I was listening to NPR tonight on my drive home and John Edwards was talking about how he thought Housing Vouchers were a good idea for providing poor citizens (particuarly those displaced by Katrina) housing assisstance.

But, in the next breath, he said that he didn't think School Vouchers were a good idea. He didn't explain why.

Could someone explain to me why vouchers are a good idea for housing but not schooling? Besides the fact that the Democrats have to appeal to the Teacher's Union?

9/30/2005 1:15:54 AM

I think you just answered your own question.

9/30/2005 1:56:48 AM

I kind of like the idea. But one argument i've heard against them is that white people would take their kids out of schools with mostly or many minorities, causing all their money to go to one particular school, that's mostly white.

Schools, like anything else, have a fixed cost, and if there isn't enough money to meet this cost in a school where all the white people left, it would cause problems for that school.

But, this scenario doesn't seem likely to happen in most places, and they could probably create a voucher law that can compensate for that kind of situation.

9/30/2005 2:08:15 AM

because they hate children

see also: abortion

9/30/2005 2:11:05 AM

I can't say anything regarding the housing vouchers, but school vouchers are a crock. It's a way of advocating privatization of public education in an underhanded way. Private schools can set their own policies, specifically with respect to curriculum and religion. This isn't all bad, I mean parents should have a right to choose what school suits their children's needs.

The reason for all the hate on the voucher idea is its link to No Child Left Behind. The problem the Teachers Union and other organizations have with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is that it's being used to torpedo public schools' credibility. If you scare parents into believing pulic schools are doing a poor job educating their kids then they'll push for vouchers. The vouchers represent the portion of money the state would give to public schools to educate the parent's child. This money can then be spent on tuition for private schools.

Here's the deal. NCLB sets high standards for schools to meet, all based on standardized test scores. Sounds good, for after all we want to set high standards for our kids and make sure they're getting quality education. This is all fine and dandy, until you realize NCLB sets the same standards for urban, rural, poor, affluent, diverse and non-diverse schools. Trying to give every school, as they stand today, equal standards to aspire to by 2010 is exceptionally stupid and short-sighted.

Why you ask?

A rural, poor school doesn't have the tax base to afford as many basic necessities, like acquiring/retaining good teachers, updating school technology, or even properly stocking basic school supplies. Test scores obviously will be lower for students attending these schools, because the bottom line is that students with better teachers and more resources WILL perform comparatively better. It would be like walking into a gym class and demanding every student be able to run the mile in 6 minutes by year's end, WITHOUT providing any additional training time or assistance in any way. Now, try as those kids might, some of them simply aren't going to be able to run a 4 minute mile even with a year of training. This is the same bullshit NCLB is pulling right now.

Have a diverse student body with Korean, Mexican, and other kids that don't speak english as a second language? That takes more resources too for ESL teachers (English as a Second Language), not to mention that these ESL students take that language barrier disadvantage into the testing room.


A large percentage of schools will "fail" by NCLB standards. Parents read in the paper that their kids are "being left behind" by the public chool systems and all of the sudden everyone likes the idea of vouchers. No one bothers to ask how or why schools failed, but they do know the school failed SOMETHING. Set too high of a standard at anything and you'll see failure. I didn't make a 4.0 in college, am I a failure of a college student?

Wait, don't answer that...

You get the point. Vouchers may seem like a nice idea, but this country needs public schooling. If the schools start going all private it'll just be the new form of segregation and you'll see real polarization of political issues. We don't need to divide our kids up according to who is black, white, Christian, Muslim, Hispanic, Jewish or whatever. If parents want to use private schools then fine, but don't go ruining the reputation of public schools to force our hands.

[/end rant]

[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 2:16 AM. Reason : grf]

9/30/2005 2:12:23 AM

Quote :

" If you scare parents into believing pulic schools are doing a poor job educating their kids "

Quote :

"A rural, poor school doesn't have the tax base to afford as many basic necessities, like acquiring/retaining good teachers, updating school technology, or even properly stocking basic school supplies. Test scores obviously will be lower for students attending these schools, because the bottom line is that students with better teachers and more resources WILL perform comparatively better."

seems the schools are doing a better job of scaring parents than the government is

9/30/2005 2:20:10 AM

Because school vouchers take money out of the public schools, causing them to worsen. There is no equivalent comparison with public housing. The goal with housing vouchers is to get and keep the gov't out of the housing business, b/c they aren't any good at it. You may argue we should do the same with education, but that is another issue.

