Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
School vouchers come in many forms, but all of them would provide parents with money to spend on the schools of their choice. We all want to provide our children with the best education possible -- but are voucher programs tools of change or misguided panaceas?
The answer to fixing a broken school isn't to take money out of the school... schools are funded per student. What does this do but to increase the chance that more students will fail? School vouchers don't address the underlying problem: There isn't equal educational opportunity. Why should one school have new football uniforms every other year when another doesn't have money for books and has over-crowded classrooms? Is it any wonder that the latter would be failing while the former thrives? Education supposedly being the goal, the money that is in schools is not being equally distributed. That's the problem.
When every school has the same books, the same teacher:student ratio, and equal access to all learning materials then we will be able to see what - if anything - is wrong with the education system. Until this happens we are comparing apple pie to orange peels and telling the people with the orange peels to travel four hours by bus to get to the apple pie. Then we don't give them a fork. It would make sense to just make a pie where the people with orange peels are at.
There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be able to make this happen other than the red tape that government sets up itself. It shouldn't be that hard. You distribute materials according to number. The exact same materials. You hire more teachers if you need to. Expand schools if you need to. You have a state fund for education that all districts pay into and all schools in the state take out. You ensure that technology is available on an equal basis. Once this is established and has time to mature for three - five years, you'll see if there's a problem with schools or just how they're funded.
One thing, too - all schools must have equal access to art and music programs. It isn't equal opportunity for one school district to have art classes and another just auto.
- SocialistBetty
December 19, 2008 1:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"The answer to fixing a broken school isn't to take money out of the school..."
Exactly what do vouchers have to do with taking money out of a given school?
"School vouchers don't address the underlying problem: There isn't equal educational opportunity."
They give parents and students the CHOICE of which school they want to attend, which is FAR from not given equal educational opportunity.
"Why should one school have new football uniforms every other year when another doesn't have money for books and has over-crowded classrooms?"
They shouldn't, thus vouchers allow students to avoid schools that engage in such conditions and also given schools the incentive to avoid such circumstances.
"Is it any wonder that the latter would be failing while the former thrives?"
No wonder about it at all, thus if you vouch the whole system, schools that thrive stay in business. The ones that have the best platform attract and keep the most students and thus for schools to remain around they must fulfill such an expectation.
"Education supposedly being the goal, the money that is in schools is not being equally distributed. That's the problem."
Right, the problem is schools recieve tax-funding REGARDLESS of how well they are doing with their students; a system like this doesn't NEED to improve because at the end of the day they recieve the same paycheck from the government making it pointless for teachers to go above and beyond for the same pay as an educator that sits around and does nothing.
"When every school has the same books, the same teacher:student ratio, and equal access to all learning materials then we will be able to see what - if anything - is wrong with the education system."
Don't current madates already provide for such a system in which all schools follow the same standards with the same funding with the same lack of incentive to improve?
"Until this happens we are comparing apple pie to orange peels and telling the people with the orange peels to travel four hours by bus to get to the apple pie."
Can you please ellaborate on how this analogy extends to real-life examples of failed educational institutions?
"Then we don't give them a fork. It would make sense to just make a pie where the people with orange peels are at."
See the above point.
"There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be able to make this happen other than the red tape that government sets up itself."
Indeed, make the transition to privatized education systems so schools that do well get their respective amount of money proportionate to how well they deliver their service.
"It shouldn't be that hard. You distribute materials according to number. The exact same materials."
Except distributing the exaxt same materials does not take into account the fact that the SAME materials go to students with DIFFERENT needs and desires. The result is that your not accounting for the different educational skills and abilities that students in a country as diverse as ours would have to cater to.
"You hire more teachers if you need to. Expand schools if you need to."
Something that a voucher based system would account for just fine. If a school needs more teachers because of a surplus of students the increased funding they receive from the larger number of pupils would allow them to make such adjustments. The same applies to expanding the school as a whole.
"You have a state fund for education that all districts pay into and all schools in the state take out."
Hold on, so districts pay into a fund and the schools within those districts take the money out, where does the money the districts have in the first place come from?
"You ensure that technology is available on an equal basis. Once this is established and has time to mature for three - five years, you'll see if there's a problem with schools or just how they're funded."
Techonoly and funding are next to irrelavent when it comes to the status of their students learning ability.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
"One thing, too - all schools must have equal access to art and music programs. It isn't equal opportunity for one school district to have art classes and another just auto."
With a voucher system students can CHOOSE which schools they feel best deliver what it is they are looking for. If one student is more inclined for mechanic abilities, but has no taste in art, then why does it matter if a school he/she goes to has no art program?
- F2XL December 19, 2008 8:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Why should one school have new football uniforms every other year when another doesn't have money for books and has over-crowded classrooms?"
They shouldn't, thus vouchers allow students to avoid schools that engage in such conditions and also given schools the incentive to avoid such circumstances.
"Is it any wonder that the latter would be failing while the former thrives?"
No wonder about it at all, thus if you vouch the whole system, schools that thrive stay in business. The ones that have the best platform attract and keep the most students and thus for schools to remain around they must fulfill such an expectation.
___________________
Vouchers allow students to avoid schools that "engage in such conditions"? Those conditions are a result of inequality. 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. There isn't a"best platform". Curriculum is standard and is standard nation-wide. That's how you've reached the conclusion that one school is failing - by the school not living up test scores. 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.
Vouching the whole system is ridiculous. How can a school thrive if it lacks what "thriving" schools have? 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"When every school has the same books, the same teacher:student ratio, and equal access to all learning materials then we will be able to see what - if anything - is wrong with the education system."
