how can someone be against school vouchers?

[uscitizen]

in the case of schools private schools are leaps and bounds better

I would imagine they would be since they can pick and choose their students.

In a truly free market for education, that would send a signal to entrepreneurs that more supply is needed.

And on that note, has anyone ever noticed that it's only the gubmint sector that complains about having too many customers?

Yeah well it is a side effect of those huddled masses.
they cannot pick and choose.

 

[blu]

what does doing fine at a shit school matter? they are being taught stuf fin high school that private school kids learn in 5th grade. remember the new orleans girl who was valedictorian and got a 14 on her ACT. public school was a complete waste of her time, if she was in private school she would have a decent future.

Depends on the private school, my cousin graduated from a private school and got into a private university, she failed in her first year at the university and now is attending a community college to learn all the stuff she should have learned in that very expensive private school.

This is the story for a LOT of kids that are "smart."

Schools (public and private) cater more to parents than they do to students. Parents, naturally, like to think their kids are smart. When a kid is on the honor role, and is taking all the college prep courses, parents believe their kid is "smart."

Of course, if the kid makes a "C," then the school, and the teacher is "stupid."

To avoid this lable, and the hassle of dealing with pissed-off parents, teachers will give the kid a "B." Teachers that do otherwise will find themselves teaching fewer, and fewer students whose parents give a damn about their grades (usually the "Good" kids) and more and more students whose parents could give a shit (usually the "Bad" kids).

this is why standardized tests and early ACT/SAT in high school are good. an unbiased test & scoring system to show the parents what their kids are really capable of.

 

[blu]

As I said before, vouchers are primarially a way to route taxpayer money to private enterprise.

in the case of schools private schools are leaps and bounds better

I would imagine they would be since they can pick and choose their students.

many private schools cater to the most inteligent while many others cater to special education kids and kids with border line education problems. public school lumps them all together and the kids with needs struggle and the smart kids never get to reach their potential.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah well it is a side effect of those huddled masses.
they cannot pick and choose.

Never been disabled and turned down for benefitsfor a stupid bureaucratic reason, even though you've paid in all your working life, have you?

 

[uscitizen]

in the case of schools private schools are leaps and bounds better

I would imagine they would be since they can pick and choose their students.

many private schools cater to the most inteligent while many others cater to special education kids and kids with border line education problems. public school lumps them all together and the kids with needs struggle and the smart kids never get to reach their potential.

I agree they should be sorted out and each group treated so as to encourage their maximum potential.
This should be done now in public schools. And there should be no rule that says it takes X number of years for per coillege schooling. Let the brightest progress at their best rate.

Surely the lower levels will still make good republicans?

 

[Samson]

Depends on the private school, my cousin graduated from a private school and got into a private university, she failed in her first year at the university and now is attending a community college to learn all the stuff she should have learned in that very expensive private school.

This is the story for a LOT of kids that are "smart."

Schools (public and private) cater more to parents than they do to students. Parents, naturally, like to think their kids are smart. When a kid is on the honor role, and is taking all the college prep courses, parents believe their kid is "smart."

Of course, if the kid makes a "C," then the school, and the teacher is "stupid."

To avoid this lable, and the hassle of dealing with pissed-off parents, teachers will give the kid a "B." Teachers that do otherwise will find themselves teaching fewer, and fewer students whose parents give a damn about their grades (usually the "Good" kids) and more and more students whose parents could give a shit (usually the "Bad" kids).

this is why standardized tests and early ACT/SAT in high school are good. an unbiased test & scoring system to show the parents what their kids are really capable of.

I agree that standardized testing is of some value.

But I wonder how many parents link the results of ACT/SAT ("early") with whatever the kids do in school (studying, completing assignments, taking notes, reading a text book).

And, regardless of ACT/SAT test results, few parents will accept that their prodgeny is unqualified for college prep classes that are ACTUALLY preparing kids for college. All they want to see is the kid's GPA is high enough to be accepted into college. I cannot say I blame them. But they are fooling themselves if they believe that being accepted into means the kid is PREPARED.

