[I think] there was a thread about this topic floating around earlier, but I don't like thread necromancy.

What are people's opinions on the idea of the government providing vouchers that would allow people to shop around for a publicly-funded education provided by private educators?

What influences that opinion?

Great idea. That, or just directly attach the amount of money budgeted to each individual child to the child, rather than some government school bureaucracy, and let the parents decide which shool they send the kid to. Schools competing for your business - what a boon for our education system that would be.

Belgium does this, and it works great for them. Their students kick our students' ass on tests.

To me it seems like a fine idea. Education really is an individual thing, and the public system in the US as it stands just isn't versatile enough to meet everybody's needs.

I was lucky and got out of the public system in eighth grade and into a school that not only met my needs but also scholarshipped me until my family could afford it (and it wasn't exactly a small margin, either). Not every good school can do that and I think if the government could open up choices by taking the money that would otherwise go into a public school and make it a "just go to a school accredited by x body" then we'd be in much better shape.

I've heard concerns that it would drain money from public schools. Sounds like a valid concern to me, because students whose needs are met by the public system or whose parents are too curmudgeonly to take them out deserve at the least a decently-funded education. My first response, though, to that concern is to wonder: how much would the public schools would need it if they had fewer students?

Money should be drained from public schools and put to use where it will be used more effectively. Our politicians owe us that stewardship. They don't owe school bureaucrats and teachers unions anything. Its our money - it should be directed where it will best be spent. (Can anyone disagree with that basic principle - that politicians should spend our money where it will do the most good?)

Public shools underperform miserably. Several studies have shown a 30 percentile difference in performance between students educated in public schools and students educated (get this) at home. At home. Home schooled kids do better.

This means rank amateurs get better results at their kitchen table than government-paid professionals do in million-dollar facilities. By a margin of 30%.

If some busybody amateur can outperform our public schools at home, imagine what a professional working in a private school can do. Maybe private schools underperform home schooled kids too because of the one-on-one factor present in homeschooling. The point is, parents should be able to choose.

Politicians who support public schools (teachers unions) and oppose voucher systems where the taxpayer's money follows his student take advantage of the fact we pay them well and care enough about their own kids to send them to private schools.

Hilary Clinton called public schools the "cornerstone of democracy" and Bill Clinton said he was "unalterably opposed to a voucher system to give people public money to take to private schools." Chelsea went to private schools, not the to the cornerstone of democracy.

Here's another kicker - private schools and charter schools can educate your kids for less money than the government schools can, and do a better job of it.

Public schools are pathetically inefficient. If you make a graph with one line representing the amount (adjusted for inflation) being pumped into government schools, it rises on a steep trajectory. Another line, representing academic performance - results, is at best a flat line.

Oh yeah, as for the concern about the kids who might be hurt by a voucher system because their parents are too apathetic to bother. Tough shit. My first concern is for the 80 or 90% that would exercise their choice and get their kids a proper education, not the lazy fuckers. Then again, once government schools have some competition, who knows, maybe they'll improve. They sure as hell won't as long as we continue pumping more and more money into their government enforced monopoly.

Come now, talking with Rasczak can be interesting, but I'd like to hear from others, too.I'm not certain it's accurate to say that people who would stay in the public system are "lazy fuckers". There may be some people who genuinely do benefit from it or find it an adequate system- and I imagine that that number might increase if the current load of students was eased somewhat by an exodus to private schools and public schools had some real competition from private schools.

There are also students with parents whose heads are unfortunately too far up their asses to realize that the public system doesn't work for their kid. I've lost count of the number of times there were kids who enrolled in the same private school I did for a term, benefited enormously but their parents withdrew them for some inane reason (usually because we had a student body that hovered around 15 or so, meaning there's no way to get their kid away from one or two "bad influences") and put them back in public.

Saying "well, their parents are lazy fuckers so we'll underfund the kid and make sure they can't get the best education they can in the only place their parents will let them go" is kind of screwy to me. Somehow public schools have a lot of mindshare and I imagine even if vouchers did happen the number of students enrolling with them would be minimal at first.

Public schools are usually way overcrowded. The best teacher can only do so much when they have four or five classes of 30 to 40 students every day. Teaching actually isn't that hard- the best teachers I've ever had weren't even certified, they just knew and loved their subjects and wanted to teach. Training can augment and refine a person's effectiveness, but if they don't care about what they're teaching and are teaching because they can't get a job elsewhere, no amount of money will make them a good teacher.

The more important factor is that a (good) teacher have a job that they can actually do, and when you're dealing with teenage-and-youngers, the fewer you have to deal with, the more doable it becomes.

I agree that parents should be able to choose; I also think that part of the public system's problems stem from too many students and that if some were siphoned off into the private system the public one would also enjoy improvement.

I agree with Rasczak on this one. Though i think here in Denmark the public schools works quite fine, but then again the economical system works almost like described, i think.

