Well this is just too good of a business opportunity to pass up.

Assuming you're talking about inner-city schools and schools in poor rural areas, why would private schools want to open up there? People won't have the money to pay for the education. If you're take a "private" school and fund it solely by vouchers / tax money, aren't you just creating a public school with board members you can't unelect?

 

[Upchurch]

The idea is that private schools will open up because.... Well this is just too good of a business opportunity to pass up.

Well, at the risk of pulling a Helen Lovejoy, is what is good for business good for the education of the kids? And how do we assure that?

Edited to add: The Chemist has a good point in the previous post, as well.

 

[Lurker]

How many of those "horrible inner city schools" are private schools? How can you fix a problem with government schools by giving money to private schools?

And even if no students transferred from one of these horrible public schools to a private school you would be reducing the budget of the public schools. Thus, they have even less money to educate their students.

Lurker

 

[Upchurch]

And even if no students transferred from one of these horrible public schools to a private school you would be reducing the budget of the public schools. Thus, they have even less money to educate their students.

Which, as we've seen in STL, would probably end up in the closing of multiple public schools resulting in consulidated school districts, which means longer bus rides, etc.

 

[Grammatron]

Assuming you're talking about inner-city schools and schools in poor rural areas, why would private schools want to open up there? People won't have the money to pay for the education. If you're take a "private" school and fund it solely by vouchers / tax money, aren't you just creating a public school with board members you can't unelect?

I am talking about vouchers, and they way you "unelect" someone in the voucher system is take your voucher to a different school.

 

[Grammatron]

And even if no students transferred from one of these horrible public schools to a private school you would be reducing the budget of the public schools. Thus, they have even less money to educate their students.

Lurker

Except of course the vouchers those students will bring to the school.

 

[Supercharts]

I still have not heard a good argument.
Why should the Tax Payers support a Public school?

And... why can't parents decide for themselves how their children should be schooled?

It's, IMO, this:

Congress can make the Rules.
If I want to send my child to a "public" (ie. supported by taxes) school OR to a private school who cares?

The GI BILL implys that Congress can do anything they want. The GI BILL has set a precedent. SCOTUS has never said a word about it.

Think about it.

I can school my children at home. No one gives a "cheeseburger" about it. Pass MCAS and you are in.

Capiche?

PS: Hal? I need another vectdive than "Cheeseburger". Please work on it. Thanks.

 

[Occasional Chemist]

I am talking about vouchers, and they way you "unelect" someone in the voucher system is take your voucher to a different school.

I'm aware of the "vote with your feet" approach. I just doubt that in poor areas there will be anywhere for these people dissatisfied with their schools to go.

 

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Lurker
And even if no students transferred from one of these horrible public schools to a private school you would be reducing the budget of the public schools. Thus, they have even less money to educate their students.

Except of course the vouchers those students will bring to the school.

Currently, the public schools are funded by tax dollars regardless of whether the child attends or not. Let us say, for argument, that right now 10% of children attend private schools.

With vouchers, with no students transferring, publich schools would get a 10% reduction in their budgets right away as those who have always been in private schools would put their voucher money in their private school.

So, to allow vouchers means you will immediately cut budgets for public schools. Something to consider.

Lurker

 

[Occasional Chemist]

I still have not heard a good argument.
Why should the Tax Payers support a Public school?

On that note, why should taxpayers support public roads?

And... why can't parents decide for themselves how their children should be schooled?

They can. Like you say, you can school your children at home.

It's just that it's in the country's best interests to have those that can vote at least minimally educated. Hence, public schools.

The GI BILL implys that Congress can do anything they want. The GI BILL has set a precedent. SCOTUS has never said a word about it.

Think about it.

I still don't see how it's relevant. The GI Bill can be seen as one of the ways the military pays its soldiers (i.e. its employees). I think you'd be better off looking at grant programs (Pell, etc.) and trying to make your point off of those.

 

[Upchurch]

And... why can't parents decide for themselves how their children should be schooled?

Turn it around. Why should certain private, unelected individuals have absolute say on what is done with public money? That gives more political power to citizens with children than to those without.

The GI BILL implys that Congress can do anything they want. The GI BILL has set a precedent. SCOTUS has never said a word about it.

As I said, the difference is that the GI BILL is an benefit that soldiers earn. School vouchers are unearned public money that a class of society (i.e. the childless) has no say in what happens to it.

Further, there will be situations where those with more children, but who pay less taxes, have control of a greater amount of the funs than someone with fewer children but who pay more taxes.

Think about it.

likewise.

 

[shanek]

So, to allow vouchers means you will immediately cut budgets for public schools. Something to consider.

Which may be a good thing. If government schools everywhere are like the ones around here, they need something to force them to spend money efficiently.

 

[karl]

2) I was also trying to show how school vouchers would equate to taxation without representation. I admit it's something of a stretch, but I do believe it's a valid argument.

My personal objection to that argument would be that you'll get taxation without representation anyway. When a public school buys even a packet of pencils, tax money goes to a private corporation that you have no control over.

If it's OK for a city or region to buy, for example, office supplies from a private company, why can't they buy education?

 

[shanek]

It's just that it's in the country's best interests to have those that can vote at least minimally educated.

Educated, or indoctrinated? Most of the problems and misconceptions about liberty and the Constitution and Federalism, in my experience, come about because people are just plain being taught the wrong things in government schools...and they just happens to be the things that cause people to accept an intrusive Federal government.

 

[Occasional Chemist]

Which may be a good thing. If government schools everywhere are like the ones around here, they need something to force them to spend money efficiently.

Can you make the claim that a private company in the same situation would spend the money any more efficiently than the public school? It's NOT self-evident.

For example, public schools have open-door policies and cannot refuse to admit costly special needs students. Most of the private schools I've dealt with simply don't admit these people for one reason or another. This lowers cost-per-student considerably at the private schools.

 

[Upchurch]

My personal objection to that argument would be that you'll get taxation without representation anyway. When a public school buys even a packet of pencils, tax money goes to a private corporation that you have no control over.

Yes, no one has control of the microscopic level. That's why we elect school boards and hire administrators. Note, I said "we elect". While I have no (nor would I want) direct control over what packet of pencils the school buys, I do have control over who makes the decision (i.e. the administrator who is hired by the elected school board). That control and accountability goes away when that money is given to a private school. Private schools are only accountable to the parents who bring the public money to them. They are not accountable to the general public that provides the public money.

If it's OK for a city or region to buy, for example, office supplies from a private company, why can't they buy education?

The difference is, when the city buys office supplies, they are still held acountable for what happens to those supplies. When cities provide money to a specific class of citizens to use at their descression, there is no accountability to the city itself.