School Vouchers?

[PJ]

I oppose them. Its not fair for students moving to transition to a completely different curriculum. I also don't want to risk allowing schools to teach creationism.

Begin debating!

[PJ]

Support. Parents (and children who agree with their parents) should be able to choose what kind of schools their children go to easier. It's about choice to me. If there are schools known for teaching creationism, then they shouldn't attend those schools. Education should also be less nationalized then it is now.

I do think that people should be able to choose what school they can go to, like the Colorado program, but this shouldn't include charter schools. If we allow schools to teach creationism, the right-wing religious cores will remain uneducated about science issues.

[PJ]

I oppose them. Its not fair for students moving to transition to a completely different curriculum.

You realize that school voucher programs would be voluntary, right?

I also don't want to risk allowing schools to teach creationism.

Maybe don't give funds to creationist schools?

Also, how about a poll?

1. Yes, but that doesn't mean it still won't affect people. Parents who believe in vouchers will be inclined to send their child to a voucher school when they move. Even if they decide to move their child from a charter school, that's a drastic change, since other schools will probably not have a similar curriculum. Also, transitioning from a charter school to a regular high school (which does occur in some school districts) is an unavoidable drastic change for charter school students.

2. That's my point. Public schools should not be allowed to teach creationism.

3. The problem with polls is that they usually result in empty quoting.

[PJ]

I oppose them. Its not fair for students moving to transition to a completely different curriculum.

You realize that school voucher programs would be voluntary, right?

I also don't want to risk allowing schools to teach creationism.

Maybe don't give funds to creationist schools?

Also, how about a poll?

1. Yes, but that doesn't mean it still won't affect people. Parents who believe in vouchers will be inclined to send their child to a voucher school when they move. Even if they decide to move their child from a charter school, that's a drastic change, since other schools will probably not have a similar curriculum. Also, transitioning from a charter school to a regular high school (which does occur in some school districts) is an unavoidable drastic change for charter school students.

2. That's my point. Public schools should not be allowed to teach creationism.

3. The problem with polls is that they usually result in empty quoting.

1. Using that reasoning, parents wouldn't be allowed to pull their children our of public schools and send them to private ones, or vice versa. Yes, curriculum changes can be hard for kids in the short term, but in the end it's the parent's decision.

2. What I meant was that if you were concerned about creationism being taught in classrooms, simply require schools to meet certain curricular requirements (such as teaching evolution in biology) to receive voucher funds.

3. Fair enough.

1. It doesn't necessarily last short term. If School 1 teaches a certain class in 9th grade while school 2 teaches that same class in 8th grade, and a student moves from school 1 to school 2 between 8th and 9th grade, they will miss out on that certain class. I don't necessarily approve of private schools either, but I think we need to make public schools successful enough in education to make private schools unpopular. I don't think we should ban them.

2. While creationism is the thing I disagree with the most about unregulated charter academies, I don't approve of any schools having differentiated curriculums. Why should a student in New York and a student in Oregon be offered different opportunities in education because of the political opinions of their region? I don't see what's fair about that.

all private schools should be banned

Explanation?

[PJ]

The rich shouldn't be able to buy their kids a better education.

Why not just improve public education to make it better than private education?

[PJ]

3.  Private and even charter schools in poor neighborhoods ultimately just hurt the neighborhood schools by filtering the more involved parents and high-performing students out of the system.

yeah, how dare those poor people want to improve their lives!  They should be stuck just like the parents and kids that don't care!

Yes because working long hours because you have low wages means you don't care about your child's future. Just like kids who aren't popular in school aren't involved in school events because they don't care.

I oppose them. Its not fair for students moving to transition to a completely different curriculum.

You realize that school voucher programs would be voluntary, right?

I also don't want to risk allowing schools to teach creationism.

Maybe don't give funds to creationist schools?

Also, how about a poll?