Unless our goal is privatize education in this country, this is a bad idea. The school voucher program as is proposed is not a way to enable poor people to get a better education, but rather a way of making a private education cheaper for the upper and upper-middle class.

[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 8:34 AM. Reason : ?]

9/30/2005 8:30:09 AM

^ The goal is to have a good education system. The privatization would merely be a means to an end.

In the short term you are right, this is going to divert money from public schools. Of course, that is only in the short term, in the long term most precincts with multiple public schools could close one or more of them because the students are in private school. In the end, it will save money on these students, freeing up more resources for the students remaining in public school.

Of course, if the public school system is beyond saving, as I guess it might be somewhere in America, then it wouldn't be a crime if they did manage to privatize the whole system.

Remember, this is not an all or nothing proposal. Most cities have acceptable public school systems. Vouchers could make them better, to be sure, but their main focus is saving students from god awful public schools where they exist.

As for the rant above, I admit the No Child Left Behind Act sucks, but we're talking about vouchers.

9/30/2005 8:49:51 AM

i personally dont like vouchers b/c to me its been a way to seperate the have's from the have nots.

9/30/2005 10:02:29 AM

exactly

and if you look at the collegiate level
sure there are some marquee private schools, but for the whole, you don't go to a private school for the pure education

i know if my goal in college was just to learn, i wouldn't have gone to campbell

(note: i'm not saying i didn't get a good education at campbell)

9/30/2005 10:16:15 AM

^^ How? It would let the have-nots attend the same schools as the haves.

Or do you think the current system is equitable? The poor must attend public school, they have no choice, while the rich go to private schools because they can afford them.

[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 10:30 AM. Reason : ^]

9/30/2005 10:30:16 AM

Quote :

"In the short term you are right, this is going to divert money from public schools. Of course, that is only in the short term, in the long term most precincts with multiple public schools could close one or more of them because the students are in private school. In the end, it will save money on these students, freeing up more resources for the students remaining in public school."

Right. When you remove people with the largest paychecks from the sample, the aggregate average increases. What was the grade that they gave to you for basic calculus, or even HS algebra?

9/30/2005 10:52:40 AM

^ What is your point? That I stated the obvious? Perhaps your point was too obvious for me to discern.

9/30/2005 12:11:06 PM

Quote :

"In the short term you are right, this is going to divert money from public schools."

The short term is all that is on the table. Sure school vouchers could be part of a legitimate plan to improve education, but it would need to be a small detail in a much larger plan. There is no such plan on the table.

The issue we are talking about is a crackpot scheme to make private school cheaper for the people already going to private school or who would anyway.

[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 12:20 PM. Reason : ?]

9/30/2005 12:19:09 PM

Well that's not hard. "Children are only eligible for vouchers if their parents collectively earn less than $50k a year."

Happy now? I may love the market, and honestly feel privatization can save public education, but I still hate rich people. I think rich people should never get a cent from government, no Social Security, no Medicare, no vouchers.

9/30/2005 1:16:41 PM

Quote :

"Could someone explain to me why vouchers are a good idea for housing but not schooling?"

1) One of the most fundamental services the federal and state governments provide is a public education system. Taking funds from an already troubled system and putting them into outside areas does nothing but damage the existing system. There is no remotely similar housing program the government provides.
2) A large number of private schools are religious in nature. This is, therefore, government funding of religion. How many townhouses belong to a church?

9/30/2005 1:53:58 PM

Quote :

"Well that's not hard. "Children are only eligible for vouchers if their parents collectively earn less than $50k a year.""

Ok, we are debating two different things here. I'm speaking against the vouchers that have/are being proposed. That is what the Democrats are against.

You are speaking in favor of education vouchers that haven't been proposed (but could be beneficial). At least that would put the best students in the best schools. Then the public schools could focus more on citizen and vocational training. I could see that working, but these are changes to be made lightly. This is a huge change that would need to be studied and planned ad nausium.

9/30/2005 2:38:46 PM

It would not let the havenots join the haves. What is 2,500 a year going to do for the people that make less than that a month? Nothing. And thats what we are talkign about here. Its not the middle class, b/c you know what they're gone.

