OT: Teacher Unions

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by sabotai If a kid can ace pretty much all the classes they take in high school, ace all of their (non-standardized, teacher created) tests, have no problems whatsoever with their homework, ace all the projects they are given, ace all presentations they are assigned....

Yet they take one standardized test and suddenly they are a remedial student, you tell me what the simplest answer would be.

That one's easy -- Based upon everything I've seen & heard, the most likely answer is that the f'n teacher created tests, homework, projects and presentations were designed to either

A)be appropriate for the lowest common denominator available and/or B)Be so simple that the teacher would have to put in the least amount possible to grade the damned thing

SAT tests are MUCH harder than they were 30 years ago, so comparing scores 30 years ago to scores now is irrelevant.

Okay, it's your turn to get asked for some proof, because that's an assertion I don't think I've ever seen before. If anything, the adjusted scale for scoring makes it easier to acheive a high score.

That's funny, cause when I was in college, I talked to several professors who said that the quality of applicants had risen.

I have no earthly idea off-hand where you went to college, so this is not directed at your alma mater in any way. And its even more specifically directed at only a handful of institutions I'm familiar with in some way but ... I can't help but think that's an observation that scares the hell out of me about the historical quality of applicants at some institutions.

[JPhillips]

If we are talking about grade inflation, which I agree is a major problem, I think we can pin a lot of the blame on free market forces. Schools, both colleges and secondary schools, are judged by two sets of numbers, tests and GPA. One way to get more prestige and funding is to get the GPA to rise. There are two ways to do this, make the students smarter or make the grading easier. In general I thik that option two is the choice for poor schools, mediocre schools and great schools. The teacher that fails students will get run out by the administration and the parents. The teacher that gives A's is praised for their great teaching. I say we, meaning those of us that are not teachers, are promoting much of the behavior that we later criticize. How many parents can really accept that their college bound kid deserves a D?

CAM: As to your demand that I produce evidence, check out this thread from a few days ago. School Performance Study

I mistakenly assumed that a thread titled Interesting School Performance Study would have been read by you.

Your argument seems to be that you don't need to prove that schools are failing, but that I need to prove schools aren't. That's ridiculous, and I suspect you know it. Would you put up with me arguing that I don't need to prove that homeschooling retards students socially, you need to prove to me that it doesn't? I enjoy debating with you, but I think you have been caught on a few points here and don't have anything but anecdotal evidence to back up your claims. I don't have any problem with your opinion that vouchers would work better, but you have to prove to me that schools are failing before I buy it.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by JPhillips
If we are talking about grade inflation, which I agree is a major problem, I think we can pin a lot of the blame on free market forces. Schools, both colleges and secondary schools, are judged by two sets of numbers, tests and GPA. One way to get more prestige and funding is to get the GPA to rise. There are two ways to do this, make the students smarter or make the grading easier. In general I thik that option two is the choice for poor schools, mediocre schools and great schools. The teacher that fails students will get run out by the administration and the parents. The teacher that gives A's is praised for their great teaching. I say we, meaning those of us that are not teachers, are promoting much of the behavior that we later criticize. How many parents can really accept that their college bound kid deserves a D?

As a little anecdotal evidence to this, a member of the congregation here is a highschool math teacher who is now looking for a job. She resign (just before being fired) because she refused to just pass people who refused to do homework and never passed a test. The principal told her "that is just not the way it is done anymore."

[CamEdwards]

JPhillips,

The reason I left is because I was getting angry at the tone this thread was starting to take, including my own comments. I thought it best that I step back until I calmed down. I also think I've provided more stats than anyone in this thread showing the decline of public schools over the past 30 years.

The thread you pointed me to shows that the U.S. placed 9th out of 35 industrialized nations in reading. If 9th place is good enough for you, that's okay. It's not good enough for me.

If you want even more statistics showing the decline of public education, I'll give you these. But please stop with the attacks on my integrity.

