1DE, Albino, FOL, CB, whoever.

[Restola]

Originally posted by p8ntball1016
And the only drawback is that you are screwing over students in public schools.

If it costs your school district $3,000/year to educate you, and you decide to go somewhere else (so now it costs your old school district nothing)...who is getting hurt if you take your tax money with you...

Oh yeah, and a simple lack of money isn't the problem now. Cleveland city schools get twice the money per student my school did, and have a 72% dropout rate.

I ignored the topic question because it's been answered. Vouchers let you take your tax money to a school of your choice. Although its never really been tried to my knowledge. Just little experiments with some students in some districts.

[Kevmaster]

Education reform is most certainly necessary.

First and foremost is better teaching....however, better teaching costs money (to get good teachers, pay needs to be in line with other post-college work opps) Washington isnt willing to spend

hell, spend more in education now, spend less in well-fare and social security later....just my .02

[1stdeadeye]

Vouchers are a great concept, but not done very well in practice. The average school district in NJ spends over $7k per student per year. The only vouchers you can get now are to charter schools in failing districts. The charter school gets 75% of the states money and the failing district (i.e. Camden) still gets to keep 25% for "administrative costs".

Vouchers are intended to give parents a choice and foster competition. If parents can pull students and money from a district, that district must become more competitive or fail entirely. The problem is that the amount of most vouchers will only cover parochial schools and not more expensive private schools. As soon as you mention parochial schools, you get the church/state seperation issues.

Vouchers if limited and done well, could force major education changes. If you must succeed or be fired, you'll see quite a bit more success.

But basically, the answer to your question is that it is a means to divert per pupil public education money in failing school districts to another school of the parents choosing to give their child the best chance of success available.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Kevmaster
Education reform is most certainly necessary.

First and foremost is better teaching....however, better teaching costs money (to get good teachers, pay needs to be in line with other post-college work opps) Washington isnt willing to spend

hell, spend more in education now, spend less in well-fare and social security later....just my .02

I'll call you on this commonly held fallacy!

More money is not the answer, it is more accountability and parental involvement. How can I back up these statements. Simple!

Let us compare two high schools in my area.

In high school A, a teacher with 15 years experience has tenure and is making over $80,000 a year with full benefits. Her classes average test score is 12% behind the next teacher (b). Cost per pupil: $8500!

In high school B, the same teacher makes $61,000 per year with co-pays for her benefits. She has no tenure, but better performing students. Cost per pupil: $5100!

A is a local public school with the budget available to anyone to be reviewed. B is a local Catholic High School with the tuition listed.

Which would be a better value to the public! More money does not equal better results!

[Python14]

People are never satisfied with what they have so money is not going to solve anything. Like 1DE said, there needs to be better accountablity. Not only on the part of the teachers, but on the administrators and brass. That's the problem here. I'm sure anyone within a 45 mile radius has read about my High school and all it's problems. However, 90% of those problems are not related to the teachers, they are the inconsistencies in the administrators.

For instance, last month a student claimed a teacher struck him. Now I knew this teacher and knew from the getgo it wasn't true. Well, he was put on administrative leave for about a week. During this time, he was cleared on the charges because the student made it up. Well, he was supposed to be told on a Tuesday. He wasn't. Wednesday night he jumped off the Roanoke River Bridge on the Blue Ridge Parkway. Two days later they recovered his body. Immediately the Superintendent tried to shift the blame on the police department, but it was clear that the Superintendent was at fault.
Now teachers are scared to do anything because the simple connection is that if you do something wrong(or if somebody wrongs you), it's over for you.

The teachers at my school constantly complain that the faculty downtown don't support them, and constantly consequently, we've lost about a dozen teachers.


So yea, it's not always the teachers, in some cases it's the administration.

[Kevmaster]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


I'll call you on this commonly held fallacy!

More money is not the answer, it is more accountability and parental involvement. How can I back up these statements. Simple!

Let us compare two high schools in my area.

In high school A, a teacher with 15 years experience has tenure and is making over $80,000 a year with full benefits. Her classes average test score is 12% behind the next teacher (b). Cost per pupil: $8500!

In high school B, the same teacher makes $61,000 per year with co-pays for her benefits. She has no tenure, but better performing students. Cost per pupil: $5100!

A is a local public school with the budget available to anyone to be reviewed. B is a local Catholic High School with the tuition listed.

Which would be a better value to the public! More money does not equal better results!

