Get Schooled

By KA

January 23, 2007 8:11 AM | Link to this

I have no objection to vouchers. But how much would the voucher be worth? Different districts spend different amounts per pupil. And I think most private schools would still be out of reach financially even with the voucher. So only those who could afford the balance of the tuition would be attending those schools. I like Cagle’s idea of the charter schools. Charters would improve the public system, completely overhauling the administration and delivery of education, putting discipline back into schools, and excluding the slackers and bad actors. Let those that earn their grades learn.

By jim d

January 23, 2007 8:33 AM | Link to this

My take on vouchers?

They could work.

Vouchers would be a percentage of what it costs to provide public education today because we’d be opening the market to competition and I have little problem with allowing those that want to leave the public schools to do so. The amounts of money saved by people opting to take less than we currently spend would free funds for anyone that wanted to remain in a conventional public school to have more spent on their education. And if any of you have been listening to politicians for the past 40 years you know that all we need is more money to do a better job. Right?

My only concern is that Religious organizations would use this process not so much for education but more so for religious indoctrination without government oversight to create a large fundamentalist population. And Fundamentalism in any form just scares the hell out of me.

By waterbug24

January 23, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

But state officials routinely fund free pre-kindergarten programs for 4-year-olds who attend church-run classes

The Pre_k assessment for the state of Georgia requires that “religious instruction, activities, and materials are not used during the instructional day.”

By SET

January 23, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

Here’s the real reason why vouchers should be stopped. It goes back to the short and emotional discussion of religion in public schools.

If you don’t maintain a barrier to keep government out of an enclousre they invade it and make it thiers. We don’t allow any prayer in public schools because we know the government would soon enough make it’s own government written prayer the new standard.

We don’t want the government taking over private schools where so far we have some measure of independence. For example, private schools can generally discipline and expell students. Once vouchers become common, we know from experience that the government will start regulating - through the voucher program - everything that goes on inside private schools - starting with the curriculum and then the staffing and client makeup.

They would start requiring the hiring (or dishiring) of private school teachers who meet the government-desired “standards”. Currently private schools do not have to hire state approved teachers. This makes the private schools more nimble and cheaper to run.

We can be sure that with vouchers the private shools would be forced to “integrate” along the lines of the public schools. That means that private schools would lose the ability to be exclusive, to choose who they wanted as clients - Catholics preferred, for example… Children from intact families, for example… or non-disruptive children, for example.

I could go on. But when the government goes after an industry they end up controlling the brand of toilet paper used.

We don’t want this. Any Voucher scheme is a creeping attempt to take over the private school system and impose all kinds of rules and regulation until the difference between private and public fades.

And where in the US Constitution is the federal government given any control over local education in the first place? Nowhere. Congress took that power and the state governments let it happen because the $$ pursuaded them to avoid a power struggle. Now it’s the private school’s turn - then homeschooling I suppose.

Vouchers are a takeover move. So I oppose them completely.

By privateschooldad

January 23, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

Nooooooo vouchers pleeeeeeze! The last thing private schools need is to be overrun by low performing public school kids. If the public school kids ruin my kids private school, there will nothing left but homeschooling.

Keep your government vouchers out of my kid’s school!

By Terry

January 23, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Vouchers will not work and I oppose them. Vouchers will only spark less accountability in schools, which we already have a problem with, most especially in Georgia. There are less education standards in private schools and they often run on the cheap. MOst people think they are getting more for their money, but often you are not.

The only way to improve things is to make schools accountable and make them operate within the current laws we now have on the books. That’s the way to improve things, vouchers will just complicate matters

By OhioBuckeye

January 23, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

privateschooldad: You mean minority kids, right? Humph.

By Mick

January 23, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

I used to be a huge supporter of vouchers, but now I think they would do for private education what medicare has done for medicine. The cost of a private education would spiral out of control. I have a radical point of view, no one agrees with me, it will never happen, and don’t want to fight for it. But I don’t think the government should be involved in education AT ALL. It is the parents’ responsibility to see that their children get an education. True, some parents cannot handle this responsibility. Their children are a case for charity, but that’s no reason to have the entire system set up under the assumption that everyone is a charity case. It seems to be the consensus that education is the one service that somehow could not be supplied by the private capitalist marketplace.

