ANd this is bad how? I really hate to break this to you but we are INDIVDUALS and we posess different talemts and abilities but in todays public school system everyone is taught in the assembly line and we go as slow as we can to ensure "no child is left behind" while we allow the talented and gifted children to get board. Yeah that is a much better system. I have a friend From Rodeshia in africa and listening to him explain school was really interesting. They had three or four tracks, If you were smart and motivated you could be done by 14. Lets face it some people have a natural desire and ability to suceed in studies that others do not posess. If we have to leave one child behind to educate 50 others I say we do it. As it sits now you don't have to try or be very smart to get a high school diplomia or even attend college.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Walter Williams on School Vouchers
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ANd this is bad how? I really hate to break this to you but we are INDIVDUALS and we posess different talemts and abilities but in todays public school system everyone is taught in the assembly line and we go as slow as we can to ensure "no child is left behind" while we allow the talented and gifted children to get board. Yeah that is a much better system. I have a friend From Rodeshia in africa and listening to him explain school was really interesting. They had three or four tracks, If you were smart and motivated you could be done by 14. Lets face it some people have a natural desire and ability to suceed in studies that others do not posess. If we have to leave one child behind to educate 50 others I say we do it. As it sits now you don't have to try or be very smart to get a high school diplomia or even attend college.
Thats the point of the vouchers.
Where do you think that $5k is going to come from? The same tax money your parents spend on public school funding. So instead of footing the entire $10k bill for private school they are saying take half the money that WOULD have been given to the schools and give it back in the form of a voucher, thus not entirely screwing the public schools (not that anyone really NEEDS to screw them at this stage, they have done fine on their own) but also not entirely screwing your parents either. Why should they pay for unused services (or more aptly, why pay TWICE for the same service?) however they also live in a community, which means people just pitch in to foot certain things, otherwise poor people would be screwed because nobody would subsidize private schools and then the general populace would have nowhere to turn.
Anyway, the whole idea is to try to make as many people happy as possible, which is a bad idea because people suck and will never be happy no matter what kind of compromise you reach....
"A good compromise leaves everyone equally dissatisfied." -Calvin
kranky
Elite Member
Granting that schools will have less money overall (if not per student), there's a potential benefit. If money gets tight, parents and the public will pressure school boards and legislators to cut out the crap long before the schools have to cancel Geography class and the shut down the cafeteria. The on-staff psychologists, the innumerable useless administrators, the never-ending reports to the bureaucracy (some schools report getting 10% of their money from the Federal government, but spend 50% of their admin work and paperwork on things associated with the Federal funds) Only 26% of education spending gets into a classroom!
A third of the $100 billion-plus allocated to the Department of Education is spent by - the Department of Education! Not in the classroom.
I'm involved with an advisory board for the a large school district concerning vocational-technical education - the type of programs where people right out of high school can get a decent job. They keep getting their budgets cut every year because the school districts are spending even more money each year on computers, fiber-optic networks, labs, etc. which the parents ooh and aah over. Nothing is too exciting about diesel mechanics or CADD drafting. Yet because of all the money sucked up by the layers of bureaucracy that must be dealt with to actually do anything, they still have lousy equipment. You'd think, considering how much computer prices have come down over the last few years, that it would be nearly impossible to spend more money each year and still have junk. And kids that want a vo-tech program get screwed, when in reality they are some of the best prepared to get work!
My point is that people will demand actual education for their kids, and the school boards and government people will have to funnel the money into actual teaching. They cut out some of the ridiculous waste, they will still have as much money as they have now.
A third of the $100 billion-plus allocated to the Department of Education is spent by - the Department of Education! Not in the classroom.
I'm involved with an advisory board for the a large school district concerning vocational-technical education - the type of programs where people right out of high school can get a decent job. They keep getting their budgets cut every year because the school districts are spending even more money each year on computers, fiber-optic networks, labs, etc. which the parents ooh and aah over. Nothing is too exciting about diesel mechanics or CADD drafting. Yet because of all the money sucked up by the layers of bureaucracy that must be dealt with to actually do anything, they still have lousy equipment. You'd think, considering how much computer prices have come down over the last few years, that it would be nearly impossible to spend more money each year and still have junk. And kids that want a vo-tech program get screwed, when in reality they are some of the best prepared to get work!