 

[blu]

This is the story for a LOT of kids that are "smart."

Schools (public and private) cater more to parents than they do to students. Parents, naturally, like to think their kids are smart. When a kid is on the honor role, and is taking all the college prep courses, parents believe their kid is "smart."

Of course, if the kid makes a "C," then the school, and the teacher is "stupid."

To avoid this lable, and the hassle of dealing with pissed-off parents, teachers will give the kid a "B." Teachers that do otherwise will find themselves teaching fewer, and fewer students whose parents give a damn about their grades (usually the "Good" kids) and more and more students whose parents could give a shit (usually the "Bad" kids).

this is why standardized tests and early ACT/SAT in high school are good. an unbiased test & scoring system to show the parents what their kids are really capable of.

I agree that standardized testing is of some value.

But I wonder how many parents link the results of ACT/SAT ("early") with whatever the kids do in school (studying, completing assignments, taking notes, reading a text book).

And, regardless of ACT/SAT test results, few parents will accept that their prodgeny is unqualified for college prep classes that are ACTUALLY preparing kids for college. All they want to see is the kid's GPA is high enough to be accepted into college. I cannot say I blame them. But they are fooling themselves if they believe that being accepted into means the kid is PREPARED.

can't help the delusional no matter what. but act/sat tests starting in 9th grade can really help a student shape their high school study efforts. most honors programs even start kids in 7th grade in the duke university national program

 

[uscitizen]

just curious are private schools subject to the same testing standards as public schools?

 

[Samson]

this is why standardized tests and early ACT/SAT in high school are good. an unbiased test & scoring system to show the parents what their kids are really capable of.

I agree that standardized testing is of some value.

But I wonder how many parents link the results of ACT/SAT ("early") with whatever the kids do in school (studying, completing assignments, taking notes, reading a text book).

And, regardless of ACT/SAT test results, few parents will accept that their prodgeny is unqualified for college prep classes that are ACTUALLY preparing kids for college. All they want to see is the kid's GPA is high enough to be accepted into college. I cannot say I blame them. But they are fooling themselves if they believe that being accepted into means the kid is PREPARED.

can't help the delusional no matter what. but act/sat tests starting in 9th grade can really help a student shape their high school study efforts. most honors programs even start kids in 7th grade in the duke university national program

I have a problem paying for college prep classes for kids in High School.

Most of these classes can actually be taken in college (AP courses for after which the kid can test out of the college equivalent). If they succeed on PSAT in the 8th grade, then why force the public to pay for their education (and the poor kid to slog through classes designed to appease the "delusional") grades 9-12?

Simply LET THEM GRADUATE, and go to college! Allow parents of these kids vouchers/year = district's spending/child/year to pay for their college educations.

 

[Samson]

just curious are private schools subject to the same testing standards as public schools?

No.

The testing standards about which you ask, I guess, are State Tests that NCLB Federal Law mandated to qualify for Federal Educational Funding (mostly Title I Free and Reduced Lunch Programs)

Actually, a state without students recieving Free and Reduced Lunch, could decline to administer the test. Unless a Private school receives federal funding, then they could care less about the Standardized test.

Personally, I have witnessed that districts with many students qualifying for Title I funding take state testing results very seriously, while other districts with few such students could care less.

Of course, schools with few Title I kids usually do very well on the test, regardless of how seriously they take the results.

 

[FA_Q2]

The possibility that you might procreate is frightening enough, without having to remind us you might send your kids to school to school with ours.

The main arguement against vouchers is the transportation problem: How do you transport kids to schools once their parents pay the voucher?

Students in private schools and charter schools usually cannot depend on school busses to get to school. How will Urban Poor who get vouchers then transport their kid to various suburbs where more desireable schools exist? Public Transportation (if it exists)? You wanna send your prepubescent kids to schools using this option?

