Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

School vouchers

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 10:49:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you support them? Why or why not?

I support them because it will force school systems to improve their standards when they lose students and money via competition from a better standard school in the area.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 10:51:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
REALISTICALLY SPEAKING:

I support a system in which there are government as well as private schools.

However, the government gives vouchers to families for education, and then everyone, including the government, must compete for the money.

I find it strange that liberals who, on the whole, like to point to Europe as a role model, don't like voucher systems, as they're actually really popular in Europe.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 10:55:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I oppose them, because they are not really good of an idea.

Many private schools do not do better than public schools. However, on the surface they appear better. Why is this? It's because they engage in creamskinning, in which private schools only select the best students, with no health problems and with strong financial families, and as a result they appear better.

So, students would move to other schools, for no real reason or benefit, while other schools crumble.

Second, it would make federal money go to religious schools, violating the separation of church and state. In Florida, they ruled school vouchers unconstitutional based on this premise.

Third, we could instead invest in our public education system, like they did in Finland. What did they do?

They had no standardized tests, teachers all had a master's degree, so they were all high paid and respected. Class sizes were smaller. The curriculum is flexible. High standards for schools. Foreign language was taught. More emphasis on teaching, rather than testing.

We are doing this in KIPP Charter Schools. The results are strong.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 11:10:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 10:55:38 PM, Contra wrote:
I oppose them, because they are not really good of an idea.

Many private schools do not do better than public schools. However, on the surface they appear better. Why is this? It's because they engage in creamskinning, in which private schools only select the best students, with no health problems and with strong financial families, and as a result they appear better.

So, students would move to other schools, for no real reason or benefit, while other schools crumble.

Creative destruction is a necessary part of progress. Otherwise we wouldn't have adopted tractors to "save the farmers".

Second, it would make federal money go to religious schools, violating the separation of church and state. In Florida, they ruled school vouchers unconstitutional based on this premise.

There's actually nothing in the constitution that states that there is separation of church and state. The state is involved in the church: religions receive tax exemptions for starters.

Third, we could instead invest in our public education system, like they did in Finland. What did they do?

They had no standardized tests, teachers all had a master's degree, so they were all high paid and respected. Class sizes were smaller. The curriculum is flexible. High standards for schools. Foreign language was taught. More emphasis on teaching, rather than testing.

Where the evidence that they do better. Netherlands and Sweden both use school vouchers and are ranked the best in the world:

http://4brevard.com...

We are doing this in KIPP Charter Schools. The results are strong.

Are you serious? Your using a charter school to demonstrate the failure of school vouchers?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 11:21:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 10:55:38 PM, Contra wrote:
I oppose them, because they are not really good of an idea.

Many private schools do not do better than public schools. However, on the surface they appear better. Why is this? It's because they engage in creamskinning, in which private schools only select the best students, with no health problems and with strong financial families, and as a result they appear better.

So, students would move to other schools, for no real reason or benefit, while other schools crumble.

Second, it would make federal money go to religious schools, violating the separation of church and state. In Florida, they ruled school vouchers unconstitutional based on this premise.

Third, we could instead invest in our public education system, like they did in Finland. What did they do?

They had no standardized tests, teachers all had a master's degree, so they were all high paid and respected. Class sizes were smaller. The curriculum is flexible. High standards for schools. Foreign language was taught. More emphasis on teaching, rather than testing.

We are doing this in KIPP Charter Schools. The results are strong.

It's not unconstitutional if the option to go a government school is there.

It's actually a money saver. Voucher systems, especially in certain European countries (I think it was...Belgium), actually spend half as much while students perform much higher.

The biggest issue I take with public schools is there is no reason for them to be any good. Because they're getting money either way, they don't need to actually spend the money on real education. The poor will always end up going to a public school. It's entrapment.

I'm not suggesting that government schools are inherently bad, but without incentive to be good, then you're trapping the disadvantaged to potentially poor education (on the whole).
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 11:28:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 10:55:38 PM, Contra wrote:
I oppose them, because they are not really good of an idea.

