Private schools also have the ability to not accept students that likely won't pass the tests, and only accept students that are likely to pass the tests that measure the success. Public schools will have to accept anyone and everyone. It gets harder for them when students who will likely pass go to private schools.
I should have said Private Schools / Charter Schools. A Lot of Charter Schools are having great success with At Risk students who faired terribly in public schools and much of that success is due to the same reasons I listed above.
I remember they loved Alan Keyes too I think he still trying to get into the debate house hehehehehe lol When she runs.. . . it will be different Rocket River
Charter schools as a whole haven't shown any success better than public schools. Some have certainly done well - as have some public schools. Others have performed poorly, as have some public schools.
All we have to do is look at basso and bigtexxx post to realize the right doesn't invest in education.
If I had been arguing the easiest way of doing things I would have stated as much. What I'm arguing is the best way for our country, not the easy one. Cheapening the quality of education available to the vast majority of children in the United States in the name of choice is absurd. I like to quote my favorite Republican when arguing politics: "Practical equality of opportunity for all citizens, when we achieve it, will have two great results. First, every man will have a fair chance to make of himself all that in him lies; to reach the highest point to which his capacities, unassisted by special privilege of his own and unhampered by the special privilege of others, can carry him, and to get for himself and his family substantially what he has earned. Second, equality of opportunity means that the commonwealth will get from every citizen the highest service of which he is capable. No man who carries the burden of the special privileges of another can give to the commonwealth that service to which it is fairly entitled." -Theodore Roosevelt Private schooling at the tertiary level is the exact opposite of these ideals. It creates inequality in future generations by stunting the chance for intellectual growth during childrens most crucial developmental years. In the name of a parents right to decide they don't want to take part in contributing for the eduction of children other than the ones they've bred into existence. Technology allows us to educate on a larger scale than ever before, yet you insist on becoming more discriminatory with knowledge. We should be progressive in finding ways to spread this knowledge, improve public schooling, etc. Comprehensive schooling is meant to teach children the basics needed in order to prepare for an entire life of choices. You said that parents would rather have a choices on where they can send there kids for education, but my concern is getting as many US citizens ready to make their own choices as I possibly can. This, of course, does not make me opposed to private universities. That's the point where a child has the ability to make their OWN decisions.
you clearly don't understand what a voucher is. It's a check. All kids would have the right to education paid for by the tax payers. Just like right now.
You clearly don't understand how dividing education funds on a per student basis affects public education.
dividing funds equally amongst all students? you have a problem with this? What are you suggesting should be done? Some students should get more than others?
Actually, you've just proven that you don't understand it. Everything I said was in direct contradiction with a vouchers. Vouchers do nothing to keep private schools from being exclusionary. It promotes an effect similar to human capital flight regionally, which perpetuates the continued destruction of rural America. Even if the admissions were unbiased, they would not take into account the expenses involved in the very relocation of families that the system promotes. The only private schools available at a tertiary level should be religious NON-profits. Drastically different from the current profiteering. Basic education for our citizens and voters is not a tradable item for the free market.
You're damn right I have a problem with that. You apparently have no concept on how removing funding from a school affects the operation of that school. What planet are you people from? It's like some alternate realiy universe.
So you believe a bunch of parents will just be sitting on their school vouchers with no where to spend it? Does this happen with food stamps (vouchers) in your crazy backwards world? I doesn't in this universe. I've never heard of someone with food stamps being excluded and just having no where to spend their food stamps. According to your logic all the super markets would become super exclusionary and only the richest and brightest would be able to shop at these super markets. There will be nothing but Whole Foods everywhere, makes total sense. Learn basic economics. If a bunch of people are sitting on money and have nowhere to spend it then someone (multiple people rly) will make them offers. Just like super markets.