Vouchers would cripple the public school system and bolster the notion of better education for the rich. It would give the border-line upper class the advantage to better only their children, while leaving funding cut for others. Yes thats fine and what every parent should strive for, nor should they be punished for that.

But whats good for the goose is not always good for the gander.


has anyone here taught in public schools?

[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 3:11 PM. Reason : spaces]

9/30/2005 3:11:30 PM

Quote :

" Because school vouchers take money out of the public schools, causing them to worsen. There is no equivalent comparison with public housing. The goal with housing vouchers is to get and keep the gov't out of the housing business, b/c they aren't any good at it. You may argue we should do the same with education, but that is another issue."

Yes, you can make the exact same argument about subsidized housing. For example, government gives more money to public housing residents. The more affluent individuals in public housing move into somewhat better neighborhoods, leaving behind the poorest of the poor. This causes an already shoddy public housing system to implode.

Quote :

" 1) One of the most fundamental services the federal and state governments provide is a public education system. Taking funds from an already troubled system and putting them into outside areas does nothing but damage the existing system. There is no remotely similar housing program the government provides."

It seems you, like many Democrats, don’t understand the difference between a government service and a government enterprise.

An example: Amanda, a seven-year-old orphan, has no shoes. I think it is reasonable for government to provide her with shoes. The most reasonable way would be to simply redistribute income to get Amanda her shoes. Here government is providing a service to Amanda. Another alternative would be for government to build shoe factories then provide Amanda with shoes. This is an example of a government enterprise. Not surprisingly, government enterprises often end up being boondoggles—not always, but often.

Here’s the key point (and one most Democrats will never comprehend): just because you think an orphan needs shoes, doesn’t mean government should build shoe factories.

Similarly, I believe—just like Adam Smith did—that education should be a fundamental service of government. That doesn’t mean I support what is basically a government monopoly on lower-end schooling. In fact, the two have nothing in common. The existing empirical research indicates there is no reason to support the current system as ardently as you do. In a variety of studies, voucher schemes have been shown to be mildly to profoundly beneficial. Vouchers aren’t a cure-all, but they’re a major step forward.

Not that any of this matters, because people like you believe that government enterprise needs no justification: that is, government is an end in itself and a fine one at that.

This explains why the left will howl bloody hell about the improprieties of private firms then blithely ignore the improprieties of the public sector—the one exception being the military. This also explains why the left will shriek about private monopolies then turn right around and gleefully support them in the public sector, as has been in this thread.

[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 3:48 PM. Reason : edit]

9/30/2005 3:36:52 PM

Quote :

"When you remove people with the largest paychecks from the sample, the aggregate average increases."

i didn't know that schoolkids made paychecks... hmmm...

Quote :

"One of the most fundamental services the federal and state governments provide is a public education system. Taking funds from an already troubled system and putting them into outside areas does nothing but damage the existing system."

so in other words, its more important to save the system than to achieve what the system's ends actually are... got it!

Quote :

"A large number of private schools are religious in nature. This is, therefore, government funding of religion. How many townhouses belong to a church?"

too bad it wouldn't be gov't funding of religion. The gov't was going to spend that money on that child in the public schools anyway. It is still spending that money on that child being educated. The PARENT is putting more money into the private religious school, whereas he wouldn't have been doing so in the public schools. Thus, it is the PARENT who is ultimately funding the private school. Now, if you want to have your cake and eat it too, then don't charge the parent any taxes for the public school system if he decides to send his kid to a private religious school. Because lets be honest: whose money is actually being sent to that public school? It aint the poor family's... Its more than likely the money of the family that wants to send their kid to a private religious school. Besides, EXCLUDING religious schools is more of an attack on religion than including it would be.

Quote :

"I think rich people should never get a cent from government, no Social Security, no Medicare, no vouchers."

If thats the case, then the rich shouldn't be required to pay taxes into those things either.

Quote :

"Vouchers may seem like a nice idea, but this country needs public schooling."

remind me again why we need a bloated, inneffective system again?

Quote :

"A rural, poor school doesn't have the tax base to afford as many basic necessities, like acquiring/retaining good teachers, updating school technology, or even properly stocking basic school supplies."

