DC Voucher Plan: Good idea or bad idea?

I have heard mixed reviews about the plan proposed for the District of Columbia. I recently heard that the mayor of DC, the school board chief, and some city council members, all support it. Supposedly low-income children will be able to use a $7,500 voucher at participating private and parochial schools within the District. I am inclined to support this.

I don't buy the argument that because some of the participating schools will be parochial/religious, that we shouldn't support this program. The parent will be able to take that voucher and use it in a school of their choosing, and maybe their child would have a better chance to succeed.

I also don't buy the argument that because vouchers will not be available to everyone(only to a few hundred, maybe thousand students), that we should not support this. I liken this to the Tiatnic situation of 1912: We had a sinking ship, and there were only a few lifeboats. There was not room on the boats for everyone, but for a few. Should every child have to suffer because there is not room for everyone? I don't think so. I think that we should test this program out and see how it goes.

Mayor Williams and a lot of city administrators(fellow Democrats, by the way) support this proposal. Don't they know better than Congress how to run their schools? We should let them run with it, I think. We, as Democrats, should be standing up for these children and finding new innovative solutions to school problems. More money simply has not worked. DC spends more than 11,000 per pupil and has some of the worst schools in the country, according to teachers, parents, and students.

Tell me what you think below, if you wish.

you already know how I feel. :kick:

vouchers = bad, always, period.

.

n/t.

basically to gut the public school system so that public schools become worse and worse and everyone takes the vouchers. then end public schools like the right wingers want (because it's socialism)

and the private schools can provide the same service for less resources, why shouldn't the parents be able to choose? Schools will eventually spring up at all cost and academic levels...

Sorry BB. lol

if they don't want to.

and besides, I hate private schools. I've always seen them as stupid prep farms with uniforms. blech.

why shouldn't parents have to pay...except they already do (taxes)
and your hating the private schools is irrelevant..
I hate cats...can I do away with them?

so parents shouldn't have to pay for it for any kid. and what if they can't afford it?

do you actually support abolishing public education?

are schooled...and as I said...parents already pay thru taxes, so why should they be denied a selection of vendors?...it's dishonest to take X amount of money from a family and then say the education is free, if they want something else they have to cough up MORE money...

they're loaded anyway. it's part of the way progressive taxation works. the rich pay more.

lots of people work more than one job to send their kids to a private school...and if they are wealthy they are already paying more for the same education...something the education establishment should think about long and hard

All kids NEED an education. Free market schooling ("Schools will eventually spring up at all cost and academic levels") means that good schools AND bad schools will arise. The bad schools will not go out of business simply because they are bad. They simply will not be able to charge as much. But they will be there as long as there are kids to educate (and voucher monety to take).

All of the kids will need an education, and the ones with less money will have no choice but to go to these bad schools. The good schools will be more expensive and only those that can supplement vouchers (i.e those with higher incomes) will be able to afford them. The bad schools (and we already have MANY in our fledgling voucher program here in Florida) will be free to "educate" the rest.

It is in the interest of EVERYONE to have a UNIFORM system of public education, so that we do not exacerbate crime, poverty, and other societal problems which result from an uneducated populace. This is not a new idea. It is common to most civilized societies.

if its 'always bad' then it will show itself to be that way and it'll provide data to support the anti voucher effort. It can't get any worse for those kids and I think its worth trying to see if it helps them. The people closest to the situation want it, thats good enough for me.

Their only intent is to punish teachers and teacher unions for supporting Democrats and the Democratic Party for so many years.

why would Mayor Williams(a Democrat) support the plan? Do you have any logic? I see so many two or three sentence replies that have no logic at all.

But every voucher program they push for out here in Colorado is developed by Republicans and pushed by Republicans, and they specifically say they're trying to hurt the teachers' unions.

n/t

doesn't have a vote. she's irrelevant.

the fact is they both represent DC.

First, many inner city and minority Democrats (and the politicians with them as a constituency) support vouchers because they are desperate. Their schools are even more inadequately funded than most, because of the reliance on property taxes for much of local school budgets. They see ANY chance at a better education as worth pursuing. Vouchers are their only way to send their kids to a school other than the ones in their neighborhoods, which are usually the most dilapidated, underfunded ones out there. In short, they are being selfish (but I can't say I blame them).

