*DAMN R6 Forum

Even before the current issues with the economy, the American schooling was very poor.  Compared to Canada, Japan, and Western Europe, the average school here is bordering on piss poor.  There are plenty of statistics I've seen at least comparing Japan and US performance, although most of what I'm basing this on is not statistically based, just things I've seen and that are generally considered correct.  The US school system is worse, not only than most developed countries, but many developing countries as well.  It is a huge concern for America IMO.

Now, under Dubya who is the second coming of the "Education President" he stressed No Child Left Behind.  Yet when state budget difficulties caused huge cuts in the school's ability to teach, he has done absolutely nothing.  He seems to be following the strategy, Every Child Left Behind.

Here in Colorado they recently passed a law that will allow students who are in low-performing schools to be given money (taken from the school) to attend a private school.  While this is great for a few individual students, it is worse for students as a whole because what is left is a school less capable of teaching than it was before.  It is largely a conservative push to privatize education.  Education is something that shouldn't be privatized though.  Everyone needs an education, and unless the government is going to see fit to pay completely for everyone's private educations, then they should only see fit to pay for public education.

With rising costs of college educations, the American education problem is also there.  The amount of people in America with college educations is much lower than many other developed nations.

Those of us here are probably the lucky ones, we go to the better schools (perhaps private), we have personal finances to allow for attending college, but we are hardly the average in this forum.  Just like I doubt anyone's parents here are making the average, $25k/year.

I simply think the country needs to actually focus on improving the education, not just making empty promises like certain presidents.

The Bush administration pushing private school vouchers is like NORML pushing medicinal marijuana - it seems like they have honest intentions, but their real goal is far different (go NORML!). No Child Left Behind is just empty rhetoric that does nothing to help our kids or teachers, who are grossly underpaid. This is an area that needs far more money if it is expected to improve or succeed. We need to keep our public schools strong, well-funded, unbiased (church and state separation and the like), and filled with qualified, intelligent teachers. It is absolutely imperative to the upkeep of a strong civilization. The Bush administration has already invoked two of Big Brother's three mottos from 1984: "War is Peace", and now "Ignorance is Strength". Scary.

btw 500th post. w00t0r

I can't wait for either of you to pay your school taxes.  Really I can't.

The voucher system was proposed here a few years ago, and I'm all for it.  Why should I pay for a public school if I'm sending my kid to private school?  All it does is give me part of the money I paid for public schools back, to spend on the private education.  

Oh, and it's actually better for public schools, not worse.  They do get to keep some of the money I paid in the school taxes and they have one less student to teach with it.  That is a net profit.  Helps solve some of that over crowding that is a big issue.  Think about it, they will have slightly more money per student, so every student that takes advantage of it gives a better student to money ratio.

Tasty, this is another case of I don't care if he does the right thing for the wrong reasons.

I think vouchers can be an OK deal, I just don't think the voucher plans that are proposed are. I think its fine - as long as the private schools have no religious affiliation. I don't want any more government money going to religion than already does. The theocrats are angry that they can't teach the bible in schools so this was their next best deal. All education is social programming - and I don't want the next generation of kids growing up in a government funded religion because their parents wanted to escape failing inner city schools.

Tasty, at least in Colorado it is the parent's perrogative of if they use the voucher to send to a religious or secular private school.  So I'm not sure how valid the religion argument is.  I of course worry more about giving parents too much rights over their kids.  Many kids I know are forced into being more religious than they wish by parents and thus would go to a religous school they have no desire to attend.

Bucc, your argument that you shouldn't have to pay for a public school when you are sending your child to a private school is somewhat like saying you shouldn't have to pay for any public services you don't intend to use.  But if only those using it pay for it, the point of having public goods is defeated.  The point of public goods is that everyone pays for it and everyone can use it.  You have the choice not to but are not excused from supporting it because of that choice.

Additionally, are you sure that the vouchers are less than the school taxes paid.  If that is the case I really don't get the point of vouchers because the amount paid for the public schools is less than most private schools I know of (the one my friend went to is more than my college).  If the purpose is to help students in poor schools (which tend to be in poor neighborhoods) even with the voucher they won't be able to afford a private school.  I assume the private schools that are affordable are the religious ones that probably get subsudized by either corresponding churches or other religious people who want to make religious indocrination as cheap as possible.  In this case, tasty's fear would be more real.

Bush is no education president, you shoulda seen the stupid shits they produced (like Pyrex) outta those schools. Bush's Texas did not have a good education system.

Well, you know politicians, they don't need to show results to make claims about their policies.  Aparently both Bushes were given the title education president because in their campaigns they made it one of the key issues.  That they have done almost nothing to show that they are committed to education doesn't bother them or many others apparently.

     But a school is only weakly comparable to other public services. Electricity is electricity is electricity, all that matters is if the lights go on when you flip the switch. An education is an entirely different ball of wax, since a given education can be considered better or worse than other educations, both objectively and subjectively. Vouchers appeal to the Libertarian in me, in that it forces the schools to compete for students (that is, for money). Competition among suppliers of a good or service is, in almost every case, good for the consumers and for the industry as a whole.

     All schools should be better-funded and all teachers should be better-paid. But that's not going to happen, because Americans can't visualize or plan more than five years ahead. Any positive effects of changes to school funding will take longer than five years to be apparent, and therefore are invisible to taxpayers and legislators. All they see is funnelling money into a system to no effect. Therefore, procuring across-the-board funding increases will never happen. Therefore, a system such as vouchers is needed, to get the money to where the [tax]paying consumers (parents and students) want to put it. Vouchers will hurt the worst schools. They will be forced to become competitive or die. That is a good thing. Vouchers will greatly help the best schools. That is a good thing. Bring on the competition.

Vouchers, vouchers, vouchers.  What a disturbing idea.