OK, then the problem is that funds aren't being distributed to these school systems properly. For every rural area, there is another big ass city in the same state that could be sharing funds. I mean, education is a statewide thing, right? If the state is supposed to supply an education, then it needs to do so. And if rural schools are being fucked, then clearly something is not adequate, so the state needs to get in and do something. Maybe there needs to be a base amount per school that every district gets in order to maintain the building and transportation and such. Then you would also have a per-kid funding amount that should be used for stuff that is more of a "per-person" thing than a per-school thing.

Quote :

"Here's the deal. NCLB sets high standards for schools to meet, all based on standardized test scores. Sounds good, for after all we want to set high standards for our kids and make sure they're getting quality education. This is all fine and dandy, until you realize NCLB sets the same standards for urban, rural, poor, affluent, diverse and non-diverse schools. Trying to give every school, as they stand today, equal standards to aspire to by 2010 is exceptionally stupid and short-sighted."

This is quite true, and its a good reason not to like NCLB. Unfortunately, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of vouchers, as the problems inherent in a rural school are monetary. The problem exists without vouchers. And yes, taking money away from a rural school via vouchers will cause problems, lets also consider how many private schools there actually are in rural areas, much less how able to afford a private school people in rural areas are, even with vouchers. Thus, vouchers are not the problem, and they would likely contribute little to the problem in rural areas.

10/1/2005 12:21:16 AM

Keynes, I think you are splitting hairs on whether public education is a service or enterprise. I'm not sure what you think would be different, except maybe the influx of for profit companies running schools. We have a little bit of that and non-profits already in NC with the charter schools. I don't think any of the for profit schools have worked out very well. Also, look at for profit universities. Not too impressive, eh?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this would improve anything. I think the for-profits would either sacrifice quality or fail and the non-profits wouldn't be any cheaper.

10/1/2005 9:49:51 AM

Quote :

"If thats the case, then the rich shouldn't be required to pay taxes into those things either."

Maybe if they want to be robbed blind and murdered by those who need those subsidies.

Quote :

"so in other words, its more important to save the system than to achieve what the system's ends actually are... got it!"

Nice try. Using money from pubic schools to subsidize private education for rich people isn't going to improve any ends.

Quote :

"remind me again why we need a bloated, inneffective system again?"

As opposed to what? We just end public education? Do you really think having a more uneducated population is going to lower your taxes?

Quote :

"OK, then the problem is that funds aren't being distributed to these school systems properly. For every rural area, there is another big ass city in the same state that could be sharing funds. I mean, education is a statewide thing, right? If the state is supposed to supply an education, then it needs to do so. And if rural schools are being fucked, then clearly something is not adequate, so the state needs to get in and do something. Maybe there needs to be a base amount per school that every district gets in order to maintain the building and transportation and such. Then you would also have a per-kid funding amount that should be used for stuff that is more of a "per-person" thing than a per-school thing."

I agree that their are issues here to be addressed. The first problem is, no education is not completely a statewide thing. It is funded by federal, state, and local taxes. Most of the inequalities come from differences in the local tax base. Also, funding for exceptional children is based on societal averages, rather than the actual communities need. Counties with a large number of exceptional students got less money per student. I do agree though that the state and federal gov't should distribute their money based on need. I'm not sure to what degree that is being done. I think it would be fair because ultimately the people who were failed by the education system will cost everbody money.

[Edited on October 1, 2005 at 9:59 AM. Reason : ?]

10/1/2005 9:51:33 AM

hahaha, there is something classic about Keynes' response -- take a very specific issue and go on a long diatribe about something that is dubiously related

10/1/2005 9:59:10 AM

Quote :

"Set too high of a standard at anything and you'll see failure. I didn't make a 4.0 in college, am I a failure of a college student? Wait, don't answer that..."

lol

10/1/2005 9:59:51 AM

Quote :

"hahaha, there is something classic about Keynes' response -- take a very specific issue and go on a long diatribe about something that is dubiously related"

Strawman arguement. Give a ridiculous example, pretend democrats would support that ridiculous position, then try to align it with education.

Riddle me this, what is the difference between providing a service and providing an enterprise to provide a service. The only difference I see is the first would involve a contract and the second involves being employed or elected.