My point is that people will demand actual education for their kids, and the school boards and government people will have to funnel the money into actual teaching. They cut out some of the ridiculous waste, they will still have as much money as they have now.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
Economies of scale isnt advanced business, its simple, yet elegant economics. If we are discussing large scale funding of any government program, or small scale funding of private schools, economies of scale is relevant. I dont think you quite understand how "economies of scale" works, because we are talking about a trade-off between size and cost. An inverse relationship.
http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/SSU/AGEC/CITE/scale/scale1.htm
http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/issues/090100/2Forum/forum01.shtml
This is the best way I can explain it to you. Say you have $10k a year for your child's education. Would that be able to pay for a teacher and supplies for 9 months? Say you have $10k a year for your child's education, as do 20 other parents. Now you have $200k total to pay for supplies and a teacher for 9 months. Its alot more feasible now.
Proof of other countries filtering kids can be found with a few google searches, if you really want to find it. Or you could simply ask any person from a foriegn country who was educated there. tm37, Im not so sure the other countries are wrong in doing this, in fact if I look more into it I would probably support doing the same in the US. Im just simply stating that it skews data to make the US look poorer in comparison to other countries.
Amused One, do you have any problem with my military analogy?
Edit: here are some real numbers. In 2000, the federal government spent $34 billion on public education. Bear in mind this includes college grants, loans, etc. In 2000, there were 47 million kids enrolled in public schools, NOT including colleges and universities. Now, Im not going to take out the money from education going to colleges, because I dont have the stats on me. Assuming NO money is taken for colleges (not the case), that means the federal govt spends $700 per child yearly, which of course doesnt take out any of the NEA expenditures and assumes all money goes straight to the child (though someone in this thread said 1/3 is taken). Now, I dont have breakdowns on each state to see how much they put in. I wouldnt assume it to be much more than the federal government puts in.
http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/SSU/AGEC/CITE/scale/scale1.htm
http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/issues/090100/2Forum/forum01.shtml
This is the best way I can explain it to you. Say you have $10k a year for your child's education. Would that be able to pay for a teacher and supplies for 9 months? Say you have $10k a year for your child's education, as do 20 other parents. Now you have $200k total to pay for supplies and a teacher for 9 months. Its alot more feasible now.
Proof of other countries filtering kids can be found with a few google searches, if you really want to find it. Or you could simply ask any person from a foriegn country who was educated there. tm37, Im not so sure the other countries are wrong in doing this, in fact if I look more into it I would probably support doing the same in the US. Im just simply stating that it skews data to make the US look poorer in comparison to other countries.
Amused One, do you have any problem with my military analogy?
Edit: here are some real numbers. In 2000, the federal government spent $34 billion on public education. Bear in mind this includes college grants, loans, etc. In 2000, there were 47 million kids enrolled in public schools, NOT including colleges and universities. Now, Im not going to take out the money from education going to colleges, because I dont have the stats on me. Assuming NO money is taken for colleges (not the case), that means the federal govt spends $700 per child yearly, which of course doesnt take out any of the NEA expenditures and assumes all money goes straight to the child (though someone in this thread said 1/3 is taken). Now, I dont have breakdowns on each state to see how much they put in. I wouldnt assume it to be much more than the federal government puts in.
Well you were able to find two public institutions that are against vouchers. I find that shocking.
THe problem is that you have ZERO desire to let the parents decide what is best. WE ALL pay taxes and when I see that money wasted on a sub par education I get pissed. If the public sector (that is in it for profit) can do it cheper and better I say let them. Your scaling theory doesn't fly with me because here in MN the rural schools that have FEWER STudents and get LESS per student are far better at teacher our youth than the Urban Schools that receive much more money. Adminstrators are paid entirely too much in many cases, in Ossio the Superintendant in the district was pulling in like 150K with a car and golf membership:Q all while the school was crying poverty. There budget had increased 40% in six years while the sudent body had DECREASED. Yes if he was running a corperation he would have received similar compensation BUT with his results he also would have received a SEVERANCE PACKAGE. The fact is that these large districts get BLOATED with needless administrators that take power away from the parents and spend money trying to make their results LOOK better instead of making the education better. In smaller districts the parents have more control and the schools do better.