Don't current madates already provide for such a system in which all schools follow the same standards with the same funding with the same lack of incentive to improve?
________________
Current mandates (which you seem to be against since they don't address the differing abilities of students) do not provide this. There is a standard curriculum (again, you should be against even this because of the fact that the SAME materials apply to students with DIFFERENT needs and desires.). The funding is different depending on the district. Example? I live in Michigan - specifically, the lower upper northwest (upper side of the lower penninsula). Student funding here is approx. $6,400. Per student funding for schools in the Detroit area? Approx $8,200. Personal example: I went through bio with a book I couldn't take home (because there weren't enough of them) that was also from 1982. School vouchers were just making their debut in this state around the same time I entered my junior year. What would have happened if the voucher system had passed? Nothing. It would have fixed nothing. The inequality would have remained. Unless you're suggesting that a four hour bus ride (one way) is acceptable since students are bussed for hours under current voucher systems in other states?
You're implying that there is no wish to improve, let alone that vouchers would supply incentive. As if schools and the teachers in them only care about students if there is money involved.... because that Must be why people are teachers - that huge $60,000 a year (after 5 years. IF you're lucky). That must also be why most teachers will buy school supplies with their own money; because they do not care if their students thrive and succeed.
~~~~~~~~~~~
- SocialistBetty December 20, 2008 10:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- F2XL December 21, 2008 3:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Anyways, I agree that the standard curriculum system needs to be abolished, but as for the following:
"The funding is different depending on the district. Example? I live in Michigan - specifically, the lower upper northwest (upper side of the lower penninsula). Student funding here is approx. $6,400. Per student funding for schools in the Detroit area? Approx $8,200."
With a voucher based system every student can be guaranteed the same amount of money to use throughout their K-12 lifetime (I think at least five grand per student should do; $5,000.00 is more than what most typical private school education tuitions would look like).
"Personal example: I went through bio with a book I couldn't take home (because there weren't enough of them) that was also from 1982."
Right, and keep in mind that this was under government bureaucracy.
"School vouchers were just making their debut in this state around the same time I entered my junior year. What would have happened if the voucher system had passed? Nothing. It would have fixed nothing."
That's a big claim to leave unfounded, if they passed then schools would've HAD to improve if they wanted to keep their students. It's no different then various car manufacturers aiming for the most state of the art designs in order to please their customers.
"The inequality would have remained."
If a school had the choice of either buying new books and use existing materials more efficiently, or going out of business, which do you think they would've aimed for???
"Unless you're suggesting that a four hour bus ride (one way) is acceptable since students are bussed for hours under current voucher systems in other states?"
That's their choice, vouchers can just as easily apply to online options as well. Overtime new schools can emerge, and unless this is a rural area you're talking about I highly doubt a 4-hour bus ride is something they would need to endure. In the city I live in you can drive for any more than 30 minutes without coming within range of a high school. There are a total of over five high schools in the district I live in alone, and I would like a reference to the claim that under current voucher states, students must face hours of bussing per day to get to school.
"You're implying that there is no wish to improve, let alone that vouchers would supply incentive."
Yeah, I guess that pretty much sums it up. Generally speaking though, because of course teachers care for students. The problem is that they don't get additional compensation for doing well as teachers and as a school.
"As if schools and the teachers in them only care about students if there is money involved.... because that Must be why people are teachers - that huge $60,000 a year (after 5 years. IF you're lucky)."
No kidding, they are payed over $45/hr, and still bitch about not getting payed as much as they should. At that rate, I might consider becoming a teacher for salary alone. Not to mention meeting a whole array of students.
"That must also be why most teachers will buy school supplies with their own money; because they do not care if their students thrive and succeed."
By all means, they do care for their students. However, as with the teacher pay (see above point), the problem has virtually NOTHING to do with money. See the next comment.
- F2XL December 21, 2008 3:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"It shouldn't be that hard. You distribute materials according to number. The exact same materials."
Except distributing the exaxt same materials does not take into account the fact that the SAME materials go to students with DIFFERENT needs and desires. The result is that your not accounting for the different educational skills and abilities that students in a country as diverse as ours would have to cater to.
_____
Except that the reason schools are supposedly failing is that the exact SAME testing standards apply to students with DIFFERENT needs and desires. Except that the reason schools are "failing" is because they have to try and work within the same framework with LESS money than schools that are NOT failing. Higher student to teacher ratios. Older materials. Lack of materials. These things are important.
You're mistaking my words to mean that all students should take calculus even if they have the capabilities of a Forest Gump. Or that all students should start with remedial math when they clearly have the capabilities of a ....math genius (I know what you're thinking). Within all schools, all gifted programs should have access to the same materials. Within all schools, the special needs programs have access to everything there is. Private tutors should be available in All schools. Not just schools that have more funding. All students should thrive... not just students in schools with better funding. All students. Where they live. Without having to be bussed forty miles for somthing that they should have equal access to. Aaaaaand that would be an education.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Techonoly and funding are next to irrelavent when it comes to the status of their students learning ability.
_____
http://www.edtechactionnetwork.org/student_achieve.html
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/EdTech/reasons.html
~~~~
That's a great youtube link to 20/20 airing.
I'd like to address a few things, though.
First, the choice that Belgium schools offer pretty much says they are pandering to parents; that's why they have to offer things such as cooking classes, and basketball. How is learning how to make a great soufle going to teach a child the purpose of the Bill of Rights? Or why the Bill of Rights is important? It won't. Those things may interest a child, but if the problem with our schools is that students aren't learning the basics cooking won't help. It may help with fractions though, I'll give you that.
The fact that the better schools offer such things and attract the students says nothing. It only proves my point.
