Obama's Balls OK?

[MJZiggy]

The couple problems I have with vouchers are these:

1. How are we going to find enough private schools in this country with enough openings to accommodate every kid from a crappy school.

2. Like I mentioned in another thread, if the kid has no parental support, it doesn't matter whether we've paid for that kid to go to a decent school or not. He will either succeed or fail in the better school the same as he'd succeed or fail in the bad one.

3. If my taxes are paying for schools, and under a voucher program, they seemingly would be, why then do I have to fork over extra money, because they've failed with the first money I gave them. They need to fix what's broken, not pay so they can break something else.

4. How did we go from Barack Obama's balls to school vouchers?

[HowardRoark]

The couple problems I have with vouchers are these:

1. How are we going to find enough private schools in this country with enough openings to accommodate every kid from a crappy school.

2. Like I mentioned in another thread, if the kid has no parental support, it doesn't matter whether we've paid for that kid to go to a decent school or not. He will either succeed or fail in the better school the same as he'd succeed or fail in the bad one.

3. If my taxes are paying for schools, and under a voucher program, they seemingly would be, why then do I have to fork over extra money, because they've failed with the first money I gave them. They need to fix what's broken, not pay so they can break something else.

4. How did we go from Barack Obama's balls to school vouchers?

1. Once a monopoly is broken up it is amazing how new and better things pop up. Look at the phone business once Ma Bell was busted up.
2. A-men. Agree completely.

3. I don't think it should be a new, extra system. It would be a replacement system.

4. If Jesse doesn't cut off Obama's balls, he might have the courage to do the right thing. Vouchers.

[HowardRoark]

I think we might be having a little Rashomon issue here. From my perspective, there will always be so called “inequities” in the system; there will still be $30,000/yr. prep schools, and the average kid will still never be able to afford going to that school.

ok fine. but i sure as hell am not OK with vouchers being applied towards 30K prep schools.

a goal of your “fix” would be equal access for all kids. I don’t believe that is possible. The issue is that the education system seems to not be working too well.

A good education for ALL kids is certainly the goal. Why are you for vouchers? To improve education for half the kids? The critical educational problem is in the lower third economically.

How would you determine the dollar value of a generic “semester tuition” voucher. Could I then throw in some of my own money and go to a better school? If not, what will keep the real good teachers from leaving the profession if they don’t think the pre-determined value of a “voucher” is adequate? This system would push out the good teachers, and further diminish the system.

I am completely confused by what you are saying. Why would you be throwing in extra money - the idea is that the voucher pays full tuition. Now, there would have to be some limit on it. And if you want to send your kid to some extremely expensive prep school, you'll have to do it without a voucher.

MAybe you can explain how vouchers will work in your ideal view. Would your plan allow all kids from very poor areas to attend good private schools? That sounds like quite an expensive undertaking!

And as far as the public/government schools being largely abandoned, who cares? That means they were not educating our kids properly. On the flip side, if government schools are all that are left, why would I care?

I think you are being completely unrealistic about the degree to which private schools can replace public schools. What is your plan to accomodate the HUGELY burdensome special needs students? Currently private schools just don't take them.

Speaking of special needs students, how do you do that thing where you put a box around certain parts text? That would seem pretty useful. I usually need to get on the short bus when it comes to these internets.

Again, I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I think there is a “greater good” for all citizens of a country to pitch in to have an educated society. I think that monopolies ALWAYS bring DOWN the quality of a product. There is, generally speaking, a monopoly in the business of educating our children. I think most people agree that we have an education problem in this country. Or, is that just campaign rhetoric in order to get more money for “the kids?” I am just connecting the dots.

Furthermore, I am also against the redistribution of wealth; when you say that someone who sends there kid to a $30,000/year prep school should NOT be allowed to get a voucher too, I consider that a redistribution of wealth.

Basically, I think every kid in the country should get a voucher worth whatever they currently receive via public education and they should be allowed to go wherever they want with that money; private, public or parochial. For what it’s worth, the people who jump for joy at the prospect of this are single black mothers. And yes, this WILL bring the lowest third to a much higher level of education.

I send my kids to private school. I have to prioritize financially to allow my kids to go to private schools. But the reality of it is that vouchers won’t change my situation. It will save me money, but my kids are going to private regardless. Same as the kid who goes to the prep school, this won’t change their life.

Vouchers would by far have at the biggest impact on the lowest third of society.

[Charles Woodson]

The couple problems I have with vouchers are these:

1. How are we going to find enough private schools in this country with enough openings to accommodate every kid from a crappy school.

1. Once a monopoly is broken up it is amazing how new and better things pop up. Look at the phone business once Ma Bell was busted up.

Wait what do you mean, i go to a ""prep school"" down here in miami, and will tell ya that my school, and alot of other prep schools have huge waiting lists.

[mraynrand]

Vouchers would by far have the biggest impact on the lowest third of society.