One can choose the public school one prefers. I think it's a little different with private schools, but not much. If my children were to go to a private school, i wouldn't have to pay more than about 100$ per month, the rest i would get from the state, paying me what my child would have used in public school. Of course 100$ is money, but on the other hand, it's not the world if you decide to sign the kid up for private school. It can be found in most private monthly households.

I doubt you'll hear anything substantial. The evidence against government schools is too clear and condemning.

There are also students with parents whose heads are unfortunately too far up their asses to realize that the public system doesn't work for their kid. I've lost count of the number of times there were kids who enrolled in the same private school I did for a term, benefited enormously but their parents withdrew them for some inane reason (usually because we had a student body that hovered around 15 or so, meaning there's no way to get their kid away from one or two "bad influences") and put them back in public.

Saying "well, their parents are lazy fuckers so we'll underfund the kid and make sure they can't get the best education they can in the only place their parents will let them go" is kind of screwy to me. Somehow public schools have a lot of mindshare and I imagine even if vouchers did happen the number of students enrolling with them would be minimal at first.[/quote]

You must be so completely in agreement with me, the only thing left to pick nits over are the parents you called curmedgeonly. Call them whatever you want, make whatever excuses for them you like, my overall point about the need for choice stands nonetheless. In the end, it isn't about what the parents can do, its about what we're paying for. Private schools can and do more for less. Untrained parents do more for nothing. Propping up government schools makes the worst option not only available, but virtually the only option for a significant majority of parents.

Of course, the poor and minorities are the hardest hit by our craptastic government schools the Democrats prop up. For some reason, there is a huge difference in the academic performance of minorities compared to whites in government schools, but among homeschooled children, (and I'm betting private schooled children) the difference in performance vanishes. All kids, regardless of background do well, and the disparity in performance between whites and minorities vanishes.

Basically, and at the risk of sounding like a race baiter, you have these rich white Democrats who send their own kids to private schools telling black people in the urban areas "We know what's best for you, we can't risk giving folks like you choices, we're going to keep you right where you're at. Feel good because I'm paying special attention to you even if there aren't results. Now be good, and go vote for us like you always do."

This is true - no amount of money will improve crappy schools either.



The solution to crowded schools isn't filing as big a chunk of the population like cattle into the one system where there's no incentive to produce results.


The bigger problem is government schools don't have to compete or even prove results in most cases. Look at all the whining about testing. This is the dumbest thing I've heard, and its a self-licking ice cream cone, because the people making the dumb argument are the ones producing the dumbells who buy it.

They always argue that testing is counter-productive because teachers will focus their teaching on making sure the students pass the test.

For starters, at least they'll be focusing on teaching them something. Look how many kids are leaving the system not knowing how to read as it is.

Secondly - fix the teachers and the tests. They both can be replaced. Its easier to fix the test - make sure the tests are different each time taken, administered by a neutral entity, and comprehensive. Its not rocket science.

If the argument that these teachers are so slippery and willing to cheat, that's all the MORE reason for testing, not less. If they're willing to cheat and be lazy while being tested, imagine how they are if not held accountable for producing results.

Of course, this principle sounds fine. The problem is - who determines the definition of "the most good"? It seems to me that part of the representative political systems we live under is we pass this decisions on to the politicians. That's what they get elected to do.

Oh for crying out loud. Come on. Are you really that frighted of taking a position that you have to hedge every time you even brush up against taking a position?

You mistakenly think you buff your credibility with nonsense like that, but you have passed being flexible; now you are limp. Nauseatingly so. Tedious.

When it comes to the core issue of this thread - educating kids, do you need someone to tell you what is good and what isn't? Is it ever good when kids leave the school system unable to read?

You seem to be missing the point entirely. Taking our local school system which may or may not be similar to yours, I don't know - there is a lot of disagreement about the amount of Government funding that private schools get. Many people think that funding (in some cases they receive more Gov funding than public schools, believe it or not) would be more directed to "where it will do the most good" by giving it to schools in poorer areas where child to teacher ratios are worse. Of course there are others (those whose kids go to the private schools in question naturally) who go on about how vital the private schools are by taking a burden off the public schools, and if their funding is decreased they would lose students due to needing to decrease their basic services (or perhaps some of their luxuries), so therefore the funding does "the greater good" by giving it to the private schools. Personally my feeling is education, along with health, welfare and basic infrastructure, is one of the basic needs of the society, and should be available equally to all. If subgroups are not happy with what the society provides, they are free to set up private alternatives at their own expense, but shouldn't expect Government (i.e. public) financial support to do so.