A more accurate comparison would be:

The gov't buying shoes and distributing them to the poor or the gov't hiring Halliburton to buy shoes and give them to the poor. If you the think the latter would save money, our education system is in more trouble than any of us know. Sure in your economic theory, through competition you could cut waste and improve efficiency, but that assumes competition. The Republicans, like everybody else, are notorious for forgetting competition during privatization. Privatization in practice is just a way to shift taxpayer money from paying taxpayers to filling the coffers of rich corporations. It ends up costing just a much (if not more) and reduces the tax base.

There is economic theory, then there is reality. You need to learn both.

[Edited on October 1, 2005 at 10:56 AM. Reason : ?]

10/1/2005 10:50:21 AM

Democrats are all teachers. That is why they suck at like - no experience outside the classroom.

10/1/2005 11:13:22 AM

Yup. They all suck at like.

10/1/2005 12:14:46 PM

Sucking at like is destroying America

10/1/2005 1:27:11 PM

GGMon is a perfect example of the problems with our public education system. It's people like him that I want to help.

10/1/2005 1:42:17 PM

Quote :

"Maybe if they want to be robbed blind and murdered by those who need those subsidies."

remind me again how not paying into SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and schools would lead to the rich being "robbed blind?" i didn't say the rich should also not pay for police protection, did i?

Quote :

"Nice try. Using money from pubic schools to subsidize private education for rich people isn't going to improve any ends."

care to support that assertion? Cause I mean, if people are going out and getting a better primary education, then clearly an end is being met...

Quote :

"As opposed to what? We just end public education? Do you really think having a more uneducated population is going to lower your taxes?"

as opposed to a not-bloated, effective system. you know, the natural thing I was implying...

Quote :

"A more accurate comparison would be:"

only it wouldn't be a more accurate comparison. In the case of vouchers, people aren't being given anything for free. If the person wants to use the voucher, they will more than likely still have to pay out of their own pocket anyway. Thus, there is still an element of responsibility imposed on the external company by the parent. Plus, the gov't isn't just hiring out one company. The gov't isn't hiring out ANY company. The PARENT is. I believe the term for what your "comparison" is is also listed somewhere in your post...

10/1/2005 2:30:37 PM

self pwnt. Whatever.

10/1/2005 4:50:25 PM

yeah, youre right. teachers suck. sure hope you never bothered with any of those morons in your lifetime.

oh, wait

what amazing, intellectually stimulating job do you have? you must be some kind of nuclear engineer im guessing?

10/1/2005 6:14:50 PM

Interesting point all around, sorry about the NCLB rant. As a future teacher I'm not looking forward to dealing with it and the political bullshit behind it.

Vouchers are, however, simply a means of aggravating social stratification. Like so many have hinted before, vouchers don't pay the entire cost of private education. They merely subsidize it, leaving families to pay the difference. The result? The poorer kids will remain at public schools, but more middle/upper class kids will attend the private schools. It promotes social segregation without really addressing the problems with public education.

Basically those kids with parents rich enough to put them in private schools get saved, the rest get marginalized.

Now if you're looking strictly at the numbers, yes this helps MORE students receive better education. It fails however to address the problem at hand, which is public education and how to fix it. I personally believe it's a fundamental right of every American to receive quality education. Therefore I cannot support a system like vouchers which can only claim to give quality education to those wealthy enough to afford it.

Quote :

"The existing empirical research indicates there is no reason to support the current system as ardently as you do. In a variety of studies, voucher schemes have been shown to be mildly to profoundly beneficial. Vouchers aren’t a cure-all, but they’re a major step forward. "

I'd like to see the research that backs that up. How is it beneficial, and who is it benefitting?

10/1/2005 10:05:19 PM

Quote :

"Now if you're looking strictly at the numbers, yes this helps MORE students receive better education."

then hey, MORE of the current problem is getting solved, then. sounds good to me! unless, of course, the bloated, ineffective system is what is more important to you.

10/2/2005 1:10:51 AM

Quote :

"vouchers don't pay the entire cost of private education"

Why not? Surely some entrepreneur is going to open up a "free to you!" private school, with coupons in the newspaper and the price of admission set to match the voucher being offered.

If the capitalists are right then the market will work. Obviously, it is in my best interest, as a private school, to have more students! The more students, the more I get paid. Hell, what better way to get the students than to offer cash back to attending students. I pay YOU to attend my school!

Now, most parents will want quality education and will probably put their students in more expensive schools. But the truely destitute may prefer the money.