As to the logic of the rest of the poster's statement... Voucher proponents are by-and-large Republicans, Christians, and conservative ones at that. They are upset that the courts have repeatedly ruled against prayer in school, against creationism in school, etc. They are upset that money is taken from them in the form of taxes for school, yet they "have" top send their kids to schools which teach things they do not believe in (they do not have to). Problem is, these things are tenets of their FAITH, and they can damn well teach them on their own time to their own kids. School is for the three R's, remember?

THAT is why Republicans are trying to destroy the public school system. In short, they don't want to pay to educate everyone if it is not done the way they want (if their religion is not taught in school). THAT is why the poster phrased it as "punishing Democrats".

But educating the populace is in the deepest public interest. It is as much as roads, police and a national defense. THAT is why we pay taxes for it. It is not paying tuition for our own particular child. We may not even have children, but we still pay these taxes.

Vouchers for the poor isn't a horrible idea, but it's insidious. No freeper worth his salt gives a damn about poor inner city black kids. They are all just waiting for the camel's nose to get under the tent, and once vouchers are acceptable, they want to expand them to allow wealthy white folks to get vouchers to pay for their kids private schooling.

And like I said, what borave now is ridiculous. Something needs to change.

all get the same size voucher...gov't plays no favorites

the town counsel and school board ....parents and teachers in DC ALL say NO to vouchers....

vouchers are a BAD thing...why are they pushing vouchwers on DC in the senate when DC has no representation? why aren't these repuke senators pushing it in their own districts if they are such a good thing??...i'll tell you why...because NO ONE in theri districts will have them - vouchers!!!...but repukes wanna push it on poor folks without representation! :puke:

oh and where did you get this "$7,500" figure from????...vouchers offer only $1,000 tops to parents....that would not help anyone who cannot dig up the other $7/8K needed for annual tution

in a few years many areas will have vouchers...voted in by the public...

... vouchers can go to anyone who sets up a school. The mantra of "they're acountable to the PARENT'S" is repeated ad infinitum when questions about the qualifications of these voucher schools come up.

Sure, if the parents don't like it, they can take their kids elsewhere. Meanwhile, kids have sat through a year or two of schools with no books, food from soup kitchens, and few teachers (in one case, many of whom were summarily fired for complaining about such conditions). Special Needs schools have been opened up with no one anywhere near the school having any qualifications in teaching special needs kids. One school took a class to the beach, and a child drowned because there was inadequate adult supervision. The same school was found to have unsafe transportation in two audits.

The list goes on. These schools are accountable to no one, and the mantra of "they're acountable to the PARENT'S" is repeated ad infinitum. Yet before the parents can decide if the school is doing a good job and "hold them accountable" (by removing their child), their children have to be pulled out of their current school and need to suffer in these schools for a year, or two, or more. Then the children are hopelessly behind in their education, and need to start over at another school. Not to mention the significant physical and mental delay that special needs children can encounter if not assessed and taught properly (and the afore-mentioned death). Not to mention vouchers starve public schools of resources.

The problem with public schools is inadequate, and inequitable, funding. There is nothing to indicate that private schools can do a better job than public schools save for higher income brackets attending (intelligence and performance is conclusively linked to economic situation, nutrition, etc.) and the fact that private schools can pick and choose their students. If we move towards vouchers, the free market will decide how our children are educated, and the ones who cannot afford it will be further penalized by attending the inferior schools. Public school, in the interest of society as a whole, at leat attempts to uphold some standards so that every child has the chance at an equal education. It's not perfect, but my GOD, at least there are some standards.

Where did you hear 1,000? I'm pretty sure it's more. If it's $1000 I won't support it.

It provides money for vouchers, but it also provides a lot of additional money for the public schools. So the public schools have more resources, plus a few thousand poor children get private school scholarships.

:)

Will these private schools be held to the same standards as the public schools?

Will these private schools accept all students, like the public schools are required to do?

Will these private schools lower their tuition so that $7500 will cover it?

If private schools had to deal with the same issues the public schools are required to deal with, the voucher issue would be a non-issue.