First off, I have one thing that may be a misconception, so I'd appreciate if anyone knows for certain.  As you know, there are tax incentives for donating to charities and the like - basically a way for you to decide where you want your tax/societal improvement dollars to go without the government deciding for you.  Now, am I correct in thinking that a donation to a private school counts for these credits?  In that case, there would be no need for vouchers. . .Anyway, if I'm wrong there, it doesn't matter because:

1.  Many tax funds are not earmarked, and for good reason.  Every person in a society shares some of the burden to pay for it's upkeep.  If we all paid only for the services we personally used, many things wouldn't be able to sustain themselves.  
2.  Furthermore, many of the poorest people would shoulder the largest burden.  If other services were taxed by need, those who used the services most - often those who need them - i.e. the poor - would be paying for them.  Most of them cannot afford any greater taxation.  Vouchers really are just a disguised form of regressive taxation.  It's a great idea if you're at the top of society, but not for the other 90% of people.  
3.  If the government is providing vouchers, the schools will either suffer or the parents of public-schoolers will have to pay more.  The loss of each child won't save the school much money since its primary costs come from teacher salaries, supplies, and simple utility costs.  
4.  Thus the cost is about the same, but the group of people paying the taxes is smaller - and less affluent at that, since the people remaining in public school would be the poorer ones who could not afford private school.
5.  Keep in mind that voucher plans either do not completely pay for private school (i.e. only refund the estimated cost of a public school education) or they pay for all of it, which ultimately costs the school even more money.
6.  Finally, everyone has an interest in education, just as everyone has an interest in the other things tax money goes to, like roads, health care, and the like.  (See # 1).  It's in the best interest of society for children to be educated, and short of sending everyone to private school - an unrealistic idea financially - there must be a solid education system available to the public.  Shortchanging that system by allowing people to opt out harms everyone.  Even old maids with no children arguably have an obligation to the school system, since education provides the framework to society itself.  Thus they too pay taxes, as should all parents.  Furthermore, the school system could be looked at a generation different - as being paid for by those who went through it.  No matter what your children do - you could theoretically be paying for your own education.

Tasty's points about religion are equally important - and good reasons why the current plans are so bad.  

Loth, here is my issue with what you said...you say public schools should compete or die.

What happens if they choose the latter, something that is probably more likely when funding is lowered.  Well then, you lose a public school and have a large number of people without a school.  Now either they all go to private schools, or they re-district and are added to other schools.  This creates overcrowding at other schools and kills them off.  One by one, public schools are killed off until there are none left.  Now the voucher program only basically cuts the taxes to the person so that they can spend it on private school, it does not actually give them money.

In the new private only system, only the richer portion of kids will be able to afford private schools leaving the poorer ones uneducated and damning them to be poor forever.  Now if you suggest that all students be subsudized to go to private school, then the costs are so great it will be just like having public schools again, only now you have the issues of religion, unlicensed teachers, lack of educational standards, etc that go with private schools (not that the educational standards are great at public schools, as was the point of this thread).

Hehe, odd that we are talking now about the public vs. private issue, I just started reading Jennifer Government, the book by the guy who runs nationstates.  It is largely about how the US and its affiliated nations are completely privatized whereas Europe and China are quite nationalized.  A very fun read so far for anyone who was curious.

Oh and about the public goods thing...while electricity is either there or not, many other public goods like police services, medical services, etc do get better with more funding and even though I may never need a police officer (I really don't need them pulling me over giving me $250 fines) I wouldn't say I shouldn't have to pay for them.  This goes to Jennifer Government again where emergency services are privatized and check for your ability to pay before providing service resulting in problems.  Anyway, I think clearly some public services need to be paid for (whether school is or isn't one of those is obviously up for debate) and you can't just charge based on use.

Read this article...

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=24471

Not endorsing it or anything, just bringing another view into the argument. The author makes arguments for privatizing education and the effects it would have.

"Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005'

[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][TCP/IP Sockets]SQL Server does not exist or access denied.

/news/includes/globals.asp, line 21"

I see you got some real computer geniuses over there in Westwood. Can't play football, can't play basketball, can't use a computer... can you do anything right?




But enough of bashing FUCLA and back on topic. I think that while I may agree with the voucher system conceptually (ie you can send your kids where you want with your education taxes), it is not a practical system. Many schools have problems with funding already, so taking their money isn't going to help things. You say that a small portion of the money still goes to the school if you use your voucher elsewhere, but this isn't enough. A school with more students will have to find space for them, but on the whole they will have more cash for stuff like computer labs and other types of facilities that aren't relative to the number of students in a class.

Loth, you mention electricity as a fairly constant public good, while the quality of education can be more varied. I think we should strive to have high quality education for everyone. This doesn't mean there still won't be some better schools and some worse, but we should have a minimum level of acceptability so that any education can be given a certain amount of credibility.

Hmm, I wonder what happened, the site worked when I checked it when I started my reply, but it doesn't now and didn't when you checked Ace.  Stupid dipshits at UCLA I guess ;D

The one thing I definately agree with in the article, is about the piece of paper thing.  It irks me that many universities are more set up to graduate and thus be more attractive to employers than to actualy educate and improve the mind.  I wrote an essay about this subject that I'll post below (once again, no need to criticize my writing skills, just discuss, this wasn't even an essay for school, just a ranting type of thing).

One thing though, I think most people would agree that education is something people should have, and that it would be horrible to deprive people based on economic reasons, to keep poor people less educated and thus poor.  That is where I disagree with his/her attitude of just letting it be.

An F For Grades In College
???
As many people come out saying that college is not appropriate for all high-school students, the colleges become less appropriate for any students.  Of the large number of students who go to college there are two main groups.  There is the majority who is there for the only reason of using their degree as a launching pad for a future career.  The other group that makes up probably a lonely tenth are the people who actually want to learn.
???
If a teacher were to say to his class the first day that everyone signed up for the class would get an A in the class without completing any work and without any worry about attendance, how many students would you expect to find in the rest of his lectures?  Maybe a half dozen?  This is where the problem lies.  Most of the students are only there to get a grade to show that they would be valuable employees in the future.  Therefore the teacher is forced to require grunt work such as tests and other assignments to show that the students are ?learning? the material.
???
It is scientifically proven that a stressed mind is often an ineffective mind.  By putting grade requirements on these students as well as large time consuming course work, the students are so pressured that they can no longer think cleanly and slowly put more impersonal responses with no personal attachment to the work.
???
The extent of this learning is shortsighted.  Most students do as little work as is possible to get the grades they want because this work is neither interesting, nor important in their minds.  Once they finish a test they forget this information and may never think about it again in their lives.  This kind of force-fed learning benefits no one.  With this system the majority students accomplish their goal of showing off their worth, but they really haven?t learned enough to succeed.  When they show up at their new jobs they will still need an in depth education of how to operate in that specific system, making their four-years of higher learning strictly a filtering device.  Even the ?better? schools such as those in the Ivy League don?t escape from this.  In fact they are possibly even more likely to be used for resume purposes; being a more impressive, more costly reference.  The students interested in learning are limited in their efforts because they are overwhelmed with the same meaningless work that doesn?t use the minds they want to strengthen.
???
What needs to happen is that we must return to the age when workers were taught the skills needed for a job as part of job training, apprenticeships or at separate vocational schools.  This would allow the universities to take the form of places where those that are truly interested in learning deeper, extra-vocational skills can avoid the pressures of the ?resume? education and focus on thought.  In this new university concept, it would truly be like the teacher?s introduction earlier.  No grades, no tangible work to be completed, no mandatory attendance.  In these classes the professors and students would be allowed to discuss and debate theories and opinions relating to any topic that they wanted to cover (presumably within some general topic).  With this new system there is no pressure to get good grades, there is no reason to cheat.  All thought would be from the person and not from a different source (other than as a secondary). This would enhance the capabilities of these students to respond to any question, not just those that they have answered.  This type of education is more like learning to think than it is learning specific abilities so these students are fit for almost any position, where as only learning abilities limits their reach.

