Should Cities and States Adopt School Voucher Programs?

Reply on vouchers (part 1)

I don't know if you're saying I'm a semi-socialist, or if you're a Ron Paul supporter, but if you're stating the former, my view is that vouchers are an interim step to complete separation of education and state.

Secondly: Please quote my text and my text only!

It's very annoying to have to sort through word salads in which you quote both yours and my words. Do what I do if you quote people, just quote the phrases I say and nothing else. It doesn't add to the debate if I have to sort through crap most of the time instead of adding to the discussion.

Anyways....

"Vouchers allow students to avoid schools that "engage in such conditions"? Those conditions are a result of inequality."

No doubt about it, a student can choose to leave a school that doesn't live up to their expectations. And of course the conditions are the result of inequality just as much as a physical fire is the result of heat.

"Shuffling students to another school that has more money doesn't fix the problem of inequality. It simply ignores the problem. That's the point."

If your complaint is that not a single school should "fail" then I honestly can't help you. Students should not have to put up with unequal conditions, thus far a school which has such conditions would lose students since they aren't providing well for their customers. Plain and simple, if a school is doing poorly they can either shape up, or ship out.

"There isn't a"best platform". Curriculum is standard and is standard nation-wide."

Exactly, vouchers allow students to CHOOSE different platforms in the first place. Having the same nation-wide curriculum does not take into account the fact that students are all different in their abilities.

"That's how you've reached the conclusion that one school is failing - by the school not living up test scores."

I'm not sure what your saying here, but I've never made the claim that any particular school is failing today. I stated that under a voucher system, it's possible to keep the schools that do well, and scrap the ones that are wasting people's time.

"How can the school that has 12 year old text books perform at the same standard that the school that can not only provide the textbooks but additional materials? It doesn't. School vouchers will not fix this problem because it isn't the school that is broken."

Of a school which isn't keeping up will lose out. That's the whole point of vouchers, the school IS broken in the sense that it isn't keeping up with student and societal needs, so students have the choice to spend their vouchers and their effort on a school that DOES provide for them.

Nonetheless, define a broken school.

"Vouching the whole system is ridiculous. How can a school thrive if it lacks what "thriving" schools have?"

It won't, thus it will lose students (and thus money) and will be forced to either shape up, or close up. The schools that DO thrive will receive the most students since they are obviously running the right kind of school. In the end existing schools improve (if they want to exist at all), and students have a wider level of options along with better services.

"You're not addressing the underlying cause, you're simply addressing the symptom. Addressing, might I add, in a way that will create severe and debilitating side effects."

The cause is lack of incentive to improve (since they get tax money regardless of what they do). The solution is giving the incentive to improve by having BETTER schools receive MORE money. Distribution of money will be determined by student choice, not bureaucracy.

Enlighten me on those side-effects if you can.