Which, by the way, is not that schools need MORE money...I think there's enough money already in the system... but that the money needs to be distributed equally. There should be not be schools with old books and crowded classrooms when other schools have new books, new computers, and lower s/t ratios. AND a cooking class AND class trips, etcetera.
Once this is addressed... once all schools will give students and equal opportunity to learn..... it's only then you can see where the problem with the education system is and will be better able to address it. Vouchers will not take care of the underlying problem.
But.
There's always a but where there's a head, right?
With that being said... Perhaps vouchers could be used by schools, not students. I mean, I get it. Cooking classes interest some students. Problem is, most schools don't offer cooking classes because interest is lower than, say, basketball. Perhaps the school could get someone to teach a cooking class for a period. Interest in school Is more than getting a grade. But why should students have to travel great lengths to get something that they should already have?
If you showed me two schools that were equal in terms of what they could offer the students and one school still wasn't performing, then I would say "Yes, shut it down and ship them out." Unfortunately, that rarely happens.
Equal footing, then take another look to see what the real problem is.
- SocialistBetty December 20, 2008 10:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Which, by the way, is not that schools need MORE money...I think there's enough money already in the system... but that the money needs to be distributed equally."
You already brought this same point up before, and my response is the same: under a voucher system, money and resources are distributed equally based on how many students attend a given school. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, do you beg to differ?
"There should be not be schools with old books and crowded classrooms when other schools have new books, new computers, and lower s/t ratios. AND a cooking class AND class trips, etcetera."
I agree, schools need to improve. By a whole lot. See the above point.
"Once this is addressed... once all schools will give students and equal opportunity to learn..... it's only then you can see where the problem with the education system is and will be better able to address it."
Which is what vouchers do since students will receive the same amount money in a voucher that they carry with them their entire K-12 academic life until they are out of high school.
"Vouchers will not take care of the underlying problem."
See the above point and please explain to me what this problem is that vouchers are supposedly futile to solve.
"With that being said... Perhaps vouchers could be used by schools, not students."
You mean like the current system today?
"I mean, I get it. Cooking classes interest some students. Problem is, most schools don't offer cooking classes because interest is lower than, say, basketball."
Right, student interest (cough: supply and demand) should determine whether or not an elective class persists. Not government bureaucracy.
"Perhaps the school could get someone to teach a cooking class for a period. Interest in school Is more than getting a grade. But why should students have to travel great lengths to get something that they should already have?"
No they shouldn't. Under voucher systems schools must keep up with student and parent desires if they want to remain as a school at all.
"If you showed me two schools that were equal in terms of what they could offer the students and one school still wasn't performing, then I would say "Yes, shut it down and ship them out." Unfortunately, that rarely happens."
I just gave you links above that show private schools do better with LESS money in the first place.
Does that change your view at all???
"Equal footing, then take another look to see what the real problem is."
I agree. Let all students have the same choice and opportunity regardless of income (for now) and then once we see students have the same money available, people may decide afterwords whether we should move on and completely separate school and state altogether with complete privatization or if we should go back to the original system.
- F2XL December 21, 2008 4:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This is interesting:
"The August 2001 Gallup Poll for Phi Delta Kappan magazine found that "When given the specific choice, 71 percent of the general public would improve and strengthen existing public schools while just 27 percent would opt for vouchers, the alternative most frequently mentioned by public school critics." ( http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0109gal.htm )"
Interesting because parents can make the choice to improve and strengthen existing public schools simply by involving themselves NOW, regardless of a voucher system or the lack thereof. So, if parents are so involved and concerned about their child's education, one wouldn't think there would be a need for any school to be failing.
- SocialistBetty December 20, 2008 10:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
" http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0109gal.htm "
........then it's still a dumb idea
- F2XL December 21, 2008 4:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"In the right-wing Bizarro Universe, everyone loves vouchers."
It isn't JUST Conservatives that care about the fact that US schools are falling far behind:
http://www.reason.tv/video/show/60.html
"Here in the real world, people hate the idea."
Then they probably aren't in the real world.
"Responding to this, voucher booster Patrick Byrne asserted that the people of Utah must be stupid."
After reading the following quote I think he might be right:
"They are smart for refusing to pay taxes to support a private system that is not accountable to the public and that can kick your child out for any reason -- including that he or she is the "wrong" religion."
If they did that they would LOSE MONEY and possibly go OUT OF BUSINESS.
- F2XL September 30, 2008 6:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Have you taken a moment to consider that a large base of support for school vouchers comes not from the religious right but from a broad swath of parents and citizens who are not of the religious right?
I'm a about as hardcore of an atheist as you could imagine, but I support school vouchers. The reality is that any funds distributed through any program can be diverted into religious organizations. People who are on any form of public assistance can tithe their church or religious establishment. Thousands of elderly pool their social security money and tithe to churches and personal interests.
While my ultimate ideal would be to abolish public schools altogether, the reality is that a school voucher is the next best thing *without* violating the separation clause when the vouchers are given to parents and not to the schools directly.
- sumwatt July 24, 2008 1:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
"Nine out of ten of our nation's children attend public schools, yet some politicians are asking the American people to accept inadequate funding for public schools while they enact new, expensive programs for private religious schools."
Inadequate funding? Really?
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/05/06/i-thought-the-schools-were-starving /
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9485
"For example, wealthy TV preacher Pat Robertson regularly attacks America's public education system, calls for tax aid for private religious schools and insists that "the Constitution says nothing about the separation of church and state!""
I will personally jump off a two-story building if you can actually find the words "separation of church and state" in the constitution.
