Do you support educational vouchers in schools?

In article .com,
wrote:
Bob Coleslaw wrote:
Is it better for the government to give out vouchers so parents can
send their kids to private schools, or to use that money to fix up
the
public schools?

Bob Coleslaw

In general, I am not thrilled with the idea of taking money out of the
public schools but I also realize that the public schools in some
places are in really bad shape and attempts so far to fix them have not
been terribly successful so maybe we do need to try something else.

I think I certainly would feel better about vouchers if they included
the following two rules:

1) Schools eligible to accept vouchers could not require any religious
activity of the students or include any mandatory religious instruction
in the curriculum.

Personally, I would like to see this, but I do not think
that overt religious instruction is as bad as the type of
indoctrination given as objective truth in the present
schools can be. One can point out to one's children that
not all believe in the principles of another religion, and
many of the present religious schools have children who are
definitely not of the religion being presented.

2) The vouchers would have to be accepted as full tuition. What I am
trying to accomplish here is making sure the vouchers really give poor
parents a choice, rather than just being a subsidy to the middle class.
A $2,000 voucher at a school with $8,000 tuition is useless to a
family living in poverty but it is a free vacation to a wealthier
family that was otherwise going to pay the full $8,000.

At least initially, this might not be possible. Most of the
seriously proposed voucher plans call for less than what the
public schools get. There can be need-based scholarships, and
it is likely there will be.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

wrote:

Bob Coleslaw wrote:

Is it better for the government to give out vouchers so parents can
send their kids to private schools, or to use that money to fix up

the

public schools?

Bob Coleslaw


In general, I am not thrilled with the idea of taking money out of the
public schools but I also realize that the public schools in some
places are in really bad shape and attempts so far to fix them have not
been terribly successful so maybe we do need to try something else.

Kindly elaborate what you mean by the phrase that the 'public schools in
some places are in really bad shape and attempts to fix them have not
been terribly successful."

Perhaps after you reply to this, we can have a discussion and
consequently, you might see why the remaining portions of your post(
which I have snipped for brevity in this instance ) are invalid.

Alan

Herman Rubin wrote:
2) The vouchers would have to be accepted as full tuition. What I
am
trying to accomplish here is making sure the vouchers really give
poor
parents a choice, rather than just being a subsidy to the middle
class.
A $2,000 voucher at a school with $8,000 tuition is useless to a
family living in poverty but it is a free vacation to a wealthier
family that was otherwise going to pay the full $8,000.

At least initially, this might not be possible. Most of the
seriously proposed voucher plans call for less than what the
public schools get. There can be need-based scholarships, and
it is likely there will be.

If we cannot do it initially, there is a good chance we will never do
it. Much of the necessary political support to implement full-tuition
vouchers (quite possibly at the cost of increased taxes) is going to
need to come from the middle class and from the people running private
schools. If the only way they can get vouchers is to let the poor in
on the benefits, they might do it. Once a plan to their liking is in
effect, where is the political support to expand it to the poor?

The private schools, in particular, probably would not go for it. If
current tuition is $8,000 and full-tuition vouchers of $6,000 are being
proposed, they might find it in their interests to accept the $6,000.
If vouchers of $2,000 already exist, with families paying the other
$6,000 out of pocket, there is not as much incentive for the schools to
support a plan that raises the vouchers to $6,000 but forces them to
accept that as full tuition.

Need-based scholarships are great and many already exist, of course.
They do not depend on the existence of vouchers. However, there is no
way they are going to come close to bridging the gap for most poor kids
with vouchers who cannot afford the rest of the tuition.

Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
Kindly elaborate what you mean by the phrase that the 'public schools
in
some places are in really bad shape and attempts to fix them have not

been terribly successful."

Perhaps after you reply to this, we can have a discussion and
consequently, you might see why the remaining portions of your post(
which I have snipped for brevity in this instance ) are invalid.

I am not sure I want to get into a discussion about that point. That
was partly a "for the sake of argument" sort of assumption. I do
believe it but I think others believe it more strongly and almost
certainly are better prepared to defend the point with evidence.

However, as I look at the world from the point of view of an adult
citizen and voter but not an expert on education, I think I see schools
in poor repair. I think I see schools infested with gangs. I think I
see a lot of students who cannot read, write, do math, etc. in a
meaningful way. I think I see adult graduates of public schools who
still cannot do these things -- and, worse, cannot solve problems. (I
mention this point because I have come to realize as an adult that the
most useful thing I got out of my K-grad school private education was
not any particular set of knowledge but the ability to think through a
problem.) I think I see even teachers (not all but too many) who
cannot do these things. I also think I have been seeing these problems
for years, through multiple attempts to fix them. Am I wrong? Perhaps
I am.

Not that this is necessary to my original point but I also think I see
some really good public schools -- largely (although not exclusively)
in areas that are particularly advantaged in a number of ways,
including their tax bases and their student populations.

