It is usually because they are free of the control of politician-run school boards. Face it, politians are a scourge-they focus on providing jobs to contributors-they don’t give shit about education.
Actually, American public education has a LOT in common with Stalinist Russia-complete with “Five Year Plans”, “Hero Awards”…what is important is not the product (educating the kids), but in manipulating test scores, etc., to show “progress”-and get MORE funding!
I have no problem with some kinds of private schools, but there’s the problem; some kinds. The voucher program in your OP, for example, doesn’t mention the schools being charter schools. What standards does this program require of schools for them to be eligible? By what means might these schools be held accountable if they end up failing to educate - and how will we know they’re doing it? Look at your cite; considerable stats for the public school system there being crap - and then admittedly unimpressive stats on charter schools. Private schools have less bureaucracy, but that means they have less bureacracy. Less red tape means less red tape. And while financial information on public schools has to be kept pretty well (as is my understanding), private schools do and indeed are expected to turn a profit.
I’d also point out that “why don’t we do more of what has been shown to work” assumes that improved test scores at private schools are the only result. If decreasing scores at public schools were in part connected to vouchers, as some believe, then the workability of it isn’t all that true - at the very least, you can’t simply look at the results of the private schools to say that the schemes work, you need to look at the effects on all education.
I would argue that it is vouchers that are “throwing money at the problem”. It’s giving away free money with considerably less oversight and accountability; that’s not to say that that phrase is necessarily true in either case, but it’s pretty pejorative and I would say voucher systems match it better.
I would tend to disagree with SCOTUS on this one, but they tend not to jump when I say so. 
The problem with your argument as I see it seems to be you’re now arguing that it should be tried - and I would have no problem with that. Trying’s the only way we’ll know how effective it is. But there’s a considerable difference between “let’s try it out” and “the only reason Democrats are against this is for political reasons”.
Oh, and on a more specific point, I despise articles which point out positive/negative results and then say they weren’t statistically significant. That means they weren’t significant! It’s a tricky way of saying “It wasn’t significant - oh, but of course the results showed up my way. Ignore that first part.” There’s a reason why statistical signifiance is used, for Pete’s sake.
Education is a product like any other-like food, or electricity. It is paid for,and costs money to produce. The fact that the taxpayers pay for it doesn’t make it any less a product than peanuts or bedsheets. Public monopolies don’t provide better education than privately owned schools; and money spent is no indication of educational quality. Boston spends >$12,7000/year/pupil, and has some of the worst schools in the USA.
How would that help school performance any?!
Because historically there have been many students disenfranchised from a quality education. Again, what if only African-american were allowed to use vouchers? What about low-income Anglo-Americans? Would that be OK? What criteria should the state use to decide who gets a better education? For the state to offer vouchers to low-income students disenfranchises the middle-class from the same educational opportunities that the poor receive FROM THE STATE.
Cut the ad hominum attack and simply answer which students are entitled to a better education than their peers? Why should my neighbor’s daughter be entitled to a better education than my son simply because they make less than I do?
But the question can be turned on its head. Why should your neighbor’s daughter be entitled to a worse education than your son because you’re middle class and can afford to send him to a private school, while she’s poor and has to go to the crappy public school?
The charter schools are an attempt to balance a definite inequity. They are used where the public school has demonstrably failed. It is an attempt to give those kids an education closer to a middle income kid.
Imagine this: charter schools are instituted in more and more places, and honed to do well. The new bottom of the barrel is the lower-middle income kids, so we institute charter schools there. After they all do well, we attack the next lowest 5%. So, soon, the kids in your neighborhood could have charter schools, too. Sound good?
I forgot to address something: I would not be in favor of race-based anything. And that’s not what we’re talking about here. Even though, in the real world, kids who attend charter school are overwhelmingly minorities.
Very simple. It is not the STATE saying my son is entitled to a better education since I can afford to send him to private school. And that’s my point, every time the STATE starts deciding what group of kids should get a better education opportunities than others, we run into trouble as in Pre-Brown for minority students and Pre-PARC for disabled students.
A “competitor” that would leave the public schools holding the bag trying to take car of all the unruly, stupid, disabled or poor kids, with less money to do so. It’s a lot easier to do a good job when you take the easy cases, and it’s easy to do so for less money when you have teachers that are near slave labor ( like the Catholic nuns ). That’s the real reason private schools “do better”; they take the easy cases and treat teachers like garbage. Good luck finding enough teachers that are willing to work for no pension and eat dog food in their old age.