As a matter of fact, in most cities if we set the value of the voucher to the current price being paid per student then there is no way the average private school could manage to spend all that money. Perhaps it will be norm to give cash back, the different schools simply complete on how much to give back.

10/2/2005 7:57:44 AM

Quote :

" Keynes, I think you are splitting hairs on whether public education is a service or enterprise. "

That’s great, but there is a clear distinction. A service requires comparably less bureaucracy.

It’s the difference between saying:

(1) “There should be subsidized healthcare.”

(2) “There should be subsidized healthcare, therefore most hospitals should been government-run.”

The argument for public education, in its current form, basically falls into (2).

Quote :

"The gov't buying shoes and distributing them to the poor or the gov't hiring Halliburton to buy shoes and give them to the poor. If you the think the latter would save money, our education system is in more trouble than any of us know."

Quote :

" Riddle me this, what is the difference between providing a service and providing an enterprise to provide a service. The only difference I see is the first would involve a contract and the second involves being employed or elected."

First, I knew you would mention Halliburton, as I noted, “This explains why the left will howl bloody hell about the improprieties of private firms then blithely ignore the improprieties of the public sector—the one exception being the military.” But that assumes Halliburton actually has some relevance in this thread, and it doesn’t.

The more realistic case is where Amanda’s guardian is given a budget of x dollars to get shoes for her. In the current system, she can go to a variety of shoe stores; compare the quality of shoes; then purchase the one that best suits Amanda.

Another scenario—and one you would probably find more preferable—is where we have government owned shoe factories and Amanda’s guardian is mandated to purchase one of these government brands. Is there a single reason to think that these government-made shoes will not be of inferior quality? If so, I would like to hear it.

Secondly, while Amanda’s guardian may spend x dollars either way, the government shoes are in all likelihood more expensive. A government shoe factory—like so many other government enterprises—would probably operate at a perpetual loss. The difference would be made up with tax dollars and various subsidies designed to keep the shoe factory afloat. That’s simply the reality of government enterprise.

Replace “shoe money” with “school vouchers” and the analogy basically stands.

Quote :

"I don't think any of the for profit schools have worked out very well. "

Quote :

"I think the for-profits would either sacrifice quality…"

So you’re saying North Carolina private schools are generally inferior to North Carolina public schools?

Quote :

" The Republicans, like everybody else, are notorious for forgetting competition during privatization. Privatization in practice is just a way to shift taxpayer money from paying taxpayers to filling the coffers of rich corporations. It ends up costing just a much (if not more) and reduces the tax base."

LOL

Tell me, do you see yourself as an intelligent leftist or more as a caricature of a leftist?

Anyway, we all know private schools are run by large corporations and that the educators in private schools are in cahoots with the Republican party and Wall Street.

Please, let’s keep it on the playing field of sanity here.

Quote :

"Also, look at for profit universities. Not too impressive, eh?"

You’re kidding, right? The most innovative universities in the world are private American universities.

Moreover, the most probable reason that American universities that are the best--hands down--is because they are divorced from the state, compared to universities abroad.

----

What all of this ultimately boils down to is whether you want parents to have greater choice in choosing their children’s school.

You may say that private schools will offer an inferior education. But in reality, this an indictment against most parents, as the parents will determine the quality of education in private schools.

So at least be honest and admit your underlying thesis is that most parents are totally unqualified in determining where to send their children to school. In fact, this is the underlying thesis of just about every argument against vouchers. This is a fair argument—a bad one, but a fair one. But I know you won’t own up to this argument, because like most leftists you think of yourself as being egalitarian.

So perhaps we should start with two simple question: Do you think most parents are capable of and and interested in seeking out a good education for their children? What is a rough percentage of parents that you believe will not seek out a good education for their children?

[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 11:46 AM. Reason : edit]

10/2/2005 11:32:10 AM

Quote :

"You’re kidding, right? The most innovative universities in the world are private American universities. "

Quote :

"You don't know shit. (C) "

10/2/2005 11:37:49 AM

i don't know about y'all, but i go to State

private schools like Duke can STFU

10/2/2005 11:40:12 AM

Quote :

"Also, look at for profit universities. Not too impressive, eh?"