In the end any decision must be left up to the individual student.  He must decide whether he wants or is capable of this education and he shouldn?t be forced or even encouraged to attend college.  Only a truly dedicated and intelligent student can succeed in this training while the majority of students should only be learning what they need to succeed in life.  Not only does this allow students to be better educated in what they are capable of learning; it saves parents and students? money and time that they would have wasted on unnecessary and unsuccessful education.

Amended note: I use the sexist he because I'm male, no implication of sexual discrimination implied.  Secondly, there would still be lower level broad education at lower levels, some of that is important to everyone.  Thirdly, in some part, this education plan works like some in social democracies where enrolment in higher education is based on ability to handle the given education.

Haven't gotten to the essay yet, but just wanted to clarify about my vouchers post -

I didn't say public schools should compete or die; I said that's what will happen if the money is going to private schools.  While arguments toward education privatization can be compelling, it seems pretty much a given that a public school system is necessary if people of all economic levels are going to be a given a chance toward success.  Therefore, if there has to be a public school system, it ought to be a good one - and not have its funding siphoned away by vouchers.

Also, Loth had a good point about the electricity.  The cost of educating a child isn't only reflected in books and the like - there are many costs just toward running a school (i.e. electricity) which remain constant no matter how many children leave and go to private schools, and it becomes unaffordable to run a public school if there aren't enough funds coming in.  The loss of students does come with a loss in funding, through vouchers.  The money has to come from somewhere.

As for the tax argument, any dissent?  As citizens, don't you think you should have to pay for even the services you do not use?

Hmm, I actually think that was Loth I meant to be replying too, misapplied my response.  Sorry.  *Goes and edits*

It's not the government's money, it's a refund of my money.  

It would be your money if the vouchers laws pass. However, they have not passed yet and thusly it is government money, which it hopefully remains. If people look at the facts, vouchers will not pass. The vast majority of private schools do not outperform public schools anyway. The government also has a duty to try to prevent people from miseducating their children, which in my opinion sending them to a religious school is tantamount to.

Tasty, here in Colorado (but no where else) school vouchers HAS passed.

I agree about the religious education being miseducation though.  It takes away from real education.  I mean, religious private schools are free not to teach Darwin, one of the most important evolutions (pardon the pun) of thought in the past few centuries.  Religious reasons are not a reason to keep kids ignorant.

Also, one girl I know is homeschooled in a group where all the parents are complete fundamentalist Christians, the whole, if you aren't Christian you go to hell, if you have sex before marriage you go to hell, if you are gay you go to hell.  Anyway her self-esteem is for shit, she's a cute girl but thinks she is ugly (typical puritan denial of the body), her parents scare me more though, they are close to preventing her from chatting with me because in me is sinful thoughts and ideas.  Religion is straight out ruining her life due to being applied poorly.

Kind of a side note, my girlfriend told me that her school board (up in Canada you know) is planning to change the format of the school.  Until now they have been an unothodox style where it isn't based around classrooms so much but rather small seminars and it is self-paced so you turn things in and take tests when you are ready...and can take 5 years to graduate.  Anyway, they want to change it to a normal high school despite it being the top school in the province.  Just goes to show that being educational fuckwits is not limited to the US...but still, the education is better there on average.  (Lets just hope the protests by pretty much everyone other than the school board stops the change).

Bondo, you smooth talk that religious girl into a secret rendezvous now man, only right thing to do ;)

She's 14, which according to CO law is too young for me even.  I have to wait for her to turn 15 for that ;)  Yay for CO law letting me get excited about 15 year olds until I turn 26.

Ahem, anyway, what with me having a girlfriend, it is out of my hands...so to speak.

Anyhow back to the original subject. You can give schools as much money as they want,   you can overfund them out the ears and they can will still falter when High Schools have a pre-school curriculum. I see vouchers as a way to avoid the problem of public schools not solve it.  Although education is not a right, it should still be offered. I know many of you dont like helping those less fortunate, I sometimes wonder if any of you have stepped into a lower class neighborhood. Here is an idea, dont retard you 18 year olds by making them color maps for geogrpaphy, teach them why dont you! Get rid of the waste that goes on in schools! Theres a way to cut costs and lower taxes while improving the quality of schools. Lets take a look at sports, although it is important to have football (its a part of our culture) we dont need every high shool to offer every single sport there is. We can reuse uniforms instead of buying them every year. I would really like to see where America goes with an uneducated populous like the author of that article Sin put up. Again I say we need to fix the problem rather than abandon our public schools. Heres a little saying I have been thinking up: You cant have democracy without an educated populous, you cant have a democracy if your populous dosent know how the government works. I also see vouchers as totally fucked up to the treasury. You will not be able to go to a private school on $2,000! Any crack mom will not be able to make up the rest for tuition. It drains the treasury for nothing. I am sorry but public schools are a burden you must carry on your back, if you want to lower taxes lets take a look at the massive amount of waste our military conducts. If you wanna lower taxes lets cut some money from other non-essential programs. No good leader makes cuts in sevices they invest in people. And education may not be a right in the constitution, but its sure as hell is essential in a global economy. If you wanna stay on top in the economic world you are gonna need to know how to count!

I will laugh when your economy suffers so much because Swaziland has a better education than the United States. Geez some of you Americans want to even get rid of public schools or cripple them even further. You people are very funny.

Haha, tough shit Bondo, tough shit. :)

Agreed Cossack, for a democracy to work, the citizens have to know what's going on..

In a related issue to the education of citizens being essential to democracy, there was a story in this weeks Newsweek about the Bush Administration preventing some parts of the 9/11 investigation to be declassified.  It is a fundamental part of our government that they are supposed to release information to us so as to allow us to make informed decisions.  And while I understand there are some things that can't be made public, it is obscene how much the Bush Administration is overusing the "national security" label to keep things that wouldn't look good declassified.  They need to have a public interest group controling the release of information, not a partisan CYA organization.  In failing to release such information, Bush is directly undemocratic...directly tyrranous.