Because the alternative is no education at all for many kids.
Some would; millions would be left with no education at all. Or, they’d end up in schools that would take the money, give them a worthless education, and the people running the “school” would vanish with the money.
Because no private school would take them, or would give them an “education” that’s useless or worse.
No, it would destroy them, which is the point. They’d end up with all the harder to teach students with less money to teach them. It’s not “competition” when one side is required to do all the hard work for less money.
People who went to parochial school understand that competition doesn’t work as the sole engine for lower costs when supplies are declared off limits.
The answer to the stated question is quite simple, teacher’s unions are against money diverted to private schools because it takes money away from the workers represented by the unions.
I went to a parochial school 40 years ago and we received tax funds then. It was in the form of bussing. Nothing has changed except the amount being asked for and who gets it. Catholic schools have reached into poorer neighborhoods in an attempt to actually teach kids who want to learn. They do this knowing there is no return on investment for the church. These kids are not likely to become Catholic nor is the church trying to browbeat it into them. In fact, when I went to school, the single class of religion that was taught in each grade often spent time studying other religions. It was as much a class in geography as religion. They mirrored religious study classes I took in (public) high school.
Vouchers should be available to schools who demonstrate they are worthy of the money. We have had a number of non-religious magnate schools sprout up in my area and some of them failed miserably. They were not held to any standard. If there’s any debate it should be based on the scholastic achievement of the students versus the money spent per student. If private schools can do a better job then that is where the money should go.
In a sense, the problem with the DC Schools is a political problem. There is no state oversight because there is no state.
For example, the District has too many old buildings serving too few students since the number of school age children has dropped. However, every time the city announces plans to close buildings, everyone whose child goes to one of those schools protest and either no schools get shut down or fewer do. Whenever the City moves to sell one of the surplus buildings, people get in an uproar and the City doesn’t and the School system is stuck maintaining them. The Teachers Union has a lot of influence so the Superintendant couldn’t fire ineffective teachers. Raises and choice of school were on a strict seniority basis. The best of the young teachers would get frustrated and leave.
DC’s other problem is that the City has a huge levels of income disparity. The middle class left the City a long time ago. The folks with kids who live in the City tend to fall in two categories. The folks who are well off and will send their kids to private school and the folks who are really poor. The middle class with kids tend to move to the suburbs.
In Metro-Nashville Schools we have an academic magnet high school, a science magnet high school, and I believe a performing arts magnet high school. I was told today that the rest of our schools haven’t been doing so well without these top students and have crashed and burned on the No Child Left Behind Scale. So the state has taken them over – or will next year.
When I was still teaching school, I was offered a position with the academic magnet. I turned it down to remain in the inner city. Are the teachers who teach really bright students to be rewarded and the teachers who work with those children who lack backup and encouragement from home to be disciplined – perhaps fired?
One plan that I don’t hear tried very often is giving a teacher real decision-making ability in a classroom. The least powerful people are those closest to the students.
I was trying to be honest with more of the issues that the so called Right Wing push - and that one comes up regularly. It usually comes up when discussing history curriculum (do you teach American heroes) and discipline (do you expect it).
Separate thread, but I thought it would be a wrong to leave it out.
What’s going on now is the state deciding what group of kids get a better educational opportunity than others. The way school funding is determined, suburban schools in rich and middle class areas tend to be good facilities with enough funding to provide a good education, while inner city schools tend to be underfunded and suck. This is largely because public schools are primarily funded by local property taxes.
These voucher programs reduce inequality, by giving students from poor families the same opportunity your son has.
Say, why aren’t private-school teachers in those unions?
Why should this just work in the case of education? Take national defense for example. Last year I paid $11,712 in federal income tax, 40% of which went for national defense. If they gave me the $4,685 I spent on defense, I could take care of myself, and maybe put a little in my pocket. Competition should improve the military as well.
For vouchers to be fair they would have to cover the total cost of the school. As long as they cover half or a third ,they are just tax breaks for those who can afford to send their children to private schools. Often they are just a financial boon to private schools. They do not greatly change the makeup of the students in the private school.
The NEA doesn’t allow teachers at private schools to join. The American Federation of Teachers might, but most private schools aren’t unionized.
In my view, it depends on the policies of the school. If there are mandatory religious services, I can’t approve of giving them tax money.
You would not be able to defend yourself against foreign invasion for $4,685 whereas your child could be educated with a voucher. The former is the domain of the federal government due to the international scope of it and the latter is a local/state issue where money is returned locally.