That last point leads to one possible argument that I will grant you.
Private schools in many places are always going to look better than
public schools because their student population is selected -- both
self-selected by those who make the effort to opt out of the path of
least resistance and selected in that they do not have to take everyone.

Jonathan Levy wrote:

Alan Lichtenstein wrote:

Kindly elaborate what you mean by the phrase that the 'public schools

in

some places are in really bad shape and attempts to fix them have not


been terribly successful."

Perhaps after you reply to this, we can have a discussion and
consequently, you might see why the remaining portions of your post(
which I have snipped for brevity in this instance ) are invalid.


I am not sure I want to get into a discussion about that point. That
was partly a "for the sake of argument" sort of assumption.

Assertions made cannot be assumed as being valid unless there is
supporting evidence to substantiate that validity. Furthermore, your
initial assertion was vague and left a lot of leeway for inference. In
order that readers, myself included do not come away with the wrong
impression, it is prudent for you to elaborate, so that there will be no
errors in communication. Because of that, it is indeed necessary for
you to respond. I see that you have somewhat done so below, however,
even that lacks specificity, and thus, I renew my request.

I do
believe it but I think others believe it more strongly and almost
certainly are better prepared to defend the point with evidence.

If you are unprepared to substantiate your assertions, then it would be
prudent for you to withdraw them. All that is necessary is for you to
elaborate on what you said based on what you know. That will form the
basis for our discussion.

However, as I look at the world from the point of view of an adult
citizen and voter but not an expert on education, I think I see schools
in poor repair.

Ah, so you believe the physical plants are lacking?

I think I see schools infested with gangs.

On what do you base this assertion? Surely, you need some frame of
reference to opine so. Furthermore, kindly explain how this justifies
your assertion that the school needs fixing.

I think I
see a lot of students who cannot read, write, do math, etc. in a
meaningful way.

Ah, and if the students cannot read and write, kindly explain how that
makes the school in need of fixing. I do not see the connection.

I think I see adult graduates of public schools who
still cannot do these things -- and, worse, cannot solve problems.

Same question as above.
(I
mention this point because I have come to realize as an adult that the
most useful thing I got out of my K-grad school private education was
not any particular set of knowledge but the ability to think through a
problem.) I think I see even teachers (not all but too many) who
cannot do these things. I also think I have been seeing these problems
for years, through multiple attempts to fix them. Am I wrong? Perhaps
I am.

I see your point. But I do not understand how those things you cite can
substantiate your assertion that the school needs fixing? Perhaps you
are making an inference which you ASSUME exists?

Not that this is necessary to my original point but I also think I see
some really good public schools -- largely (although not exclusively)
in areas that are particularly advantaged in a number of ways,
including their tax bases and their student populations.

And pray tell, just what do you mean by a 'good school?'

That last point leads to one possible argument that I will grant you.
Private schools in many places are always going to look better than
public schools because their student population is selected -- both
self-selected by those who make the effort to opt out of the path of
least resistance and selected in that they do not have to take everyone.

Are you grudgingly admitting that perhaps it is the STUDENTS who make a
school good( or bad )?

Alan

Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
Assertions made cannot be assumed as being valid unless there is
supporting evidence to substantiate that validity.

Please cite your reference for this Usenet rule of evidence. Or are
you making an assertion without supporting evidence?

Seriously, this is not a court of law. It is a Usenet conversation and
I have already admitted that this was not even my main point. I was
kind of granting something that seems to be commonly believed -- and
with which I pretty much agree -- and building off of it. If that
means that my argument is relevant to some other people but not to you,
fair enough.

I think I
see a lot of students who cannot read, write, do math, etc. in a
meaningful way.

Ah, and if the students cannot read and write, kindly explain how
that
makes the school in need of fixing. I do not see the connection.

You are right in a sense. I am making an assumption. I guess I am
looking at this the same way I would if cars that came out of Ford
factories did not perform well. I cannot rule out the possibility that
Ford is getting bad raw materials through no fault of its own but the
conclusion I think most people would come to is that Ford was doing a
bad job in the factories. No, children are not steel to be turned into
cars but I hope everyone can follow the analogy, imperfect as it is.


That last point leads to one possible argument that I will grant
you.
Private schools in many places are always going to look better than
public schools because their student population is selected -- both
self-selected by those who make the effort to opt out of the path
of
least resistance and selected in that they do not have to take
everyone.

Are you grudgingly admitting that perhaps it is the STUDENTS who make
a
school good( or bad )?

I am admitting that this is an important component and that admission
is not at all grudging.

On 28 Apr 2005 13:33:42 -0500, (Herman
Rubin) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:00:56 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:


Is the purpose education or indoctrination? The parent with a voucher can
choose, the parent without cannot.