Which is what I am talking about.  My money.


What facts?  I looked at them, and I like vouchers as they were proposed here.  That's not really an argument at all Tasty.  


Voucher's are proposed where the public school districts just plain suck, not everywhere.  

And I'd also like to ask where you get your figures for private schools not outperforming public schools.  The private school which I know well around here (Catholic) has over 90% of it's students attend college each year.  Compared to the public schools around here (a very good district) which only boast 75%.  The only public schools that can compete with those numbers are the magnet schools, of which there are only a few in all of the Metro Area.  Detroit, for example, has 2 magnet High Schools, both produce great students (but are seriously under funded).  The difference between these and private schools are, you don't pay more to go there, and they don't have computers in the classes or even tile on some of the floors at Cass Tech (best school in Detroit).  Where DC has computers in every classroom and doesn't suffer from overcrowding, and is a nice atmosphere.


Now this is shocking to say the least.  You are suggesting that the government should interfere with a persons choice in religion (or the religious upbringing of my children)?  That's just insane.  That is one of the cornerstone principles of this nation that you are trying to kick over.  

Religion is not mis-education.  You don't have to believe, but you can't tell me, or anyone else what is right to believe.  

Those that think you don't learn evolution in a catholic school should talk to a science teacher at a catholic school.  The only difference is Darwin is treated as theory, which is actually correct (evolution of man is the best accepted theory, but a theory still).  

Also, they don't take time away from other studies.  Not here.  In Michigan, they are required to take all the normal studies, the students at a catholic school actually have to go an extra hour each day for their religious studies.

You may not like or agree with catholic schools, and you don't have to send your children there.  But you are so way out of line saying that the government has a duty to protect children from them.  

One last note, and it's been said before.  Separation of Church and State does not equal atheism.  When our country was founded with that principle, it was to keep the fucking State out of religion, to spare the religious persecution that you seem to be a proponent of.

I went to a catholic prep school, and 98% of my graduating class went onto higher education, compared to 70% of public high-school kids. Private school was much harder than public school is. We had 2 new gyms, computers in every class, 2 computer labs, and all the other necessities of a good school, compared to the local public high-schools which are on the verge of being torn down...
I got a much better education in catholic high-school, than i would have in public high-school. It cost a lot of money, so why not make it worth it, and the fact that much higher standards are expected in terms of behavior, and attendance.

First off, if you look at the percentage of children attending higher education after college you will see that it is correlated much more closely with the average income level of students in a school than the quality of the actual school. Second, if the public schools in your area aren't very good (the ones in my area are great), why can't we just reform them? Why is it necessary to abandon them altogether? Are they really a lost cause?

Here are some facts I compiled from lexis searches that I think bode poorly for voucher programs:

- more than 95% of the vouchers in Cleveland are used for religious schools

- For example, students at Calvary Center Academy in Cleveland, a participant in the voucher program, recite the following pledge each morning:
"We pledge allegiance to the Christian flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands. One Savior crucified, risen and coming again with life, liberty for all those who believe."

It may be true that you are getting your money back, but what about the people that have no children at all? Don't you think they should have a say in whether or not their tax money goes to support religious schools? I say yes, which means vouchers no.

Religious schools, ech.

Problem is you are so far off base.  Their money isn't going to anything other then the public schools, just like always.  Remember, anyplace I've seen it, you don't get back more then you've paid in taxes.  So, until you show me a place where they do it different, that point is just wrong.

Shit, you have a big problem with religious schools it seems, but who are you to tell me that my kids need to go to a Godless school?  Where is that freedom?

I really don't get this about the liberals.  They want more freedom when it comes to thing like legalizing pot, etc.  They say it should be their choice.  But they are real quick to take away other freedoms.  They are just as bad as conservatives.  Picking and choosing what freedoms YOU should have for YOU.  What bullshit.  


Than the quality of which school?  The high school they attended or the college they attended as an undergrad?  And talk about a statically insignificant figure, you are reaching.  What percentage of people in the USA go on to post-graduate degrees?  Hardly enough to want to base high school upon.  

Face it Tasty.  All your points are coming up short.

You argued that it's taking money away, but in reality, with vouchers, public schools get more money per student, which should equal a better education.  

Some argued that some costs don't go down with less students, well, most do, all it takes is proper management.  Consolidating classes and teachers to cut the fat (I know teachers here that only teach 4 classes out of 7 hours, yet are full time employees).

You are ignoring that the voucher issue is brought up in districts that have been found to be in serious trouble, not in the average or good districts.

You seem to have an issue with religion.  Get over it.  People have a right to have and follow their faiths.  It's not your tax money going to a catholic school, it's the guy that sends his kids to catholic school getting out of paying most of the school tax.  What is wrong with that?

I think tasty's points are well-said, and since they correlate with mine, you can hardly dismiss him as "not holding water" unless you deign to reply to me.  Just a thought.

As for cutting the fat, that should be done anyway to improve schools, regardless of the vouchers.  The fact is, in areas where a public school is bad, it just doesn't make sense to take away money, even if it means fewer students.  If anything, the school needs more money, even after cutting the fat, to improve.

Furthermore, a public school isn't "godless" at all.  A good public high school has theology classes comprising a number of world religions.  Many history classes visit, during the course of the year, a mosque, synagogue, church, even a Bah?'? center.  And you call that godless?  It's really quite the opposite, and far more effective in teaching the diversity of the world's cultures.  What it doesn't do is teach only a specialized viewpoint, as do many religious schools.

Learning through the very narrow viewpoint of a religious sect can hardly be considered more desirable for most people.  However, there are those who prefer it, and that's why the have the right to choose to go to whatever school they want - but it's ridiculous to expect the government to pay for that choice, especially when a more comprehensive system exists for free.  And if the public schools are bad, they should be improved to that point, not further degraded by losing funds.

And back to the taxation argument, I still have yet to hear a reason from anyone why all people shouldn't share in public funding.  You don't have to use a school personally to get benefit out of the fact that people are educated.  Just like you don't have to drive a car to benefit from people being able to travel on roads.  There are a thousand analogies here.  You don't have to live inside the country to benefit from the nation having a military.  You have the choice of an outhouse - but society benefits from runnning water.  Thus you pay for it.

Pick any government service, no matter how trivial, and there is someone somewhere exercising their freedom of choice not to use it.  However, they're still supposed to pay for it - just because you personally don't want something doesn't give you the right to degrade it for the rest of society.