By Taking HALF the money and giving parents the CHOICE to send their kids to better schools the public schools will see a drop in money but also a drop in STUDENTS. And if the school is spending HALF OF THAT STUDENTS cash on the administration then I think we have found the problem in public education.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
Those are links discussing ecnomies of scale, I have no idea whether or not they "support" vouchers. Amused One wanted an explanatino for economies of scale.
Parents can, and DO, decide what is best for THEIR child. Kids have been enrolled in private school for ages, you arent forced to send your kid to public school. Just dont expect society at large to pay for YOUR child. The idea behind public education was that it benefitted society as a whole to be, well, educated. Again, reference my military analogy and see if you have a problem with it. If you support vouchers, the similar mindset would mean you support people taking vouchers from our military and deciding how best to defend themselves.
My scaling theory isnt really mine, its a LONG established economic principle. All districts are not equal, and it sounds to me like you live in a rich district based on your description. I now that the difference between Austin ISD and Eanes ISD (20 miles apart) is huge when it comes to funding. Federal funding is evenly split (fairly). School districts are NOT equally funded. More money certainly does provide for a better education. I know in Texas the state provides some money, equally, but certain districts get more than others based on local funds. In the state, local funds come from property taxes. The more affluent the area, the larger the property taxes are. Now, as far as bloat, I agree that is a big problem. Fortunately, you are in control of your school district. Local elections are held for school board trustees. I know here in Austin, that accounts for only about 10% of the voting populace when they come up for election, so your voice is pretty well heard if you choose to get involved, particularly if you get a campaign going.
Parents can, and DO, decide what is best for THEIR child. Kids have been enrolled in private school for ages, you arent forced to send your kid to public school. Just dont expect society at large to pay for YOUR child. The idea behind public education was that it benefitted society as a whole to be, well, educated. Again, reference my military analogy and see if you have a problem with it. If you support vouchers, the similar mindset would mean you support people taking vouchers from our military and deciding how best to defend themselves.
My scaling theory isnt really mine, its a LONG established economic principle. All districts are not equal, and it sounds to me like you live in a rich district based on your description. I now that the difference between Austin ISD and Eanes ISD (20 miles apart) is huge when it comes to funding. Federal funding is evenly split (fairly). School districts are NOT equally funded. More money certainly does provide for a better education. I know in Texas the state provides some money, equally, but certain districts get more than others based on local funds. In the state, local funds come from property taxes. The more affluent the area, the larger the property taxes are. Now, as far as bloat, I agree that is a big problem. Fortunately, you are in control of your school district. Local elections are held for school board trustees. I know here in Austin, that accounts for only about 10% of the voting populace when they come up for election, so your voice is pretty well heard if you choose to get involved, particularly if you get a campaign going.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
Im sorry if I didnt make myself clear in my previous post. I was addressing your confusion as to why a rural school district would be better off than an urban one based on economies of scale. My post was in response to your claim that it invalidated economies of scale. More money does indeed often make for a better education, which is why so many rich people are willing to pay upwards of $25k a year for their children's private education, even including college. Its certainly not exclusive, but it is inclusive.
I understand what you mean about misappropriation of funding, I agreed with it and talked about the control you levy through local elections.
I understand what you mean about misappropriation of funding, I agreed with it and talked about the control you levy through local elections.
CPA
Elite Member
um, yes we do "filter" out kids. Come to Texas and I can show you years and years of filtering in the state-wide TAAS tests. Then go to other countries and see how they start kids in school at 3 (India is an example). The issue is not money, the issue is that we have incompetent people teaching dumbed down curriculum all for the sake of self-esteem. No wonder teachers won't take a competency test.
