First Amendment no big deal, high school students say

[dcoles11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A private school has no gun held to its head to accept any student with a voucher, students with a record of bad behavior, a learning disability, or any other of a number of things could be and would easily be rejected.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. But the current system isn't working for those groups anyway. And there are private schools for people with learning disabilities. And I don't hear people advocating the total elimination of public schooling. Just parents having more freedom to determine where their kid has the option of going to school.

[ QUOTE ]
In most areas the only available private schools are of a religious kind and not all parents want to send their kids to a religious school or the families religion may not be represented by any near by private school.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. But like you said, no one is forcing this kids anywhere. The issue is about choice. However, if the influx of demand is greater than available supply, the market will work to balance itself out. More private schools would be built, many with non-religious foundations.

[ QUOTE ]
If your kid is left out of private school because of any of these reasons he or she will be left to a now even more underfunded public school system.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think there's going to be a mass exodus of kids from schools. But say there were. The reason would be because the public school wasn't keeping up with the private school. Should we force all the kids who have to go to bad schools to stay there just to make sure a small percentage is allowed to stay in a well-funded bad school?

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that well-funded = good. A gov't will waste money because it is a gov't and they can always raise the taxes. But a private school doesn't have such a luxury so they're naturally going to be less wasteful of the revenue they do receive.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is def. a tough issue, it may be one of those things we just have to try and see if it works, but I am shy to say that because I see problems, but problems exist now certainly as well. I think my main problem is the fact that school vouchers will not cover the total cost of a private school education, so kids in lower income families would I guess have to stay in the public school system which will be underfunded (due to vouchers which would come directly from the same budget) and wait until a private school is built that charges at or below the level of his/her voucher. I see two problems in that, one, what if it takes 1,2, maybe even 3 or 4 years for that school to be built that has a tuition cost that just the bare voucher can cover, isn't that leaving out a cycle of kids? I do realize that one can argue the current system is leaving out cycles of kids as well. My second problem is the quality of the proposed new schools that fix their tuition cost to bring in the lower income family kids that have just the voucher to put towards tuition. Lets say there is a county with 3 private schools and the voucher is good for $4,000. School 1 with a tuition cost of $10,000, school 2 with a tuition cost of $7,000 and school 3 with a tuition cost of $4,000, the school built for the sole purpose of providing a private school education for the kids who are in families that can't put a dime above the voucher towards their education. Is it a stretch that the education recieved at the $4,000 school would be inferiour to the $10,000 and $7,000 schools? Those schools would have better computers, would be able to attract the better teachers with higher pay, better gym, science lab, any type of equipment and supplies. Is it fare that now along with everything else in that childs life he or she has to settle for what he/she can afford, even when it comes to education?

[BCPVP]

I think it's important to point out that schools that aren't making the grade aren't immediately cut from their funding or closed down. In fact, at first they're given more money if that's what the problem is. After a certain time period of still not being able to raise scores, I think change is made to the schools administration and at some time after that, then is when funding is cut. So the school has some chances to redeem themselves. (sorry I don't have the exact numbers on how long a school has to improve, but I'm lazy. Look it up if you're really desperate)

[ QUOTE ]
Is it a stretch that the education recieved at the $4,000 school would be inferiour to the $10,000 and $7,000 schools? Those schools would have better computers, would be able to attract the better teachers with higher pay, better gym, science lab, any type of equipment and supplies. Is it fare that now along with everything else in that childs life he or she has to settle for what he/she can afford, even when it comes to education?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not counting the fact that this kid would have been going to a school that couldn't adequately provide for him/her in the first place, so if, in the end, the parents decide to send their child to a private school, the private school they choose will, more likely than not, be better than what they were receiving. I don't see how pointing out that some kids might receive even better education justifies keeping poor kids from receiving any better education.

[dcoles11]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's important to point out that schools that aren't making the grade aren't immediately cut from their funding or closed down. In fact, at first they're given more money if that's what the problem is. After a certain time period of still not being able to raise scores, I think change is made to the schools administration and at some time after that, then is when funding is cut. So the school has some chances to redeem themselves. (sorry I don't have the exact numbers on how long a school has to improve, but I'm lazy. Look it up if you're really desperate)

[ QUOTE ]
Is it a stretch that the education recieved at the $4,000 school would be inferiour to the $10,000 and $7,000 schools? Those schools would have better computers, would be able to attract the better teachers with higher pay, better gym, science lab, any type of equipment and supplies. Is it fare that now along with everything else in that childs life he or she has to settle for what he/she can afford, even when it comes to education?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not counting the fact that this kid would have been going to a school that couldn't adequately provide for him/her in the first place, so if, in the end, the parents decide to send their child to a private school, the private school they choose will, more likely than not, be better than what they were receiving. I don't see how pointing out that some kids might receive even better education justifies keeping poor kids from receiving any better education.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if if you used your imgagination you would realize that over time this $4,000 school would become nothing more than the school that dosen't have to compete for students because they know they are getting the kids with just the vouchers to put towards tuition and not a dime more no matter what. You didn't address the the fact that the higher priced schools would be able to compete for the better teachers and be able to afford better school supplies and equipment. Since we are talking about putting schools into the capitalist market i'll make the analogy that what we will end up with is a Mercedes education, a nice Honda education with leather seats, and then a used Geo education.