IDE, sure there are good teachers in it for the gift of teaching, not the money. However, we need MORE good teachres. How does one get more educated, caring teachers to come teach? Have the average starting pay under $40,000 (after a 1 year MAT and 4 year BS/BA) when comparable salaries are at 50+? YOU INCREASE STARTING PAY! ENCOURAGE more people to come teach!

[Fred]

the real problem any moron with a "teaching certificate" and a bachelors degree in such broad learning subjects as "education" or "communications" or "leisure studies" or "english" can get a position as a high school teacher.

its fun when you can make spelling and grammar corrections within the notes that teachers leave on homework assignments that get handed back.

I don't think anyone without a masters degree or a decent amount of work experience in a field should be teaching anything in a high school... much less a middle school...

btw, vouchers are desperately needed in Detroit to get the few good students out of that black hole of an education system... its so corrupt at this point that nothing short of tearing the whole thing down and starting from scratch will fix it.

---Fred

[Kai]

But in order to draw in the kinds of teachers you are talking about, the one's that hold a master's degree, you need to offer them a more appealing starting salary.

What I can't understand: Even with the severe lack of funding in the school system these days, we are getting tax cuts. We are spending LARGE sums of money on a joke of a medicare reform. We are about to pump cash into our space program.

We need to rethink what matters most.

[aaron_mag]

Oh god. Here we go again with 1stdeadeye's, "let me give you an example of two school districts". Yeah well let me dredge up two other school districts that exactly counter your argument. We could go on forever and prove nothing.

Here is one thing parents need to understand. The money used to educate children AIN'T (and I slang on purpose) their money. Every single tax payer contributes collective to educate children because as a society we believe that educating youth is beneficial to the community. This is the reason I get so pissed off at elderly who say, "well my kids are out of school. I've paid my share. Why should I have to pay more?" The fact of the matter is they didn't pay the full cost. Collectively (those with children and those without children in school at the time) we all paid.

So now we get to vouchers. Any idiot can figure out what would happen. The parents that are affluent would take their money from the school system plus kick in the extra money they have and send their kids to the "rich" school. (which is totally understandable. what parent wouldn't want to give their kid the best). It is human simple human nature. So we get affluent flight from the public schools and the ones that can't afford it are left behind. The question becomes is that using our collective tax money (because it is OUR's and not the parents) for the collective good?

I think Albinonewt hit on the real deal with schools. We spend so much on administration. Why is that? Because in every organization the first instinct is to get off the front line (human nature again). What is the front line in teaching? To actually be in front of the kids day in and day out. It is a pain in the butt. So then you start getting layers of administration purely for people to quit having to deal with these nagging brats everyday even though that is the whole reason everyone is gathered there for 9 months anyway.

Cut the administration. Get those people back in the trenches. Too many generals not enough soldiers. Then we'll have a good teaching system (my personal opinion).

[1stdeadeye]

Okay, 1st off I am not in favor of vouchers for everyone. Only in districts that are failing.

AM,
I challenge you to show me any parochial school system where the public schools IN THE SAME AREA have better scores. Why? Well with the parochial school, it is my money! It is my direct investment into my childs future. No parochial teacher makes comparable money to their public school counterparts. I pay NJ's cumbersome school tax for two districts on both of my properties and pay to send my son to catholic school. It is all about commitment. We don't buy new cars every year or travel extravagantly. We put our money into investments and our children.

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
In high school A, a teacher with 15 years experience has tenure and is making over $80,000 a year with full benefits. Her classes average test score is 12% behind the next teacher (b). Cost per pupil: $8500!

In high school B, the same teacher makes $61,000 per year with co-pays for her benefits. She has no tenure, but better performing students. Cost per pupil: $5100!

Those pupils bringing an AK to school and blowing away half of 3rd period English...
Cost per pupil: Priceless!


my .02
I agree with what Albinonewt says. I went to a private school all my life (it was one for geniuses and smart a$$es), so the idea of vouchers, initially seems pretty good to me. But my wife was public school raised, and more importantly her mother is a public school teacher. They bring up some good points against vouchers...so Im not sure where I stand...
Either way I will make sure my children go to a good school...even if i have to kill someone..er..did i say that out loud?

JDub

[Restola]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
which is totally understandable. what parent wouldn't want to give their kid the best

So you accept that there are parents who's kids are stuck in failing schools. You go on to say 'too bad', because some kids would have to still get the "standard" education...

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Okay, 1st off I am not in favor of vouchers for everyone. Only in districts that are failing.

