Education In America

[Cossack]

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.

[kami]

Haha, tough shit Bondo, tough shit.

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

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

It would be your money if the vouchers laws pass.

Which is what I am talking about.  My money.

If people look at the facts, vouchers will not pass.

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

The vast majority of private schools do not outperform public schools anyway.

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.

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

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.

[Jeb]

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.

[tasty]

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.

[kami]

Religious schools, ech.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

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.  

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.

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?

[jn.loudnotes]

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[jn.loudnotes]

<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.  

[tasty]

Remember, anyplace I've seen it, you don't get back more then you've paid in taxes.  

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?

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'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.

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.  

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).

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.  

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

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'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.

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?

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.

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.

You can't get your money back for every offered social service that you are deliberately choosing not to use.

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

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 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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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?  

[jn.loudnotes]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.  

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

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.

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.

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.  

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.  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.  

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.

I also think it is time we stop having schools be locally funded in such an unregulated way.  Some places are paid for only from the 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.  

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.

[tasty]

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?  

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.