Also I don't really understand why were shocked that private school kids do better on test than public school kids. If your parents are forking out $5,000 a year for you to go to high school, odds are they take your education pretty serious. We are blaming the teachers for having to deal with the fact that they are responsible for everyone not just a small sample of kids that are probably from families that give them every advantage possible. Private school kids don't have to deal with class rooms of 40 and 50 students, they have classes of 10 kids on average which means one on one interaction with the teacher. When I hear people talk about school vouchers sending kids to private schools its like they think the name "private school" is going to make the kids smarter and work harder. In reality all it would do is create larger classes in private schools and then private school teachers would be dealing with the same problems that public school teachers do, which is too many kids per class and kids that also just really don't want to be there, instead of the private school kids they are use to. I like analogies so i'm going to use this one. USC, Oklahoma, Miami, FSU, ..ect. They have great football teams, they only take the best of the best out of high school. If you graded each of their players on athletic ability the team average would be very high. Now lets say that all of a sudden everyone that wanted to play football for USC could, all you had to do was show up and you get a uniform and your face in the team picture. So now instead of 80 great athletes, they have 80 great athletes and then another 200 guys that just wanted a jersey but really can't play football worth a lick. Do you not think if you graded the football team now on athletic ability that it wouldn go down from what it was when the original 80 was tested? My point is I think were making glorifying private schools for playing with a loaded deck here. Competition is great but you know there is always going to be that crappy product that can't compete with the big boys and soley exist for those who can't afford the name brand, they can just afford what they can afford. You can blaim the parents for decisions they made as to why they can't afford better education or whatever but thats not the kids fault.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Private Schools (since you have to pay for them), generally get more money to give kids better teachers and a better education overall.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe teachers are paid more in a public or private school?
RR

[ACPlayer]

You point out a problem -- screwed up education. You suppose a cause -- teacher's unions (perhaps accurate). You posit a solution strategy -- competition. You offer a solution method -- vouchers

I can go along with the first three steps. But how in the world does vouchers help with school education or creating competition. All it does is gives me a rebate I dont really need when I send my kids to school, which i already do, and gives you a voucher that you cant use to send your kids to school because you dont have enough money to pay for the rest.

The only people it benefits are the guys running the madrassas teaching creationism as science.

[dcoles11]

[ QUOTE ]
You point out a problem -- screwed up education. You suppose a cause -- teacher's unions (perhaps accurate). You posit a solution strategy -- competition. You offer a solution method -- vouchers

I can go along with the first three steps. But how in the world does vouchers help with school education or creating competition. All it does is gives me a rebate I dont really need when I send my kids to school, which i already do, and gives you a voucher that you cant use to send your kids to school because you dont have enough money to pay for the rest.

The only people it benefits are the guys running the madrassas teaching creationism as science.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have been talking about everything but the real motive behind school vouchers. Which is to give a rebate to those people already sending their kids to private school which more than likely is a religious school. Its just another way for the GOP to advocate their ideals in school, which is JESUS.

[dcoles11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, Private Schools (since you have to pay for them), generally get more money to give kids better teachers and a better education overall.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe teachers are paid more in a public or private school?
RR

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, I don't think people realize that teachers of private schools are not held to the same standards that public school teachers are. They don't have to be certified for instance. For this reason private school teachers are typical payed less than public school teachers, because they are actually less qualified.

[BCPVP]

I feel that you guys are still looking at this like private schooling is the only option.
"States and local school districts will aid schools that receive Title I funds in making meaningful changes that will improve their performance. In the meantime, districts will offer parents options for children in low-performing schools, including extra help to children from low-income families (see section on Choice and Supplemental Educational Services).

The No Child Left Behind Act lays out an action plan and timetable for steps to be taken when a Title I school fails to improve, as follows:

* A Title I school that has not made adequate yearly progress, as defined by the state, for two consecutive school years will be identified by the district before the beginning of the next school year as needing improvement. School officials will develop a two-year plan to turn around the school. The local education agency will ensure that the school receives needed technical assistance as it develops and implements its improvement plan. Students must be offered the option of transferring to another public school in the district--which may include a public charter school--that has not been identified as needing school improvement.
* If the school does not make adequate yearly progress for three years, the school remains in school-improvement status, and the district must continue to offer public school choice to all students. In addition, students from low-income families are eligible to receive supplemental educational services, such as tutoring or remedial classes, from a state-approved provider.
* If the school fails to make adequate progress for four years, the district must implement certain corrective actions to improve the school, such as replacing certain staff or fully implementing a new curriculum, while continuing to offer public school choice and supplemental educational services for low-income students.
* If a school fails to make adequate yearly progress for a fifth year, the school district must initiate plans for restructuring the school. This may include reopening the school as a charter school, replacing all or most of the school staff or turning over school operations either to the state or to a private company with a demonstrated record of effectiveness.

In addition, the law requires states to identify for improvement those local education agencies that fail to make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years or longer and to institute corrective actions."
U.S. Department of Education
You can see that in order for the public school to even be close to being restructured or closed, it has to be doing poorly for at least 5 years in a row.

It also appears that children are allowed to transfer to other schools within their district, or even outside of their district if the two districts have agreed upon such transfers. So a child isn't forced into a private school either.

[lastchance]

This topic actually has very little with politics, does it not?

Since I am too lazy to do much more research, I'm going to stop posting.

There are a lot of studies on this topic, and it's just an EV thing.