AM,
I challenge you to show me any parochial school system where the public schools IN THE SAME AREA have better scores. Why? Well with the parochial school, it is my money! It is my direct investment into my childs future. No parochial teacher makes comparable money to their public school counterparts. I pay NJ's cumbersome school tax for two districts on both of my properties and pay to send my son to catholic school. It is all about commitment. We don't buy new cars every year or travel extravagantly. We put our money into investments and our children.

I pay property taxes on my house and multiple rental properties....or do I? Don't the renters really pay? Isn't it my choice to have rental properties in the first place? So am I getting "screwed" because I pay more taxes that go to school then the guy who only has one house? Of course not. So don't give me, "I pay school taxes in two districts". It is a choice to have two properties. It is a choice to invest in real estate. There is certainly NOTHING wrong with it but since the community has seen fit to levy taxes in that manner it becomes a choice (and you hope the benefits (economic or otherwise) outweigh the costs you pay.

Now lets discuss sending your kid to private school. Once again there is NOTHING wrong with that. As a matter of fact it is a good thing (although I personally believe that public schools are better but I'll get to that later). But should the rest of the community pay you for that choice. We pay for public education because as a society we benefit from educating the next generation. If we use the argument, "Well I send my kid to private school so I shouldn't have to pay," then shouldn't we reimburse a rich gay business man who NEVER plans on having children. After all he is getting screwed right. He personally does not "benefit" from the school system. The answer is that he does. When that business man goes to hire someone he can draw from a pool of educated children. I realize that you probably don't disagree with this....but I'm trying to point out how sending your kids to private school is a choice.

Now lets move onto why (in some areas) public schools are actually BETTER than private schools. You brought up the first point. Public school teacher MAKE MORE MONEY. Now lets move on to the second point. Public school teachers usually HAVE TO BE MORE QUALIFIED than their parochial school counterparts. So if one job gives you more money and requires more qualifications guess who gets the more talented people? Public schools. Of course there are other factors to this, one being class size, but this is true.

Personally I wouldn't dream of sending my kids to a private school because I think public schools are better for the reasons listed above. Then again this is Oregon and not the east coast. We have our problems here (we spend more money per student on ADMINISTRATION than any other state except Rhode Island and we are near the bottom per capita in spending that actually reaches the classroom). Still I realize that Oregon is very different than other areas.

Finally lets talk about why parochial schools out perform public schools (and I'm certain this isn't ALWAYS the case like you insinuate but I'm not going to waste time sifting through school district results to win an internet argument). We've already discussed that the most talented teachers go into public school so why would that be? Could it be because the parochial school students are from more affluent areas? Isn't the same true when you compare public schools in rich areas versus poor areas? Isn't it true that the students in more affluent areas have less distractions than those in poorer areas (namely working to help support the family, economic strain in general, family member with drug problem/other problem, family member abuse problem, etc.).

Now vouchers on a limited scope may not be such a bad idea (as you suggest). Basically it would be the same a busing kids out of their problemed area to other school districts. This, however, should always be a temporary solution with the goal of returning sovreignty to the indigenous population when the problems have been corrected....

[1stdeadeye]

Oh my God! I am going to pull a CollegeBoy.....

Aaron READ WHAT I WROTE!

I am complaining about the taxes, but that is my right. I did not state I should not have to pay them. What I did state is that my wife and I make the sacrifices we need to make to ensure our children's future.

I am not for blanket vouchers. People in affluent areas do not need them. Kids from failing schools in the ghettos do! They should have some type of choice!

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Aaron READ WHAT I WROTE!

so we resort to this tactic do we.....

Where is it implied that I didn't read what you wrote....se below

I am complaining about the taxes, but that is my right. I did not state I should not have to pay them. What I did state is that my wife and I make the sacrifices we need to make to ensure our children's future.

What are you questioning the way our glorious government spends your money????? That is UNamerican. If you don't like the amount of money you have to give or the way that money is spent why don't you go to Canada or Russia . Before you jump down my throat for that last statement I agree with you. It is your right to question how much you are taxed and what your taxes are spent on.

Now if you read what I wrote I said, "I realize that you probably don't disagree with this....but I'm trying to point out how sending your kids to private school is a choice." Basically all I was saying is that the fact that you sent your kids to private school has nothing to do with the argument for/against vouchers.

I am not for blanket vouchers. People in affluent areas do not need them. Kids from failing schools in the ghettos do! They should have some type of choice!

Here is what I said about that, "Now vouchers on a limited scope may not be such a bad idea (as you suggest)." So basically I was just typing that long message to say I somewhat agree with you. You have had to realize by now that I am a long winded blowhard!!!!

SO CALM DOWN!!!!