This is true in Cleveland, where the parochial schools are filled with voucher (and non-voucher) kids who have given up on the public schools. And this answers the question about parenting that Zig mentioned - kids who are moved tend to have parent(s) that are involved and care - and they naturally do better. That's why fatherless households tend to be such a disaster. Even more worrisome is the stat that 1:10 births in the US are to mexican americans and of these new births only HALF of the mothers have high school educations. Get that? 1 of every 20 new births in this country is a mexican american with a mother WITHOUT even a high school education. Exclusive of race is the general problem that today's new parents may not be equipped to make sure their kids are properly educated, simply because they lack the basic skills and family structure that strongly correlate with successfully educated kids. It's going to take a lot of balls to change this.

[Scott Campbell]

I think we might be having a little Rashomon issue here. From my perspective, there will always be so called “inequities” in the system; there will still be $30,000/yr. prep schools, and the average kid will still never be able to afford going to that school.

ok fine. but i sure as hell am not OK with vouchers being applied towards 30K prep schools.

Why not? What difference should it make?

Or are you discriminating against people because of their wealth again?

[texaspackerbacker]

Vouchers might help in a behavioral or motivational sense, but they only marginally address the real problem: the attitudes and behavior of the students.

As little as 2 or 3 troublemaker students in a class of 20-30 can destroy the learning environment. Quality of teachers is often a matter not of how effectively they can prepare and teach, but to what degree they can stem the tide of poor classroom discipline. And very few have much success in this area. There simply are no magic bullets, and most teachers, principals, and school districts are hamstrung from getting rid of the troublemakers.

Vouchers and charter schools--which are one of the chief beneficiaries of vouchers--help this primary problem in the sense that they allow parents to get their kids out of the adverse learning environment--away from the troublemakers. Of course, some, mainly on the liberal side of the spectrum, oppose this because it smacks of a limited return to segregation.

[Scott Campbell]

The problem with the voucher concept is this. How do you decide who gets them. Some kid in a piss poor school gets one and goes to a great school. OK, now how about the kid in a merely below average or average school. Why should kid one get to go to a better school than kids 2 and 3?

Vouchers should calculated at the average amount of money it takes to put a kid through public school. If people want to apply that amount to partially pay for a public education, then so be it. If the public schools are competitive, then people will leave their kids there.

As in all things with price tags, the wealthy have more options than the poor. School is no different.

[Scott Campbell]

As little as 2 or 3 troublemaker students in a class of 20-30 can destroy the learning environment.

I think liberals would rather hold back the other 28 rather than risk being unfair to the 2 troublemakers. I think the real benchmark needs to be the overall output of the school systems. Are we getting a better overall product (well educated students) as a result of public policy. We can't allow the bottom 5% screw up the overall product. We compete against countries in a global economy that won't sacrifice the potential of the exceptional in the name of being fair to the slackers.

[mraynrand]

As in all things with price tags, the wealthy have more options than the poor. School is no different.

This is true, but it doesn't stop kids from getting a great - GREAT - education. This is what I ask my liberal friends: IF I gave you 140K, do you think you could educate 20 kids for 9 months? Not one has answered no. And 7K/kid is pretty much the bottom of the barrel amount that the fed gives out to schools in the worse areas with the lowest local tax bases. The point is that it doesn't take much to educate youngsters. They don't need fancy school buildings, sports facilities and computers and brand new text books. If you look at a lot of studies, you actually find that mixed aged/grade schools actually perform better - the younger kids have role models for behaviour and they get extra guidance from older kids while the teacher teaches other kids. And kids are taught to be independent - significantly in learning to think for themselves. But it all depends on kids coming from home structures where discipline exists. That's why these voucher programs tend to work - because it selects for children with involved parents.

[sheepshead]

Abolish the teachers union and pay teachers incentive laden contracts based on student performance. Give them the potential to double their income immediately.

[Scott Campbell]

The point is that it doesn't take much to educate youngsters.

Correction - it shouldn't take much to educate youngsters. But there's a massive government beaurocratic empire, and a bloated union infrastructure that we need to support too.

[GoPackGo]

Abolish the teachers union and pay teachers incentive laden contracts based on student performance. Give them the potential to double their income immediately.

I agree with that. John McCain's position on education is similiar

[mraynrand]

The point is that it doesn't take much to educate youngsters.

Correction - it shouldn't take much to educate youngsters. But there's a massive government beaurocratic empire, and a bloated union infrastructure that we need to support too.

Accepted. Except for the NEED part.

[Scott Campbell]

The point is that it doesn't take much to educate youngsters.

Correction - it shouldn't take much to educate youngsters. But there's a massive government beaurocratic empire, and a bloated union infrastructure that we need to support too.

Accepted. Except for the NEED part.

Need can work very well, if you substitute liberals for we.

[texaspackerbacker]

As little as 2 or 3 troublemaker students in a class of 20-30 can destroy the learning environment.