Maybe I'm making this too complicated for you to understand. You've quoted a response where the last thing I said was that education was not a item to be traded on the free market, and tried using a comparison to FOOD in order to hammer home the voucher argument..... That's not any type of logic. If anything it suggests some sort of cognitive disability. Let me repeat this again. Basic education should not be a for profit business. This is the concept that you seem to have the most trouble grasping. That the act of teaching children doesn't need to be used for economic gains directly. That having a higher number of citizens capable of managing their own live can solve problems in itself, and raise the quality of life across the board. People would not be sitting on vouchers. The vouchers would simply be insufficient. The amount of tuition these vouchers cover would be too small to truly offer comparable choices, or too few in the number that could be distributed. There would inherently be children in the shell of a public education system regardless of meeting the same requirements for admission. This can happen from a lack of available space in the more desirable school, or a families inability to uproot and move to the private school their child is most suited for. Not to mention having children best suited for two different private schools with varying admission standards.
Education is very important. Almost as important as food................. btw you give no explanation of what difference between education and food is relevant. How do you know the vouchers would be insufficient? How do you know it would be to small? You don't know what the value is. The purpose of switching to a voucher system is not to have the government spend less money on education. Also, There are ass loads of grocery stores that accept food stamps. Far more do then don't. Logic says you are wrong. These problems alrdy exist in education. In fact they exist in every aspect of life.
Agreed. However, i think the one beneficial side of the private system is a direct result from economic gain. What reason does the government have to care for and improve the quality of this education in terms of our teachers and methods of teaching if we are simply pouring mandatory money into the system in the form of education taxes? Again though like you said, the inequality and discrimination that would come from this system (as i see today with kids being turned down by some schools just based on the likely hood of them passing an entrance test) just doesn't seem right, especially when it comes to the education of our kids and future generations.
I'm only continuing this out of sheer boredom. Your inability to comprehend simple concepts makes this like arguing triganometry with someone struggling to grasp long division. Education is the act of transferring information from one generation to another. It is not a tangible item with limited supplies. It's abstract. The only limits are the number of people this information can be transferred to. Food, on the other hand, is a tangible resource. It must be ingested for animal life to create the energy needed for survival. Food has very real limits in terms of supply. Unlike education, meals with the same nutritional value are available at nearly every single pay range. For those unable to provide this building block for life, voucher systems can provide the means. Do you see the distinction yet? Food is something required for an individual to live. Vouchers can provide enough nutrition for healthy living, and don't need to pay for fresh sushi, caviar, etc to do so. EDUCATION DOES NOT WORK LIKE THIS. There is no minimal amount necessary before higher quality products are simply more satisfying, while providing no more necessity. I don't have to know what the exact value is. It's simple supply and demand. If there is high demand for an item in a free market, the cost of that item would go up. You would not only have to find money, but you would have to find so much that the value of vouchers could be scaled fluidly with the market. Plus, you've only avoided my point about the cost of relocating families to the areas where their children can receive the education they qualify for. Does this voucher fund have that extra money too? A heavily privatized schooling system will require countless families to move if they want to live near the school their child is most suited for.
Competition between private and public schooling is not necessary to provide incentive for quality education. The demand of the marketplace would still help determine the development of technology and educational standards. Instead of wondering what we could do to save our manufacturing industry, education could have already begun creating programs within schools to address the issue. Focus could actually be determined by what type of education is in highest demand.
So your contention is not everyone can get the best possible education (only the brightest can) under a voucher system therefore we should stick with the current system where not everyone can get the best possible education (only the richest can). Makes sense. you don't understand supply and demand. You forgot supply. If demand increased, so would supply. Cost may or may not increase depending on if supply can match the increase in demand. what do you mean by qualify for? A child is only required to be an American citizen. There are pros and cons to living in seclusion. A person is not entitled to have a school or multiple schools in close distance. This is like living on a farm and b****ing because the post office is 2 hours away. It's part of life. As I stated. This is the case now for public schools. It would be the case in any system. Good god.
Help me out with something... In my multiple posts arguing against the voucher system, and private comprehensive schools, where I suggested that the current system remained the same. I thought that by removing for profit private schools that the current system would have to change. Either point that out, or admit to lying. The number of students a particular private school accepts is the supply. There I go, overestimating your comprehensive skills again. Being an American citizen is only one of many admission requirements for most private schools. Your ignorance is astonishing. Well, you're finally right about something. There would be a variance in quality of education from one location to the next regardless of the system. The goal of everything I'm suggesting is to minimize that variable, raising the level of education available at public school across the board, allowing flexibility for educational programs to meet market demand, and in turn have fewer uneducated or undereducated high-school graduates.
