how can someone be against school vouchers?

[Oddball]

Let each parent actually pay for their childrens schooling.
If they can't afford the school them don't have them.
This should start in 12 years plus 9 months so parents will know to plan on how many kids to have.
Personal responsibilty.

Damn straight.

I doubt you're serious, though.

 

[blu]

but private run schools, except in a few places as mentioned, are thousands of time better in both education, electives, and after school activities

says who?

test scores? college admissions? average act/sat scores?

was that a serious question?

 

[sboyle24]

Let each parent actually pay for their childrens schooling.
If they can't afford the school them don't have them.
This should start in 12 years plus 9 months so parents will know to plan on how many kids to have.
Personal responsibilty.

That may have been a possible solution in the past. I think technology has advanced enough that without schooling an individual doesn't stand a chance to go beyond minimum wage, thus trapping individuals in poverty. It would be a dangerous situation. People who's parents couldn't afford to send them to school couldn't send their kids to school either.

 

[Avatar4321]

The same reason so many people are against free speech. They just are.

 

[Sarah G]

Isn't people's main issue with the vouchers if people use them for a religiously based school? I personally don't have a problem with it as long as the money is used for their education, and not for the church they receive their education from.

Yes and I do have a problem with that. If you want to send your child to a Christian school, pay for it yourself. That's "you" in a general sense.

 

[uscitizen]

Let each parent actually pay for their childrens schooling.
If they can't afford the school them don't have them.
This should start in 12 years plus 9 months so parents will know to plan on how many kids to have.
Personal responsibilty.

That may have been a possible solution in the past. I think technology has advanced enough that without schooling an individual doesn't stand a chance to go beyond minimum wage, thus trapping individuals in poverty. It would be a dangerous situation. People who's parents couldn't afford to send them to school couldn't send their kids to school either.

too bad but the parents should not have the kids if they cannot afford them.

 

[blu]

how can someone be against school vouchers?

Because they're the education analog to food stamps.

Time to abolish the federal Department of Edumacation outright and create a separation between school and state.

Alliance for Separation of School and State Home

agreed on the food stamp part, but its never going to be the case that education isn't covered for all. I think my OP wasn't clear b/c I want public schools gone and to privatize them all and have the governments only role be helping to pay / outright for kids whose parents can't afford it. does that fit with your goals or not? looking at that site now

 

[Oddball]

Make it the responsibility of the state and communities to find ways to educate the indigent.

Turning schooling into a welfare program for the middle class has proven to be a bust and it's high time to junk the current top-down model.

 

[sboyle24]

Let each parent actually pay for their childrens schooling.
If they can't afford the school them don't have them.
This should start in 12 years plus 9 months so parents will know to plan on how many kids to have.
Personal responsibilty.

That may have been a possible solution in the past. I think technology has advanced enough that without schooling an individual doesn't stand a chance to go beyond minimum wage, thus trapping individuals in poverty. It would be a dangerous situation. People who's parents couldn't afford to send them to school couldn't send their kids to school either.

too bad but the parents should not have the kids if they cannot afford them.

I don't think that is a very fair opinion. I understand that you believe in personal responsibility and it is a very justifiable opinion, but if everyone had to pay for their own schooling the problem would no longer be personal responsibility. I believe that kind of society with poverty entrapment would likely promote a communist movement.

 

[Oddball]

That may have been a possible solution in the past. I think technology has advanced enough that without schooling an individual doesn't stand a chance to go beyond minimum wage, thus trapping individuals in poverty. It would be a dangerous situation. People who's parents couldn't afford to send them to school couldn't send their kids to school either.

too bad but the parents should not have the kids if they cannot afford them.

I don't think that is a very fair opinion. I understand that you believe in personal responsibility and it is a very justifiable opinion, but if everyone had to pay for their own schooling the problem would no longer be personal responsibility. I believe that kind of society with poverty entrapment would likely promote a communist movement.

No more "unfair" than expecting parents to feed, clothe and house their kids.

 

[sboyle24]

Isn't people's main issue with the vouchers if people use them for a religiously based school? I personally don't have a problem with it as long as the money is used for their education, and not for the church they receive their education from.

Yes and I do have a problem with that. If you want to send your child to a Christian school, pay for it yourself. That's "you" in a general sense.

I understand your opinion and believe in a strong separation of church and state myself, but if no money is actually going to the religion part of the church and all of it is spent on the student's education then it can't be that big of an issue, right?

 

[blu]

Make it the responsibility of the state and communities to find ways to educate the indigent.