-The Paris-based international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, whose 1994 survey of the U.S. economy devoted an entire chapter to U.S. education, concluded that "the effectiveness of the primary and secondary education system can broadly be characterized as mediocre at best." The OECD analysts went on to observe, "While it is true that American schools do a particularly poor job of educating blacks and Hispanics, one should not conclude that white students in middle-class suburbs are uniformly well served. In mathematics and science, the nation's top high school students rank far behind much less elite samples of students in other countries."

-The release in December 2000 of the results of the newest International Math & Science Test Series showed U.S. 8th graders showed no improvement on the same test as our 8th graders scored on the prior series, when they scored behind 27 other nations.

-The Associated Press reported "American high school 12th graders scored near the bottom of all nations - out performing only Cyprus and South Africa. A comparison of the high-school elite - those who took physics and advanced math - showed American tied for the bottom. William Schmidt of Michigan State University said, 'for sometime now, Americans have comforted themselves when confronted with such bad news about their education system by believing that our better students compare favorably with the better students in other nations - but, this test again bursts another myth.' There is no excuse for this', said President Clinton to the National Council of Jewish Woman.

-More than 40% of American 10-year-olds cannot pass a basic reading test (although still they are 'socially' promoted), and as many as 42 million adults are functionally illiterate. 'The Economist' (January 22, 1999, pg. 55).

-'Two-thirds of U.S. fourth graders read below grade level and the weakest ones are falling further behind', according to the U.S. Education Department's reading ''Report Card'' released on 6 April 2001.

-The April 2001 OECD report stated "60% of Americans aged 16-25 are 'functionally illiterate', meaning that when it came to, say, filling in a form they were stumped - - and that on the simple numerical (reading a timetable, etc.) test they scored at the bottom of all industrial nations." - The Economist, 14 July 2001, pg. 84

-On SAT scores: "Apologists insist that scores are down because the fraction of students taking the test is up. Perhaps: 42 per cent of seniors took the SAT in 1994, and 43 per cent (a record) in 1993. But average scores managed to rise between 1952 and 1963 even as the share of test-taking seniors exploded from 7 per cent to 30 per cent. Scores fell during the 1970s although fewer students took the test."-Ed Rubinstein, September '94 National Review

- Eric A. Hanushek, from the University of Rochester did a study on the quality of education and found "Education has had relative productivity declines of 3½ percent per year compared to the service sectors."

Those are just a few stats. If you'd like I can post more after I get off the air.

[panerd]

My only comments on the US vs. the world statistics is that we have an education system for every child. (yes, even the crack baby from Los Angeles who has no concept of what a mother or father is) Could we do better? Sure. Would our scores be higher if only 75% (or lower) of our students results were used? Of course. So be careful. You had better look into China, Taiwan, Japan, and other countries who score higher than us. I think you will be surpirsed on what kind of samples are being used for their tests.

[CamEdwards]

Dola: Dawgfan, I found some statistics on single mothers. Again, the divorce rate hasn't dipped "slightly" as you assert. It's the lowest it's been in 30 years, and it's declined steadily since 1982.

27 percent of families (11.9 million moms and dads) are characterized as one-parent families. That's up from 11 percent in 1970. Of course, there's no way to tell how many of those families actually have substantial contact with the parent who doesn't live in the home.

While the numbers are still rising, they are slowing down. There was only 3% growth in the number of single families between 1990 and 1998.
However, since 1996, when welfare reform was enacted, the poverty rate for single mothers has declined by about 20%, from 41.9 to 33.6 percent.

Your theory and my theory are just that, theories. But there's some more data for you.

[JPhillips]

Cam: That study also says that districts where there is low poverty outscored every other nation in the world. That seems to show that at least some public schools are working at the highest level. The question to ask is, what is it about these schools that is different from the high poverty schools and can those lessons be applied to the high poverty districts?

I think you did a pretty good job presenting your case here, although I can't believe you are actually trusting a French statistic! Don't you think they are really only criticizing American education as a way to help Saddam?(I hope that comes off as a joke) Personally, I think the problems with public schools are concentrated in poor districts. I don't know enough to state the solution, but I don't think throwing away the public schools is the best answer.

