School Vouchers are the shizz!!!

- Rich parents have a choice of schools for their kids; poor parents should have the same choice.
- Competition between schools is increased, leading to greater efficiency and results in all schools.
- Private schools have a better history of getting results in teaching information and values than public schools.
- Those parents who send their kids to private schools must in effect pay twice; i.e. their taxes pay for public schools that their children don't even attend.
- Providing private school access to everyone will increase diversity.
- The parent makes the choice between religious or non-religious schooling; thus, the government isn't imposing religion.
- No Child Left Behind surely is not working.

Summary:
School vouchers are generally touted as a method by which the poor can opt to send their children to private schools, without paying taxes for public education. Usually persons in favor of this tend to be Catholic, and wish to educate their children as such. What many people disregard is that most legislation that suggests vouchers strongly favors a break for the very rich from paying into public education, and will not support the middle class and poor in their desires to send children to private schools. Nonetheless, none should be exempt from paying into public education. If these people don't wish to pay twice, because of a failing education system, then they have the obligation and responsibility to fix it. Other avenues are also available to the middle class and poor to gain entry into private schools, such as scholarships. In lieu of the fact that vouchers support the rich and seek to destroy public education, then it should be obvious that vouchers are more of a threat than a call to competition for the betterment of education.

Refutation of each point:
- School vouchers favor the rich. In fact, most voucher programs favor exorbitantly rich persons, and try to exempt rich persons from paying taxes that support public education. Vouchers for the poor are hardly a factual matter. Most people in favor of vouchers are also in favor or private indoctrination through religion, instead of traditional earning. What is worse No Child Left Behind, or giving precedence to god over learning?

- Competition between schools should not come at the expense of public education. Vouchers mean less money is being funneled into public education, thus making it difficult for public schools to compete with ALREADY limited state and federal funds coming their way. We are talking about the future here. Why would we want to compete with something so precious? Get it right or don't do it at all. It isn't worth having losers in a game that involves the future, and will ultimately be detrimental when we realize who the losers were. Everyone has the right to a good education, and playing games to see who can provide the best education is callous morally wrong. All people deserve a good education regardless of which school they can afford.

- Private schools get results, because rich kids get precedence over the poor. Vouchers only further the problem. More money should go to public education, instead of letting the rich write themselves off. We have terrible underfunded education systems, because there is not sufficient funding to support the system. Not because they are any less effective that private schools. If you were to input all private schools funds into the same apparatus, then it would succeed in the same manner. The rich care about their children, not other children, and this should not be tolerated. Vouchers are hardly altruistic in their nature, and promote elitism of the highest caliber. As if to say that private education is inherently superior for no good reason, while public education rots when the rich continue to deny further funding to public education.

- If you pay twice, then that is your business. If you don't like public education, then change it by protesting for better funding. Just because you decide to spend your money elsewhere for double the education does not mean that public education should suffer the consequences.

- Private schools do not increase diversity. Many private schools are religiously based, and consequently rich white kids all going to the rich white school are not really all that diverse. Remember that most people eligible for vouchers will be the rich, at least according to most voucher legislation in effect.

- If parents want vouchers on religious grounds, then they need to realize that a secular education is timeless. Secularism in education is an on going tradition. For good reason, 1 + 1 = 2 does not involves god, nor do many other basic education subjects. If parents disagree with some views, then schools can welcome different opinions while remaining neutral. Parents can educate their children according to their beliefs and standards. A secular education teaches nothing but the facts, and should therefore be no worse off than a religious education. I would even say that more could be learned without god interrupting in the learning experience of children.

- No Child Left Behind is failing. It is failing because federally mandated tests fail children of varying backgrounds. Why? Mostly because we do not invest enough in state education. Eliminate NCLB, and learn to accept that no population is the same, thus the needs of different students should be met by instating different programs for them. Funding funding funding! It is without a doubt the biggest problem inherent in the system. Vouchers want to take away our dearly needed funds for measures that will surely be detrimental to our educational systems over time.

To respond to the comments made by kels as the rebuttal to my argument.

I will admit wrong in that you are correct that probably most rich white kids are not the only makeup of these schools, nor should it be ignored that there is much more diversity than I acknowledged or knew of. That you for this clarification. However, it can be said that most legislation for vouchers will without a doubt favor rich white kids over the poor working class that are already attempting to stay afloat. It is in my opinion that at least within the U.S. schools should garner public funding without exception, even if those persons for some reason do not appreciate public school. No one is prohibiting them from private prayers or lack of worship, and an excess of god in education is abhorrently unnecessary. The government finds an educated populous to be valuable, and will give everyone the opportunity to be educated. If persons so choose to spend on education that does the same job elsewhere for more money, then that is their business. For highly destitute families that insist on private education, then perhaps some type of voucher would be in order. Voucher legislation as I have seen favors the rich without a doubt.

Well, it seems as if my opponent has been silenced either with account deletion or banning. I cannot speak to the fact that this a good debate, but I tried to give what I knew on the subject and argue to that point of view.

Vouchers in in theory a great idea, but probably will detract from the current public education if they are implement, thus they should not be seen as a viable solution to financial woes, especially considering their bias toward the rich.

Make your decision thence! I know that you will probably vote your own opinions, but there is nothing I can do to stop you.

Thanks!