- F2XL September 20, 2008 9:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
We are continuously throwing money at schools, but it gets eaten up by administration. Why are teachers asking children to bring their own supplies and asking for donations of chalk and paper when schools get thousands of dollars each year per student? Public schools have PLENTY of money. It just doesn't get allocated where it is needed.
If my student isn't in your school, then you shouldn't get the money to educate my student. Period. And I am a registered Democrat.
- crunchymom September 21, 2008 3:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Utah is one of the most religious and conservative states in the nation, and yet they also voted down couchers, thanks to a campaign run largely by Democrats. How does that make sense if couchers are an agenda of the religious right?
Because vouchgers have nothing to do with religion. They have to do with control over the money. School administrations, textbook publishers, school supply manufacturers - so many jobs are dependent on the world of education. The case against vouchers is about greed, not children. We pay our teachers more, we allocate more money per student, and yet classes still stay large, teachers still have to buy their own chalk, and test scores still stay low.
Vouchers are about parents making choices for their children and increasing their opportunities. Anti-voucher programs are about maintaining the status quo.
- crunchymom September 21, 2008 3:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
you want to prevent families from sending their kids to private schools . on what grounds? you want press your religion on these people and all people and think it's ok. Where these people just want to escape your grasp. Here's something well written, and it's hard to bring this up with the 'ironclad presuppositions and nonsensical reasoning you hold.'
"The First Amendment's widely misunderstood Establishment Clause simply means that the state will not set up any official state religion, nor will it prohibit any person from freely exercising the religious dictates of his or her own conscience. However, this restriction on the Government's intrusion into the private religious convictions of its citizenry does NOT mean that all aspects of religion should be kept completely out of the affairs of the State. That secular ideology is entirely foreign to the original intent of the Founding Fathers — who drafted the Constitution, including its Bill of Rights, as a clearly defined limitation on the power of the Government to interfere with the freedoms of the people, but NOT as a limitation on the power of the people to control the Government according to the beliefs of their own hearts."
A presumpasion you people hold is, 'religion is always bad'. so your argument makes sense to you, but in truth it doesn't make sense because religion isn't always bad. You're a nonsensical people, but worse, you're an untrustworthy people. you're devious, not honest. very dangerous. And your substantial impact is, you wish to establish an official state religion. YOur religion. You're succeeding.
You're too stupid to understand it, and too evil to care. it's a fact. proud and ignorant. a terrible plague. Let the people have free. stay your hand from them. THey should overrun and kill you. you're a hypocrit.
- jxzac April 2, 2009 2:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
they are liars without reason, without truth. They should be killed on all levels. They are murders. Soldiers are not murderers.
- jxzac April 2, 2009 2:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Capitalist sentiments in favor of vouchers are misplaced. Educational consumers have every choice in their child's education - every choice that they can afford, that is. If your city's bus system was wholly unsatisfactory, they would hardly reimburse the purchase of a personal vehicle - you should be grateful to have access to the bus in the first place! If a family/parent commands enough capital to send their child to a private educational institute, that is their choice, but the government should not be giving money from their ALL TO SLIM education budget to private enterprises in the same field.
- PrometheusUnborn August 2, 2008 5:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Currently, public schools that FAIL to handle a child's need, give scholarships to the child to pay for a private school of the parent's choice. Hmmm...Taxpayers are all ready paying for private schools. Unless the child being failed is gifted. The public school system won't give the intellegent child the scholarship. Go figure.
The voucher system would be issued per each child's percentage of the taxes collected for education. Then the parents would choose which school received this money. Gee. The concept of earning a paycheck might just be what this country needs to fix a failing system.
- Laughing at you September 18, 2008 9:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You had your title right, but it should be a lot broader.
Americans shouldn't be required to finance...most everything that the current bloated government spends money on. Americans should be able to keep their money instead of having it taken away so they can make their own decisions about where to spend it, including expenditures on education for their children.
Americans need to stop with this pervasive attitude of entitlement and pay for the things they personally desire. In order for that to happen, though, the American government need to stop stealing from its people.
- h3h November 12, 2008 9:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
I must've missed the memo on that one while I was out paving the road that I so desire. But it could've been due to one of those rolling black outs that Engone produced, too. How long ago did you send that out?
- SocialistBetty January 1, 2009 12:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I choose to home school because I have lost all confidence in the government ran school system and those in charge of the students. One reason, among too many to list is this:
The book, "DUMBING US DOWN" by John Taylor Gatto.
Praise God a teacher with Hutzpah!In the section"about the author" I liked these commments:
Quote. The trouble was that the unlikeliest kids kept demonstrating to me at random moments so many of the hallmarks of human excellence-insight, wisdom, justice, resourcefulness, courage, origninality-that I became confused. end quote. Trouble is John that is how God works, in the most unlikeliest of people! And a corrupt system with bad testing could not appreciate differences even though they hypocritically call for tolerance.
Quote. But once loose, the idea could imperil the central assumptions which allow the institutional school to sustain itself, such as the false assumption that it is difficult to learn to read, or that kids resist learning, and many more. Indeed, the very stability of our ecomonjy is threatened by any form of education that might change the nature of the human product schools now turn out: The economy school children currently expect to live under and serve would not survive a generation of young people trained, for example, to think critically.end quote. Wow, that is the crux of this whole book. Children as products of this countries economic system ,as robotic machines ,to keep us afloat instead of human beings with a spirit that is already preordained to serve God not man!!!
The whole chapter 1 titled, " The seven-lesson schoolteacher. Those seven lessons being taught our children every school year in every public school are the following; The public school teaches confusion, class position, indifference, emotional dependency, intellectual dependency, provisional self-esteem, one cant hide.end quote. Page 13 of this chapter was good as well as pages 17-19.