I think liberals would rather hold back the other 28 rather than risk being unfair to the 2 troublemakers. I think the real benchmark needs to be the overall output of the school systems. Are we getting a better overall product (well educated students) as a result of public policy. We can't allow the bottom 5% screw up the overall product. We compete against countries in a global economy that won't sacrifice the potential of the exceptional in the name of being fair to the slackers.

I wholeheartedly agree, Scott, but how can we make it happen? That is the question. That liberal attitude of dragging down the majority so as to not be unfair to the minority has been thoroughly institutionalized in our laws and court cases over the last almost half century. It will not easily be overturned or overcome.

[GoPackGo]

I wholeheartedly agree, Scott, but how can we make it happen? That is the question. That liberal attitude of dragging down the majority so as to not be unfair to the minority has been thoroughly institutionalized in our laws and court cases over the last almost half century. It will not easily be overturned or overcome.

You give the teachers financial incentives to deal harshly with problem students who drag down the rest of the class. I guarantee, if the class is being dragged down by individuals and the test scores and grades cause a teacher to miss a bonus, they won't let that happen again.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Furthermore, I am also against the redistribution of wealth; when you say that someone who sends there kid to a $30,000/year prep school should NOT be allowed to get a voucher too, I consider that a redistribution of wealth.

You are turning your back on the current problem of a disgracefull distribution of educational opportunity. The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.

Basically, I think every kid in the country should get a voucher worth whatever they currently receive via public education and they should be allowed to go wherever they want with that money; private, public or parochial.

This is an ideological pure approach that will make a bad situation far worse. The public schools will be choked for funds, and left to deal with ALL the students with behavior problems, the special ed kids who require $100K of staff to deal with each of the them, and the poor kids who can not afford the incidental and direct costs of getting to private schools. And the vouchers will of course raise the cost of private schools.

You started out complaining about your friends in education who tremble at introduction of competition into their business. Well, if it done in the unchecked way you advocate, it will destroy public education. How well is that Invisible Hand working in health care? 60M people have none. Your Ayn Rand Ideologically Certified approach can not work for all services that government delivers.

For what it’s worth, the people who jump for joy at the prospect of this are single black mothers. And yes, this WILL bring the lowest third to a much higher level of education.....Vouchers would by far have at the biggest impact on the lowest third of society.

Empty words. Who is going to build all these wonderful private schools in the inner city? I understand on a small scale it could help a select few.

You've created a free market where the quality of education is going to be tied directly to the amount that the consumer can afford to pay, just like with automobiles.

I have been open-minded to vouchers because I know there are some conservatives who genuinely want to use market forces to improve education from top to bottom, AND they are practical about it.

[HowardRoark]

Furthermore, I am also against the redistribution of wealth; when you say that someone who sends there kid to a $30,000/year prep school should NOT be allowed to get a voucher too, I consider that a redistribution of wealth.

You are turning your back on the current problem of a disgracefull distribution of educational opportunity. The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.

Basically, I think every kid in the country should get a voucher worth whatever they currently receive via public education and they should be allowed to go wherever they want with that money; private, public or parochial.

This is an ideological pure approach that will make a bad situation far worse. The public schools will be choked for funds, and left to deal with ALL the students with behavior problems, the special ed kids who require $100K of staff to deal with each of the them, and the poor kids who can not afford the incidental and direct costs of getting to private schools. And the vouchers will of course raise the cost of private schools.

You started out complaining about your friends in education who tremble at introduction of competition into their business. Well, if it done in the unchecked way you advocate, it will destroy public education. How well is that Invisible Hand working in health care? 60M people have none. Your Ayn Rand Ideologically Certified approach can not work for all services that government delivers.

For what it’s worth, the people who jump for joy at the prospect of this are single black mothers. And yes, this WILL bring the lowest third to a much higher level of education.....Vouchers would by far have at the biggest impact on the lowest third of society.

Empty words. Who is going to build all these wonderful private schools in the inner city? I understand on a small scale it could help a select few.

You've created a free market where the quality of education is going to be tied directly to the amount that the consumer can afford to pay, just like with automobiles.

I have been open-minded to vouchers because I know there are some conservatives who genuinely want to use market forces to improve education from top to bottom, AND they are practical about it.

Three quick points, then I have to go for a run:

1. I am OK w/public education going away. As long as education improves, I don't care who does the educating.

2. For the special ed stuff, that should still be intact, but seperated from the overall education question.

3. There is no "invisible hand" in health care. THAT is the problem. The consumer is divorced from the buying decision in the current environment. The third party payer system takes away the "invisible hand."

[Harlan Huckleby]

3. There is no "invisible hand" in health care. THAT is the problem. The consumer is divorced from the buying decision in the current environment. The third party payer system takes away the "invisible hand."

I see. And all the people with pre-existing condition who can not get health insurance are the victims of third party payers. Nothing to do with profit.

You are not facing reality.