This is a false argument. The whole idea of these vouchers is that you can choose where to send your children. If you opt out of the cushy government supplied schools then the rest is on you. If you care about your child’s education then you will find a way to get them to that school. You cannot always get the exorbitant cash that many privatized schools charge but you sure can find a way to get your child to school.

"False Argument?"...Vs what? Your arguement? The one filled with qualifying "if you" that begins every thought?

How about this: If I give it even a moment's thought, then I realise you're ignorant.

THEORETICALLY, vouchers can be used to send your child to any school.

But EVERY school is not available to EVERY parent.

Therefore, in REALITY, parents can only choose schools that:

A. provide transportation for their kid, or
B. Are on the way to work in the morning AND keeps the kid until they get picked up after the parents work, or
C. One parent doesn't work, but spends the morings and afternoons transporting kids, and the rest of the day eating bon-bons and watching soaps.

Which of these works best for the AVERAGE AMERICAN FAMILY?

A. Most Americans send their kids to school on a bus.

So, the voucher system would resolve nothing: Regardless of which schools were best, MOST parents will continue to send kids to whichever school they can be most easily transported.

Vouchers will work great for the very few parents in categories "B" (rural) and "C" (suburbian soccer moms).

And what is your point, other than to get a personal attack on me in? It is the choice that matters. If parents do not want to go out of their way that is their choice. I am not going to force anyone to use a voucher system but it should be there for parents that give a damn about their kids education. Vouchers would create an atmosphere of competition and therefore a reason to improve. What recourse does a parent have right now if their child is in a crap school? NONE. If you can’t move or afford a private school you are screwed. I would guarantee that many more parents could afford to take an hour out of their day for transportation than could afford a private school. Why would you not have a voucher system like this in place?

 

[Coyote]

This is a false argument. The whole idea of these vouchers is that you can choose where to send your children. If you opt out of the cushy government supplied schools then the rest is on you. If you care about your child’s education then you will find a way to get them to that school. You cannot always get the exorbitant cash that many privatized schools charge but you sure can find a way to get your child to school.

"False Argument?"...Vs what? Your arguement? The one filled with qualifying "if you" that begins every thought?

How about this: If I give it even a moment's thought, then I realise you're ignorant.

THEORETICALLY, vouchers can be used to send your child to any school.

But EVERY school is not available to EVERY parent.

Therefore, in REALITY, parents can only choose schools that:

A. provide transportation for their kid, or
B. Are on the way to work in the morning AND keeps the kid until they get picked up after the parents work, or
C. One parent doesn't work, but spends the morings and afternoons transporting kids, and the rest of the day eating bon-bons and watching soaps.

Which of these works best for the AVERAGE AMERICAN FAMILY?

A. Most Americans send their kids to school on a bus.

So, the voucher system would resolve nothing: Regardless of which schools were best, MOST parents will continue to send kids to whichever school they can be most easily transported.

Vouchers will work great for the very few parents in categories "B" (rural) and "C" (suburbian soccer moms).

And what is your point, other than to get a personal attack on me in? It is the choice that matters. If parents do not want to go out of their way that is their choice. I am not going to force anyone to use a voucher system but it should be there for parents that give a damn about their kids education. Vouchers would create an atmosphere of competition and therefore a reason to improve. What recourse does a parent have right now if their child is in a crap school? NONE. If you can’t move or afford a private school you are screwed. I would guarantee that many more parents could afford to take an hour out of their day for transportation than could afford a private school. Why would you not have a voucher system like this in place?

It's a false choice.

Many crap schools are in poor districts often beset with violence, drugs and overcrowded classrooms. Parents in those areas aren't exactly flush with cash and may be working 2 or more jobs to keep their heads above water. They may not own a car and if they are working the typical minimum wage job - they are unlikely to have the flexability to take time off to get their child to school if there is no bus. What if there isn't a private school within a reasonable distance? That is quite often the case in inner-city areas. Private schools may be located out in the more lucrative suburbs. What parent who cares for his/her kids is going to risk putting a young child on multiple public bus' to get him to school? Who is really screwed here and who really has a choice?