Bucc, you say that the schools will get more per student.  Well, using economies of scale, the more students they have the cheaper per student it is to educate (they spread the fixed costs among more).  So by lowering the number of students you NEED more per student, and I suspect, more than losing students will provide.

I think Tasty MAY have mistyped...I think he was talking about people going to college as higher education.  It is true that the wealthier a family is, the more likely the children will go to college.  It is pretty much true that kids in private schools, due to the cost, are from wealthier families.  Therefore it is only natural that a higher % of them would go on to college.  This is a correlation not of quality of the private school education, but financial status of the families who send their kids to private school.

One thing I wonder Bucc...you keep saying the money you get in the vouchers is YOUR money.  Well, it may be money you were taxed, but all taxed money is the government's, not individuals.  Once it has been taxed it is public funds.  And if those public funds are being given to people to send children to religious schools, it is public funding of a religious institution.

One other thing...this week's Newsweek has a ranking of the top 100 High Schools.  The system they use to rank is quite simple (too simple).  The number of AP or IB tests taken per student in the school.  They basically claim that AP or IB classes are the best sign of pushing a school forward.

I personally think this system of judging is rubbish.  I only took 1 AP class, but I don't think that makes me any worse off than someone who took more.  I took only 1 by choice, if I so desired I could have taken 10 like my brother.  I think there is more that makes a high school education than taking college level classes.  Of course I could just be bitter because my HS was 597th behind two other schools in the city despite consistently beating every HS in the state on the state-wide testing.  My HS was ranked in the top 100 in a different magazine's ranking a few years back.

<rant>  High school rankings are complete and utter bullshit, and I think they're are a total waste of time and newsprint.

One of the high schools is in my hometown, and I specifically chose not to go there for some of the reasons it's well-ranked:  too many AP tests.  I'm a big fan of IB, but I think AP isn't all it's cracked up to be.  There's too much emphasis on cramming information - there seems to be a big lack of holistic understanding - and the course work isn't well structured around a high school class.  People who go there and take the vaunted AP classes to extremes do nothing except school.

Furthermore, the school isn't as great as the test scores make it sound.  Really, standardized tests are a nice measure of a limited breadth of knowledge, but they don't take into account the quality of the instruction, the learning environment, or even understanding of the material beyond a few stated goals.  Even worse, Enloe (the school in my city) has a huge gap between students.  It's a magnet school in a traditionally black neighborhood, so it has a base population of lower-income students taken average classes and scoring relatively poorly.  However, the acclaim the school gets is from the upper-class students bused in from around the county.  It's almost like two segregated schools in one.

Ultimately, the ratings disregard so much information I find it hard to believe they're taken seriously.  Extracurricular offerrings, atmosphere, teaching quality - so much subjectivity goes into a school that render the course offerrings moot.  It really shouldn't make any difference how many AP courses a school offers and teaches students.  Is a school better for offerring all 35 courses instead of 20 or so?

Personally, I think standardized testing should be completely disregarded except as a measure of individual performance, not a group.  A school is good if it offers all the opportunities its population needs, and does them well.  </rant>

So yeah, basically what Bondo said.  

So you're telling me that these people in failing inner city schools are only getting back the money that they personally paid? That can't possibly be true. Most people in inner city areas are very poor. Under our current tax systems, the poorest people pay only about 3-5 percent of their income in taxes. If they get back only what they paid, they would get back almost nothing. Certainly not that 2000 dollar voucher you were talking about before. The problems with their schools have to do largely with the fact that they are underfunded, which has stems from the fact that they have a very poor tax base to draw from. For poor people to be able to afford a private school, they would need a voucher considerably bigger than what they pay. This difference is a government dole out. Meaning government money. The "my money back only" argument you are using only holds for wealthier people such as yourself, which are interestingly the biggest proponents of this plan. Now why would that be?

I'm not telling you your kids have to go anywhere. If you want to instill them with a religious education, homeschool them. Or pay the money to send them to whatever private religious school you fancy. There is no reason to abandon the governmental institutions (schools) that we have already put considerable time, money, and work into.

Freedom is the precise reason I oppose voucher plans. First, we are not removing any freedom. You can attend any damn school you want, we just don't want it to be financially supported by the government. Like Loudnotes said, it is the responsibility of all taxpayers to support services, even if you don't use them. You can't get your money back for every offered social service that you are deliberately choosing not to use. Second, these plans infringe on the freedom of people who live in "failing school" areas. They will lose their freedom for their children to get a quality education that is UNBIASED. Its fine if you want your children to get an education with a religious bias, but there are plenty of athiests and other non-christians who want their children to get the highest possible quality education without a christian bias. The public schools under these plans are faced with the subpar  and behaviorally challenged students only, the ones that weren't good enough to get accepted into one of the hoity-toity private schools. Regardless of whether the money per student in public schools will increase or not, their quality will decrease noticably as they experience the predicted "brain drain". Public schools will lose their best teachers too; good teachers want to work with good students. Teachers, already underpaid in the current system, will have to move to private schools, which amazingly actually pay worse than public schools in most instances (just ask my mom).


I am talking about about undergraduate college educations when I say "Higher Education". Bondo got exactly what I meant and fleshed it out perfectly. So much for him being inferior at understanding and reading people's posts.

 
You are trying to argue for vouchers because of freedom, but these plans will actually work to decrease educational freedom. I don't think it was that my arguments held no weight, I think its that you are missing the point.

Here's where you are wrong.  The number of dollars per student does mean something.  You are just choosing to ignore it.  If you have less students and more money, you have better schools.  That is a fact proven out time and again.  It's one of the reasons private schools and public schools in affluent areas are better.

The better management means management for change, not for status quo.  They have to scale down to the number of students to make that money go farther.  As you have less students, you need less teachers, less classrooms, less schools, etc.


Notice that one little condition.  "A good public".  They aren't all good, and most of them around here don't have theology classes.  I never had a theology class in public school either.  So, that may be your consideration of a good school, but the public schools around here don't match that criteria, so that point is mute.  So, yes, around here, I call it "godless".


Three strikes all at once.  1) I've already pointed out that the government isn't paying for it.  The parent is.  The government just isn't charging the parent all the normal school taxes because of that choice.  2) You call the public schools more comprehensive, which is bullshit.  They sure as hell are not in the districts we are talking about.  They don't have the same computer or science classes as the private schools around here, or access to modern tools and equipment.  No, it's not more comprehensive.  3) They are getting more money per student, which isn't really loosing funds.


