Vouchers for Education

[BigBallinStalin]

Speaks volumes for the thousands who voted for her.

This is an interesting note - apparently in 2011 voters of Valarie Hodges' district - District 34 - were only allowed to choose between Republican #1 or Republican #2. No other parties were listed -

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Valarie_Hodges

- a fairly typical U.S. election ballot in which there is only one party allowed to run because of jungle primary laws.

This is why it's rather exhausting to hear certain people on this forum who shan't be named indict U.S. third parties for not running candidates in minor elections before challenging for the presidency or who suggest grassroots action can start from the ground up.

But at least there was a choice,got me wondering how poor a candidate Mr Elkins was to lose to such a simpleton.

I would bet that Barry Elkins was most likely a minor, local party functionary enlisted to simply put his name on the ballot since, as bad as it looks when only one party is listed, it looks even worse when there's only candidate. Probably he didn't run any kind of campaign and wasn't even planning to be elected. He was a cardboard candidate. (I could be wrong as I know nothing about this election or Louisiana generally, but this is the modus operandi of the U.S. electoral system.)

In Louisiana, it's not uncommon to see only two candidates from the same party run against each other. One tends to dominate usually because they're the incumbent, or past-time favorite, while [insert cynicism] the newcomer's name is unfamiliar.

I'm not sure why there's only two on the ballot and from the same party available for a vote. I'll ask someone who's more familiar.

[Phatscotty]

Just a note on the private school/public funding....

Some private schools are mostly being funded by public dollars by the people with power currently looking the other way because tacitly they want to get private schools addicted and dependent on public funds, and then later on when the rubber meets the road, the government can tear down all the crosses in the school and ban any mention of God or morals, and force their government approved version dumbed down textbooks and then before long there will be some shootings by inner city students who have the "right" to be bussed in special to the top performing public schools.

And then everyone will have an equally shitty opportunity/the last best places to realize opportunity will have been destroyed.

[saxitoxin]

Just a note on the private school/public funding....

Some private schools are mostly being funded by public dollars by the people with power currently looking the other way because tacitly they want to get private schools addicted and dependent on public funds, and then later on when the rubber meets the road, the government can tear down all the crosses in the school and ban any mention of God or morals, and force their government approved version dumbed down textbooks and then before long there will be some shootings by inner city students who have the "right" to be bussed in special to the top performing public schools.

that is a long ass sentence

[daddy1gringo]

Note to players####: Sorry, I wasn't disregarding your post when I said in my last post that no one had dealt with my central points. I didn't notice it because I copy/pasted my post from a word doc. so the thing that tells you someone else has posted since you last looked didn't get me.

[kiwi3]

i guess you dont realize but the "poorest" schools are actually the best funded. They are funded by the government with only the best due to grants to assist the underprivileged. They are more up to date and and have access to technology that that many of the "privileged" do not have-who are still using blackboards. They use state of the art technology and have many free resources that private sectors do not have access to.

[Woodruff]

The writer of the article that you linked to insinuates that private schools give an inferior education.

Yes, I picked up on that as well, and I certainly don't agree with it. I've seen VERY GOOD private schools, as well as a couple of...well, not very good athletic-machine private schools.

If that is so, why do parents who can afford it so often send their kids to private schools, even now when they have to double-pay?

Typically, so that religion will be part of the curriculum. For some folks, that is more important than the education received (my own sister is of this bent, unfortunately).

If I can address one of your points,just because parents think their kids will get a superior education in a private school does not mean they are necessarily correct in that assessment,sadly there are some parents who are as clueless as the hapless Ms Hodges.

Agreed chang. But this goes both ways. I am sending my kids to public school. There is a school near me that is exceptional (public). If I was in the next city over I would definitely send my kids to private school. I have looked at their test standings and parental complaints about teachers, ignoring the "My son Johnny has too much homework."
I have also visited the private school my cousins went to and the kids there were stupid and behaved poorly. Even the teachers seemed dense. I think the biggest thing is that parents need to be involved in their child's education.
I agree with daddy1gringo. I think the choice should be up to the parents.

Pretty much everybody who responded to my post zeroed in on this particular statement, which I kind of regret including because it was sort or a side-track. I was thinking that private-school education is generally considered better, for example, that getting into a private school is thought to increase one’s chance of getting into Yale or Harvard for example, but I guess that is just certain prestigious rich-white-kid schools, while there are a lot of private schools that are not of that caliber. Anyway, it seems that there are better and worse private schools, and there are better and worse public schools. I’ll buy that.