I'll tell you who. The "suburban soccar mom" set. They might not be able to afford the full cost of private schooling (or, they may well might be able to) - but they can afford the difference that vouchers don't pay (most plans do not cover the full cost) - they can afford the time off of work to transport, they can afford the seperate costs for uniforms, books and supplies. The one's who really need it are screwed and stuck in a failing system where funding is being syphoned off to subsidize an exclusive private sector that can pick and choose it's pupils.

Encouraging "competition" is fine and dandy but how exactly is competition going to work for a school with a poor tax base, a poor educational base among the parents, and high rates of crime and violence - all of which are out of the schools control?

I will tell you how it would work: the poor schools will continue on the path to failure, the mediocre schools might or might not improve, the good schools will strongly improve and the end result will be an increasing chasm between the under-educated and the educated in terms of wealth and opportunity.

 

[Samson]

"False Argument?"...Vs what? Your arguement? The one filled with qualifying "if you" that begins every thought?

How about this: If I give it even a moment's thought, then I realise you're ignorant.

THEORETICALLY, vouchers can be used to send your child to any school.

But EVERY school is not available to EVERY parent.

Therefore, in REALITY, parents can only choose schools that:

A. provide transportation for their kid, or
B. Are on the way to work in the morning AND keeps the kid until they get picked up after the parents work, or
C. One parent doesn't work, but spends the morings and afternoons transporting kids, and the rest of the day eating bon-bons and watching soaps.

Which of these works best for the AVERAGE AMERICAN FAMILY?

A. Most Americans send their kids to school on a bus.

So, the voucher system would resolve nothing: Regardless of which schools were best, MOST parents will continue to send kids to whichever school they can be most easily transported.

Vouchers will work great for the very few parents in categories "B" (rural) and "C" (suburbian soccer moms).

And what is your point, other than to get a personal attack on me in? It is the choice that matters. If parents do not want to go out of their way that is their choice. I am not going to force anyone to use a voucher system but it should be there for parents that give a damn about their kids education. Vouchers would create an atmosphere of competition and therefore a reason to improve. What recourse does a parent have right now if their child is in a crap school? NONE. If you can’t move or afford a private school you are screwed. I would guarantee that many more parents could afford to take an hour out of their day for transportation than could afford a private school. Why would you not have a voucher system like this in place?

It's a false choice.

Many crap schools are in poor districts often beset with violence, drugs and overcrowded classrooms. Parents in those areas aren't exactly flush with cash and may be working 2 or more jobs to keep their heads above water. They may not own a car and if they are working the typical minimum wage job - they are unlikely to have the flexability to take time off to get their child to school if there is no bus. What if there isn't a private school within a reasonable distance? That is quite often the case in inner-city areas. Private schools may be located out in the more lucrative suburbs. What parent who cares for his/her kids is going to risk putting a young child on multiple public bus' to get him to school? Who is really screwed here and who really has a choice?

I'll tell you who. The "suburban soccar mom" set. They might not be able to afford the full cost of private schooling (or, they may well might be able to) - but they can afford the difference that vouchers don't pay (most plans do not cover the full cost) - they can afford the time off of work to transport, they can afford the seperate costs for uniforms, books and supplies. The one's who really need it are screwed and stuck in a failing system where funding is being syphoned off to subsidize an exclusive private sector that can pick and choose it's pupils.

Encouraging "competition" is fine and dandy but how exactly is competition going to work for a school with a poor tax base, a poor educational base among the parents, and high rates of crime and violence - all of which are out of the schools control?

I will tell you how it would work: the poor schools will continue on the path to failure, the mediocre schools might or might not improve, the good schools will strongly improve and the end result will be an increasing chasm between the under-educated and the educated in terms of wealth and opportunity.