The "purpose" of what? Vouchers? The purpose of school vouchers is
to get the "public" to pay for your personal choices. Seems like a
bad idea to me, and fortunately, to most other people as well.

Do you mean that the people in power should have the right
to say what school a child should go to, and make it the
same regardless of the child's ability to learn?

I mean precisely what I said. The PUBLIC, as a WHOLE, gets to decide.

If you mean the purpose of education, that is frankly irrelevant to
the argument on vouchers, number one, and poorly defined (if at all)
in general. Ostensibly it is a program, funded by the public, for the
benefit OF society as a whole.

As such, the whole structure is rotten. It cannot be repaired.

In your opinion, which has been notoriously flawed in the past. You
claim that things were better in the past. If we accept that
statement, then the "structure" is amenable to change. If THAT is
true, then there is absolutely no reason why it cannot change for the
better. It is up to the PUBLIC, however, to decide the direction that
PUBLIC education will take.

In that sense, it is intended to
provide children a minimum level of understanding so that they might
become productive citizens of that society.

And keep them to that minimum level so that they cannot
contribute what their talents and abilities will allow.

Though you insist on disagreeing, it is not so much an issue of
"keeping them at that minimum level" as it is an issue of assigning
priorities since resources are limited. The highly gifted, the only
group you really care about, represent a small fraction of the total
population, and they can reach the "minimum level of understanding"
easily and without requiring too much in the way of resources. The
REST of the population, however, often requires a very large
investment in resources to meet that level (and in many cases,
unfortunately, STILL do not really reach it). Your focus is limited
to that small fraction, whereas society's focus is necessarily on the
vast majority, ESPECIALLY the very weakest fraction. You may disagree
with that priority, but that is the way the public wants it to be (at
least at present).

The public did not sign
on to let particular parents "have it their way", nor as some kind of
guarantee that everyone who wants to can become the next Einstein.

No, they want a guarantee that someone who can add to our
knowledge does not get a chance to do so.

Give it a rest, Herman; I personally agree that we are shortchanging
our very best students, but I also KNOW (unlike you) that our very
best students generally have a reasonable amount of resources devoted
to them. This is obvious in that the US always fares well at the top
levels of competition in physics, for example. If our best kids were
woefully outclassed internationally, then I'd agree with you
unreservedly, but that simply isn't the case. To devote MORE to them
would shortchange the very weakest group, where we struggle just to
get them to reach the MINIMUM level of competency. The public will
not accept shortchanging the lowest group to benefit the highest
group.

It
provides the flexibility to allow parents to "have it their way" only
if they have the ability to foot the resulting bill. Complicating the
issue is, of course, the requirement of separation of church and
state.

I have never shown any brief for religious schools. But
the public schools seem to be a well-designed instrument
to destroy or weaken, and in any case delay, the minds of
those who can contribute more than the average.

Only if one agrees to participate in your fixation on reasoning based
on conspiracy theories.

On 28 Apr 2005 11:38:48 -0700, wrote:

Bob Coleslaw wrote:
Is it better for the government to give out vouchers so parents can
send their kids to private schools, or to use that money to fix up
the
public schools?

Bob Coleslaw

In general, I am not thrilled with the idea of taking money out of the
public schools but I also realize that the public schools in some
places are in really bad shape and attempts so far to fix them have not
been terribly successful so maybe we do need to try something else.

I think I certainly would feel better about vouchers if they included
the following two rules:

1) Schools eligible to accept vouchers could not require any religious
activity of the students or include any mandatory religious instruction
in the curriculum.

2) The vouchers would have to be accepted as full tuition. What I am
trying to accomplish here is making sure the vouchers really give poor
parents a choice, rather than just being a subsidy to the middle class.
A $2,000 voucher at a school with $8,000 tuition is useless to a
family living in poverty but it is a free vacation to a wealthier
family that was otherwise going to pay the full $8,000.


I would amend #2 in that the vouchers should ONLY go to low-income
families in public schools that are performing very poorly (all of
which would require significant degrees of clarification).

"toto" wrote
Gee, you want us to pay taxes for a fire department that will fight
fires at your house, I see,

No, Dorothy, you don't see.
Where did I ever say I wanted you to pay for thing's I want?

but not to educate the children of your
neighbors who don't have the money for private school tuition?

Are you saying that YOU want to pay for the education of the children in my
neighborhood?
Its a yes or no question.
You're not in Kansas anymore Dorothy.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , toto says...

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 03:35:37 GMT, "Don"
wrote:

Maybe your neighbors and you can set up water-pail brigades on your
dirt
roads
in case you have a fire.

Thats really none of your business is it?

Gee, you want us to pay taxes for a fire department that will fight
fires at your house, I see, but not to educate the children of your
neighbors who don't have the money for private school tuition?

Maybe he can front the money to pave the roads to his house...

I do.
Through my taxes.
But that doesn't get it done, thanks to you LIEberals.
So I did it myself.