We need to shut down colleges of Education. No, I don't mean colleges, but college curriculums with sole purposes of providing someone with a teaching certificate. Instead, we need to populate the teaching ranks with individuals who have majored in a subject with a body of knowledge (ie, mathmatics degree, history degree, etc.) and teach that subject only. I know this is somewhat off the subject, but it is one of the reasons we have come to this point. It is not a matter of the parents seeing run down schools, no breakfast for Susie or Johnnie, or sports being cut out (all monetary issues), but rather not having confidence that the subject matter is being taught properly, if at all. Parents, and I am one of them, want the knowledge transfer no matter what the setting.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
Im in Texas, but Im not sure what you mean by "filtering" kids out because of the TAAS. We now hold them back (though cheating has gotten to be pretty bad) but dont send them to trade schools and not allow them to get to high school. I know there were a few kids in middle school who had been held back a few times, 15 years old. As soon as they turned 16 they were automatically moved up to high school.
I agree with you about eliminating the college of education, just look at the aggregate SAT scores for different colleges. Lowest are nursing and education at UT. Im majoring in Math, seeking a BS, and I plan on teaching math in high school. The problem with requiring a "real" major (sorry if that pissed someone off) is that teachers are already hard enough to find. And as this thread has shown, nobody is willing to put more money in for teachers.
I agree with you about eliminating the college of education, just look at the aggregate SAT scores for different colleges. Lowest are nursing and education at UT. Im majoring in Math, seeking a BS, and I plan on teaching math in high school. The problem with requiring a "real" major (sorry if that pissed someone off) is that teachers are already hard enough to find. And as this thread has shown, nobody is willing to put more money in for teachers.
CPA
Elite Member
Texas schools have great leeway in exempting kids from taking the TAAS tests. Will dig for the statistics, but I know it happens. In addition, while it has been brought up to be changed, schools are only allowed to hold back a child once before the 8th grade and once before they graduate. And I agree cheating is getting out of hand, but is worse for the teacher than the students, as witnessed by the case of the Missouri (I beleive) teacher who was fired for failing several students who plagarized.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
I never heard about TAAS exemptions, I dont doubt you on that though.
Amused
Elite Member
No matter what happens, they'll have enough to fill a class, Hendrix. Your explaination does nothing to prove public schools couldn't downsize and keep the same quality of education they have now. In fact, it only proves my point that the success of small private schools proves that public schools can easily downsize and keep whatever quality they have today, if not improve.
You made the claim, you back it up.
I obviously haven''t seen that yet.
This proves you have no clue what you're talking about. The vast, Vast, VAST majority of public school funding is local through property and state income taxes. (In my state, the average yearly property tax is about $4000 a year). Federal funding of schools is NEW, and supplementary. It's barely a drop in the bucket in most school system's budget.
Please, Hendrix, if you're going to discuss a subject like school funding, at least know what the fsck you're talking about instead of bring in half-assed theoretical BS based on nothing but your blind faith in the claims of obviously biased sources and mired in your own ignorance of how our school systems are even funded.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
Maybe you missed the later reply in which I stated, " I now that the difference between Austin ISD and Eanes ISD (20 miles apart) is huge when it comes to funding. Federal funding is evenly split (fairly). School districts are NOT equally funded. More money certainly does provide for a better education. I know in Texas the state provides some money, equally, but certain districts get more than others based on local funds. In the state, local funds come from property taxes. The more affluent the area, the larger the property taxes are."
I didnt have numbers for state or local funding, just federal. I wasnt gonna put up numbers I didnt have access to or to "guess" as some have in this thread. I did try searching for Texas and Travis County numbers, but to no avail.
I dont see how either a couple definitions and analysis of "economies of scale" and my simple analogy fails to prove my point about economies of scale. Please explain.
Links:
Sweden
Finland
China
Military analogy:
"The idea behind public education was that it benefitted society as a whole to be, well, educated. Again, reference my military analogy and see if you have a problem with it. If you support vouchers, the similar mindset would mean you support people taking vouchers from our military and deciding how best to defend themselves. "
I didnt have numbers for state or local funding, just federal. I wasnt gonna put up numbers I didnt have access to or to "guess" as some have in this thread. I did try searching for Texas and Travis County numbers, but to no avail.
I dont see how either a couple definitions and analysis of "economies of scale" and my simple analogy fails to prove my point about economies of scale. Please explain.
Links:
Sweden
Finland
China
Military analogy:
"The idea behind public education was that it benefitted society as a whole to be, well, educated. Again, reference my military analogy and see if you have a problem with it. If you support vouchers, the similar mindset would mean you support people taking vouchers from our military and deciding how best to defend themselves. "
Amused
Elite Member
Next time, try actually knowing what you're talking about before making claims of fact.