1. Yes, but that doesn't mean it still won't affect people. Parents who believe in vouchers will be inclined to send their child to a voucher school when they move. Even if they decide to move their child from a charter school, that's a drastic change, since other schools will probably not have a similar curriculum. Also, transitioning from a charter school to a regular high school (which does occur in some school districts) is an unavoidable drastic change for charter school students.

2. That's my point. Public schools should not be allowed to teach creationism.

3. The problem with polls is that they usually result in empty quoting.

1. Using that reasoning, parents wouldn't be allowed to pull their children our of public schools and send them to private ones, or vice versa. Yes, curriculum changes can be hard for kids in the short term, but in the end it's the parent's decision.

2. What I meant was that if you were concerned about creationism being taught in classrooms, simply require schools to meet certain curricular requirements (such as teaching evolution in biology) to receive voucher funds.

3. Fair enough.

1. It doesn't necessarily last short term. If School 1 teaches a certain class in 9th grade while school 2 teaches that same class in 8th grade, and a student moves from school 1 to school 2 between 8th and 9th grade, they will miss out on that certain class. I don't necessarily approve of private schools either, but I think we need to make public schools successful enough in education to make private schools unpopular. I don't think we should ban them.

2. While creationism is the thing I disagree with the most about unregulated charter academies, I don't approve of any schools having differentiated curriculums. Why should a student in New York and a student in Oregon be offered different opportunities in education because of the political opinions of their region? I don't see what's fair about that.

all private schools should be banned

Explanation?

1. I suppose there's an argument to be made for a universal, one-size-fits-all curriculum in that it is more comfortable for students who have to transfer schools, but I think in the end too many universal education mandates only succeed in harming students by decreasing that number of educational opportunities out there and by trying to apply an overly simplistic approach to the many unique situations students face. Many of our current ones certainly do. And anyway, any standards that you think need to be met could simply be prerequisites for receiving voucher funding.

2. First off, I think you might be confusing charter schools with private ones. I certainly haven't heard of any charter school that taught creationism (of course, if you can provide me with evidence, I'll acknowledge that there are).  But to the point, if you truly believe that a large number of universal curriculum standards are necessary, those could easily be prerequisites for voucher funding.
 
As for TNF, I think he opposes private ownership of anything but guns.

1. Depending on the special condition, I would support that being put into a universal curriculum, not a reason for vouchers. Could you give an example?

2. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/hundreds-of-voucher-schools-teach-creationism-in-science-classes

[PJ]

3.  Private and even charter schools in poor neighborhoods ultimately just hurt the neighborhood schools by filtering the more involved parents and high-performing students out of the system.

yeah, how dare those poor people want to improve their lives!  They should be stuck just like the parents and kids that don't care!

Yes because working long hours because you have low wages means you don't care about your child's future. Just like kids who aren't popular in school aren't involved in school events because they don't care.

I think you may have missed my point.  But good job being offended, I'm sure that was a new experience for you!

What is that supposed to mean? My point is that parent involvement in school and a student's grades aren't a way to measure whether or not someone cares about their/their child's education. However, I'm not sure what you meant by that post now.

[PJ]

However, I'm not sure what you meant by that post now.

All I was saying was that poor people that do care should have options and not be forced to attend (or send their kids) to a horrible school.  I'm not judging or making any statements about the parents and kids that don't care or the reasons why they don't care.  I understand many on the left just want to end vouchers and private schools because they hate rich people, I don't care about that...rich people are going to be fine either way.  I care about the poor family that DOES care about the future of their kids and wants what's best for them.  If vouchers give that family the assistance they need to get their kids out of the horrible local public school then why take that option away from them?....just to spite the rich people?  That's phuqed up in my opinion.

I don't hate the rich, I simply hate the system which allows the rich to be so much richer than the poor. I don't think you can say that parents that send their children to a poor school don't care about their students. Why is a better alternative needed to public schooling when we can just improve public schooling?

[PJ]

I oppose them. Its not fair for students moving to transition to a completely different curriculum.

You realize that school voucher programs would be voluntary, right?

I also don't want to risk allowing schools to teach creationism.

Maybe don't give funds to creationist schools?