Many private schools do not do better than public schools. However, on the surface they appear better. Why is this? It's because they engage in creamskinning, in which private schools only select the best students, with no health problems and with strong financial families, and as a result they appear better.

So, students would move to other schools, for no real reason or benefit, while other schools crumble.

Second, it would make federal money go to religious schools, violating the separation of church and state. In Florida, they ruled school vouchers unconstitutional based on this premise.

Third, we could instead invest in our public education system, like they did in Finland. What did they do?

They had no standardized tests, teachers all had a master's degree, so they were all high paid and respected. Class sizes were smaller. The curriculum is flexible. High standards for schools. Foreign language was taught. More emphasis on teaching, rather than testing.

We are doing this in KIPP Charter Schools. The results are strong.

In regards to the Finish model, I would add very strong teachers unions....you know, just to piss off the conservatives.
Sapere Aude!
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 11:38:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 11:28:13 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 5/27/2012 10:55:38 PM, Contra wrote:
I oppose them, because they are not really good of an idea.

Many private schools do not do better than public schools. However, on the surface they appear better. Why is this? It's because they engage in creamskinning, in which private schools only select the best students, with no health problems and with strong financial families, and as a result they appear better.

So, students would move to other schools, for no real reason or benefit, while other schools crumble.

Second, it would make federal money go to religious schools, violating the separation of church and state. In Florida, they ruled school vouchers unconstitutional based on this premise.

Third, we could instead invest in our public education system, like they did in Finland. What did they do?

They had no standardized tests, teachers all had a master's degree, so they were all high paid and respected. Class sizes were smaller. The curriculum is flexible. High standards for schools. Foreign language was taught. More emphasis on teaching, rather than testing.

We are doing this in KIPP Charter Schools. The results are strong.

In regards to the Finish model, I would add very strong teachers unions....you know, just to piss off the conservatives.

I agree.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:43:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
School vouchers aren't an issue to my knowledge in Australia, but I tend to oppose the idea.

While a voucher system may be well intentioned it inherently presumes that the measures upon which vouchers are given out (standardised tests commonly) are able to effectively assess student knowledge and understanding. While testing is to a degree necessary, to base school payments on this is to necessarily overemphasise the importance of testing in the curriculum; school vouchers result in too much testing which isn't positive for education.

Furthermore, there are various others factors that influence test results. For instance, my school has both a support unit and an IEC (Intensive English Centre) unit. These students will clearly lower the overall marks, yet they need additional fund allocation to be properly cared for, not less. Furthermore, if you question whether these students actually do get counted, realise that the IEC is often moved into the mainstream (my school is also part selective... need I note that selective schools would destroy a voucher system) part of my school.

Current measures of feedback are quite limited in their accuracy, and to overemphasise test results is a poor idea. Test results do serve a purpose, but they should not be overused. Note that Finland (who basically top PISA testing scores) doesn't emphasise standardised testing. Also note that China is moving away from standardised testing towards a less centralised, less testing environment. When you note that China is trying to emulate countries like the US (to a point...) and the US is striving for regimented examination systems, you must question why they both want what the other has.

To sum up, I don't support the idea of school vouchers.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:54:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 11:38:28 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 5/27/2012 11:28:13 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 5/27/2012 10:55:38 PM, Contra wrote:
I oppose them, because they are not really good of an idea.

Many private schools do not do better than public schools. However, on the surface they appear better. Why is this? It's because they engage in creamskinning, in which private schools only select the best students, with no health problems and with strong financial families, and as a result they appear better.

So, students would move to other schools, for no real reason or benefit, while other schools crumble.

Second, it would make federal money go to religious schools, violating the separation of church and state. In Florida, they ruled school vouchers unconstitutional based on this premise.

Third, we could instead invest in our public education system, like they did in Finland. What did they do?

They had no standardized tests, teachers all had a master's degree, so they were all high paid and respected. Class sizes were smaller. The curriculum is flexible. High standards for schools. Foreign language was taught. More emphasis on teaching, rather than testing.

We are doing this in KIPP Charter Schools. The results are strong.

In regards to the Finish model, I would add very strong teachers unions....you know, just to piss off the conservatives.