Not everything that benefits the society as a whole must be socialized, i.e., run by the government, Hendrix.
And no, providing a common defense is a Constitutional requirement. Education is not. Education is best left up to parents who have the best interests of their children in mind. Public schools offer little to no choice, something that is a must because no two children are alike.
There are many things that benefit society, Hendrix, but because we're a free nation (well, for the most part), we don't socialize them.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
Now that you see other countries filter out kids, do you agree that results then would be skewed in their favor?
Vouchers arent a question of constitutionality. Rather, its a question of whether or not it is the right thing to do. Because the military is provided by the constitution does NOT make it any more of a benefit to society. Even Republicans from 50 years ago could recognize it. The fact of the matter is that BOTH education and military provide for the good of our society. The fact of the matter is that everyone pays in, regardless of how much DIRECT usage they recieve. Everyone pays in because they all recieve the larger benefit. Now if you want a bodyguard becuase the military isnt enough, thats fine. You have every right to. Just dont expect to get a military tax rebate for it. If you want to send your kid to private school that is also fine. You have every right to. Just dont expect to get a school tax rebate for it.
Even if the constitution demands a military, there is no demand on size or scope. If I want better choice from my military, dont like all the money being wasted, lack of input, etc, I should be able to withdraw my money by your reasoning, correct? Just because the constitution requires it does not in anyway invalidate my claims. I only want to get 99% of my "share" of the military funding back. The constitutional requirement wouldnt change, correct? Besides, me taking my money out has no effect whatsoever, right?
Vouchers arent a question of constitutionality. Rather, its a question of whether or not it is the right thing to do. Because the military is provided by the constitution does NOT make it any more of a benefit to society. Even Republicans from 50 years ago could recognize it. The fact of the matter is that BOTH education and military provide for the good of our society. The fact of the matter is that everyone pays in, regardless of how much DIRECT usage they recieve. Everyone pays in because they all recieve the larger benefit. Now if you want a bodyguard becuase the military isnt enough, thats fine. You have every right to. Just dont expect to get a military tax rebate for it. If you want to send your kid to private school that is also fine. You have every right to. Just dont expect to get a school tax rebate for it.
Even if the constitution demands a military, there is no demand on size or scope. If I want better choice from my military, dont like all the money being wasted, lack of input, etc, I should be able to withdraw my money by your reasoning, correct? Just because the constitution requires it does not in anyway invalidate my claims. I only want to get 99% of my "share" of the military funding back. The constitutional requirement wouldnt change, correct? Besides, me taking my money out has no effect whatsoever, right?
Amused
Elite Member
It doesn't matter to me, I never used other countries as an example for anything.
Why not? My child is STILL being educated, right? The society is still benefitting, right? It isn't costing society any more, in fact, it's costing them LESS. You still have not made a valid argument, Hendrix.
Your miltary argument has failed. Kids are being educated either way. The social good IS being met. Thank you, drive through...
Let's see, first you tried the Constitutionality argument, and failed.
Then you tried the old, tired and simplistic "it takes money from public schools" argument, and that failed as well.
Now you're getting really out there with "military analogies." Sorry, it ain't gonna fly. Our kids aren't soldiers, and parents aren't conscripts. They deserve a choice in schooling and should not be denied the funding THEY paid for when they make that choice.
It's time to face the fact that the public school fight is all about control, Hendrix. The left NEEDS to control what is taught in schools, and want kids raised as government dependant socialists... as evidenced by NEA actions. Well, it's time to stop... and it looks like your side is rightfully losing this fight. When it does, it will be a great day for individual freedom in America
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
I never once argued the constitutionality side. My first post in the thread BEGAN with this: " Clearly, the way vouchers are setup allows it to keep from being unconstitutional. Its not like the money is given directly to a private school, or forced to go to one. The question isnt whether or not it is constitutional, its whether or not its a good thing."
I dont think you understand "economies of scale" yet, if you are still claiming that its costing less. Schools are hurt by the money being taken out because of "economies of scale". I provided two links above that demonstrate its effects, which really kick in when you are talking large scale. You have only claimed it to be false, but never disproved it. I provided the links, show how economies of scale dont exist. Im sure the world of business and economics would love to hear it, so that they can radically reshape the way it is taught from here on out.