I have a lot of questions about how voiuchers will work. For example will religious/private schools be expected to accept all applicants, or will they get to take the best and leave the rest to the public schools, thereby creating a truly deadend system for some? In a religious school, say Catholic, will members of that religion get preferential admissions? How can we Constitutionally protect against funding extremist organizations that will teach anti-American values?(And the madrassahs and Christian Identity schools that I am talking about are in a league way worse than anything you can say about the public schools) Would homeschooling be eligible for vouchers, and if so how can we protect against some people that will gladly collect the money from the government without teaching their children, what I will now call "homeschool queens"? How can we have some acountability on education while not stifling the things that private schools do well?

All of the talk about vouchers has focused on the philisophical arguments. While I am interested in these, I am in some respects more worried about how vouchers will work in a practical sense. These questions are normally answeed with a "we'll figure it ot later" kind of appraoch. All of these questions are potential deal breakers for me, and need answers.

[Arles]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Personally, I think the problems with public schools are concentrated in poor districts. I don't know enough to state the solution, but I don't think throwing away the public schools is the best answer.

So, you agree that the poor district schools are failing, but refuse to give a system (vouchers) that has shown marked improvement in poor areas of Ohio and New York a chance?

I have a lot of questions about how voiuchers will work.

And they are all good questions, BTW. I'll try my hand at this.

For example will religious/private schools be expected to accept all applicants, or will they get to take the best and leave the rest to the public schools, thereby creating a truly deadend system for some?

Obviously, Private schools will not be forced to take all applicants. And, that fact, is one of the reasons the schools do well. Unlike Public schools, if you have one or two "bad apple" students that are ruining it for the other 17 students in the class, they can be expelled.

Also, I would be in favor of an additional "credit" given to private schools that take kids below a certain income level. Don't forget that Charter schools would offer a non-religious and inexpensive option for poorer kids as well. And, since they have different regulations, they can handle discipline in a much more successful manner than the straight public schools. And, IMO, the number one problem with the success rate of poorer schools is the inability of teachers to discipline.

In a religious school, say Catholic, will members of that religion get preferential admissions? How can we Constitutionally protect against funding extremist organizations that will teach anti-American values?(And the madrassahs and Christian Identity schools that I am talking about are in a league way worse than anything you can say about the public schools)

Honestly, if a bunch of muslim americans want to get together and start their own "Muslim religious School" I have no problem with that. The reason is that, in a voucher system, I can choose NOT to send my kid to that school. But, if I am a catholic or a person that doesn't mind religious schools living in a poor area, I can choose to use my voucher for a better religious school. If I do not like religious schools, I can choose another Public, Charter or Private school instead.

The point here is that everyone has a choice. In this system, I have options outside of leaving my kid with a failing public school. And, in the end, that's the most important thing.

Would homeschooling be eligible for vouchers, and if so how can we protect against some people that will gladly collect the money from the government without teaching their children, what I will now call "homeschool queens"?

Yes, I think homeschooling should be eligible for vouchers. But, it's not like the government will write me a $3000 check if I say I am homeschooling. My guess is that the money will be in the form of a tax credit for all school supplies and expenses (including time). If you show the receipts of school supplies, books and time spent teaching, then you should get a voucher for those expenses. I would guess it would be treated like a tax writeoff or business expense currently is today. And, you have to show evidence of the action to get the tax benefit.

How can we have some acountability on education while not stifling the things that private schools do well?

That's the beauty of this system. If a private school is doing poorly, parents can simply pull their kids and take them (and their credit) to a different school. The inheirant competition for students will cause standards to improve. Think of it like a business. If I start a private school, I will want to get the most students I can handle (to get the most money). In order to that, I will need to do a good job at educating. Compare that to the current public system.

All of the talk about vouchers has focused on the philisophical arguments. While I am interested in these, I am in some respects more worried about how vouchers will work in a practical sense. These questions are normally answeed with a "we'll figure it ot later" kind of appraoch. All of these questions are potential deal breakers for me, and need answers.