Also, how about a poll?

1. Yes, but that doesn't mean it still won't affect people. Parents who believe in vouchers will be inclined to send their child to a voucher school when they move. Even if they decide to move their child from a charter school, that's a drastic change, since other schools will probably not have a similar curriculum. Also, transitioning from a charter school to a regular high school (which does occur in some school districts) is an unavoidable drastic change for charter school students.

2. That's my point. Public schools should not be allowed to teach creationism.

3. The problem with polls is that they usually result in empty quoting.

1. Using that reasoning, parents wouldn't be allowed to pull their children our of public schools and send them to private ones, or vice versa. Yes, curriculum changes can be hard for kids in the short term, but in the end it's the parent's decision.

2. What I meant was that if you were concerned about creationism being taught in classrooms, simply require schools to meet certain curricular requirements (such as teaching evolution in biology) to receive voucher funds.

3. Fair enough.

1. It doesn't necessarily last short term. If School 1 teaches a certain class in 9th grade while school 2 teaches that same class in 8th grade, and a student moves from school 1 to school 2 between 8th and 9th grade, they will miss out on that certain class. I don't necessarily approve of private schools either, but I think we need to make public schools successful enough in education to make private schools unpopular. I don't think we should ban them.

2. While creationism is the thing I disagree with the most about unregulated charter academies, I don't approve of any schools having differentiated curriculums. Why should a student in New York and a student in Oregon be offered different opportunities in education because of the political opinions of their region? I don't see what's fair about that.

all private schools should be banned

Explanation?

1. I suppose there's an argument to be made for a universal, one-size-fits-all curriculum in that it is more comfortable for students who have to transfer schools, but I think in the end too many universal education mandates only succeed in harming students by decreasing that number of educational opportunities out there and by trying to apply an overly simplistic approach to the many unique situations students face. Many of our current ones certainly do. And anyway, any standards that you think need to be met could simply be prerequisites for receiving voucher funding.

2. First off, I think you might be confusing charter schools with private ones. I certainly haven't heard of any charter school that taught creationism (of course, if you can provide me with evidence, I'll acknowledge that there are).  But to the point, if you truly believe that a large number of universal curriculum standards are necessary, those could easily be prerequisites for voucher funding.
 
As for TNF, I think he opposes private ownership of anything but guns.

1. Depending on the special condition, I would support that being put into a universal curriculum, not a reason for vouchers. Could you give an example?

2. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/hundreds-of-voucher-schools-teach-creationism-in-science-classes

1. I was referring less to the fact that some student have learning disabilities (though that's a big concern as well) as much as i was talking about the fact that different students learn differently. I'm probably being biased here, but my own experience with Common Core has seemed to confirm that. That said, I'm  more open to a universally mandated curriculum that deals solely with course structure (ex: science courses will be structured as Biology, Chemistry, etc.) which, as I've said previously, could be a prerequisite to receiving voucher funding.

2. Those are private schools, not charters. I've already addressed how the government could prevent funds from flowing to creationist private schools.

1. I would be open to loosening the universal curriculum as long as a universal curriculum is in place. As I mentioned earlier to dead0man, why are we offering charter schools as an option though? If we want improve education, we should focus on improving public education directly, not offering an alternative that leaves the children in public schools behind.

2. Ah, sorry, I misread that source.

Against school vouchers. If you want "school choice" just abolish tuition and selective admission for private schools.

How would private schools fund themselves?

[PJ]

I don't think you can say that parents that send their children to a poor school don't care about their students.

Good thing I didn't say that then heh?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, we should improve public schools...but in the mean time, we should let the poor people that care send their kids to a better school.

Saying that poor people that care should be allowed to use vouchers implies that there are poor people that don't care, unless you want to transition the whole education system onto vouchers.

Against school vouchers. If you want "school choice" just abolish tuition and selective admission for private schools.

How would private schools fund themselves?

I think he means that the government would fund private schools but they couldn't charge tuition.
[/quote]
Awful idea, unless we require a universal curriculum. (check my earlier source)

I oppose them. Its not fair for students moving to transition to a completely different curriculum.