If money is being taken from public schools they are hurt. Once that happens, the extent to which public education is effective is diminished. When that happens, society is hurt. That is my entire premise, that removing money hurts the schools, which in turn hurts society. That is why I oppose vouchers. Not the constitution or anything else.
Again, with the military if my money is being taken out so I can hire a bodyguard, while my other 1% still goes to the military; we still have the military either way. The good of society is being met. You agree on vouchers, to be consistent you have to agree on military vouchers as well.
I dont think you understand "economies of scale" yet, if you are still claiming that its costing less. Schools are hurt by the money being taken out because of "economies of scale". I provided two links above that demonstrate its effects, which really kick in when you are talking large scale. You have only claimed it to be false, but never disproved it. I provided the links, show how economies of scale dont exist. Im sure the world of business and economics would love to hear it, so that they can radically reshape the way it is taught from here on out.
If money is being taken from public schools they are hurt. Once that happens, the extent to which public education is effective is diminished. When that happens, society is hurt. That is my entire premise, that removing money hurts the schools, which in turn hurts society. That is why I oppose vouchers. Not the constitution or anything else.
Again, with the military if my money is being taken out so I can hire a bodyguard, while my other 1% still goes to the military; we still have the military either way. The good of society is being met. You agree on vouchers, to be consistent you have to agree on military vouchers as well.
What a pile of horsesh8! Sure! Great idea! Let's just throw money at it with no oversight or standards for the alleged educational system we're buying. BULLSH|T!!! :|
You can believe those F-16's have plenty of qualifications to meet. Even then, there's graft and payoffs we don't hear about, but the hardware has to fly and shoot, or the manufacturers don't get paid. The educational system needs a lot of help, but if my tax dollars are going to pay for it through government, then my government damned well better specify how it will be done and demand results. Furthermore, I will not pay a freaking nickel to underwrite any religious organization teaching their bullsh8 ideas about how the real universe works.
Amused
Elite Member
I don't NEED to disprove anything, Hendrix. It needs to be proven. IMO it has not, as small private schools can teach children just as effectively. And there will ALWAYS be enough to fill a class, Hendrix, therefore your last argument on this fell flat.
I disagree. So long as the funding per student remains the same, they will be able to offer the same service. Small private schools prove this, as they do it with less per student than public schools.
You oppose vouchers based on a false premise. Nice.
The purpose of a military is to protect us against other military machines. I highly doubt your bodyguard could fight off a nation. Nice try, though.
You still have yet to come up with a valid argument as to why it would hurt anyone, Hendrix. But you go on keeping the party line. The sheep must be plenty... I guess.
BTW, can you point to ONE instance in which a public school system was actually harmed by vouchers?
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
The heated and polarized views in this thread is just a glimpse and glimmer of the exchange between school board members, policy wanks, and administrators.
Vouchers are being sold as the golden goose. Before we embrace vouchers nation wide, lets look at some of the big districts that are already using vouchers. I think in Milwaukee you will find the oldest voucher program. It is fairly successful, but parents cannot use vouchers for private school (for sure not for private religious schools) so really it is just a district wide open enrollment. Cinninatti will be the first to use vouchers for private religious schools.... I think we will be able to learn a great deal from what happens there. I suspect that vouchers really will only benefit affluent children. Poor children will be able to switch between public schools (assuming there is room) whereas affluent and upper middle class children will have parents that will be able to afford the private school tuition. Again, there is limited capacity in private schools and soon, tuition rates will rise as demand rises.
Luckily for all of us, education policy is mostly a local affair... allowing all of us to go to board meetings and have an active part in the goverance of our schools.
Vouchers are being sold as the golden goose. Before we embrace vouchers nation wide, lets look at some of the big districts that are already using vouchers. I think in Milwaukee you will find the oldest voucher program. It is fairly successful, but parents cannot use vouchers for private school (for sure not for private religious schools) so really it is just a district wide open enrollment. Cinninatti will be the first to use vouchers for private religious schools.... I think we will be able to learn a great deal from what happens there. I suspect that vouchers really will only benefit affluent children. Poor children will be able to switch between public schools (assuming there is room) whereas affluent and upper middle class children will have parents that will be able to afford the private school tuition. Again, there is limited capacity in private schools and soon, tuition rates will rise as demand rises.