I've addressed this, how about you address my fucking counter point on it already, instead of just repeating it?  And if you don't have running water, you don't pay the fucking water bill.


Not always true, again, go look at my point about this already.  And you fucking started this with I had to address your points.  HA.


You don't need more per student, because economy of scale moves in both directions.  You have to scale back your infrastructure.  I think I've mentioned this a few times now.  If you don't scale back your infrastructure, then you are just another idiot.


You should let Tasty explain that himself, because you don't know what he meant, you can only guess.

As for your correlation, it could be read the other way too.  Schools that have more money per student send more to college.  Covers both the affluent and private schools.  The schools being better (because of more money per student) could well be the factor there.  Your conclusion isn't proven, it's just a theory that could be read many ways.


Not true at all.  You pay your taxes and get a refund right?  Is that the governments money or yours?  Now, if you decide to give that money to the church, is that the government funding the church?  Nope, it aint.  The money refunded (and that's what it is) is your money, my money, not the governments money.

Just a quick anecdotal response to your claim that the per student funding being important.  My high school had the absolute lowest per student funding in the county (this being a big county of over 500k people and dozens of schools).  Yet it is consistently the highest scoring HS in most areas of measurement.  The odd part is we are one of the richest income base districts (million dollar houses aren't unusual), it just happens the people in this district are stingy conservative bastards who don't give much to the school district.  Either my school is odd or the per student funding isn't very important.

Tasty, please, do some homework already.  Yes, I've said it, because that's what was proposed here.  I've said it often.  I don't care if you think it can't be true, because it is.

BTW, income tax doesn't pay for education around here.  They do indirectly in federal money that comes back to the states, but that isn't effected and not what I'm talking about when I say paying your public school taxes.  I actually get a fucking bill, twice a year, breaking down my local taxes.  School taxes are in there.  I know exactly how much school taxes cost me every year.  Since those are local taxes, and schools are controlled by local governments, you really are missing the whole point as to where the money is coming from.  Most of the school tax money, in a city like Detroit, comes from businesses, not from people.  So if you really want to talk about how the whole taxes work, do some homework and then we can have an interesting conversation on it.


I never said to abandon public schools.  But you did make mention, and I quote here:

"The government also has a duty to try and prevent people from ms-educating their children, which, in my opinion, sending them to a religious school is tantamount to"

So, explain to me how I misunderstood that, please?


And like I pointed out long ago, that isn't always true.  You aren't expected to pay for all government services that you don't use.

And, like I've pointed out many times, it's not the governments money.  It's mine.


Not every, but some.  So that's a stupid argument on why this shouldn't be one of them.


I don't have to ask your mom, I know enough private school teachers around here.  After 5 years of teaching and a PhD, one guy I know is making a whole $35k per year, while another that teaches shop at a public school is making $65k per year, after his third.  BTW, I don't think all public school teachers are grossly underpaid.  Many, but not all.

And where is this regardless coming from?  Why will quality be forced to go down more then it already has?  Why do you think that more money per student isn't a good thing?  And, it's not like we are talking about thousands and thousands of students either.  Like you said, and I agreed, it wont be most students.  All vouchers are doing is moving that money boundary over, allowing those parents that were close to now be able to afford the private education.  

Oh, and it's not like I would get vouchers where I live, my district isn't in trouble.  It was Detroit schools here.  Pretty sure I said that.

So, you realize what you are arguing for is not letting those same poor people you don't want taxed as much, have the opportunity to send their children to private schools if that's their wish.  Because that is what you are arguing against.  This is a local tax cut, for them, if they choose to use it.


So I ask a polite question and you want to be an asshole?  You said "Higher Education AFTER COLLEGE".  Gee, doesn't that mean "post grad"?  Don't blame me for you mistyping something and me just asking about it.  I asked, not mocked, and that whining smacks of you sounding like Bondo.  For all I know you were talking about post grads, so fuck off if you want to be like that.


Where do they decrease educational freedom?  You have the freedom to choose public or private, right?  Or do you mean that you have assumed it will mean educational inequality?  Well, that already exists, and what vouchers does is help some of the people that are poor, and in the worst areas close that fucking gap.  So tell me what point I've missed?  

Trying to make a conceptual post here instead of nit-picking. . .

You say again and again that public schools are bad somewhere or other.  They don't have the comprehensiveness of private, etc.  That means they need more attention, not less - to improve.  It's imperative that the schools perform well - since I think we agree public schools are necessary in the first place.  If your public schools are godless, the solution isn't to leave them, it's to introduce god into them (in an educational way, not a biased way, for example)  And yes, I think a good school of any kind has some sort of comparative religions/theology class.  It's revealing to see how amazingly alike they all are - and my opinion is that that's something everyone should know.

Mainly, vouchers DON'T give you more money when they subtract students.  That's the economies of scale thing Bondo has mentioned, as well as the school maintenance costs I've addressed.  Further, it is the government's money, since it was collected in taxes from the taxpayers.  If a taxpayer gets money back in the form of a voucher, that money has to come from somewhere - since it's already sunk in the schools no matter how many students they have.  The per student difference is negligible - that cost will actually go up as more students leave, since unless you have droves of them leaving, you'll still have the same number of teachers, classrooms, etc.  And as tasty has discussed, droves leaving is a bad thing for the school.  The point is, if the infrastructure is inefficient, it should be scaled back anyway.  Losing a few students doesn't justify a massive overhaul if it's not already needed.  Thus do the overhaul, and keep the students.  Again, if many many of them left, that would be bad for the school, not just an infrastructure problem.

So, the only way the money can exist to fund both the public school and the private voucher would be to come from somewhere else - and that means raising taxes for everyone.  i.e., everyone has to pay more money so that private school kids (usually affluent) can get a voucher.

How have you addressed the idea of paying for the good of society?  Any one of these analogies is defensible.  You don't have to pay a water bill, but you sure as hell will pay taxes on the water main, maintenance and the like.  Waste water treatment plants?  Funded by taxes, and if you live in an area that provides them, you pay whether you use it or not.  This correlates with your consumption tax argument in the other thread - the rich in particular should pay money just for the good of society -- without regard to what they're spending on themselves.  Bucc, maybe I just missed where you addressed my points, but I don't have your answer.

Ok, so there I go.  I believe I addressed every point in your last post - I'll look forward to your line-by-line breakdown.

Necessary, yep.  Need more "attention", yep.  Attention and good management are important.  But that has nothing to do with vouchers at all.


That's your opinion, but that doesn't have any bearing on how the majority of the people feel.  Most people seem to want less God and Theology in schools, not more.  And I dare say that most of the people that send their children to religious schools are all for the bias, which is their choice.


