Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well liberals want to make public education better for everyone...conservatives want to implement voucher systems that basically act as a life-raft for a few and totally screw the majority. Sure, if "free choice" was what was really being offered by conservative plans, that would be worth debating...but it's really subsidizing private education for rich kids, not a workable system for everyone. I don't know how you can say LIBERALS are the ones who don't want equal access to education for everyone when conservatives are the folks who endorse plans that make education even LESS equal.
It's simple: public schools, just like other government entities, have no incentive to improve performance. Private schools do. This is why virtually any private school outperforms virtually any public school. Giving everyone the same access to crappy education is hardly a solution to anything. Giving schools incentives for improvement is a solution. While I don't know the details of a voucher plan, I appreciate the general idea of giving incentives for improved performance. No plan will really make everyone equal. However, in the end, giving incentives will benefit everyone, whether or not they end up as equals.
I agree, honestly, about incentives for performance. I think it's possible with public schools as well, though, I don't think we need to abandon them quite yet (not that you said we should, but that seems to be the argument for some people). A big step in the right direction would be to pay teachers more, to allow for higher competition...and take away the large (and useless) amounts of management over teachers. This would provide a good incentive for teachers and principals that can run schools well, and get rid of the levels of management that aren't really necessary and aren't present in private schools. I think the system needs a LOT of changes, my only requirement is that it's a "free" benefit for everyone who lives here.
My point was mostly that the alternatives provided to the public education system tend to suck out loud...and tend to be self-serving policies designed to, for example, enable religious parents to get the tax payers to fund their kids' enrollment in a Catholic school. If there is a good system by someone who's not a "liberal", as CycloWizard suggested, I haven't seen it yet.
Because being in school with other children is a valuable part of the education process?
Come on, you're not stupid...stop pretending to be so you can bash Obama.
Then why can't they go to a public school? If it's good for the goose... I don't care what Obama does with his kids. I just see a logical gap between saying that public schools are good enough for the masses while sending your own kids to a private school.
Security was mentioned as an issue, if I recall correctly. In any case, I think that as a Democrat, Obama probably DOESN'T think public schools are good enough for the masses...which is why he and most Democrats want to try to improve them. But until we do that, I don't see a problem with those who can afford it sending their kids to better schools. Just so long as Obama doesn't forget that not everyone has that option, I see no logical gap here.
Facebook
Twitter