By GetReal

January 23, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

If private schools are to accept vouchers from the taxpayer, then they must not exclude children whom the public schools cannot exclude.

If private schools are to accept vouchers from the taxpayer, then they must agree to educate the child for the value of the voucher alone.

Public schools should be allowed to accept vouchers from other school districts. This would encourage competition between public school districts and may actually lead to better public schools which should be the aim of a voucher system.

By Jay

January 23, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

Maybe—starting with middle school—education should be optional. Many kids who GRADUATE from Georgia public high schools can barely read or write. I don’t see the harm in letting the bad apples quit before they start to ruin the classroom for others; by the time they can legally drop out, the damage has already been done. Let’s not waste any more resources on ungrateful thugs and concentrate on students who actually want to learn.

By kb

January 23, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Mick,

I think A LOT more people agree with you than you think…

By Together for 12

January 23, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

I want to thank you all for your opinions. I supported the idea for vouchers for private schools to help reduce the expense out of my pocket toward kids’ education. However, some of your arguments are very insightful. Given some of your comments, I need to rethink my position on vouchers.

By JustMe

January 23, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

There is a large difference when you say “publicly” and refer to lottery money and “publicly” and refer to tax money.

Taxes are required by law and playing the lottery is not. It is not proper to force someone to pay tax money and then turn around and use their money in that fashion.

Vouchers would be a large mistake for many reasons:

And, I am sure that there are others.

By Janine

January 23, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

I am totally opposed to vouchers! As SET has so aptly pointed out, private schools would then be operating under the same ineffective restrictions that have undermined the successful functioing of our public schools. You can get a feel for what would happen by looking at the results of the NCLB requirment that students in a “failing” school can transfer to a school that is meeting the AYP requirement of NCLB. I am really only familiar with Dekalb, where massive transfers caused the test scores, discipline problems, and attendance issues to transfer along with the students. The receiving schools then had the same problems as the schools from which the students came.

By holdingAJCaccountable

January 23, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

The reason people don’t trust vouchers is that the same people who claim to give a damn about education, the “rule of law” and “personal responsibility” crowd have done absolutely nothing do address discipline. Thefefore their credibility is ZERO, much like the AJC’s editorial board, (with the exception of Mr. Wooten)

Put some real authority to discipline back into the school system. If it doesn’t work…then by God bring on the vouchers!

By Radical idea

January 23, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

I am single and pay property taxes in Dekalb Co. A big portion of this tax goes to fund the education system. I would love for kids to have the option/choice of taking their allotted portion to an environment conducive to learning. In some public schools, especially those in the inner city, it’s not seen as “cool” to be studious and make good grades. What’s wrong with giving kids/parents a choice on where to be educated?

By jim d

January 23, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

I contend that getting governement out of education at this point would be like closing a barn door after the cows had run off. In light of that, I’d highly recommend keeping Government out of private education, it is the last bastion for those that truly want an unfettered education

By MrLiberty

January 23, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

First of all the GI Bill and every other government scholarship/grant/loan program ends of giving money to religious institutions like Notre Dame and others.

Secondly there is an attitude among the parents who subject their children to the government school system that they are somehow “entitled” to every penny that is stolen on their behalf. Quick refresher for the shocked ones - what you pay in school taxes is likely less than 1/5 of the cost for just one kid at a government charity school. Some additional money comes from your income taxes as well, but the bulk of the money for your first kid, and then ALL of the money for every kid thereafter, comes from money that is stolen from people without children, commercial property owners, and everyone in the state as a result of income taxation, higher prices passed on by businesses, etc. Yes, despite the fact that virtually NOT ONE SINGLE PARENT pays in enough school tax to even pay for ONE of their children, they believe that every dollar stolen is theirs to throw down the big empty hole of government charity schools. Thus no parent can be allowed to “opt out” and even take the pittance they do pay. Heaven forbid any of this money be used for a religious education. Everything presented by the government employees is without bias right - free from indoctrination too I suspect??

The key argument that most people present against vouchers actually happens to be the best argument in favor of them - that they would take money away from the government charity school system and it would collapse. If I actually thought that was a likely outcome I would support them wholeheartedly. Nothing would be better for america or its children than a truly free market in education.

