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 voucher system in this case would be to shift the funding that one school is receiving to the other school that is taking in the new student. In this manner, the school will be receiving funds based on the number of students that are attending as well as the location rather than just the location.
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?
I have been in that position and whether or not you are there has no bearing on the option of choice for others. Most people have put themselves in that state and even if you did nothing that put you there you always have options to get out. I have been homeless before and now I own my own home and make a decent living. None of that was due to luck, it was a lot of hard choices and sacrifice but here I am today. I really dislike the poormouth defense for anybody; you can drag yourself out of poverty if you are will to work for it.
Honestly, it matters not anyway. You should not remove choices and chances for the middle class to improve just because it is more difficult for the poorer to use it.
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.
And the point isÂ…. As stated above, just because some arias are more difficult for people to use vouchers (not impossible mind you) that does not negate the use by others. If it costs nothing then there is no reason not to use it.
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.
You did say that it would further class stratification here:
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.
If that is not an argument about classes then I do not know what is. We most certainly DO NOT provide anything even close to a level playing field. That is why vouchers are so important, they give a chance to the disadvantaged to attend better schools in better arias. THAT gives people a level playing field. To continue to force poor children into crap schools is not giving people a level playing field, it is forcing people to stay in the class they are in. The good schools will not be the benefactors here; it is the poor and middle class that will benefit the most.
As to the options point, I agree. There are other opportunities like homeschooling even though those options are not as good as an actual school. It is difficult to teach children when you do not have the education to begin with so that option is a very poor one for the disadvantaged. Home school also lacks the very valuable interaction with other children and the hardships that come with dealing with them. Having that option does not mean that you should limit the alternatives. I believe that you should be provided with as many options and choices as possible. It gives you more power over your own fate.
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.
It is NOT subsidizing a select group; it is subsidizing EVERYONE with their own money! That is American, the ability to take your money where you want and make decisions on your own with your own money. That is called freedom.
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.
Again, how is helping the middle class a bad thing? You continually mention this as if we should suppress the middle class in fear they are pulling ahead of the poor. It is up to everyone to reach their potential. It is defiantly not the job of the government to put up barriers to reaching that potential. That is what forcing people into specific public schools does.
Sorry for the late reply, internet is spotty over here as well as my free time.