Hopefully my comments helped clear up some of this for you. Those are good questions and I would simply like to get to the point in this country where both the left and right would engage in a healthy debate on this issue. Instead of just dismissing the idea like it appears many are content in doing right now.

Arlie

[JPhillips]

Arles: From what I have read the voucher programs have yet to be verified as being a success. That doesn't mean they aren't but does mean the proof isn't yet there.

As far as extremist groups go, I am much more worried than you. I don't want to use my tax dollars to teach that America is the Great Satan or that God sees blacks as animals. I am open to a lot of variety in teaching and a lot of religious views, but there comes a limit, and I don't know how we can avoid funding these types of schools while still funding other religious entities. I can't imagine that many of the voucher supporters will be happy when a school that teaches nothing but a rote memorization of the Koran gets four thousand per student, which could then be used to fund terrorist activities. I don't mean to sound crazy, but I really think this is a potential problem. Traditionally extremists have alwas taken advantage of programs like these.

As far as the tax credit for homeschooling, faking reciepts would be pretty easy and faking time spent teaching would be enormously so. There would be no way to prove that someoe has or has not been teaching and the IRS would be roasted if they started auditing all homeschoolers.(Rightly so btw) The homeschool issue has not been at all addressed, and has a loophole a mile wide in it. Personally, I don't see any way to include homeschooling without requiring a level of oversight/verification that would cost most homeschoolers almost as much as the tax credit. If welfare created an incentive to have more children to get more money, I think homeschooling with a tax credit or check could have the same effect.

How can we assure that a private school is actually educating better than a another without some sort of verifiable accounting? Grades won't do it as they can be easily inflated like the current system. Test scores are an inexact measurement at best due to the availability of test prep for kids that can afford it. I'm sure that some parents would do as you suggest, but I don't think the majority would be able to truly define school performance. I would like to see some sort of standard expectation for all schooling, but this won't happen because too many political debates about what should be tasught will gum up the works.

I am not opposed to some new approaches to education. I like charter schools. I also would like to see overall school size reduced. Studies have shown that school size probably does make a difference. I think that is a factor in why many private schools do well. A massive flood of students into the private system would erode that advantage. I also would like to see massive urban districts broken up. They are like businesses that have aquired too many subsidiaries and are no longer efficient. Of course my last two suggestions would cost a ton, but I think they could make a real difference.

[CamEdwards]

Jphillips,

Why could you not apply standards to private schools just as you do charter schools? I'm sure if a voucher program takes off, schools that want to be a part of it will have to show their curriculum can still meet state and federal guidelines for education. It's hard to do commit the Koran to memory while also doing your English, math, science, social studies, and foreign language homework.

Because of that, I believe schools that are already at their limit for student population probably wouldn't take part in vouchers. Schools that have room to grow would, limiting the flood of students into the private system.

As far as breaking up massive urban districts... a lot of cities did that decades ago. It was called white flight. Here in Oklahoma City we have the Oklahoma City school district, the Putnam City school district (there is no geographic location called Putnam City, btw... it's actually composed of part of OKC, as well as the town of Bethany), Western Heights school district (again, no town called Western Heights), Millwood (again, no town), and the more affluent portions of Oklahoma City have been incorporated into the suburban school district. I think it would be very difficult to chop up the urban districts in a fair manner (remember, districts get most of their funding from property taxes, so you'd have to make sure the new district boundaries made sense geographically AND economically).

BTW, I like the tone of this thread much better today. We all seem to be taking out our aggression on HornsManiac.

[JPhillips]

Cam: Not every state uses property taxes as funding. BTW I think the property tax issue is a major cause of problems in some school districts. It accentuates an already imbalanced setup.

As to standards, most private schools have completely rejected the idea. I think this is going to end up being a major hangup for the voucher issue. Private schools don't want government in their affairs, but as you say we need some sort of accountability.

As to schools not taking part in vouchers, I just don't see how that could work. If we go to a voucher system, every child should be eligible even if they are already enrolled in a private school. Eventually I believe that there will be pressure to expand for many schools so as to get more money, just like businesses do. I don't think private schools will stay small if they can make money by getting larger.