You get it.

As you see, FA_Q2 is a great example of 2-dimensional thinking:

"IF you give people money, Then they can use it."

This may be true in some cases (food stamps), in the case of school vouchers, it ignores the fact that more often than not, there is no "choice."

I wonder if we slow down enough, that he can understand?

1. Kids go to school on a school bus (or walk).
2. The school bus goes to A SCHOOL
3. The bus picks up the kids at school.

Ok, so far I hope I haven't lost you FA_Q2? Let's assume not

Now, say the kids wanna go to a different school to which they cannot walk?

The bus that picks them up doesn't go there.

How will they get there? Before you assume that most poor parents have cars, and the time to drive kids to and from school, why don't you just play along, and assume they do NOT own cars, and if they do, they need to use them to go to and from work.

Now how do the kids get to school?

 

[Coyote]

...and what if this is typical of the neighborhood your kids would have to pass through?

 

[FA_Q2]

"False Argument?"...Vs what? Your arguement? The one filled with qualifying "if you" that begins every thought?

How about this: If I give it even a moment's thought, then I realise you're ignorant.

THEORETICALLY, vouchers can be used to send your child to any school.

But EVERY school is not available to EVERY parent.

Therefore, in REALITY, parents can only choose schools that:

A. provide transportation for their kid, or
B. Are on the way to work in the morning AND keeps the kid until they get picked up after the parents work, or
C. One parent doesn't work, but spends the morings and afternoons transporting kids, and the rest of the day eating bon-bons and watching soaps.

Which of these works best for the AVERAGE AMERICAN FAMILY?

A. Most Americans send their kids to school on a bus.

So, the voucher system would resolve nothing: Regardless of which schools were best, MOST parents will continue to send kids to whichever school they can be most easily transported.

Vouchers will work great for the very few parents in categories "B" (rural) and "C" (suburbian soccer moms).

And what is your point, other than to get a personal attack on me in? It is the choice that matters. If parents do not want to go out of their way that is their choice. I am not going to force anyone to use a voucher system but it should be there for parents that give a damn about their kids education. Vouchers would create an atmosphere of competition and therefore a reason to improve. What recourse does a parent have right now if their child is in a crap school? NONE. If you can’t move or afford a private school you are screwed. I would guarantee that many more parents could afford to take an hour out of their day for transportation than could afford a private school. Why would you not have a voucher system like this in place?

It's a false choice.

Many crap schools are in poor districts often beset with violence, drugs and overcrowded classrooms. Parents in those areas aren't exactly flush with cash and may be working 2 or more jobs to keep their heads above water. They may not own a car and if they are working the typical minimum wage job - they are unlikely to have the flexability to take time off to get their child to school if there is no bus. What if there isn't a private school within a reasonable distance? That is quite often the case in inner-city areas. Private schools may be located out in the more lucrative suburbs. What parent who cares for his/her kids is going to risk putting a young child on multiple public bus' to get him to school? Who is really screwed here and who really has a choice?

I'll tell you who. The "suburban soccar mom" set. They might not be able to afford the full cost of private schooling (or, they may well might be able to) - but they can afford the difference that vouchers don't pay (most plans do not cover the full cost) - they can afford the time off of work to transport, they can afford the seperate costs for uniforms, books and supplies. The one's who really need it are screwed and stuck in a failing system where funding is being syphoned off to subsidize an exclusive private sector that can pick and choose it's pupils.

Encouraging "competition" is fine and dandy but how exactly is competition going to work for a school with a poor tax base, a poor educational base among the parents, and high rates of crime and violence - all of which are out of the schools control?

I will tell you how it would work: the poor schools will continue on the path to failure, the mediocre schools might or might not improve, the good schools will strongly improve and the end result will be an increasing chasm between the under-educated and the educated in terms of wealth and opportunity.