What I wonder is what people who oppose voucher systems say in response to my more central points:

Regarding vouchers, consider this. Suppose that Bill gates had so many admirers in the government that he managed to get the laws gerrymandered so that if anyone chose to buy an Apple computer, they would not only have to pay the Apple dealer the full price of the computer, but also have to pay Microsoft the full price of its closest competing product. Wouldn't be fair, would it? Not to Apple, but more importantly, not to the many people who prefer Macs to PCs.

I have to groan and shake my head when somebody talks about "giving public money to private schools." Who is the "public"? The "public" is the people who pay taxes and send their kids to school. Why shouldn't at least some of THEIR money that THEY pay for their children's education go where their children are educated? Vouchers are never equal to the per-capita cost of public education, so the parents who send their kids to a private school will still be subsidizing the public school system, it just makes it a bit more equitable.
…
First and I think most importantly, it reduces the economic inequity, where rich people can afford to send their kids to a private school, while the poor have no choice. Obviously, vouchers will not eliminate all of the results of prejudice and economic disadvantage, but it cannot help but mitigate against them.

Second, everybody complains that the public schools are overcrowded. Enabling more students to go to other schools will reduce the crowding.

Um...I responded to pretty much everything you said in your initial post...I certainly did not just "zero in on" one thing you said (in fact, you'll notice that I agreed with you on that "zeroed in" statement).

[Woodruff]

Just a note on the private school/public funding....

Some private schools are mostly being funded by public dollars by the people with power currently looking the other way because tacitly they want to get private schools addicted and dependent on public funds, and then later on when the rubber meets the road, the government can tear down all the crosses in the school and ban any mention of God or morals, and force their government approved version dumbed down textbooks and then before long there will be some shootings by inner city students who have the "right" to be bussed in special to the top performing public schools.

And then everyone will have an equally shitty opportunity/the last best places to realize opportunity will have been destroyed.

You've really gone off the deep end over the last year. Seriously.

[daddy1gringo]

Um...I responded to pretty much everything you said in your initial post...I certainly did not just "zero in on" one thing you said (in fact, you'll notice that I agreed with you on that "zeroed in" statement).

I wasn't complaining about your post, really. What you basically said about the other points is that you are not solidly on either side of the issue and you see plusses and minuses. Nothing wrong with having an open mind on a subject rather than being a rabid advocate for one side or the other.

It's just that I knew there were some solid anti-voucher people out there, and I thought my other points pretty convincing, so I wanted to see what counter-arguments there might be. Other than player###'s post, which I had overlooked, nobody had given me that, so I was agitating for some action. I'm currently considering what Player### said and seeing what faults in the arguments I can find, or, lacking that, where I need to adjust my position.

[john9blue]

ADJUSTING YOUR POSITION?! are you insane?

that means that you were WRONG earlier! how humiliating! i don't think anyone in this forum would want to go through that kind of humiliation.

[Timminz]

Next he'll be conceding points that are superfluous to the discussion. Sucker doesn't know that that's just proof you're wrong about everything.

[john9blue]

Next he'll be conceding points that are superfluous to the discussion. Sucker doesn't know that that's just proof you're wrong about everything.

that's actually a pro debate strategy. it makes you look reasonable and open-minded without detracting from your main argument.

[Lootifer]

Next he'll be conceding points that are superfluous to the discussion. Sucker doesn't know that that's just proof you're wrong about everything.

that's actually a pro debate strategy. it makes you look reasonable and open-minded without detracting from your main argument.

Damn right...

Also as far as vouchers go; arent they just a messier form of state funded education?

Im torn on the issue since I do like incentivising higher quality education; but how much does this really work? And how different is it from simply increasing funding for public schools?

The above are genuine questions; my gut instinct tells me this is just publicly funded education (which im a HUGE fan of) dressed up differently - how much "choice" or "freedom" will this really bring? I pick bugger all; the only certainty I can see is that the advertising agencies will be rubbing their hands together in glee at the prospect of all the schools wasting thousands on local advertising... Roll caps, standardised curriculums, and the huge standard deviation on individual pupil performance will all blur the incentives such that the gains are likely to be outweighed by the inefficiencies (cf. generic public funding).

I am kind of sitting on the fence thou, so someone other than Scotty stands a chance of convincing me

[Woodruff]

I'm still convinced that a system like that used in my school district (mentioned earlier in this thread) works just as well, if not better, than school vouchers.

[PLAYER57832]

I think the biggest thing is that parents need to be involved in their child's education.

This is certainly true. Teachers and the school can definitely make A difference (good and bad). Parental involvement, however, typically makes THE difference (good and bad).

My biggest argument against the "picking the school" is the problem of transportation. My current school district ONLY busses kids to elementary schools, and parents do not have the choice of which school their kids attend. However, once they hit middle school, parents can elect to have their kids attend any school in the district (this does not include parochial schools), BUT the schools stop bussing then as well. So it is the parent's responsibility to get the kids to the school they want them to attend. I'm ok with this system (in fact, I like it). No vouchers are necessary for this at all, and that's a primary reason why I don't think they're necessarily necessary.