Chapter 2 titled, The Psychopathic school" darn near made me cry it was so dead on! I marked pages 20 -28 broke my heart. I know that I am doing the right thing in homeschooling ! Thanks for confirming it. Quote: The children I teach are indifferent....The children I teach have almost no curiosity.....The children I teach have a poor sense of the future, of how tomorrow is inexplicably linked to today, The children I teach are ahistorical...The children I teach are cruell to each other, they lack compassion for misfortune, they laugh at weakness, they have contempt for people whose need for help shows too plainly.... The children I teach are uneasy with intimacy or candor....The children I teach are materialistic...The chidren I teach are dependent, passive and timid. End quote. Thank you for proving that public schools are breeding more menices to society everyday.Sad but factual!
Page 59 par 3 mid par states,...while the education administered ( by public schools) is ill regarded by everyone, the institutions right to compel its clientele to accept such dubious service is still guaranteed by the police . End quote If you read what Yuba City, Califoria school board recently passed it proves you right. They passed a law saying if a child, a child mind you,is found not in school they will be arrested and the parents fined. THIS IS NOT MY AMERICA AND I WONT PUT UP WITH IT.
Page 61 par 2 quote, " Why, then ,are we locking kids up in an involuntary network with strangers for twelve years? end quote. Strangers is good but may I add some are very strange, even criminal. Why indeed?
Page 79 Quote, " This catches a peice of whats wrong with compulsory schols as large as New England towns, schools that dont allow any choice of curricula, philosophy, or companions." end quote.
Page 91 par 1 in discussing the institition of schools you say quote, " In the most literal sense thy are impossible to reform because they have ceased to be human, having been transformed into abstract structures of superb efficiency, independent of lasting human control survival mechanisms. This is not a devil you can wrestle with as Daniel Webster did with Old Scratch, but one thtat has to be starved to death by depriving it of victims" end quote. I get it! TAKE YOU KIDS OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL NOW!!!!
- Hope7 July 16, 2009 9:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
You can't seem to think of anything against vouchers other than saying it somehow promotes religion. Do you have evidence that our current school system is superior to a voucher system?
- F2XL September 20, 2008 9:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The government is not supporting religion with vouchers. It is the equivelant of someone getting a goverment Pell grant and using it to go to Notre Dame. I attended private, parochial and public schools. The "Lutheran" school I attended had maybe 10% Lutherans. Most students were there because their parents cared about a good education. My parents sacrificed deeply to send us to good schools, while still paying high taxes for mediocre public schools. This is not a religious issue.
- againes October 16, 2008 8:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
you seem to have a prejudice against religions but your fears are not even presented nor are they applicable, if i can surmise their substance. The law of prejudice doesn't pan out in reality. you need congnative reason. clean up your post and say what you mean. we do not carry your prejudices. explain yourself better so we can more clearly shoot you down.
- jxzac April 2, 2009 2:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Should Cities and States Adopt School Voucher Programs?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Leadership and Change Required
This year, one of the Denver Public Schools made what the newspapers heralded as a "bold choice"; they ended social promotion and required kids to pass their classes in order to advance to a higher grade. As I said in my blog, educators in other countries must be laughing their asses off at us.
In a city where it was reported excitedly that "42% of DPS high school students earned at least an average score in reading tests", meaning 58% are functionally illiterate, we are living proof that both the education system AND the mentality of those who run it are hopelessly broken.
Are charter schools and private schools the right way to fix it? While the early proof is overwhelmingly "yes", the long term answer might be "no". In many other countries attending a private school carries a stigma that your are a failure; that you couldn't handle the toughness required to make it in the public school. We could get there, but it would take leadership we simply do not have in this country.
- Kasidie July 24, 2008 10:06AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Private school stigma?
In this country, attending a private school is generally viewed as a privilege. No one is fighting to get their kids into the public schools. You may have to survive metal detectors, drug dealers and gangs and be tough at public schools--but you certainly don't have to learn much to get out.
If the funding for the student went with the student, the school's would have incentive to improve. Right now, public schools don't have to do anything except meet minimal requirements. If you're in a good school district, great. If you're not, too bad.
- noaxis2
October 19, 2008 9:16PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Would Elementary Schools Become Competative? Similar to Colleges
Would elementary school children then resort to qualifying? A good school can only accept so many children.
- tamklo July 24, 2008 12:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's about Parents Rights, not Religious Right
The whole line of reasoning that this is a religious right issue is bogus. This is simply a parent's rights issue, period. Yes, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and people of many other faiths are extremely concerned about their children's education. But trying to argue that this concern makes the issue a religious issue simply demonstrates how poorly educated the so called "no" experts are. Vouchers put the power of choice into the hands of parents and wrests it away from politicians. If you were a kid would you rather have a parent decide things for you or would you want to be a ward of the state? Granted, the public education system has been broken for so long that many of the parents are poorly equiped to make the decisions. Is that the "no" voters position? Continue the cycle because it is broken? Absurd!!
- joelinda July 25, 2008 11:59AM
Reply to this Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Amen to that!
Well said, Joe.
- Highlander
October 8, 2008 12:17PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What the heck is "the religious right" anyway?
Sounds like a made up boogeyman that generalizes attitudes of a huge number of Americans who make value judgements based on their faith. Seems an awful lot like a tired stereotype, in fact.
Find a new strawman, please!
- Obi1Kenobi July 25, 2008 6:09PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
think twice.
The reason public schools are broken is that they don't have enough funding. Not nearly enough. I've only been out of high school five years, and experienced both public and private.
