Personally, I oppose the voucher system. I want spending in the public school system cut down to a bare minimum and school taxes lowered drastically so that private and parochial schools are allowed to thrive.
If programs are cut drastically in the public school system, and D.C. parents in the poorest districts still choose the public school system, who cares? That’s their choice.
I noticed this discussion keeps referring to public schools as if all are in poor, inner cities. There are public schools in middle-class and wealthy townships across the country, too. I guarantee you that, if public schools in the wealthy communities were cut down to the bare minimum, most of those parents would put their kids into private schools. Government-funded education is not necessary everywhere.
Charters are my least favorite of all the plans to increase choice for parents. Vouchers are next up on my list.
What I would most like to see is for enough children to leave the government schools that the entire socialist-Marxist system collapses from lack of taxpayer support. That would be ideal. Americans are very, very generous. Surely we could provide charity for the needy and desperately handicapped.
If programs are cut drastically in the public school system, and D.C. parents in the poorest districts still choose the public school system, who cares? That’s their choice.
Sitting here chuckling. Is this the reverse of the NEA talking point that parents can choose a private school now if they want? :)
Sometimes I welcome all the nutty, socialist, homosexual, birth control dispensing, atheism,,etc., in the government schools. The nutty and more morally and socially dangerous they become the more likely parents will leave for home and private schooling. Do this and the taxpayer support erodes.
I noticed this discussion keeps referring to public schools as if all are in poor, inner cities. There are public schools in middle-class and wealthy townships across the country, too. I guarantee you that, if public schools in the wealthy communities were cut down to the bare minimum, most of those parents would put their kids into private schools. Government-funded education is not necessary everywhere.
Social Security for the elderly will eventually become a welfare check for the only the needest elderly. The government will do this by increasing taxes on Social Security for the middle and wealthy classes. Eventually the taxes on SS will be so high that it has little actual value.
This is why I support vouchers and charter schools. They immediately provide more choice for parents. In the right circumstances parents could eventually be asked to contribute more and more of their own money in the form of tuition. Eventually voucher and charter schools would be funded by the parents' own money and the vouchers would be reserved only for the genuinely poor and the catastrophically handicapped.
Of all the ideas for privatizing universal K-12 education, I like tax credits best.
One the easiest ways to get kids **out** of the government clutches is to allow any child of any age to take the GED. This would immediately make them eligible for government and private scholarships in colleges and trade schools. Perhaps a private test could be developed that would be widely accepted by employers, colleges, and would passing it would automatically mean the student gets a fully recognized high school diploma.
Ever so often a state will have a bill in the legislature that will allow children of any age to take the GED. Unfortunately the teachers unions go NUTZ and lobby furiously to have it squashed.
One more thing about the GED:
If a child has some college courses the stigma of having a GED is immediately erased in the eyes of many employers.
You're correct that vouchers still require public dollars - and perhaps as many or more, since the system must be administered by someone in the government.
If programs are cut drastically in the public school system, and D.C. parents in the poorest districts still choose the public school system, who cares? That’s their choice.
That's really not the point. Wintertime keeps claiming that if parents have choice, they'll choose the best ones for their children. The experiences with the DC voucher program don't necessarily support that contention.
I noticed this discussion keeps referring to public schools as if all are in poor, inner cities. There are public schools in middle-class and wealthy townships across the country, too. I guarantee you that, if public schools in the wealthy communities were cut down to the bare minimum, most of those parents would put their kids into private schools. Government-funded education is not necessary everywhere.
Generally the public schools in wealthy communities are successful academically, and aren't the ones people speak of when they speak of public schools failing.
Wealthier schools may sometimes be more liberal socially, depending on their community, but they are usually very good academically.
Also, many of us who teach in public schools teach in areas with a large number of "at-risk" students, rather than in the wealthy schools.
Public education has been a part of the history of this country since before it was a country...the first public education here was mandated in the mid 1600s.
Thomas Jefferson stated that without an educated populace, our system of government could not survive, and he was in favor of public schools.
Being in favor of public education is not necessarily a liberal position, unless you consider Thomas Jefferson to be a liberal.