But in school districts where bussing happens (which is most, I'm pretty sure), the voucher system would create real problems in that regard.

Our school buses everyone -- to the public and the private school. They are close, so that is certainly part of why it works.

However, I can see plenty of problems with not busing middle and high school students. Although I actually biked (5 miles) regularly, many kids in our district had over an hour BUS ride. They either took the bus or drove. More than a few had parents who worked during the day, so to have them transport the kids, in a different direction from the workplace as well, would not have worked.

I know in some places, kids get passes to city buses. In some areas, the district may be small enough that kids can bike. But, in many areas that is not the case. Or, if the distances are not too great to bike, the danger factor is too high.

I'm still convinced that a system like that used in my school district (mentioned earlier in this thread) works just as well, if not better, than school vouchers.

You think transportation is the main issue with vouchers? Sorry, I definitely disagree. That is a relatively minor side issue.

[Woodruff]

I think the biggest thing is that parents need to be involved in their child's education.

This is certainly true. Teachers and the school can definitely make A difference (good and bad). Parental involvement, however, typically makes THE difference (good and bad).

My biggest argument against the "picking the school" is the problem of transportation. My current school district ONLY busses kids to elementary schools, and parents do not have the choice of which school their kids attend. However, once they hit middle school, parents can elect to have their kids attend any school in the district (this does not include parochial schools), BUT the schools stop bussing then as well. So it is the parent's responsibility to get the kids to the school they want them to attend. I'm ok with this system (in fact, I like it). No vouchers are necessary for this at all, and that's a primary reason why I don't think they're necessarily necessary.

But in school districts where bussing happens (which is most, I'm pretty sure), the voucher system would create real problems in that regard.

Our school buses everyone -- to the public and the private school. They are close, so that is certainly part of why it works.

However, I can see plenty of problems with not busing middle and high school students. Although I actually biked (5 miles) regularly, many kids in our district had over an hour BUS ride. They either took the bus or drove. More than a few had parents who worked during the day, so to have them transport the kids, in a different direction from the workplace as well, would not have worked.
I know in some places, kids get passes to city buses. In some areas, the district may be small enough that kids can bike. But, in many areas that is not the case. Or, if the distances are not too great to bike, the danger factor is too high.

There have been pretty much no problems at all with kids getting to school here in my district, where bussing does not happen and parents are able to choose which public school their kids attend. Frankly, it works extremely well.

I'm still convinced that a system like that used in my school district (mentioned earlier in this thread) works just as well, if not better, than school vouchers.

You think transportation is the main issue with vouchers? Sorry, I definitely disagree. That is a relatively minor side issue.

That's what you got from my post? I don't even know how you managed that, to be honest.

[kentington]

Next he'll be conceding points that are superfluous to the discussion. Sucker doesn't know that that's just proof you're wrong about everything.

that's actually a pro debate strategy. it makes you look reasonable and open-minded without detracting from your main argument.

Damn right...

Also as far as vouchers go; arent they just a messier form of state funded education?

Im torn on the issue since I do like incentivising higher quality education; but how much does this really work? And how different is it from simply increasing funding for public schools?

The above are genuine questions; my gut instinct tells me this is just publicly funded education (which im a HUGE fan of) dressed up differently - how much "choice" or "freedom" will this really bring? I pick bugger all; the only certainty I can see is that the advertising agencies will be rubbing their hands together in glee at the prospect of all the schools wasting thousands on local advertising... Roll caps, standardised curriculums, and the huge standard deviation on individual pupil performance will all blur the incentives such that the gains are likely to be outweighed by the inefficiencies (cf. generic public funding).

I am kind of sitting on the fence thou, so someone other than Scotty stands a chance of convincing me

The reason I am against increasing funding for public schools is the lack of control over how that funding gets used. Before the big pink slip, laying off of teachers, it was known that districts/schools with increased funding didn't actually see the funding spent on a student level. Meaning, it went to higher pay for superintendents and principals. But not a proportional raise in newer textbooks, food, extra curricular activities, electronics, and tutoring programs.

Schools that do worse do get funding. My brother in law just got a good deal on a loan because he teaches at one such school. FUNDING will not help these students. Parents will. His biggest concern is that the students don't care about education. Throughout his school students don't do work and parents back them up. They will text, talk, and everything during class and the teachers are left teaching one or two students who care.

This is why I am for vouchers. In this area you would be able to help send your kid to a private school to be in an environment where other students would be there for learning purposes. Not all private schools have this environment but you would have the choice.

I don't know if that answered your question or just ranted.