Education In America

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[tasty]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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

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.

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.

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.

[Cossack]

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).

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Just remember Coss, you asked for this =P

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.  

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.

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

[tasty]

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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

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

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

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?