The basic concept of a school voucher is to allow a parent the freedom of choice where their child would be schooled at. At the top level the choice would be a choice between public and private followed by a particular school within one of those groups.The rich often send their children to private schools because they want the best for their children. The rest of the population is expected to send their children to public schools where, according to the status quo, they will receive an excellent education.
As an example look at Senator Kennedy, a strong pro-public school supporter, always pushing though more and more money for public schools - yet, they aren't quite good enough for his children. He expects the parents of other children to use a system that he promotes yet he sends his children to private schools.
In 1997 then President Clinton vetoed Washington D.C.'s first voucher proposal - obviously in support of the public school system. In 1997 the Clintons were paying their final tuition for Chelsea to attend D.C.'s elite private school, Sidwell Friends. Just two of thousands of public offices at all levels that superficially push for public schools while putting their children through the private ones. Ever wonder why?
Like the dark side of the force the teachers' unions lobby against legislation that helps parents afford alternatives to public schools, but then often turn around and send their kids to private school. A 1995 study by the Center for Education Reform indicated urban public school teachers were more than twice as likely as other urban residents to choose private school for their families.
Back in the early 1990's California tried to pass a pro-school-choice initiative. Pro-school choice advocates were fighting to pass a voucher initiative that would give every student in California $2,600 to use at the public or private school of his choice. No one on either side of the debate pretended that the public schools were doing a good job, or that the current system was a model for education. But the teachers' unions and the state education bureaucracy saw school choice as threatening their positions. Therefore, they hotly denied that competition is better for education and that parents know best how to care for their children. With a month and a half to go before the election, they had spent a total of $8.9 million to defeat school choice. By contrast, the proponents of the initiative had spent only $740,000.
Next post: still more on the liberal-socialist public schools.
8 comments:
Just two of thousands of public offices at all levels that superficially push for public schools while putting their children through the private ones. Ever wonder why?
Very simple answer -- They're hypocrites!!
Pro-school choice advocates were fighting to pass a voucher initiative that would give every student in California $2,600 to use at the public or private school of his choice. No one on either side of the debate pretended that the public schools were doing a good job, or that the current system was a model for education. But the teachers' unions and the state education bureaucracy saw school choice as threatening their positions. Therefore, they hotly denied that competition is better for education and that parents know best how to care for their children.
This may come as a shock to you, but I don't want my taxpayer dollars going to PRIVATE institutions. Look, if rich parents want to send their kids to private schools, I can't stop them. But why should I have to help foot the bill? Isn't that what being rich is all about, to have the resources to do what you want? Why should I be required to pay part of the cost for someone who voluntarily opts out of the public system?
Look, I've been married to my wonderful wife for 20+ years. We have chosen not to have children. I don't mind having a portion of our taxes going to fund public institutions of learning. A better educated society is a better society. But I'll be damned if the state is going to take my money to pay for some rich kid to go to x academy or y prep school. This doesn't better society -- it only betters a small portion while leaving the rest behind!
In the voucher system property taxes directed to education would instead go to vouchers. With that in mind you would have the choice as a parent (if you had children).
In your comments above you could choose to send your child to a public school while your neighbor, at the same income level as yourself (for example), would be able to choose to send their child to a private school. It's about choice.
I'll leave it up to you to ponder which child would have a better chance of academic as well as character-building success.
In this system I doubt very much of the public school system would continue to exist - which is why the public school unions put up a most extreme fight whenever this choice comes up. They know.
In your comments above you could choose to send your child to a public school while your neighbor, at the same income level as yourself (for example), would be able to choose to send their child to a private school. It's about choice.
Get real! Most private schools are going to charge way more than your silly $2600 voucher. The nose-bleed schools are going to charge a heck of a lot more to insure that folks of a certain income level can't afford it.
Consequently, the rich and well-to-do will send their children to schools with big endowments buffeted by public dollars. Below that will be the rest of the schools that will be more starved for public funds than they are now.
A voucher system will institutionalize a caste system. The poor and working class will send their children to the least funded schools which will produce substandard education. Such students will stand little chance of being accepted into the best colleges. Consequently, these students will not have the opportunity to get the best jobs.
Children will have their futures mapped out for them based on their parent's earning power. (Sort of like the gulf between white schools and black schools prior to Brown v. Topeka Board of Ed.)
the socialist do-gooders like to talk about "leveling the playing field" so that everybody is equal and has "equal opportunity." What they fail to point out is that when you "level" things you are knocking them down, destroying things, lowering the heights which can be attained.
Pundit,
Boy, I'd say you're a cynic. Why should a level playing field bring people down? Why can't it raise everybody up?
Hey Pundit,
Your comment on "level playing fields" spurred my to write on that very topic on my blog. You should check it out, though I'm certain you won't agree with my analysis at all!
Pundit, trey is just trying to get people to his miserable site - a site where most of his content it about bashing religions other than his own (Taoism), while at the same time trying to pitch to his readers how everyone should try to build bridges of tolerance.
I'm sure "a level playing field" helps those that are too lazy to help themselves.
OBVIOUSLY, Justadog hasn't spent very much time READING (or maybe his problem is comprehension) my blog. If he had, he would have read that I'm not a big fan of "tolerance". This provides, yet again, another example of how this blog's host writes things without anything to back up his assertions. I think the popular term for this is "Shooting from the hip".
Post a Comment