School Vouchers?

[Deus Naturae]

Bad idea.

1.  Public money shouldn't fund religious instruction.

2.  Public money shouldn't fund schools that essentially discriminate by maintain religious missions and competitive admissions.  The idea of public education is that everyone can get an education regardless of who they are. 

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.   

To clarify, you think that public schools with competitive admissions processes should be closed, or at least be required to alter those processes?

I would support only having neighborhood schools except for students with special educational needs or circumstances.

I take it you're not a fan of the NYC public school system?

Anyway, even assuming that all schools would get equal funding and resources, inevitably some of them would simply be worse, due to the student body, or the teachers employed there. Why should a child have to go to a given school, when there are better ones out there, simply because of where he/she lives?

[Leftbehind]

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?

The point is that as long as the rich are allowed to buy their kids a better education, they're going to use that right. You can improve public education all you want, but so long as the rich can opt out of the system, it's going to be at a disadvantage and the wealthy are going to be able to perpetuate income inequality.

I don't really think that's the problem when it comes to income inequality. 

I went from an ordinary public high school to an elite east coast university full of prep school kids from Phillips Andover and such.  They had no leg up on me in terms of academics.  Richies pretty much use private schools so their kids can meet each other and perform a bunch of homoerotic rituals or whatever.  If it wasn't high school, rich people would just find some other marker of wealth and importance to waste thousands of dollars on.   

Even if all that were true (and its no secret the privately educated dominate), it'd be worthwhile achieving equality in one of the most important aspects of life, and shutting one door in which they're able to perpetuate their privilege.

[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

[TNF]

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?

The point is that as long as the rich are allowed to buy their kids a better education, they're going to use that right. You can improve public education all you want, but so long as the rich can opt out of the system, it's going to be at a disadvantage and the wealthy are going to be able to perpetuate income inequality.

I don't really think that's the problem when it comes to income inequality. 

I went from an ordinary public high school to an elite east coast university full of prep school kids from Phillips Andover and such.  They had no leg up on me in terms of academics.  Richies pretty much use private schools so their kids can meet each other and perform a bunch of homoerotic rituals or whatever.  If it wasn't high school, rich people would just find some other marker of wealth and importance to waste thousands of dollars on.   

Even if all that were true (and its no secret the privately educated dominate), it'd be worthwhile achieving equality in one of the most important aspects of life, and shutting one door in which they're able to perpetuate their privilege.

Bingo.

[dead0man]

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!

[bedstuy]

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?

The point is that as long as the rich are allowed to buy their kids a better education, they're going to use that right. You can improve public education all you want, but so long as the rich can opt out of the system, it's going to be at a disadvantage and the wealthy are going to be able to perpetuate income inequality.

I don't really think that's the problem when it comes to income inequality. 

I went from an ordinary public high school to an elite east coast university full of prep school kids from Phillips Andover and such.  They had no leg up on me in terms of academics.  Richies pretty much use private schools so their kids can meet each other and perform a bunch of homoerotic rituals or whatever.  If it wasn't high school, rich people would just find some other marker of wealth and importance to waste thousands of dollars on.   

Even if all that were true (and its no secret the privately educated dominate), it'd be worthwhile achieving equality in one of the most important aspects of life, and shutting one door in which they're able to perpetuate their privilege.

Equality usually never works by restricting individual freedom.  That's ultimately destructive and quickly pisses everyone off.  Look at communist societies and how they stultified their culture by attempting that type of forced equality.  What I'm saying is that rich kids don't obtain an exceptional educational benefit from these schools.  They obtain an exceptional social benefit.  That social benefit of being rich is impossible to remove without having a communistic society. 

I think you're overgeneralizing private schools. They're not all Choate-Rosemary, you know.

Maybe that's true.  I live in a black neighborhood and if I had kids, no way would I send them to school here.  If your neighborhood public schools are complete garbage, it's an understandable impulse for parents. 

[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.

[TNF]

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?

The point is that as long as the rich are allowed to buy their kids a better education, they're going to use that right. You can improve public education all you want, but so long as the rich can opt out of the system, it's going to be at a disadvantage and the wealthy are going to be able to perpetuate income inequality.

I don't really think that's the problem when it comes to income inequality. 

I went from an ordinary public high school to an elite east coast university full of prep school kids from Phillips Andover and such.  They had no leg up on me in terms of academics.  Richies pretty much use private schools so their kids can meet each other and perform a bunch of homoerotic rituals or whatever.  If it wasn't high school, rich people would just find some other marker of wealth and importance to waste thousands of dollars on.   

Even if all that were true (and its no secret the privately educated dominate), it'd be worthwhile achieving equality in one of the most important aspects of life, and shutting one door in which they're able to perpetuate their privilege.

Equality usually never works by restricting individual freedom.  That's ultimately destructive and quickly pisses everyone off.  Look at communist societies and how they stultified their culture by attempting that type of forced equality.  What I'm saying is that rich kids don't obtain an exceptional educational benefit from these schools.  They obtain an exceptional social benefit.  That social benefit of being rich is impossible to remove without having a communistic society. 

Sending your kids to a better school because you have money is not a freedom anyone should have.

[dead0man]

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.

[Deus Naturae]

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.

[H. Ross Peron]

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

[Franzl]

Oppose. If there's a problem with the public education system, then fix it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Support, under the condition that the only schools eligible for vouchers are those that provide an education compliant to stringent governmental standards both in its subject and in its quality (among other things, being absolutely 100% secular).

[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?

[DC Al Fine]

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

How would private schools fund themselves?
[/quote]

I think he means that the government would fund private schools but they couldn't charge tuition.

[dead0man]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

The thing is, you may believe that, but politicians that like school vouchers aren't normally interested in improving public schools.

[dead0man]

I don't care about their motivations.  I just want what's best for the poor family that cares about the education of their kids.  I honestly don't know what it would take to actually improve certain public schools.  If 85% of the parents/kids don't care, there isn't much you'll be able to do.  I feel extremely bad for the 15% that do care and I want what's best for them.  Vouchers clearly help.  Quality magnet schools help.  Forcing them to go sh**thead High is making their difficult situation that much worse.

[Deus Naturae]

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.

[Franzl]

Another terrible thing is the local funding of public schools in the U.S. That's why children are forced to attend the school in whatever district they live. There's no reason that has to be the case...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Another terrible thing is the local funding of public schools in the U.S. That's why children are forced to attend the school in whatever district they live. There's no reason that has to be the case...

^^^

The neglect in the US of the most important part of the education system ought to be regarded as a national disgrace and a major political issue. It is rather telling that it isn't. Blame is, instead and equally tellingly, shifted elsewhere.

[dead0man]

I certainly wouldn't be against spreading it around a bit more or even totally changing the way they are funded, but that seems like it would take a lot of work both to do legally/politically and in the real world.

[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.

[Deus Naturae]

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.

I'm fine with reinvesting in run-down public schools, but how exactly does offering alternatives hurt those schools?