Asked and answered.  Why don't you try addressing my point instead of ignoring it?  If the attention and management are used, infrastructure costs go down (like I said before, economics of scale go in both directions.)  You've mentioned it, I've countered it, and you've ignored it.  So it's in your court.

Ok, fuck the rest of your post, I've talked about your next issues and either you haven't bothered to read them or you are ignoring them, in either case, you can again, just go back and read.  You are not addressing my points as you say, because half the things you ask I've already talked about, and you act like I haven't.

So, if you want to discuss it, read it.  If you don't, don't.  

Just an additional comment on the scaling back that you claim could happen with students leaving Bucc.

At the moment, the problem with most poor performing schools is overcrowding which is a result of not having the funds to have enough teachers/rooms to have an effective class size.  I'm guessing the vouchers will not have such an effect that they actually create a situation where the infrastructure is too great and needs to be scaled back, rather it will just get it back to a point where it is effective.  Unfortunately the schools will lose money and not be able to afford that so they will HAVE to scale back and thus the school will be underequipped again and underperforming.  What schools like this is not small gains in per student funding as would happen with the vouchers, but rather they just need enough funding (probably in the form of a significant increase in funding) to have a proper amount of infrastructure so that they wouldn't be performing poorly in the first place.

I also think it is time we stop having schools be locally funded in such an unregulated way.  Some places are paid for only fromt he district it serves and due to the differences in economy of districts, it makes a clear difference in the per child funding.  I think every school in the country should get equal per child funding regardless of location.  And that funding should be enough to make the school viable and effective.  Perhaps then we wouldn't have the underperforming schools that make us consider vouchers.

If the school is overcrowded already, then they are already underequipped and underperforming.  By lowering the amount of students, and then lowering the amount of money (but not as much) there is a little more to go around for each student, now isn't there?  So it may not fix the problem of the underfunded school, but it did make it a little better, right?  Basic management, you have fixed costs that don't change and you have per student costs that do.  Having more money per student could mean actually having enough text books to go around, differences like that.

I've never claimed that vouchers SOLVE all the problems with public schools.  I have been showing you the fallacy of the statement that they HURT public schools.  Public schools need help and need it bad.  Vouchers aren't the answer to their problems, but it isn't hurting them while it is giving people an alternative to solve their immediate needs.


Unrealistic and not a good idea.

First, you seem to be talking about schools being federally funded and managed.  That's stepping on states rights.  Pulling money from tax payers in Michigan to pay for schools in Mississippi, that sucks.

Second, you talk about same amount of funding per student.  That's the way some state and federal money is given out here, and it has lead to many schools falsifying it's attendance to get more money.

Even worse, if you do it nation wide, you are dealing with different costs of living.  $100 in Michigan goes further then it does in California, but not as far as it does in Kentucky.  

Last, leaving it up to the tax payers is the right idea.  Look at your own district for example.  You say the people are too cheap to spend more, yet the school seems to be doing it's job just fine.  So, seems like they are spending enough to me at first glance.  I know you are spend and tax happy, problem is using that money responsibly, which big government doesn't have a good track record of, worse then local governments, that's for sure.

The way it will decrease educational freedom is to force the choice on families and children between a "failing" secular school or a "passing" religious school. All children should have the ability to obtain a "passing" education without any religious bias.

Yes, but vouchers don't have a negative effect on that.  They have a positive one, as I have explained.  They don't solve the public problem, but they don't hurt it more either, and they do help it a little.

What you and Bondo seem to be stuck on is that if they don't fix it, they must hurt it.  Nobody is stopping anyone from fixing the other problems with public schools, but in the mean time, this gives the poor people in those districts another option, for them to take or not.  That is freedom, no matter how you want to spin it.

Bucc, if the problem the schools have is lack of money, and you take money away, you are making things worse.  And I've given my reasons of why losing students for a modest per student funding increase doesn't really help.

Well I guess it comes down to a simple difference in what we predict will happen. You predict that if anything it will help public schools and we predict that it can do nothing but hurt them. Amazing that such a hostile debate has been reduced to such a simple (and since they are predictions, fairly unprovable) difference.

Bondo, Tasty,

The problem is you keep talking about the economics of scale, but refuse to see that it can scale back and work better.

Bondo, you said it, but ignored the fact I brought up about fixed and non-fixed costs.  I tried to show you how things would be effected like enough books per students, etc.  And also how, in the districts in question (like Detroit) businesses are flipping most of the bill already, so that money can never go down.  It just has to be managed correctly, that's all.  Don't leave the lights on in classrooms not being used.  Don't have teachers that are only teaching 3 or 4 classes a day.  Ya pretty much ignored all that.

It CAN scale back and work better, not it WILL.  You just said it yourself.

I'm arguing that it won't always work, and to have a solution that doesn't work reliably is short-sighted.  However by investing money to create new schools to lower overcrowding problems and to fund schools already there so each school has the money needed to offer the proper facilities is the fix that will improve the education of the most students.

I said that many times.  I said it had to be managed, but if done right, the schools would be better off.  But they aren't worse off.


See, right there is your big leap, and why you are wrong about vouchers.  

You are expecting them to solve a problem they weren't meant to solve.  It's not short-sighted because the GOAL isn't to make public schools better.  That is a different goal needing a different solution.  But Vouchers do not impede that other goal, and can help it.  

You, and Tasty too, want to make schools better.  Great.  No problem.  Vouchers don't stop you from doing that.  You judging vouchers on the fact that they don't always help that problem is bullshit.  That's like judging a snowmobile for it's performance in the sand dunes.  Sure, it can run there, but it's not what it was meant for.  The goal of vouchers was to give poor parents enough of their tax money back to make a difference in allowing them to send their children to a private school instead of the shit holes they have now.  Vouchers do that.  And they do it WITHOUT hurting and in some cases HELPING the public schools.  The public school problem will not, can not be fixed in one or two years, not in the districts in question.  So it gives these people an option.

And if you say they can hurt it, I say you are flat wrong, because with more money per student, the only one that can hurt it is administration.  A completely different issue.

So get your wires uncrossed.  Say yes to vouchers and then worry about fixing the main problem.

