I think this is a factor, at least among some conservatives at the national level.
Teacher’s unions tend to be overwhelmingly Democratic institutions and they wield substantial political influence at least in some states.
If their power and influence can be decreased somewhat by funneling some tax money away from public schools and to (mostly non-unionized) private schools, so much the better. Or so the thinking goes.
Laughing Lagomorph, who sends his kid to a private school (without vouchers).
In many school districts, the best thing we could do for children’s education would be to bomb every public school. They are often little more than daytime detention camps for children. All they are missing are the dogs and razor wire. Any parent who cares about their children’s education, and can afford it, sends their children to private schools.
True educational choice would take into account the fact that many children and parents want religious instruction, and have no problem with it being incorporated into the school day. They have a First Amendment right to such.
If the chapel portion of the school day were free or funded separately, that would satisfy lots of people, in the same way that religious activities on college campuses are typically funded separately from activities devoted to academic instruction. However, parents who choose Catholic school, whether they fund it themselves or want a voucher, typically want a Catholic education for their children, and they ought to get it.
Simple. You make public schools an option as an educational choice and a recipient of vouchers, same as in post-secondary education.
Do you think D.C. students would only want private schools as an option available to them, or might they also consider some of the excellent public schools of Arlington, Fairfax and Montgomery counties?
Now, some schools might completely lose out here. Considering that these schools presumably are the one failing their students the most, I shed no tears at all.
Well, to be honest, I would support compulsory public elementary schools. After that, I think a system could include various combinations of welfare vouchers (like food stamps), grants and scholarships (similar to the way many pay for college now; schools could even be required to take on a certain % of charity cases), work/study or apprenticeships (many, many teenagers have jobs anyway; get them to spend it on something other than the mall) and other arrangements.
I should also add, that as part of this I do not think every student should be forced to go to high school. For a kid that at 15 knows he wants to take up a trade, I think high school often amounts to several years of wasted time.
You certainly have a right to send your children to a private school. You certainly shouldn’t expect the government to pay for it. The public school system is an established part of America that needs to be strengthened, not undermined. The private schools get to cherry-pick and not bother themselves with behavioral problems that the public schools must deal with, so if vouchers are instituted you’d have private schools more money to educate affluent students who aren’t a behavior problem while public schools have less money to educate everyone else.
In theory, this is true unless there are no alternatives. For example, where I live, if I choose not to send my kids to public school, I have two choices. I can send my kids to Catholic school or to a Baptist school. I assume that both offer some kind of religious instruction in their respective faiths. (I know the Catholic school does; it counts Airman among its alumni.) If I’m using vouchers to pay for the educational part, fine. But the school must a) make religious instruction optional, or b) separate it out as a separate tuition line-item and make parents pay for it, even if that amount is zero and let the parents make that choice. Moreover, as a condition of receiving federal and state voucher money, private religious schools should be inspectable to ensure that religious instruction is separate. It may violate the First Amendment right to freedom of expression, but the one paying the piper has the right to call the tune.
I think they prefer the perpetual underclass option, at least, the leadership does. A permanent undereducated underclass means they’ll always have a large pool of gullible nincompoops for the religious and political leadership to exploit. Basically, the conservative leadership actively wishes to destroy the educated, affluent, American middle class and replace it with an uneducated rabble that will be easily manipulated – look at their tax and economic policies. Their attempt to break up the public schools via vouchers is quite consistent with this.
Already there are privately run schools that exist solely to serve students with severe behavioral, emotional, or educational problems. Some of them are tuition based, and some operate on contracts with state agencies. Indeed, this is an area of education where private input has been quite positive.
Voucher availability could expand access to a wider array of special programs for at need students, rather than having this foisted on a public system that is less individualized by its very nature.
Given that special education costs have been especially troubling for public systems, I think this is a particular area that should be explored further.
The undereducated perpetual underclass churned out by the D.C. public schools are also the nation’s most reliable Democratic voters.
I could be snide, and say that the Democrats want to keep this underclass around and voting for them by resisting vouchers. It dovetails nicely with your argument, doesn’t it?
A good argument worth responding to. May I suggest that you cannot assume that you will always be personally free from dependance on public health services. You need to pay for that particular “insurance”. Furthermore the burden of taxation on yourself and American society for the purpose of public health has already been relieved by the number of Americans over 40,000,000 like yourself who provide funding for their own health care.
The two systems in America, health and education, are already funded differently. Education is funded universally while health is not. Your tax bill already reflects the minimal requirement to fund the minimal health care for your unfortunate fellow citizens. Education presumably is funded on the basis of enrolment. My province funds the local school boards on the basis of the head count. If I withdraw my child from the local school because I don’t see any control on bullying or I’m not satisfied with the quality of education or rules based on the separation of church and state etc., I should be compensated to reflect the financial relief I have provided the state education fund.