I can definitively state that private schools have a clearly negative impact on the psychology of students, while at the same time rarely providing a better education in any fashion.
Growing up with exposure to a rich diversity of cultures and attitudes really has no substitute. At least that's true in my experience, and the vast majority of teenagers I've met. Private schools just don't offer this, especially not religious schools.
- sonofwill
August 1, 2008 10:21PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Think again
Public schools get enough money, yet teachers/students rarely see it. In 2007 each student has between $9,000-$12,000 being spent for their public school education. That is more than most private tuition. Charter schools do the same thing as private with less costs. Money is being spent unwisely.
With School choice the money tax-payers already spend on education would go with students to the school that fits them, whether it be public, charter, or private school. Students, parents and teachers would see how money is spent. Some kids would do better in all boy/girl schools, vocational, classical schools, etc. We chose restaurants and universities, why can't we chose elemetary and high school?
School choice, allows money to be used where it is needed. Programs work though corporate tax credit scholarships from businesses, open school districts and other programs. There are ways for it to work in states indiviually. Florida and Arizona have it; their schools are doing great!
- Evie
August 20, 2008 8:39AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Disagree
Can't find anything that would support that.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/05/06/i-thought-the-schools-were-starving /
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9485
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
Regarding diversity:
"Private schools just don't offer this, especially not religious schools."
Have you attended one?
- F2XL
September 20, 2008 9:09PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Religions Aren't The Only Ones With Private Schools
If vouchers had passed in my state, I could have sent my son to a Montessori school, which is a style of education better suited to him than the overcrouded classrooms that public school would offer him. My son's learning style isn't suited to sitting in a desk facing a chalk board. We homeschool him instead.
When considering tax payer money, more isn't better if it isn't allocated correctly. My husband teaches at a charter school that does a lot more with less money than other public schools. They have not eliminated recess or the arts, encourage music and dance and hands on learning, and do not spend hours on end preparing kids for standardized tests, all with less money, and the kids score better than the other public schools around us.
Even with this charter schools benefits, we have seen that our son learns better with more autonomy, more hands on manipulatives, and by approaching one subject a day instead of several each day. Society should be most concerned with him actually being able to learn, not "where" he learns. The important thing is that he grow up to be a successful contributing member of society. Tax payer money would be best spent helping him go to a school where he would thrive.
- crunchymom September 21, 2008 3:37PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Should Cities and States Adopt School Voucher Programs?
A no brainer for pro choice folks. Unless they intend choice to end at birth.
BTW: If McCain had associated with unrepentant abortion clinic bombers... would anyone vote for him? If not... why is anyone voting for Obama ?
- CharlieBravo
October 12, 2008 12:25AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is religion your problem?
Could someone reply back and read me the 1st Amendment? I seem to have forgotten it (and apparently some others too).
- filmfreak
November 6, 2008 10:51AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vouchers: Sowing the wind of sectarianism and social exclusion
The idea of subsidizing private schools is tempting. Instead of having a public school system that is open to all and providing a good education for the whole society, you will have a scheme designed to balkanize education. Catholics will have Catholic schools, Protestants will have Protestant schools. Jews will have their schools and Muslims will have their madrassas. Education and children will be split along class and sectarian lines. As for the poor, they'll have to make do with a public system that is even less supported than it is at present.
When you have education split along class and sectarian lines, social discrimination will be enhanced. In a world that is increasingly divided on class and sectarian lines, funding social exclusion is sowing the wind. And that increases the risk of reaping the whirlwind.
- Michael Glass
November 15, 2008 3:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vouchers: The Equalizer.
Mr. Glass claims that subsidizing private schools would "sow the winds of sectarianism and social exclusion." He's absolutely correct. That's exactly the difference between subsidizing private schools and giving people vouchers. If you give the poor a voucher, they can go to the same private school that their wealthier peers can. In the current system, most kids go to public school, while the wealhty send their kids to private school. If you give vouchers, the poor will be able to attend whatever school they wish. It will admittedl probably increase division along religious lines, but it will drastically decrease division along class lines. It would probably also allow techers to promote religion and morality, which is dangerously lacking in modern society, mostly due to Political Correctness, though religious schools are not the only private schools, there are many secular private schools that would be an option. In the end, it comes down to competition and the free market being good things.
- richardsonkr
December 12, 2008 6:08PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vouchers can't equalize
The ideas that vouchers can equalize education is based on the vain hope that the vouchers supplied by the government will cover the whole cost of education, public or private. Not likely. If there are fees for private schools then this will immediately act as a social filter, leaving the poorest students to the public system.
Even without the filter of fees, there are a number of other ways that private schools can and do exclude those who are more difficult to teach. Any child who proves to be too unruly for the school to handle can be asked to leave. Any child who challenges the school's ethos, for instance, by being critical of the school's religious policy, can be asked to leave. Any child whose parents are too uppity can be asked to leave. Any child who gets into trouble with the law can be asked to leave. Any child whose marks are not up to standard can be asked to leave. And where do these children go? To the public schools, of course. As a result, these schools will inevitably cream off the easier to handle, the easier to teach and the wealthier children while they exclude or dump the poor or the more difficult to handle children, who will be left for the public system to educate.
Competition and the free market are all very well, but cherry picking the wealthy and easier to educate while dumping the poor and more difficult to teach is a recipe for social exclusion and division.