I love it how no one responded to my argument below so I will say it again so maybe I can get some replies for it. First I would like to note that it takes around $3,000 to educate a student. So the school system gets to keep $1,000 dollars and decrease the amount of upkeep in its school because it has 1 less student to "maintain." However despite this I am against the vouchers because they will not work. First off Bucc I am going to assume that you're middle class average white collar joe. You have a college degree and you run a small buisness. Vouchers are for the poor working class, not the middle class. They get $2,000 for a refund because they are not able to pay for a whole tuition. As you can imagine a working class single mom or working class family cannot afford much. Tell me a private school that has a tuition for $2,000. The cheapest private school here is $3,000 dollars a year and thats very rare. Most private schools tend to be around $7,500. This is the supposed moderate cost of an ordinary private school. Your working class parent isnt going to be able to shell out $5,500 to pay for the rest of the tuition. Therefore it is a waste of government funds. considering the poverty line is $13,290 thats nearly half of their yearly income still! I am not saying that $2,000 is a help, I am just saying it isnt enough nor should it be raised in the amount of eleviation.
     The second reason I go against vouchers is that they encourage abandonment of the public school system. They avoid the problem not solve it. If any of you read my first post you will see that the main point of my argument is that it does not matter if you overfund a school out the ears it will still flounder if you do not teach your children anything. You spend your school money on needless luxeries but you teach your high school seniors as though they were still in third grade. Your education is poor because you let politicans and lobbists run the school districts not educators. Lets use the Texas example. In Texas Bush reduced the standards for education, and made the TAAS test full of questions that even he could awnser. Thus it created better scores for school and thus made him able to go and gab about the great education system in Texas wich he used for his presidential campaign and thus earned the bougis nickname "The education President." Get rid of government waste in your schools. I hate to play the Europe card but in education I have too. Their public education is better because they have a better curriculum. Russian schools (whom are much more underfunded) outperform American schools because we have a better curriculum. We do not have a football stadium for every high school, we do not have lavish facilities like American schools. Your school have way too many unneeded luxeries.
So incase you have not got the point or have gone through the current American education system my main point is CUT THE WASTE (CRAP).

Just remember Coss, you asked for this =P


Ok, stop right there big boy.  This is old territory that we've already covered.  I couldn't do it because it wouldn't be offered in my school district, my school district isn't failing.

So, we've already said that this has been proposed for districts which just completely suck, and yes, we've all pretty much agreed that these are the poor neighborhoods on average.


More old ground.  I've already pointed out, quite a few posts ago, that all this will change is people that were close but couldn't afford it without that extra help.  All you are doing with vouchers is moving the line a little, so a small amount of people that are not rich or wealthy, can squeeze out enough money to send the kid to private school if that is their wish.  It doesn't help everyone, but it does help some while hurting nobody.

You are also just looking at the very bottom of the barrel.  Out of the hundreds of thousands of students in the Detroit Public Schools, I doubt you'd find a huge percentage even close to $13k a year income.  You should use an average income, not poverty level to describe a major city like this.


And if you read my last post you would see that vouchers aren't made or meant to solve the problem with failing schools.  That the problem can't be solved short term, and this gives some few people another opportunity that they didn't have before.  

Also, abandonment is truly going overboard after you just argued that nobody could take advantage of it.  Unless you think that the majority of people are 1) on the bubble and 2) want a private education, then abandonment is just an emotional word, not a realistic one.


Cossack, there's nothing wrong with wanting to fix the schools, but don't mix the two issues.  No matter what you can do to fix them, it will take time.  Vouchers give the current students an option that any fixes that come through the system won't (because they can't come quick enough for many).  I say, give these students a chance.  All it can do is help.

Cossack, I have a feeling the cheapest private schools are the religious ones because they have other sources of "non-profit" income.  Compare that to secular schools which tend to only get income from students.  The private school in my district that my friend went to was 10k a year.  Even with 2k in vouchers, a huge majority of people for whom vouchers would apply wouldn't be able to use it.  Seeing as religious private schools offer the best deal, this is where tasty and my fear of the religious education come in I think (not to put words in Tasty's mouth).  I don't think people should be forced to choose between a failing public school and a religious school that they wouldn't really want to support if not for better acedemic strengths.

Secondly Bucc, about your reply to my post.  I don't agree with you that the voucher system doesn't hurt the public schools that it applies to.  I think it quite often would hurt the public school.  This is the reason I don't like the voucher system.  If a public school is underfunded, through the voucher program, once enough students left it might attain not being underfunded, but the number of students that would have to leave is likely more than could actually switch to a private school as I stated above (2000 won't pay for a private education).  By depriving the school of funds, even if it is packaged with less students, the ability to educate will go down.  Look at it on the micro scale.  If one kid leaves, the costs of running the school go down minutely, much less than the 2000 given back to the kid.  Because much of that 2000 went towards fixed costs that won't change just because one kid leaves.  If the benefit decreases more than the costs, that is a net decrease and thus the school is more underfunded.

Where do you get that much of the $2000 went towards fixed costs (you seem to think that fixed costs are all there is)?  What about the other $1000 that they are keeping?  I'd love to see this school budget you have worked out on the "micro" scale, and I'd love to see the break even point.  What is it, 30 students (and the ability to remove a $70,000 teacher)?  More, less?  We are talking a district of hundreds of thousands of kids.  How many would have to make the move to make it "profitable"?  How many were projected?  Seriously, what are the odds that only one or two students out of hundreds of thousands would do this (remember, we are talking about DPS)?

And in none of this, have you talked about the student.  I like that.  These students, that you can't help with fixing the current system, that you wont help with this one.  


Now this just ranks as one of the most stupid arguments yet.

THEY ALREADY ARE FACED WITH THAT EXACT CHOICE (or not if they have private, non-religious options).  All vouchers would do is allow a few more people that want to choose private, do so.  Are you really this dense that you don't understand that concept?  How could you imagine that they don't already see this?  The only thing that will change that option is better public schools, and again, that's not what this is looking to solve.

If you are going to respond in that pissy hostile manner I will not continue this discussion.

LOL, feel free.  Doesn't change the facts anyway.

Another effect which I think needs to be examined closely is "brain drain". Schools are known for academic excellence by and large by the level of standards set by the other students. If public high schools are losing their best and brightest to local parochial schools and are still getting the biggest drains on money - discipline problems and special ed students - then they will have no option but to fail.

Hah, the "facts" that are your theory for what would happen.

No, the fact was that you had brought up the most stupid argument so far, and you did.  Another fact is that you got pissy about it being pointed out.

They have already failed, that's why they are in the position they are in.  Remember the premise that vouchers are only offered to the failing districts in the first place.

They also wouldn't lose all their best and brightest, as was pointed out because of the economics of the situation.

How are discipline problems a drain on money?

And you still ignore the good it does for the students that can make it out.  Why do you want to hold these underprivileged children back?