Personally its a touchy post for me..the voucher was being introduced as an idea as my kids were beginning to complete school. They both attended public schools but for a time my daughter attended a Christian school. I put her in a Christian private school for 3 years and she wanted to go back to the public school. In that particular situation she wasnt really happy in either at the time. My son has slower academic skills and had trouble socializing in general..My daughter is soring through college and working on her masters degree. Two totally different children with two totally different brains, so sometimes the public schools can matter and sometimes not. Well not in my case with my kids. However the proof is in the pudding..homeschooling works..vouchers will work..public schools..and I really abhor saying this..but they have been heading South for years.

I was to home school my boy for at least 4 years for junior high..but he was in rebellion and moved to his fathers..so my first year of materials cost me about $550.00 for $900.00 worth of home school materials..I lost out on the money..but my heart was broke more over with the boy being in rebellion..needless to say..so..I will never know about what could have been..Had I the opportunity to use vouchers..you bet I would have..

Sherri

1. It isn't government money, its taxpayer-generated money.

2. I don't want any of this taxpayer money to go to either kind of school, so to speak, I want the same amount to go to each student.

3a. Some schools can do more (in terms of quality education) with that money than others. The parents decide, not Barack Obama - who, incidently, when to elite private schools, or John McCain.

3b. All I want to bean counters in government doing is making sure the taxpayer money budgeted for education is distributed evenly.

4. If the "subgroups" who aren't happy are not happy with what government provides, and they have to set up these private alternatives, it is only right that at the very least, they get their money back. Its bad enough the government is making people who choose not to have kids pay for other's education, worse to ask someone to pay for their own kids AND other kids. (The ideal situation would be a completely private system where government is out of the education business altogether.)

I think this is not so straightforward. There is an issue of whether these people wish to be a part of the society or not. And if they do, they should contribute to it's provision of collective services. Your assumption in this point suggests to e that if I decide to be self-sufficient, grow my own food and not drive anywhere, perhaps I should have any portion of my taxes that pay for roads refunded too.

To my mind, taxation is decided by the Government and the Government is chosen by the people in one way or another. Either you want to be a part of the society or you don't. If you don't want to participate in society, you won't most likely get taxed much (but don't expect a lavish lifestyle either as that is provided by the society and the opportunities it affords you). It is of course one thing to argue for a different tax system (as you do), but expecting anything to change is another thing - that won't happen until some critical point is reached in popular opinion (probably a lot more than a majority too).

Parents who raise well-educated children are contributing to society and very much a part of society, arguably moreso than those who park their kids in some government school holding tank without concern over the quality of education their kids get. Their kids have an education superior to that of the government-educated kids. Educating your children is something you can do self-sufficiently and on an individual basis, building yourself roads wherever you want to go is not. Your analogy falls a little short there. Social Security (retirement fund) is another program people should be able to opt out of, not have to pay the government to screw up and mismanage for them, and handle on their own.

This is why it is important for Americans like me to spread awareness that our government school system is a disaster. Being part of society doesn't mean you have to fall in lock step with everything the government and unions want to do, whether you agree or not. By making education an issue, I'm doing my wee little part to work towards changing it.

I would have thought a better approach 'for the greater good' is to improve the public education system so that all kids get the better quality of education.

As for the analogy - OK you don't like the roads example. How about libraries as another example? Or upkeep of National Parks? Or protection of endangered species? It seems tricky to be able to decide which parts of government services you should be allowed to elect out of, but not others. Who draws the line or guidelines on what is electable?

Making government schools compete with more efficient and productive shools is the best way to improve the availability of quality education. You're hung up on improving just the government system, not what is available. You seem to have confused means with the end.

People should be able to opt out of things they can do individually for themselves. They can't supply their own library, have their own personal roads or state park, and control the welfare of endangered species.

They can buy their own health care, retirement plan, food, transportation, etc.

You really couldn't see the difference on your own?

Ummmm ... you say tomayto , I say tomato? Just because there are currently some problems in public education, does not mean that the fault is a systemic failure with the very concept of public education.

I don't see such a clear difference as you make out. What is to stop a private library from existing, using private member fees to fund its existence, buying books and paying and staff? I would say nothing - but the simple fact is it is more efficient and effective for the society (aka Government in this case). Unfortunately for any people out there who don't like the idea, or would never use a public library - it's just their bad luck.

Roads are an extreme example of why public maintenance and funding of some things is necessary due to practicality - probably why it gets used as an example a lot in discussions about privatisation.

Maintenance of parks and protection of species? Why couldn't it be a situation where it's left up to non-profit organisations like Greenpeace to handle - those who want to contribute can donate to the charities, in the same way as some people say welfare should be handled (I suspect including you but my memory fails me)?

Likewise there is nothing to stop a purely non-privatised public transport system from existing - it just wouldn't be as suitable to everyone's needs as a system where people can buy/sell/drive their own cars.

Your simple splitting things as "able to opt out of things they can do individually for themselves" makes no sense. Examples you give are mostly things they don't do for themselves, they pay others to do for them. And you can pay someone else to do anything - theoretically.

You're building a bit of a strawman there