I understand that it would be difficult for many parents but that is not to say impossible even for many inner city student. You seem to think that I am only referring to private schools but I also include other public schools. There are a wide variety of schools in most arias, particularly in the inner city. Where I live there are 5 different elementary schools that are within a 10 min drive, 3 of which are within walking distance. I have ONE choice as to where to send my children and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. Even though they are geographically located in the same aria they are also not equal in their teaching ability.

The difference here is that you seem to believe that if a voucher system were to be put into place the state would somehow then become responsible for the transportation of the students. I do not see why. It is not the states job to ensure that your child can get to the school you choose. That is your responsibility. I also believe it is not the states right to take your taxes and then place artificial barriers in the use of those taxes. I can see the basic argument for not allowing those funds to go to private schools though I disagree with it. I do not see where a voucher system would be a bad thing for public schools in general.

You are worried about class stratification? Does that mean that we should disadvantage intelligent or well off individuals on purpose to ensure that those in the lower end can compete better? Maybe we should simply bring all curriculums to the level of inner city schools and shut down private schools because individuals in the slums are getting further and further behind those that have the means to educate their children in private schools. This is completely un-American.

If anything, vouchers would help the middle class the most. It would not help the well off much at all as they already have the means to send their children to private schools and get the best education.

 

[Coyote]

I understand that it would be difficult for many parents but that is not to say impossible even for many inner city student. You seem to think that I am only referring to private schools but I also include other public schools. There are a wide variety of schools in most arias, particularly in the inner city. Where I live there are 5 different elementary schools that are within a 10 min drive, 3 of which are within walking distance. I have ONE choice as to where to send my children and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. Even though they are geographically located in the same aria they are also not equal in their teaching ability.

When it comes to choices amongst public schools I don't think I'd have an objection - assuming there is space in those schools. For example - schools have to take all those in their jurisdiction right? Then if there is space they can take others. In that case no voucher should be needed because all the money should be staying within the public school system right of that state?

The difference here is that you seem to believe that if a voucher system were to be put into place the state would somehow then become responsible for the transportation of the students. I do not see why. It is not the states job to ensure that your child can get to the school you choose. That is your responsibility. I also believe it is not the states right to take your taxes and then place artificial barriers in the use of those taxes. I can see the basic argument for not allowing those funds to go to private schools though I disagree with it. I do not see where a voucher system would be a bad thing for public schools in general.

My big argument is less transportation than other issues.

One is this - we guarantee every citizen a chance at a basic education. We do not guarantee the education of choice. Because of this - even though I have no children - I fully support paying for education as it benefits every single one of us but I do not support paying for someone's choice or subsidizing private schools.

The other thing is - you feel that it is only "difficult" but parents can somehow manage to get their kids to the school if they really wanted to....that's a nice belief, but I wonder if you've ever been in the position to test it out with a minimum wage job or two or three and no car?

On the transportation issue: my state in particular has had a history of problems with the school system. Schools are widely spaced sometimes one per county and mountain geography makes distances much harder to negotiate. Children are bused long distances. Some areas have private school alternatives others don't. There many areas with high rates of unemployment or employment in minimum wage level jobs. These people can't just take off and drive their kids to and from a private school - they depend on a bus to get their kids safely to school. Innercity areas have very real problems with safety for kids going to and from schools and private schools are most likely to be located some distance away. I don't think the voucher, state, or anyone should have to be using tax money to pay for transport to a private school - only for the school in your jurisdiction because anything else will syphon money away from the school.

You are worried about class stratification? Does that mean that we should disadvantage intelligent or well off individuals on purpose to ensure that those in the lower end can compete better?

I never said that. We provide a level playing field. It's up to the parents to make the most of that opportunity. If your child is in a troubled school what is to stop you, the parent from providing extra help, tutoring, extracurricular educational opportunities? For some that might mean sending the kid to another school if they can afford it. I'll use your argument - if they want it bad enough, they can find a way. Many of the people who could make use of vouchers could likely afford private schools without the voucher. They are the ones with kids stuck in, not a bad school maybe, but mediocre and they want to switch to better. Vouchers do not tend to be enough to cover the full cost of tuition, books, uniforms so those who most need it still can't take advantage of it. And that is not even looking at transportation.