While I do support vouchers, I don’t believe that they should be considered a right. Here in Canada, their usage would be so minimal as to have virtually no effect on public education. If I understand America correctly, there could be areas where the puplic system could collapse due to religous fervour. If that is the case. then I would withdraw my support for vouchers since universal education is fundamental to the success of future society
I think comparing the situation in DC with what the Repubs are thinking of in taking the voucher system nationwide is truly a matter of apples and oranges. make that apple molehills and orange mountains.
I’d be interested in a cite that this is a strictly conservative issue. I wonder how many people here have school age children, and how many are parents living in the inner city of a decent sized urban area.
It seems that any parent of school age children, living in an inner city, would be crazy for not wanting some sort of radical change.
This is why, though conservative, I hate the idea of vouchers. If you want to have a nation of independent adults who are capable of fully supporting themselves, you must educate them well enough so they learn the skills to do so. Abandoning schools that are struggling means that you’re not just writing off those schools, you’re writing off a number of students too, because no voucher system is going to ensure that all kids in bad schools will have better alternatives. Do too much of this, and we end up with more people dependent on social programs rather than less. It’s a bad move, and a band-aid move too.
Hell, I’d be happy at the outset with a system that benefitted the students in the worst schools - which would include inner city schools like D.C., as well as some poor rural districts.
Unfortunately, teacher’s unions and their Democratic allies won’t consider even this step as reasonable.
Perhaps, but this hasn’t happened and I doubt it ever will. We’ve been working on improving the public schools for decades and they have only gotten worse. I blame this in large part on teachers’ unions. They oppose any type of real reform because they know it threatens their members. Maybe not all of them, but reform that requires results would result in the dismissal of many poor performing teachers. Unions don’t want that and stymie any type of real reform. They also oppose vouchers, which essentially means that we are left with poor performing public schools that resist reform and nowhere for poor parents to send their kids.
Wrong. If you read the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act you’ll see that if a public school cannot adequately educate a special needs kid they parent can make the school district pay for that child’s education at a private school. This happens quite often in DC (the combination of the crappy public schools and the overabundance of lawyers helps this trend). That means that there are certainly private schools out there willing to handle special needs kids. Give more of an incentive (say, a voucher) and see how many more schools will spring up.
Again, wrong. Most voucher proposals are designed in a way that when a student uses a voucher it is less than the per-pupil expenditure of that school district. For example, in DC the per pupil expenditure is something around $13,000 a year. One voucher proposal I saw was for about $7000 a year. That would mean that if a student used the $7000 voucher the district would actually come out ahead by $6000. The district has one less student to teach and there is more money, per pupil, left in the pot.
I find it interesting on this thread that so many liberals question the motives of conservatives who support vouchers – they hate public education, they are only for the rich, etc. This type of argument shows the paucity of real thought that goes into this issue. Vouchers are certainly not about giving more money to rich people. Look at the voucher programs around the country – they are limited to poor people. Rich people don’t need vouchers. They already send their children to private schools. Vouchers are needed for places like DC – horrible public schools, an inability to fix them, and poor parents stuck sending their kids to them. These parents can’t wait for the mythical day that DC public schools will be fixed. They need a good school now. A voucher will allow them to send their kid to a better school. I fail to see why liberals are so adamantly opposed to this.
What would be your solution, then? We already know more funding isn’t the answer, as many of the worst schools in this country also have the highest per pupil costs.
You encourage improvement at public schools by giving them more money? Please show me where that works. It certainly doesn’t work in DC, which has one of the highest per-pupil expenditure rates and some of the worst test scores. Giving a failing school more money is not the answer to improve it. Failing schools need structural change.
I have a question for voucher opponents along these lines: if a public school is failing should parents be forced to keep their children there in the hopes that one day the school district will actually improve the school? Or should they be given the opportunity to send their children to a better school?
In the interests of fighting ignorance, I will link to John Taylor Gatto’s Underground History of American Education (I recommend the prologue). Gatto is a libertarian who argues (convincingly, IMO) that the function of public schools is to provide an obedient consumer class to serve corporate interests.
I recognize that for some the concepts of “anti-corporate libertarian” or “anti-school educator” may not compute, but there you are.
I would venture that whites, blacks and hispanics living in urban areas favor vouchers by solid majorities. That is, of course, historically Democratic and [presumably] Liberal.
It would be interesting if each poster would have let is know just how much skin they have in the game.
Me? Parent of 3 children—12, 14 & 16, in an inner city environment. (Dayton, Ohio)
I would not send my children to a Dayton Public School High School. Period.