Luckily for all of us, education policy is mostly a local affair... allowing all of us to go to board meetings and have an active part in the goverance of our schools.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
You have to accurately compare funding for public schools and private schools, and then take into account the fact that the large majority of kids in private school are there because their parents actually give a $#!+ about their children's education, which isnt true for public schools. Economies of scale applies, and if it doesnt, you should have no problem going through those links and showing how it fails to apply.
Now answer me this, you state that economies of scale doesnt apply to public school, I say it does. Ive given links fully explaining the meaning of it, and even demonstrated how it applies to education and financing. Lets hypothetically say (agree with me for a second) Im right, and schools are "hurt" by the money being taken. Would you then agree that vouchers are a bad idea, and if not why not?
Now the effectiveness of my "military" is insignificant, just as the effectiveness of your "private" school. Im to judge the quality of my military, just as you are to judge the quality of your child's education. Whats wrong with that?
The party line so far has been that of a constitutional matter, seperation of church and state and all, certainly never something I agreed with. The party line has also shifted more towards the unchecked admission policies for vouchers (what private school would want 500 inner city kids?), and the fact that only the rich would be able to cover the difference. While that part I can agree with, that isnt my main concern with vouchers.
Now answer me this, you state that economies of scale doesnt apply to public school, I say it does. Ive given links fully explaining the meaning of it, and even demonstrated how it applies to education and financing. Lets hypothetically say (agree with me for a second) Im right, and schools are "hurt" by the money being taken. Would you then agree that vouchers are a bad idea, and if not why not?
Now the effectiveness of my "military" is insignificant, just as the effectiveness of your "private" school. Im to judge the quality of my military, just as you are to judge the quality of your child's education. Whats wrong with that?
The party line so far has been that of a constitutional matter, seperation of church and state and all, certainly never something I agreed with. The party line has also shifted more towards the unchecked admission policies for vouchers (what private school would want 500 inner city kids?), and the fact that only the rich would be able to cover the difference. While that part I can agree with, that isnt my main concern with vouchers.
Amused
Elite Member
No. YOU should have no problem proving your own case, instead of relying on others to do it for you. Please, in detail explain how this "economies of scale" applies. Your first explaination fell far short.
You've given links, yet you cannot explain. Please, in your own words, explain it to us. You parrot "economies of scale" over and over again as if it's the debate winning point, yet the one and only time you tried to explain it, it was rather pathetic.
Um, please. Private school students regularly out-score public school students. To question the effectiveness of private education is just a complete denial of reality. AGAIN your argument falls flat... this time based on an absurd false premise, i.e., private education is ineffective.
To meet the needs of a growing private school demand, private schools will expand, and new ones will be developed. In the end, they are in it for the money, just like everyone else. When the demand presents itself, the private sector will respond. To meet the needs of a smaller public school demand, public school systems will downsize and actually have MORE money through the sale of lands and surplus funds from money left over that was not given out as vouchers (Remember, only half or less of the the per-student cost will be given out).
Before you jump to more absurd conclusions, check out what inner city black communities advocate in the way of vouchers (they overwhelmingly support them), and what they plan to do for private education (set up private community schools).
BTW, the party line is, "vouchers are bad, mmmkay?" It doesn't matter what absurd argument is used, it's the position itself. Nice try.
Finally, I'm tired of this "it only helps the rich" nonsense. To the "rich," the amount of money vouchers provide is nothing. It's nothing more a couple of detail jobs for the Benz. To the upper middle class it's still not much. Vouchers will help the lower middle and average middle class the most as they could afford private education with just a little bit of their tax money refunded. It will also help dedicated lower classes be more able to afford it if they really do sacrifice. In other words, it helps those folks who could afford private education, were they refunded their portion of property taxes to help make up the difference. So we can dispense with the class envy BS... but it always comes up. Hell, if all else fails, blame the rich, right?
Some of the strongest support for vouchers is from inner city blacks. Please explain why they support them, if this only helps the rich?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