Turning schooling into a welfare program for the middle class has proven to be a bust and it's high time to junk the current top-down model.

doesn't that create a cycle of poverty? how can poor communities create any sort of decent education when none of them have money or much education themselves? that would just make the rich richer (more min wage servants) and keep the poor where they are or worse

 

[Oddball]

Just because gubmint stops doing something doesn't naturally mean that the world will come to an end for the less affluent.

Who says that the poor communities wouldn't have their own pay-as-you-go schools?

Who says there wouldn't be national franchises, like maybe Wal-Mart or Target, that would have low prices as their chief selling point?

 

[bodecea]

vouchers do this or lacking them does this? can you expand a bit

Vouchers. If property taxes are pulled out of general funds for vouchers, the public schools come up with the short stick.

You live in America, you have to pay rent. Property taxes are part of that rent.

It might not directly benefit you, but it benefits society.

I never hear anyone screaming about "road vouchers", I don't get why school vouchers are a big deal to people.

Either I am missing someting or you misread my posts. I don't want any public schools at all, privatize them all and let the government pay for the vouchers for kids who cannot afford the cost of schooling plus supplies/uniform/etc if necessary.

I think that's what Mexico has.

 

[Avatar4321]

Just because gubmint stops doing something doesn't naturally mean that the world will come to an end for the less affluent.

Who says that the poor communities wouldn't have their own pay-as-you-go schools?

Who says there wouldn't be national franchises, like maybe Wal-Mart or Target, that would have low prices as their chief selling point?

And of course, there is a library. People can learn on their own. Home schooling can a good option

 

[sboyle24]

Just because gubmint stops doing something doesn't naturally mean that the world will come to an end for the less affluent.

Who says that the poor communities wouldn't have their own pay-as-you-go schools?

Who says there wouldn't be national franchises, like maybe Wal-Mart or Target, that would have low prices as their chief selling point?

Your non concern for the lower class makes me believe you are fairly well off yourself. How right am I?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I don't believe the general welfare point would be covered very well by a cycle of poverty. Sure, it would be nice if you didn't have to waste your tax dollars on student who fail out anyways, but it is the best interest of the general population of the country to have public schools.

 

[blu]

Just because gubmint stops doing something doesn't naturally mean that the world will come to an end for the less affluent.

Who says that the poor communities wouldn't have their own pay-as-you-go schools?

Who says there wouldn't be national franchises, like maybe Wal-Mart or Target, that would have low prices as their chief selling point?

And of course, there is a library. People can learn on their own. Home schooling can a good option

how can people who dropped out of school in grammar school or people without any real education home school someone? they don't understand the stuff themselves.

 

[blu]

Just because gubmint stops doing something doesn't naturally mean that the world will come to an end for the less affluent.

Who says that the poor communities wouldn't have their own pay-as-you-go schools?

Who says there wouldn't be national franchises, like maybe Wal-Mart or Target, that would have low prices as their chief selling point?

Your non concern for the lower class makes me believe you are fairly well off yourself. How right am I?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I don't believe the general welfare point would be covered very well by a cycle of poverty. Sure, it would be nice if you didn't have to waste your tax dollars on student who fail out anyways, but it is the best interest of the general population of the country to have public schools.

or private schools with gov backed vouchers for people that can't afford it. the dept of education controlled schools are a joke and waste of time for people attending them

 

[Oddball]

Just because gubmint stops doing something doesn't naturally mean that the world will come to an end for the less affluent.

Who says that the poor communities wouldn't have their own pay-as-you-go schools?

Who says there wouldn't be national franchises, like maybe Wal-Mart or Target, that would have low prices as their chief selling point?

Your non concern for the lower class makes me believe you are fairly well off yourself. How right am I?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I don't believe the general welfare point would be covered very well by a cycle of poverty. Sure, it would be nice if you didn't have to waste your tax dollars on student who fail out anyways, but it is the best interest of the general population of the country to have public schools.

Platitude much?

 

[sboyle24]

Just because gubmint stops doing something doesn't naturally mean that the world will come to an end for the less affluent.

Who says that the poor communities wouldn't have their own pay-as-you-go schools?

Who says there wouldn't be national franchises, like maybe Wal-Mart or Target, that would have low prices as their chief selling point?

Your non concern for the lower class makes me believe you are fairly well off yourself. How right am I?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I don't believe the general welfare point would be covered very well by a cycle of poverty. Sure, it would be nice if you didn't have to waste your tax dollars on student who fail out anyways, but it is the best interest of the general population of the country to have public schools.

Platitude much?

lol sorry yeah I know. I try to keep my arguments as non-confrontational as possible now since some guy went all on me.