You realize that school voucher programs would be voluntary, right?

I also don't want to risk allowing schools to teach creationism.

Maybe don't give funds to creationist schools?

Also, how about a poll?

1. Yes, but that doesn't mean it still won't affect people. Parents who believe in vouchers will be inclined to send their child to a voucher school when they move. Even if they decide to move their child from a charter school, that's a drastic change, since other schools will probably not have a similar curriculum. Also, transitioning from a charter school to a regular high school (which does occur in some school districts) is an unavoidable drastic change for charter school students.

2. That's my point. Public schools should not be allowed to teach creationism.

3. The problem with polls is that they usually result in empty quoting.

1. Using that reasoning, parents wouldn't be allowed to pull their children our of public schools and send them to private ones, or vice versa. Yes, curriculum changes can be hard for kids in the short term, but in the end it's the parent's decision.

2. What I meant was that if you were concerned about creationism being taught in classrooms, simply require schools to meet certain curricular requirements (such as teaching evolution in biology) to receive voucher funds.

3. Fair enough.

1. It doesn't necessarily last short term. If School 1 teaches a certain class in 9th grade while school 2 teaches that same class in 8th grade, and a student moves from school 1 to school 2 between 8th and 9th grade, they will miss out on that certain class. I don't necessarily approve of private schools either, but I think we need to make public schools successful enough in education to make private schools unpopular. I don't think we should ban them.

2. While creationism is the thing I disagree with the most about unregulated charter academies, I don't approve of any schools having differentiated curriculums. Why should a student in New York and a student in Oregon be offered different opportunities in education because of the political opinions of their region? I don't see what's fair about that.

all private schools should be banned

Explanation?

1. I suppose there's an argument to be made for a universal, one-size-fits-all curriculum in that it is more comfortable for students who have to transfer schools, but I think in the end too many universal education mandates only succeed in harming students by decreasing that number of educational opportunities out there and by trying to apply an overly simplistic approach to the many unique situations students face. Many of our current ones certainly do. And anyway, any standards that you think need to be met could simply be prerequisites for receiving voucher funding.

2. First off, I think you might be confusing charter schools with private ones. I certainly haven't heard of any charter school that taught creationism (of course, if you can provide me with evidence, I'll acknowledge that there are).  But to the point, if you truly believe that a large number of universal curriculum standards are necessary, those could easily be prerequisites for voucher funding.
 
As for TNF, I think he opposes private ownership of anything but guns.

1. Depending on the special condition, I would support that being put into a universal curriculum, not a reason for vouchers. Could you give an example?

2. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/hundreds-of-voucher-schools-teach-creationism-in-science-classes

1. I was referring less to the fact that some student have learning disabilities (though that's a big concern as well) as much as i was talking about the fact that different students learn differently. I'm probably being biased here, but my own experience with Common Core has seemed to confirm that. That said, I'm  more open to a universally mandated curriculum that deals solely with course structure (ex: science courses will be structured as Biology, Chemistry, etc.) which, as I've said previously, could be a prerequisite to receiving voucher funding.

2. Those are private schools, not charters. I've already addressed how the government could prevent funds from flowing to creationist private schools.

1. I would be open to loosening the universal curriculum as long as a universal curriculum is in place. As I mentioned earlier to dead0man, why are we offering charter schools as an option though? If we want improve education, we should focus on improving public education directly, not offering an alternative that leaves the children in public schools behind.

2. Ah, sorry, I misread that source.

The problem as I see it is that, inevitably, public schools are going to be unequal (for several reasons). Students who live in a neighborhood with a subpar public school should have other options. As such, I support most programs that will provide students with more choices. That includes private school vouchers, charters, and competitive matching processes within the public school system.

As I said earlier, I support the Colorado system, which allows you to choose which school you want to go to, but with the elimination of charter schools. But we should be focusing more on improving our run-down schools, not offering alternatives so that they suffer.