I agree that we will never break up the big districts, I just think it would be beneficial to.

[Arles]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Arles: From what I have read the voucher programs have yet to be verified as being a success. That doesn't mean they aren't but does mean the proof isn't yet there.

You may want to check out this published study:

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/pubaf...l/voucher.html

"A two-year study on school voucher programs showed a steady improvement in test score performance among black students who participated in the voucher programs in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Dayton, Ohio."

There are many others that have found similar results as well.

Originally posted by JPhillips

As far as extremist groups go, I am much more worried than you. I don't want to use my tax dollars to teach that America is the Great Satan or that God sees blacks as animals. I am open to a lot of variety in teaching and a lot of religious views, but there comes a limit, and I don't know how we can avoid funding these types of schools while still funding other religious entities. I can't imagine that many of the voucher supporters will be happy when a school that teaches nothing but a rote memorization of the Koran gets four thousand per student, which could then be used to fund terrorist activities. I don't mean to sound crazy, but I really think this is a potential problem. Traditionally extremists have alwas taken advantage of programs like these.

How is this any different than the current college system where universities like South Florida have full departments that are currently simply fronts for terrorist funding? When you have freedom, some people will try and take advantage of it. What you do is what the FBI did to South Florida, if they break the law and fund terrorists, you arrest them. If a school simply wants to teach their own Muslim religion, I don't see a problem with that as long as my kid isn't forced to go there.

Originally posted by JPhillips

As far as the tax credit for homeschooling, faking reciepts would be pretty easy and faking time spent teaching would be enormously so. There would be no way to prove that someoe has or has not been teaching and the IRS would be roasted if they started auditing all homeschoolers.(Rightly so btw)

Faking receipts happens in regular business deductions every day as well. Should we stop allowing small businesses to take deductions because a certain percentage will lie and cheat?

The reality is that some parents will undoubtably take the money for homeschooling their kids and not do it. But, the kid doesn't enroll in school so that costs us nothing as a society. I think, like business, you have a process for enstilling fear in people by making such practices illegal.

Originally posted by JPhillips

The homeschool issue has not been at all addressed, and has a loophole a mile wide in it. Personally, I don't see any way to include homeschooling without requiring a level of oversight/verification that would cost most homeschoolers almost as much as the tax credit.

Actually, it's very simple. Kids homeschooled have to pass the same tests public and private schools do to graduate. If they fail, they don't graduate - the same as with current public schools. Also, there is the ACT, SAT, college entrance exams and numerous other ways to gauge how well home-schooled students are doing. The only difference between homeschooled and the public school in this area is that homeschooled kids are likely to have more intrensic motivation as parents will be spending their own time to teach their kids.

Kids in public schools fail to graduate every day, so there is also the chance that some will fail in Homeschooling, private and charter school. But, studies have shown that these odds are much lower.

Originally posted by JPhillips

If welfare created an incentive to have more children to get more money, I think homeschooling with a tax credit or check could have the same effect.

We are talking about a couple grand max here. Are you sure that some random parent is going quit their job, forge a bunch of receipts, take the risk of being caught and sent to jail, and ruin their kid's education all for 2 grand?

While there may be a few nuts that do this, it won't be enough to make this fear worthwhile. And, remember, it's not like the schools will also have to pay for educating this student. If he's homeschooled, there is no burden on the public, private, religious or charter schools.

A vast majority of people that homeschool will be concerned parents trying to take a more active role in their kid's education. Should we penalize them because of the off chance that a few nuts take advantage of the process? If that's the case, do you think we should eliminate all small business tax deductions, unemployment pay and child credits because of similar fears of exploitation? I certainly don't think so.

Originally posted by JPhillips

How can we assure that a private school is actually educating better than a another without some sort of verifiable accounting? Grades won't do it as they can be easily inflated like the current system. Test scores are an inexact measurement at best due to the availability of test prep for kids that can afford it. I'm sure that some parents would do as you suggest, but I don't think the majority would be able to truly define school performance.

