Posted on 03/10/2011 6:54:43 AM PST by triumphant values
Vouchers let parents choose schools that they feel are best for their own children.
Shitty schools will be weamned off the government teat. Amen!
Shitty schools will be weamned off the government teat. Amen!
Let me re-word that as an argument heard in the 70s in favor of Section 8 housing vouchers.
"Vouchers let parents choose neighborhoods they feel are better for their own children.
S***ty housing projects will be weaned off the government teat."
Same result will happen.
Because, Vouchers should be universal.
How possibly could a neighborhood get worse if a student from the public school is allowed to go to the private school a block away? The school is still allowed to either accept or reject the voucher student based on skills, grades and discipline.
Vouchers should be expanded to all, regardless of economic situation. This would cause public schools to compete for the dollars and improve their terrible records, or close.
In major cities private and public schools are in the same neighborhoods.
The voucher system would be Constitutional when offered to every child.
So your base argument is that if those students who most need vouchers are allowed to have them, then they will ruin the private schools that are good?
And you are comparing this to Section 8 housing vouchers?
I really want you to clarify this position, because you sound like what you are really saying is that you want children of certain races to be stuck in crappy schools so they don’t “infect” the good private schools with their presence.
If that is not correct, then state so.
I think you missed that it was an analogy. The private schools will have happen to them through school vouchers, what happened to the inner suburbs through Section 8 vouchers.
The school is still allowed to either accept or reject the voucher student based on skills, grades and discipline.
At first, but once the schools get dependent on the money, the state will wield their fist and start calling the shots.
In major cities private and public schools are in the same neighborhoods.
I'm in Chicago so I'm well aware of the fact that it is the cost of my child's school that keeps the dysfunctional students out and that's what makes it desirable.
Let's reword that to the 1970s argument: "So your base argument is that if those families who most need Section 8 vouchers, are allowed to have them, then they will ruin the neighborhoods that are good."
Can you tell me why this is different?
So you are a racist. Got it.
I'd like to know that.
Why didn't you just answer the question.
Not really.
1a. Housing has always been a personal responsibility with private free enterprise rewarding value for money. Poor people have always had poor housing, with private charity intervening voluntarily.
1b. Federal intervention created pubic housig slums run by the government (a federal wealth trasnfer scheme that failed).
1c. Federal government added a new wealth transfer scheme where people moved out of the failed government “projects” into private slummy apratments. This resulted in the neighborhood blight you mention where the projects are, and also in federal money subsidizing private slumlords.
2a. Pubicly-funded schools have always been a local government responsibility, with a government monopoly and no competition except privately funded schools. This worked well until unions got control of the schools.
2b. Federal intervention into local pubic schools almost instantly made those schools shitty by any measure, and very costly (a federal wealth trasnfer scheme that failed).
2c. Local legislators now wish to end the government school monopoly and force shitty schools to compete for the privilege of educating children and for public dollars. This will give schools a huge incentive to get better results and reduce costs.
Those who are against this are for big government wealth transfer programs that get bigger and more expensive each day, and for government and union indoctrination of chidlren. End of story.
Your implications in equating Section 8 housing with school vouchers is that it will allow blacks and hispanics into good schools and thereby cause them to degrade in quality.
If this is not what you are saying, then clearly refute this implication.
Yes really, because I can take your entire post and replace the word "schooling" with "housing" and vice versa, and make the same point.
Those who are against this are for big government wealth transfer programs that get bigger and more expensive each day, and for government and union indoctrination of chidlren. End of story.
Those who are for this are for getting the government's hands in private schooling and ruining it.
1. Yes there is a danger that private schools will be controlled by the lure of federal dollars.
2. Apparently you think the bloated shitty federally controlled government school systems are doing a good job.
You're the only one who has brought race into this thread.
If this is not what you are saying, then clearly refute this implication.
Why don't you just answer my question first?
No, I think the private schools are doing a good job and I want to keep it that way by keeping the government out.
You refuse to acknowledge important distinctions.
Historically, the citizens of the USA have chosen to have local government provide a free education to local children.
Like it or not, this is a fact.
Private schools who refuse to accept government money will be free to keep on doing so. There is nothing in the voucher proposal that requires private schools to accept vouchers. Private schools will be free to compete on their own terms. If a “private school” becomes a virtual clone of public schools, that will be apparent to well-informed parents, who can avoid that school. Private citizens who are concerned are free to alert the private schools they support about the dangers of accepting government money.
It is all quite American, in the best sense of the word.
The system we have is corrupt and ineffective. It is sinful, in fact.
Because I asked you first. I won't fall into this "answer my question before I'll answer yours" nonsense.
You clearly said that Section 8 "destroyed once thriving neighborhoods". When you say that, it clearly has a racial identity tone to it.
The fact that you refuse to denounce racism or even declare that you are not racist is evidence that is precisely why you believe that Section 8 "destroyed once thriving neighborhoods".
It did. That's an irrefutable fact, and one that is pointed out and discussed often here on Free Republic, without people like you screaming "racist" like a Jesse Jackson clone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.