- Michael Glass
December 13, 2008 1:25AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vouchers can Provide Equal Opportunity
Whether the voucher system would discriminate against unruly, unlawful, and difficult students is not the question. The current system does that as well. The question is whether it would give those less economically fortunate the same opportunity to succeed and improve the overall quality of education in the United States. Whether those students choose to make use of or squander that decision is up to them, and if they choose to squander it, it is not the fault of the system. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Also, assuming that children of lower income families are inherently more unruly is a problem. The statement either reflects the bias of the writer and is untrue, or is true and reflects the problem in the family dynamic among lower income families that is responsible for their predicament. The school system can't fix that, and was never designed to. Furthermore, wealthy children come with their own set of problems for educators, tending to be uppity, spoiled, know-it-alls who think they can do whatever they want. How many students with wealthy parents go to a high-end, expensive, and highly exclusive civilian college and blow all mommy and daddy's money on alcohol and partying?
- richardsonkr
December 22, 2008 7:57AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vouchers can't solve the problem of inequality
It is one thing to blithely dismiss the unruly students and their parents as unworthy. However, expecting vouchers to be the magic bullet for educational equality is a vain hope. A public education system cannot offer equal opportunity between the child from a family which is comfortably off and full of books and a poor family where the parents may be struggling to feed and clothe their children, let alone buy them books. However, bringing in vouchers won't change that. What it will do is bring in schools that discriminate against the harder to teach. Also, if the schools receiving vouchers are also allowed to charge extra fees for such things as tuition, or building funds, or a donation to the church that runs the school or whatever, the system will be clearly discriminatory, simply by charging fees. Vouchers have the potential for making an unequal system even more unequal. Furthermore, vouchers have the potential for dividing children on sectarian lines.
- Michael Glass
December 22, 2008 12:27PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Waiting for the magic bullet is a vain exercise
America is a meritocracy, not a socialist state, so far. Vouchers allow choice for parents. Parents that care about their children's education should be allowed to seek better schools. Nothing is ever completely equal. Why cause so many kids harm while you wait for the "magic"? Not having vouchers means that parents must move to exercise a choice. How is that fair to the kids without the means to move?
- joelinda January 26, 2009 3:16PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A devil take the hindmost philosophy
Vouchers allow choice for parents in the position to choose. No all have this choice, and defining those with the power to choose as 'those who care' is self-serving. Parents, rich or poor, care about their children; what differs is their ability to provide for them. Bring in a voucher system, and unfairness is made worse. The other way of providing for children is to provide a good public system for all children, rich or poor. This is not perfect, of course, but it provides something for all children. Providing vouchers - and inevitably the vouchers will only cover part of the cost of a decent education - will entrench division on the grounds of wealth and of creed.
Common schools are part of the Western heritage. Classing this as socialism is doctrinaire nonsense.
- Michael Glass
January 26, 2009 4:28PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Inequality can't be solved by riding a bus (no pun intended)
If we give "the poor" a voucher and say travel two hours to get to school that is worth while, the schools are not equal. No amount of shuffling students back and forth will make them equal. The "better" (i.e. richer) school will only get better and the poorer school will only fall into further despair. Reform is needed to equalize schools and vouchers won't do it. It will only increase the disparities between the schools. "The poor" students are still not getting an equal education. They are not wearing the same clothes. They will not speak the same. They will not have laptops to do their on-line assignments on. They will be ostracized by the wealthier students. They will rebel. They will be looked down upon by teachers unconsciously or even intentionally...they will be dismissed. It happens now to the odd "poor" who finds himself within the intentionally drawn that way school district line (intentionally so as to keep the undesirables out), what makes you think this would change?
If only 13.2% of Americans do not claim any religion at all, it would appear that religion is the cause of problems, not the solution. Allowing teachers to teach religion and morality above reason and observation is probably not the best route one could come up with.
- SocialistBetty
December 19, 2008 2:06AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Travel distance is your complaint???
"If we give "the poor" a voucher and say travel two hours to get to school that is worth while, the schools are not equal."
They don't have to under this system, they won't need to under a voucher system either. You can expect schools to increase in number if the state/federal interference is eliminated. Schools would become as common as a typical fast food chain at the very least, and let's not forget that if a student lives in a rural area with no school for hours, they have the option of using their voucher money for some form of home schooling, including classes via the net (something I took for a few semesters).
"No amount of shuffling students back and forth will make them equal."
If by shuffling you mean allowing them to switch between schools until they find one they are most comfortable with, then I would have to disagree. Should students be given a CHOICE in school they will have the same opportunities as a rich clown who lives in a private estate.
"The "better" (i.e. richer) school will only get better and the poorer school will only fall into further despair."
That's kind of the whole point, a school which does not deliver well and LOSES customers/students will be forced to either shape up or pack up. Schools which serve students best will naturally receive the most money and thus become the most successful. Having schools fail in the same manner that a business does is just as important as having a school improve; it tells potential students that they have the wrong set-up and thus should not be around to waste everyone's time.
"Reform is needed to equalize schools and vouchers won't do it. It will only increase the disparities between the schools."
The only way this would be true is if a school under a voucher system is doing POORLY and thus students decide not to waste their money on it.
""The poor" students are still not getting an equal education."
For the record, the poor kids would now have the SAME options as some rich f#$@ who goes to private school. Nothing unequal there.
"They are not wearing the same clothes."
So you're a fan of school uniforms I take it? Nonetheless, I find the apparel one wears at their discretion to be completely irrelavent to the quality of education they recieve.
"They will not speak the same."
The hell does this have to do with education? Are you talking with respect to designated language or dialect, or vocabulary?
"They will not have laptops to do their on-line assignments on."
Voucher schools are more then capable of providing such assets to their students just as many online options do today. They can choose a school which provides flexibility for DIFFERENT needs, something a totally socialized and heavily regulated system cannot provide us.
