Does offering school vouchers equate to throwing money at a problem versus solving it?

Question

The vouchers doesn't pay for half of the overall expense of private schools anyway. Am I wrong? I would like your opinions on this.

Answer 1

Vouchers are a way that religious schools can get money from the tax payers. It's a win-win situation for them since, as you say it' doesn't pay of half of the cost of going to a private school, so the "undesirables" can't attend the private school and gets stuck in the public school system, while the upper-middle class & rich go to private institutions with the tax-payer paying for some of their tution.
Meanwhile the money that is taken from public schools just makes things that much worse for them.

Answer 2

Nice use of conservative language with the "throwing money at the problem" term.

As many are now figuring out (including Opra ), it isn't the schools. It isn't the teachers. It isn't even money.

Its the kids, parents, and communities they live in.

If the adults in a child's life aren't serious about that child's education, the child is far less likely to take it seriously either. Traditionally, Catholics who send their children to Catholic school are more likely to be VERY serious about it because they are paying for it, as opposed to a person who has been taught that education will not get them anywhere, and they get that education for free.

As for the amount of money put in...public schools must also teach the children who have educational challenges, (such as autism, blindness, deafness) and provide specialists for them. The private schools can decide to kick Johnny out of school for getting a B instead of an A.

Please note: In my county, the public schools are equal to the private schools academically. This includes three seperate school districts. And its mostly because the parents have always traditionally given a damn in both the private and public sectors.

Vouchers won't change a thing about parents who don't care about their kids education.

Answer 3

First, the problem is that the poor people are often stuck putting their children in schools that fail to teach them, have very high drop-out rates, have significant discipline problems and violence, and generally fail to teach the children. But they cannot afford to go to other schools, and their children are stuck in a terrible learning environment.

Second, these are usually in big cities - Democrat majority areas. The school boards and the teachers and their unions are usually Democrats. So, basically, there is no way the Democrats are going to support a proposal that would upset their union lobby, so they fight against this.

Third, most private parochial schools cost significantly less per pupil than public schools. The vouchers would likely cover the costs of most non-government schools, except the very exclusive ones.

Last, if the government schools are so much better, would not people keep their kids in them? So why are they so vehement about preventing competition? Public schools are NOT a jobs program for Democrat supporting unions. If they are failing to teach our children, and they've been failing for years in some districts, then maybe a change is needed.

Answer 4

It is funny how Democrats (and a few Conservative traitors who will remain nameless), are forcefully attempting to create a system of socialized medicine in US, and hold Canada up as an example to emulate. However, the Democrats would never agree to emulate Canada's approach to education.

Most Canadian provinces have school vouchers, which subsidize, in most cases, nearly two thirds of the cost of any private school. In fact, Canada actually takes this one step further. Your children can attend any public school you wish. So, if you feel that a school 10 miles away offers better education than your local one, you are free to have your children attend that school. The only thing you have to do is provide transportation.

So, please tell me again why the Democrats want socialism for our medical system, yet they will not emulate a socialist country's education system?

The bottom line is school vouchers are the best thing for children. With a system of vouchers in place, the added competition will make the level of education of every child in all schools better.

Democrats do not support it because the teachers' unions do not want it. So, the Democrats server the needs of special interest groups over the needs of the children.

Answer 5

Not all kids who go to private schools are wealthy, that is just ignorant to say something like that. I went to private school and I had a full time job as I went to high school so I could get that good education. More so, many of the teachers in private schools make a hell of a lot less then public school teachers, and they put in more time with their students because they are concerned about the students welfare and not their pay check. Show me a public school where the teachers union would okay a teacher to spend time with their students after school, tutoring, or helping them, even running a club, and not getting paid for that extra time.
Vouchers give kids who want to go to a private school the opportunity to go to that school. Also, in private schools you have to make the grade and do well, or you get thrown out. Not like public schools who, by law, are not allowed to throw a student out unless that student is going to jail or juvenile hall.
It has nothing to do with politics, but with the teachers.
I wonder how many of the people that answer this question are licensed teachers who are actually teaching, and not students studying, or subs either?

Answer 6

How is it "throwing money at a problem"? It doesn't cost one additional cent. The state would give a parent a voucher equal to the money it would have spent to pay for the kid to go to public school. The parent can then use it towards public, private, or parochial school.

\The voucher system adds market values to education. Anything to break the monopoly of public education is by definition a good thing.

Answer 7

outline the challenge, smart toddlers no longer receiving a intense high quality guidance. If the mum and father are dissatisfied with the guidance at their public college, yet won't be able to have adequate money a private college guidance elsewhere, college vouchers (on the state element) ought to help sparkling up their problem. ought to it sparkling up the challenge of why the conventional public college in question isn't providing the conventional guidance? now unlikely, to be truthful. perchance with vouchers, college directors will call for extra from themselves, instructors, mom and father and scholars via contest. yet inspite of in the adventure that they don't, a minimum of a few toddlers receives a much better guidance.

Answer 8

I don't get why you call it "throwing money at a problem" -- how so?

I call the idea mis-guided, and harmfull, and lots of other bad things, but I don't see how it's "throwing money at the problem."

You're right that only the money-ed would be able to take advantage of such a program, and that it would make more sense to fix public schools so all kids get good educations.

But I wouldn't characterize it as throwing money at the problem.

Answer 9

Parents put their kids in privarte school to get away from the Public School mentality, what are we doing if we are sending a bunch of public school kids over to the privatre schools?

Answer 10

There should be no public money for private schools.

Fix the problems with the public schools and you will not need vouchers.

The public school systems are underfunded. Why should our tax dollars go to funding and establishing private schools.

So there is no money to fund public schools but somehow there is money to send kids to learn how to be a religious extremist in a private school.

What a crock.