If you don't want grades, test scores or potential college performance to be used, what is left? In order to get into college and graduate, kids have to pass standardized tests. If a significant portion of students fail those tests from a certain school (be it Public, Private or religious), parents will know and that school will be accountable.

Originally posted by JPhillips

I would like to see some sort of standard expectation for all schooling, but this won't happen because too many political debates about what should be tasught will gum up the works.

Even if you could agree on this, it still wouldn't work as you have varying degrees of competancy by teachers and administrators. The only way to tell if kids have learned enough in high school is to test that knowledge. There is no better way to have any degree of certainty on how kids do.

Originally posted by JPhillips

I am not opposed to some new approaches to education. I like charter schools. I also would like to see overall school size reduced. Studies have shown that school size probably does make a difference. I think that is a factor in why many private schools do well. A massive flood of students into the private system would erode that advantage. I also would like to see massive urban districts broken up. They are like businesses that have aquired too many subsidiaries and are no longer efficient. Of course my last two suggestions would cost a ton, but I think they could make a real difference.

School size has been shown to be not much of a factor once you reach 20 kids a class. There is no data that shows kids do better in classes of 17 than they do in classes of 20. So, the benefit does not warrant the cost.

Now, if kids start fleeing public schools for private schools, private schools will hire more teachers, build more/larger schools and adjust to the demand. IMO, the biggest initial boom will occur in the good public schools and Charter schools, places that can often handle bigger student pops by hiring more teachers. There will be a small increase in Private schools, and a similar increase in religious school enrollment. But, none of this will severly disrupt their current ability to work. Remember, Private schools are leaner and more able to adjust to changing situations than Public schools where you need a board resolution to change the color of the gymn.

If vouchers are passed, here's what I think would happen:

Some middle to upper middle class students in good public schools will move to better private schools. Some middle and lower middle class students will go from solid schools to religious schools. Then, poorer students in bad schools will move to better public schools and charter schools, with some moving to certain private and religious schools as well.

You seem to want a system that is guaranteed to be perfect or do nothing at all. That is simply not practical. While not perfect, voucher systems would offer a much better education system than we currently have. And that's enough for me.

Arlie

[CamEdwards]

JPhillips,

It's the NEA that's all about money. Many private schools don't turn a huge profit. I think you'd find a lot of them would continue to be small schools.

I agree about the property tax issue, that' just how it's done in Oklahoma.

Oh, and every child WOULD be eligible for vouchers, even if they're already enrolled in a private school. That still doesn't mean their private school would have to accept vouchers. Parents could then make the choice of moving their child out of that school, or keeping them their without the benefit of vouchers.

It's all about choice... not just for students and parents, but for teachers and schools as well.

[dawgfan]

Cam, it's exceedingly frustrating to engage you in a debate on this topic when you continue to avoid answering my questions, and instead choose to veer off on a relatively unimportant tangent.

OK, the divorce rate is currently the lowest it's been in 30 years and his been dropping since 1982. I get it. That still doesn't change my argument: namely, that the social landscape has changed enough in recent decades to produce a student populace less receptive and/or able to succeed academically. Divorce rate is one of many, many factors to consider in assessing the social landscape. Are you trying to tell me you think the student population at large now is just as motivated, just as supported by their family, with just as much free time to pursue their studies as they were 20 years ago? 30 years ago? Do you think that there has not been a decrease in the "quality" of students over that time period? I do.

If my assertion is true, then your claim that reductions in student:teacher ratios and increases in per-pupil spending hasn't helped is dubious, since you're not comparing equivalent situations.

For the 3rd time, I'll ask you directly:

Do you really think that, assuming the quality of the students is the same, improving student:teacher ratios will not improve the quality of the education?

Do you really think that, assuming the quality of the students is the same, and assuming that most of that money is going towards student learning supplies, improvements in infrastructure, more school programs etc. and not into the pockets of administrators etc., increasing the amount of money spent on education will not improve the quality of that education?

[JPhillips]

Arles: You are confusing class size with school size. I agree that class size doesn't have a lot of influence past a certain level. What I am talking about is smaller schools, which have been shown to improve education. To me this is a critical issue, but one that would cost a fortune to implement. Smaller schools will almost certainly benefit kids, and I think in general private schools have this to their advantage.