I agree.

So you guys would add teachers unions., which may be of no benefit, only to piss off a group of people you disagree with?

That's asinine.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 11:13:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't really care for teachers unions.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 11:22:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Overall, I would support school vouchers for a variety of reasons:

1. It would give parents more control over where their children are sent to school. It is ludicrous to assume that educational bureaucrats know more about the needs of the children rather than the parents.

2. It would allow parents to send children to private schools with little to no money added on. Even the poorest families would be able to scrap up a few dollars for their children's education.

3. Instead of being contained to specific districts, students would be able to move out of them, which would increase "race mixing" in specific neighbourhoods and promote tolerance and less discrimination.

4. Furthermore, it would give parents the ability to control the aspects of their school more as they would have leverage over the school in the sense of whether they are going to send their child there.. Parent association would be similar to that of private schools.

5. In poorer neighborhoods, it would give students who actually want to prosper a great chance by going to a better school with little added on money, rather than staying in other school, which often has little educational opportunities.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 11:41:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 10:55:38 PM, Contra wrote:
I oppose them, because they are not really good of an idea.

Many private schools do not do better than public schools. However, on the surface they appear better. Why is this? It's because they engage in creamskinning, in which private schools only select the best students, with no health problems and with strong financial families, and as a result they appear better.

So, students would move to other schools, for no real reason or benefit, while other schools crumble.

Second, it would make federal money go to religious schools, violating the separation of church and state. In Florida, they ruled school vouchers unconstitutional based on this premise.

Third, we could instead invest in our public education system, like they did in Finland. What did they do?

They had no standardized tests, teachers all had a master's degree, so they were all high paid and respected. Class sizes were smaller. The curriculum is flexible. High standards for schools. Foreign language was taught. More emphasis on teaching, rather than testing.

We are doing this in KIPP Charter Schools. The results are strong.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 4:24:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 10:55:38 PM, Contra wrote:
I oppose them, because they are not really good of an idea.

Many private schools do not do better than public schools. However, on the surface they appear better. Why is this? It's because they engage in creamskinning, in which private schools only select the best students, with no health problems and with strong financial families, and as a result they appear better.

That's bull. High performing students in an under performing school will not perform well.


So, students would move to other schools, for no real reason or benefit, while other schools crumble.

That makes no sense.

Second, it would make federal money go to religious schools, violating the separation of church and state. In Florida, they ruled school vouchers unconstitutional based on this premise.

First, there is no such thing as separation of church and state as being unconstitutional, and the Florida case was not based on that :http://www.usatoday.com...
So you're just way wrong.

Third, we could instead invest in our public education system, like they did in Finland. What did they do?
Or like we do in Washington DC? $28,170 per student per year, and they are among the worst performing school systems in the country.

They had no standardized tests, teachers all had a master's degree, so they were all high paid and respected. Class sizes were smaller. The curriculum is flexible. High standards for schools. Foreign language was taught. More emphasis on teaching, rather than testing.

Remove unions, tenure, and bad teachers, and you may have a start on it.

We are doing this in KIPP Charter Schools. The results are strong.

I'm pro choice.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 5:14:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 10:55:38 PM, Contra wrote:
I oppose them, because they are not really good of an idea.

Many private schools do not do better than public schools. However, on the surface they appear better. Why is this? It's because they engage in creamskinning, in which private schools only select the best students, with no health problems and with strong financial families, and as a result they appear better.

The evidence does not support this. In Washington D.C., for example, vouchers were only issued to poor families. The results were extremely successful. Voucher programs are now in more than ten states and are usually reserved for poor families. The results are uniformly positive, which is why it's spreading.

The teacher's union killed the Washington program despite it's great success. government unions are one of the main financial underpinnings of liberal Democrats. Union kickbacks are what keeps out competition. There is nothing else to it.
buckIPDA
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 9:26:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 10:55:38 PM, Contra wrote:
I oppose them, because they are not really good of an idea.

Many private schools do not do better than public schools. However, on the surface they appear better. Why is this? It's because they engage in creamskinning, in which private schools only select the best students, with no health problems and with strong financial families, and as a result they appear better.