Quote :

"You’re kidding, right? The most innovative universities in the world are private American universities. "

Who are these innovative for profit Universities? Maybe I should have chosen University of Phoenix online instead of NCSU. That would demand credibility. Or maybe I could buy my Ph.D. from Nova Southeastern. Then I could be directory of NCSSM.

Quote :

"So you’re saying North Carolina private schools are generally inferior to North Carolina public schools?"

No, I'm saying the few for profit charters schools that I've heard of have failed.

This may be politically incorrect: I did attend both private and public schools. The private school was better because the students were better. They were all from middle/upper middle/rich class families and were 99.99999999% white. The school was better because the students were more serious. The curriculum wasn't better, the teachers weren't better, the administration wasn't better, the bureacracy wasn't less--none of that. Only the standards for admission were better.

If the gov't hired this school to teach all of the area's students, it would be worse than the public schools. If we want to improve education, we need to send the right students to the right schools. Some people need vocational education, others need more math and science, others need more humanities. I think there is too much trying to squeeze square pegs through round holes in our curriculums.

[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 12:10 PM. Reason : ?]

[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 12:12 PM. Reason : ?]

10/2/2005 12:00:37 PM

Quote :

"The most innovative universities in the world are private American universities. "

yes, Mount Olive really is making some Amazing discoveries...

on the WHOLE
i'd say that for pure educatoin value average public universities > average private universities

AND I WENT TO A PRIVATE UNIVERSITY

10/2/2005 12:05:36 PM

Other countries call our public universities private because, heaven forbid, we STILL pay tuition. They would call it subsidized private education.

10/2/2005 12:46:19 PM

Quote :

"then hey, MORE of the current problem is getting solved, then. sounds good to me! unless, of course, the bloated, ineffective system is what is more important to you."

You're blatantly ignoring the fact that the richer students will, on average, be the sole beneficiaries of the voucher system while poorer students will continue to receive substandard education.

I'll be the first to admit inequity will exist in education however you draw the lines. The problem is that this inequity will be tied to parental wealth. Vouchers will aggravate differences in socioeconomic standing, the rich get richer and poor get poorer, and THAT is as unjust as it is unAmerican. If we going to boast about being the best nation in the world we might start by not marginalizing the education of the poor. You know... the ones that need it most?

Quote :

"So at least be honest and admit your underlying thesis is that most parents are totally unqualified in determining where to send their children to school. In fact, this is the underlying thesis of just about every argument against vouchers. This is a fair argument—a bad one, but a fair one. But I know you won’t own up to this argument, because like most leftists you think of yourself as being egalitarian. "

As I've demonstrated above, your statement in bold is false. Additionally, I don't consider myself egalitarian either. I believe in equity in education. Lets give everyone good education instead of letting the rich kids have better and the poor kids worse. If all the races, ethnic groups, and political factions are ever going to get along, we're going to have to stop separating them out.

Besides, if conservatives want the poor, minority folk to "help themselves," how about starting with a sound education with which to do so? You can't give a black child a spoon and a white kid a shovel, thenm proceed to berate the black child for making a shitty hole.

Quote :

"As a matter of fact, in most cities if we set the value of the voucher to the current price being paid per student then there is no way the average private school could manage to spend all that money. "

This is possible yes, but it's still highly speculative. You have to remember that a school requires a huge investment of capital in building the actual school grounds. Unless a district is building a school from the ground up, and thus will put up this initial investment for private enterprise, I doubt the school will turn enough profit to make the venture worthwhile without increasing the tuition costs beyond the value of the vouchers.

This of course defeats the purpose...

10/2/2005 3:44:47 PM

private =/= for profit, a lot of private schools at the primary and secondary level are non-profit

assuming your goal is equal ed. for all, not just you get the education you can afford. Providing vouchers will certainly further seperate the poor from the middle class/upper-middle class. As said before vouchers will not cover the full cost of tuition at most private schools, those in the middle class/upper middle class will then be able to afford private schooling more easily if they choose to do so. Where as the poor still will not be able to afford the private school, keeping them in the public schools. The voucher money that the parents would use for their kids to go to private schools would be pulled from the public school systems, I'm not saying this isn't fair but it will certainly hurt the public schools which in most places do not have enough funding as is. Thus lowering the quality of education at the public schools which the poor kids are attending.