I don't think testing is really a great measure of high schools. Here in Kentucky all of the students are tested every year, but they don't get anything for doing well or poorly. The school is entirely defined on these tests numbers, but the students can fail all of them and still be fine. They have no motivation to score well and many of them see it as a waste of time. The schools have also become test prep centers as opposed to places of learning. Instead of the tests being an indicator of the total education, the total education is an indication of the tests.

Do you really think SFU is a terrorist front organization? Sure there was a bad prof, but I think this is way overstated. Personally I do have a problem with my tax dollars going to a madrassah that teaches the US is evil and should be destroyed. I would also have a problem with a Christian Identity school teaching that blacks are animals. I don't think this is a good thing for the country. You have a problem with the ideology of some teachers and I have a problem with this almost certain outcome of religious vouchers. We are probably at a standoff here.

I agree that currently homeschooling is generally filled with motivated parents who do a great job with their kids. My concern is that free money will draw a bad element into this. If it happened with welfare, why couldn't it happen with homeschooling? What plans are their to monitor this? These are things that I want thought out before we start funneling the cash.

On the opposite side, I wonder if the religious right in some places will actually be in favor of vouchers when they see that the control they currently have on school boards will be eroded. Sure they will still have control of their child's education, but I wonder if they will accet it when some parents get government money to teach other religions and atheist doctrine. Thsi isn't meant as a slam, I really wonder how some places that are dominated by Christian Right school boards will react. Many of these people aren't satisfied with controlling their own kids, they want to control everyone's kids. (I know there are people on the left like this as well)

[Arles]

JPhillips: I think you have well-reasoned questions and I don't see the voucher system being perfect. But, I think the fact that it would give parents a choice for where to send their kids is a great start. Some parents may not want to send their kids to a religious schools for reasons you mentioned, some parents may not have the additional money that some private schools may require and others won't have the time to homeschool. But, each parent will have the option of moving their child into a better educational situation be it private, religious, charter or even other public schools.

And that choice would make all schools accountable to the parents or risk losing funding. That is the key to this system. Right now, if I do not have the money for a private education and have a kid in a failing school, there is essentially nothing I can do to help my child outside of moving. IMO, this is unacceptable and vouchers are a way to move towards a better solution. Vouchers would make parents essentially a valued "customer" to the current school system. And that would help not only improve the quality of education, but also make parents more apt to get involved as they know their voice now matters.

Now, there are some details that need to be worked out on issues like homeschooling, religious guidelines and some specifics for the amounts of the vouchers. I think all this can be worked out and would be in favor of a government subside to Private schools that enroll kids with low family incomes to help make the idea of poorer families enrolling in the better private schools more of a reality. But, in the situations in New York, Washington and Ohio where this system has been tested, kids (esp ones in poorer areas) have done better.

Arlie

[panerd]

Originally posted by dawgfan
Cam, it's exceedingly frustrating to engage you in a debate on this topic when you continue to avoid answering my questions, and instead choose to veer off on a relatively unimportant tangent.

Don't bother. It basically boils down to Cam arguing with a bunch of teachers about their jobs. Do you notice that I don't call Cam out on talk radio. Compared to Cam I know very little about the topic and don't claim to either. Because of Rush Limbuagh and Bill O' Reilly suck, should I argue that all talk radio is worthless?

Basically Cam makes some good points and some weak points. When asked to respond to the weaker points he will repeat his strong points and ignore the points he has been called to task on.

(In my case... a lot of his statistics are based on test scores and not the NEA or teachers. Test scores are not really a refection of a school at all, but more of a reflection of the community and SES of the school district. He says "when have I ever said test scores" and then 5 seconds later starts talking about lower school acheivement and SAT scores. Huh? The other point is that the United States versus the world data always compares the entire US education system with the Far Eastern and African school systems that don't provide an education for a lot of their population. Instead of responding to these he will throw out more numbers about the Oklahoma NEA and their spending.)