"They will be ostracized by the wealthier students."
Did I mention voucher schools have the financial (along with moral) incentive to stop bullying on the spot? Students who feel more safe and confortable at a given school will naturally attract more students.
"They will rebel."
Or they can use their voucher money to find a better school service. Nothing out of Karl Marx necessary here.
"They will be looked down upon by teachers unconsciously or even intentionally...they will be dismissed."
No they won't, the reason being that if a school discourages students on the basis of their personal or family income, the student will choose not to attend, and thus they will lose money as a result. A McDonald's doesn't discriminate against poorer customers for the same reason. However, under the tax-funded system we have now, teachers can get away with all sorts of things and still get the same paycheck at the end of the month.
"It happens now to the odd "poor" who finds himself within the intentionally drawn that way school district line (intentionally so as to keep the undesirables out), what makes you think this would change?"
What makes me think it would change? See the previous paragraph for my answer. If a school wants to stay in business, they will make the smart choice and treat all incoming students fairly.
- F2XL
December 19, 2008 9:20PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Regarding religion
"If only 13.2% of Americans do not claim any religion at all, it would appear that religion is the cause of problems, not the solution."
The correct answer is more along the lines of 4/10th's of a percent to 1%, assuming of course you mean belief in god as a form of religion.
Nonetheless, it seems as if you are both distorting the relevance of this issue and the context at which it would apply to our current system (see next point at the bottom).
"Allowing teachers to teach religion and morality above reason and observation is probably not the best route one could come up with."
BREAKING NEWS!!!
Religion has been effectively banned from the schools since 1987 at the very least after the Edwards/Aguillard case on Creationism. No school led prayer, no bibles, no 10,000 year old earth, no religious anything. Even secular concepts such as Intelligent Design are discourage from biology and physics classes. If you can find such an approach being utilized in a public school education system today (where religious teachings are used), then please feel free to enlighten me.
- F2XL
December 19, 2008 9:21PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Congratulations... you can read.
BREAKING NEWS!!
IT WAS A RESPONSE TO A STATEMENT SOMEONE ELSE MADE!
In case you hadn't noticed, I was replying to another person who said "It would probably also allow techers to promote religion and morality, which is dangerously lacking in modern society, mostly due to Political Correctness"
Try reading the full thread before you warm up your sarcastic fingers, okay? Thanks, thanks... that'd be greeeaaat.
- SocialistBetty
December 20, 2008 10:14PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No kidding...
...and this is in spite of the fact that I've attended public school. :?
"IT WAS A RESPONSE TO A STATEMENT SOMEONE ELSE MADE!"
Tell me something I don't know.
"In case you hadn't noticed, I was replying to another person who said "It would probably also allow techers to promote religion and morality, which is dangerously lacking in modern society, mostly due to Political Correctness""
See the above point.
"Try reading the full thread before you warm up your sarcastic fingers, okay? Thanks, thanks... that'd be greeeaaat."
Okay, so you made the following claim: "If only 13.2% of Americans do not claim any religion at all, it would appear that religion is the cause of problems, not the solution." I responded in kind by pointing out that religion in schools is not the cause of problems because it was never there to begin with in today's present system. Just adding my 2 cents.
- F2XL
December 21, 2008 4:06PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Socialism IS a religeon Betty
What does that do to the statistics?
- joelinda January 26, 2009 3:18PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
spelled religion
Sorry, I went to public schools.
- joelinda January 26, 2009 3:20PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Poor excuse
Blaming your public school for your lack of desire for an education and you non-commitment to material only removes your personal responsibility towards education.
I blame shitty parenting for a failing education system... Seriously, if your child can't read by the time he or she is in the 5th grade, there's something wrong with you. Children should be reading before school starts... or parents aren't doing their jobs.
- SocialistBetty
January 26, 2009 7:34PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I did receive a good public education
But that was 30 years ago. My kids went to private schools. Now they are on full-ride academic scholarships at state funded universities. A merit based voucher of sorts. However, I'll admit that I rely on spell check too much, when I can't get one of my Nat Merit Scholars on the cell. Not all public schools are bad, but the bad ones should be shut down by students who have the freedom to leave and take their funding with them.
- joelinda January 26, 2009 10:50PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Side comment
I was responding to this statement:
"It would probably also allow teachers to promote religion and morality, which is dangerously lacking in modern society,"
As if it's because of lack of religion that society is the way it is... as if religion and the morals that accompany it would "fix" society.
Well it's silly to say that lack of religion in society is to blame for its ills, since most people claim to have a religion.
The fact that F2XL fails to realize that is not inherent to schools does not mean anything.
- SocialistBetty
January 26, 2009 7:38PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
yes
The voucher programs are great for childern in the intercitys so they can go to a safe school to learn.With out fear of being killed,rape,and robbed by there class mates.The teachers dont even feal safe in the class rooms.And there unions dont even care.
- countryboy
July 17, 2009 10:52PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
False Dichotomy
The question presents vouchers as the only alternative to Public Education. I think that it should be ended. No one should be forced to pay for someone else's education . Also, there will always be a bias among those teaching, whether they are private or public schools . Right now, the Unions control the public schools, and they are pumping out leftist diatribe in such volume it is staggering. They are doing more indoctrinating than educating. On the other hand, private schools are not a whole lot better. Many of them are run by hard-righters who are seeking an alternative bias to the public option . They also often have a religious bias. Abolish the public school system, it is a money pit that has consistently failed to produce results. With the advent of online homeshooling, it is well within the means of the vast majority of Americans to educate their kids for much less than what is spent per child in the public system, and with better results.
- richardsonkr
November 4, 2009 11:54AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.