Neither private nor public schools are created equal across the nation. Private schools are not by default better than public schools. Quality of ed. isn't the only reason kids are sent to private schools. Religion could be the reason, the expectation of better behaved students , and the belief that they're better (though in my experience this wasn't the case). I knew a lot of kids in high school attending private schools. Their tuition was as much as mine is at NCSU as an out of state student. They didn't score any better on SAT's than me, and didn't take any higher level classes than me. But they did get to put the name of their school on all of their college applications, that may have helped them. Their parents thought they were getting a better education but they weren't. Their parents thought the kids wouldn't be as bad as in public schools, but that wasn't the case. I'm not saying that I don't believe the decision should be theirs but I do not believe that most parents are informed enough to decide which school has the best education. Some middle class college educated parents may be able to decide which school has the best quality ed., but that doesn't mean all of them can. And how many of the not so well off parents are going to be able to tell which school has the best quality of eduaction, we're talking about people that may not even have a true highschool education.

Vouchers may or may not be a good idea for specific areas. Schools are funded by local tax payers. Go to SE suburbs of PA and school taxes are rediculous, but they have some of the best pubic schools in the nation. Teachers are paid good, and the colleges their have some the best education programs period. Private schools there are going to have a tough time beating public schools in quality of ED.. But I'm sure a lot of ignorant parents still think private is better than public and would send their kids to private schools if they could. Vouchers some place like that may hurt the public systems just bases on repution and ignorance. But some place where the public school systems aren't very good, the private schools have a better chance at having comparatively better qual. ed.. So some place like that vouchers may be a good idea if there is some sort of compensation for the families that can not afford the remainder of the tuition after the voucher. Or if the schools are some how forced or agree to set the tuition at the value of the voucher, there a voucher system may be beneficial although it would make the public schools completely unnecassary forcing them to close. Then the private schools would have to be bigger and have more teachers to accomadate more students, in turn costing them more money, that the increased volume of students may or may not cover.

[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 5:05 PM. Reason : .]

10/2/2005 4:58:29 PM

also
has anyone addressed that you don't have the same level of accountability for teachers @ private schools?

i.e., not as stringent on certification

10/2/2005 5:07:27 PM

Quote :

"I kind of like the idea. But one argument i've heard against them is that white people would take their kids out of schools with mostly or many minorities, causing all their money to go to one particular school, that's mostly white."

Bullshit. Its usually the blacks that choose to stay away from whites. Theres a lot more whites than blacks, but still you see blacks having a much higher percent black friends than white.

If they want to group to the shittier schools, its their own fault.

10/2/2005 5:11:50 PM

^ white people don't hang out with mostly white people? Do you go to NCSU? the school that claims to be so diverse but yet none of the racial groups really intermingle. Now of course there are some exceptions but even then it's usually when the other races have been some what "americanized". All groups stick to people who are culturally similar.

And it's not that the blacks would be choosing to go to shittier schools, it's that they wouldn't be able to afford the better schools.

[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 5:24 PM. Reason : usually]

10/2/2005 5:24:04 PM

most usamericans are white. if no whites were racist, we'd still have mostly white friends.

10/2/2005 5:32:45 PM

Quote :

"And it's not that the blacks would be choosing to go to shittier schools, it's that they wouldn't be able to afford the better schools."

You dont have the right to have things you cant afford given to you.

10/2/2005 5:34:34 PM

^^ so you're suggesting that it has absolutely nothing to do with cultural/economic differences? It' just solely a numbers game? There is some truth in the numbers thing, but it works both ways. Most not so well off areas are predominatley occupied by minorities, so because they are more exposed to minorities they're more likely to hang out with minorities. Just like a white person growing up middle class is more likely to know more white people.

^ The point you quoted 4 posts up was that money would be taken out of the schools which the poor people attended. Thus it would not be them choosing between a good school or shitty school, they would be getting stuck with the shitty school. We're not talking about two TV's next to each other in store, obvoiusly if you can't afford the $400 tv you have to get the cheaper one. The point was that an alright school ($400 tv) would lose quality (the $400 tv you bought magically morphs into the $200 tv). The poor people wouldn't have the ability to upgrade to the better quality school even if they wanted too, they would be stuck in those now shittier schools.

[Edited on October 2, 2005 at 6:02 PM. Reason : .]

10/2/2005 5:56:21 PM

give schools money proportional to the number of students. problem solved

10/2/2005 6:01:03 PM