Maybe we should simply bring all curriculums to the level of inner city schools and shut down private schools because individuals in the slums are getting further and further behind those that have the means to educate their children in private schools. This is completely un-American.

No one is arguing bringing everything to the lowest common denomenater. That's a false argument. Don't you think that the idea of subsidizing a select group of people at the cost of another group's right to an education is rather unAmerican as well? I believe in offering a level playing field - what each family does afterwards is up to them.

If anything, vouchers would help the middle class the most. It would not help the well off much at all as they already have the means to send their children to private schools and get the best education.

Exactly. But it isn't the middle class that is stuck in the worst schools.

I see nothing in the voucher system that would do anything to improve public schools or prevent and increasing gap between the educated and uneducated.

You speak of things being unAmerican but one of the strengths of our country has always been education. We were among the first to offer and require education paid for by the state - for everyone regardless of birth, means, gender. Unlike other nations where class and birth helped or blocked social advancement - education was the key in America. An education could help a person escape poverty. That is something I am willling to subsidize because it is an opportunity offered to all.

 

[Samson]

What is interesting to me is that the title of the thread: How can someone be against school vouchers? Has received answers, yet it seems beyond the means of many to imagine that anyone might have a valid objection.

Why is this?

Of course this is the larger issue of the day: How can someone be against anything?

I can understand an intense dogmatic response on the NATIONAL level, but why on the state, or local level?

The ONLY State school system in the USA is Hawaii.

All other school systems are administered on the local level, and receive most funding on the local level (county or district). Why is it that local government cannot accomodate a voucher system?

I've just explained one of the major objection to vouchers: Transportation.

States mandate that kids be in school until they receive a diploma. Its actually against the law for parents NOT to send the kid to school. To circumvent the problem of parents who cannot (or will not) provide transportation, the district provides the bus. Presumably the kids of these parents would continue to ride the bus regardless of whether or not they had a voucher. This category of parent represents MAJORITY parents, so the usefulness of vouchers (creating a competitive market environment) falls to the MINORITY of parents.

But so what?

Why should these parents "suffer" with a status quo? Why shouldn't they simply be ably to apply a portion of their local tax to whatever school they want?

After all, isn't the public school system supposed to seperate the class of kids whose parents can use the voucher from the class of kids for whom a voucher is meaningless?

 

[Queen]

School vouchers are pushed a lot for the wrong reason.

A big reason school vouchers are pushed is to route tax dollars to the private sector. Not necessarially to improve the childs education. Of course that is the reason given. The other one is not very sellable.

Exactly.

I'm against school vouchers because it's just another government giveaway to the private sector. School vouchers take my tax dollars and give them to the religious schools. This violates the seperation of church and state in my opinion. I don't want to pay for children to be indoctrinated in religion. I don't think my government should be paying for that.

 

[chanel]

Re: the transportation issue. In our town, busses are provided to the local school and to any private (Catholic) school within 10 miles. Between 10 and 20 miles - they offer reimbursement of $800. Over 20 miles, you are on your own. My kid's school is closing at the end of this year. He will have to attend the next closest Catholic High School which is 25 miles away. The parents will be paying for the bus.

I never agreed with vouchers for religious schools, until last night. It seems like the only way to save Catholic education. And even for folks I know who have never considered sending their kids to Catholic school; they too would like that option available - just in case...

 

[Samson]

I never agreed with vouchers for religious schools, until last night. It seems like the only way to save Catholic education. And even for folks I know who have never considered sending their kids to Catholic school; they too would like that option available - just in case...

What happened last night?

Were you Visited Upon By an Angel of The Vatican?

*****I hate it when that happens: Damn Messkin Food*****