As a whole, private schools cost substantially less and are able cut out mandatory State testing. So while I agree that Private schools do recruit, they typically have better student averages as well

So, students would move to other schools, for no real reason or benefit, while other schools crumble.

This is where the competition argument comes to fruition. With so many kids getting to move out of these failing schools, and into better schools the state funded schools are slowly fazed out and a higher quality of education is achieved across the board.

Second, it would make federal money go to religious schools, violating the separation of church and state. In Florida, they ruled school vouchers unconstitutional based on this premise.

That argument is a bunch of bull. First of all, we need to realize that separation of church and state is not a legal mandate but a commonly respected idea. Meaning that legislation cannot be passed forcing religious principles on others - that does not however stand to say that private citizens couldn't choose to spend state dollars or religious institutions.

A perfect example would be a disabled vet living on disability spending a portion of his check to give back to his local church.

Third, we could instead invest in our public education system, like they did in Finland. What did they do?

Finland has traditionally already had better emphasis on education than the United States.
Plus, their population isn't nearly as massive as the United States. So their reform wasn't as tedious
Finally, in the United States we have to keep in mind that education falls to the states. In Finland it doesn't.
They had no standardized tests, teachers all had a master's degree, so they were all high paid and respected. Class sizes were smaller. The curriculum is flexible. High standards for schools. Foreign language was taught. More emphasis on teaching, rather than testing.

This kind of legislation would put millions of teachers out of jobs.
We are doing this in KIPP Charter Schools. The results are strong.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 11:39:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:54:38 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 5/27/2012 11:38:28 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 5/27/2012 11:28:13 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 5/27/2012 10:55:38 PM, Contra wrote:
I oppose them, because they are not really good of an idea.

Many private schools do not do better than public schools. However, on the surface they appear better. Why is this? It's because they engage in creamskinning, in which private schools only select the best students, with no health problems and with strong financial families, and as a result they appear better.

So, students would move to other schools, for no real reason or benefit, while other schools crumble.

Second, it would make federal money go to religious schools, violating the separation of church and state. In Florida, they ruled school vouchers unconstitutional based on this premise.

Third, we could instead invest in our public education system, like they did in Finland. What did they do?

They had no standardized tests, teachers all had a master's degree, so they were all high paid and respected. Class sizes were smaller. The curriculum is flexible. High standards for schools. Foreign language was taught. More emphasis on teaching, rather than testing.

We are doing this in KIPP Charter Schools. The results are strong.

In regards to the Finish model, I would add very strong teachers unions....you know, just to piss off the conservatives.

I agree.

So you guys would add teachers unions., which may be of no benefit, only to piss off a group of people you disagree with?

That's asinine.

I was joking.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 11:56:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 11:39:04 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:54:38 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 5/27/2012 11:38:28 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 5/27/2012 11:28:13 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 5/27/2012 10:55:38 PM, Contra wrote:
I oppose them, because they are not really good of an idea.

Many private schools do not do better than public schools. However, on the surface they appear better. Why is this? It's because they engage in creamskinning, in which private schools only select the best students, with no health problems and with strong financial families, and as a result they appear better.

So, students would move to other schools, for no real reason or benefit, while other schools crumble.

Second, it would make federal money go to religious schools, violating the separation of church and state. In Florida, they ruled school vouchers unconstitutional based on this premise.

Third, we could instead invest in our public education system, like they did in Finland. What did they do?

They had no standardized tests, teachers all had a master's degree, so they were all high paid and respected. Class sizes were smaller. The curriculum is flexible. High standards for schools. Foreign language was taught. More emphasis on teaching, rather than testing.

We are doing this in KIPP Charter Schools. The results are strong.

In regards to the Finish model, I would add very strong teachers unions....you know, just to piss off the conservatives.

I agree.

So you guys would add teachers unions., which may be of no benefit, only to piss off a group of people you disagree with?

That's asinine.

I was joking.

Sorry. I am feeling really combative lately. I have worked for ten straight days and I haven't been drunk in a while :\
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.