School Vouchers. Good idea ? Bad idea ? Why ? Imagine if all parent/guardian types received an education voucher for their minor that could be "spent" at any school approved by the State. Yes State Approved schools because we don't want any mafia cashing vouchers and not offering any education worthy of them. Good idea ? Bad idea ? Why ? Moi View attachment 24905
Just depends. In my area, they wouldn't amount to much more than a subsidy for private christian school (of the dinosaur bones are a trick by Satan because dinosaurs never existed vein academics) students whose families would pay the tuition anyway. Maybe if you have a lot of real school competition and offer them in inverse order of income of applicants (poorest kids get the biggest vouchers) or something they might work. We do have some sort of home school program assistance fund but I am not sure the details of it--basically either a subsidy or a rebate, I forget which)
Vouchers good. Here's why - 1. Children get the best education available. 2. Social mobility made possible for poor and minority families. 3. Competition puts more money in good schools and less money in bad schools. 4. People free to choose how their children educated, lessening state control. Many people hate vouchers. Here's why - 1. The monopoly of "public schools" would be broken. This would mean - 2. Educators would be judged by results for the first time. 3. Incompetent educators would lose job security. 4. Politicians taking money and votes from educators' unions might lose. Our public school system is a monopoly, the biggest still alive in the US. It's run for the benefit of teachers, administrators, staffs, and contractors. Also the benefit of the politicians who take money and organized support from educators' unions. Children and their parents are helpless before this monopoly because there's literally no where else they can go. Monopolies always do two things: raise prices, lower quality. That's as true of education as anything else. Public schools demand ever more money, yet the education they provide - especially in poor and minority districts - is often low quality. This happens because there's no competition. With no competition, there's no reason not to demand more money and relax standards. So the question is: do you support kids and parents, especially poor and minority kids and parents, or do you support the staffs of government institutions and the politicians they pay to protect their monopoly? Your answer says a lot about who you are. Democrats who choose union money over children should be ashamed.
School Vouchers are not a good idea; they're a great idea. Too many teachers are lazy. School vouchers would give kids the chance to attend schools with motivated teachers, and schools should be about the kids anyway, not the teachers.
Well not to add more agreement upon agreement ( )0( ) The States should certify schools The certification entitles the school to accept, vouchers. Isn't anyone on Board a Member of the Teachers' Union or advocate? Moi No
Bad idea. First, if you institute vouchers, you will have to give vouchers to the approximate 10% of the school population that already goes to private school. That alone takes 10% away from public schools. Second, the current private (non-religious) schools are going to raise their tuitions considerably. My guess would be at least half of the voucher amount. Why? Private schools rely on exclusivity as their business model. If everybody can afford your school, it's no longer exclusive. You then raise your rates, which is still a net gain for your parents, but a even bigger gain for you. You have more revenue, so you can improve your teachers/facilities, and soon raise your tuition even more. Third, the final result will be the same. Poor kids will go to bad or mediocre schools. Rich kids will go to better schools than you had before. The middle class may do better under this, but it's doubtful. Fourth, it's great for the religious private schools, most of which are cheaper than the non-religious private schools. The problem is that the religious private schools are there to propagate their religious views. They get assistance in doing so from the government, in this case.
The cure would be easy enough. Voucher eligible schools would not be allowed to "charge extra" fees or tuition. BTW there is an interesting court case going on by high school kids suing the State of California over bad teachers, the right to a good education and the inability to dump bad teachers who become tenured in hardly 2 years. The State of California has too powerful public and teachers unions. I look forward to the court nullifying parts of the teachers' contracts over job security. Of course the State and Union and Districts say they can get rid of bad teachers. LIARS ! It should be an interesting case to follow. Here is a reference. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0126/Tenure-for-teachers-9-California-students-sue-to-end-policy I had one of those teachers in Junior High School. About 1962, we all sat at our desks and did nothing. I even complained to the school counselor who denied it. My sympathies are with the students. Time to outlaw public unions that do no service to the public. Moi No
Two definitions of a "public school" - any educational institution that is publicly funded (the voucher way), or educational institutions owned and operated by the government in a quasi-monopoly (the current way). Vouchers make all schools public schools. That may displease unions and the politicians the unions buy, but it helps children, who have always been the nominal beneficiaries. Today's public schools consume every penny of government money they can get, and then some. The voucher system would not require any added public expense. The change is that the money would be allocated by parents to the schools they thought best. That would starve bad schools (a good thing) and endow good schools. Schools have only a limited capacity, so a possible problem is that too many children would seek entry to a few good schools that couldn't take them all. The schools would NOT be in a position to exploit this heightened demand, because the government would spend no more on vouchers than it does on public schools today. At worst, good schools might offer places to children whose families were willing to add to the voucher money. The solution would be to require uniform tuition for all students at a school. The idea that the result would still be education tiered by parents' wealth is inexplicable. I see no reason this should be so. With uniform tuition mandated by law, the rich would no longer have an advantage. Many religious schools such as those operated by the Roman Catholic and Episcopal churches already teach many children not belonging to their denominations. They pay special attention to the children of the poor, educating them for free or at reduced rates. In NYC, Catholic schools are a lifeline for the poor, where their children can get good educations. Some parochial schools have more non-Catholic than Catholic students, most of them from minorities. It would take a hard heart to tear this last best hope from the poor because "liberals" hate religion.
A simple problem exists though. Let's say the tutition for a private school is $20,000. In order to pay for that student to go, you have to pay the full cost. It costs about $13,000 or so in NY for each student to go through school. That's $7000 that's taken out of 1 student's education and put into another one. Personally, I go to a public school. It doesn't bother me at all.
I am all for giving parents back what they put in if they choose to go to a private school, but not take from the public schools and give more then they put in
Louisiana and Tennessee are having second thought on vouchers "Vouchers can be used for Muslim Schools? OOPS!" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/06/1106793/--Vouchers-can-be-used-for-Muslim-Schools-OOPS "Tennessee Republicans threaten to kill GOP voucher bill over fear of funding Muslim schools" http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/...her-bill-over-fear-of-funding-muslim-schools/
They'd set that up before the law passed, if it looked like it will. Also, are you going to deny a business the ability to have rate hikes. Won't go anywhere. There are too many variables involved to prove anything in a court of law. Can't. Teacher tenure is a property right. It cannot be taken away from a teacher who has tenure, without a specific action of due process. Of course they can. My wife is an assistant Principal. She has gotten rid of two bad tenured teachers. One by actually having him fired, the other by making her life miserable due to the process of trying to get her fired. The problem is that most principals are too lazy to get rid of bad tenured teachers. You spoke to the wrong person. Also, it should have been your parents complaining to the Principal and/or Superintendent of schools. Tenure has nothing to do with unions. Teacher tenure comes from the concept of academic tenure, which far predates labor unions. I'm a firm believer in school choice, within the public system. We have that locally, and it's a great thing for good and/or concerned students. Pretty much, a student here can choose the school they want to attend, with the exception of the magnet schools (which have a lottery and minimum qualifications) and as long as they aren't discipline problems and can provide their own transportation.