And that is why vouchers are a problem. They are still based on the theft of moneys from the rest of society. Only parents should be paying for their children’s education. Those who wish to support charity schools for the poor are always welcome, but the key would be the VOLUNTARY nature of the giving.

The other problem is that nothing comes from the government without strings. Every discussion of vouchers always includes the terms “fundamentalist”, “wicca”, “occult”, and sometimes even “subversive.” Every parent should be able to educate their child the way they wish. This would happen in a truly free market, but one can guarantee that with every voucher would come a government bureaucrat poking their nose into school operations. It would only be a matter of time before every voucher-accepting school was as horrible as the current government charity schools - burdened by infinite rules and regulations. Why would anyone want to encourage that kind of failed outcome for a private system that actually doing some good?

By Sparta

January 23, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

In 1966 when school integration came to Sparta, John Hancock Academy came into existence. White parents who could not stomach the idea of their lil darlings sharing the same space with blacks sacrificed whatever to keep the races separate. My primary reason for objecting to vouchers is schools like John Hancock Academy, Nathaniel Greene Academ, etc. etc. would continue to exist as “seggie” schools, but now with my tax dollars going to pay for the schooling. If a parent does not want to avail themselves of public education, let them pay for it. I don’t ride MARTA, but I don’t expect a voucher to help me buy gas for my car.

By KC

January 23, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

Sure, let’s have vouchers. As long as the following conditions are met. 1. The department of education gains oversight for private schools. 2. Private schools have to meet the same “No Child Left Behind” requirements as public schools. 3. Private schools can use only the ability to pay tuition as an enrollment requirment. First come, first can pay, first served.

If you want public money you have to submit to the same rules and regulations as public schools. It’s as simple as that.

Have a great day everybody.

By Todd

January 23, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

“Nooooooo vouchers pleeeeeeze! The last thing private schools need is to be overrun by low performing public school kids. If the public school kids ruin my kids private school, there will nothing left but homeschooling.

Keep your government vouchers out of my kid’s school!”

I agree 100% I am a public school teacher in Savannah and we have more private high schools than public high schools. Why? Because the public schools are overcrowded with thug kids popping out babies and telling the teacher “f… you,” walking out, and being sent right back by the admin with no punishment. The parents don’t care because the parents are mostly thugs who had kids when they were in school. The other portion of the public schools are all the former private school kids who were kicked out. These are usually the stupid kids from well-off families who are drug users.

Vouchers will only corrupt the private schools.

By Janine

January 23, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

KC Sure, let’s have vouchers. As long as the following conditions are met. 1. The department of education gains oversight for private schools. 2. Private schools have to meet the same “No Child Left Behind” requirements as public schools. 3. Private schools can use only the ability to pay tuition as an enrollment requirment. First come, first can pay, first served.

And thus, the downfall of the private school begins.

By KC

January 23, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

MrLiberty… Wow, you really sound the clarion call of total ignorance with your post. Every one of you imbeciles who think the public school system should be scrapped needs to do a little historical research on the US both before the institution of the public school system and post-introduction. You all seem to think that every parent in this country has the time and resources and qualifications to educate their children at home or via private schools. Are you really, honestly that stupid? Seriously?

Public education is the ONLY way to even attempt to provide a consistent education level to a population of 300 million. Sure, let’s destroy the “Government Charity Schools” as you call them. Now…what happens? How many millions of uneducated people do we turn loose in our streets? Exactly, my dear MrLiberty, what do you propose doing with the uneducated masses? Or do we perhaps prevent this by physically barring those who aren’t “qualified” from having children? Seems to be the only way to reach your “no government theft everyone educates themselves” Utopia. I believe that was tried by a European nation in the 30’s and it didn’t go all that well.

Public education isn’t a morally correct or ethically necessary function. It is strictly a matter of survival for a nation state our size. There are NO other viable options. Even the grandest proponents of vouchers don’t believe they will be able to provide education for 100% of students.

I’m so sick of you “government is evil” types on these blogs that I can barely hold down my lunch. All of you…ALL OF YOU…rely on that self same evil government for your very survival every day of your lives: Inspecting your meat, controlling air traffic, keeping the air reasonably clean and keeping criminals off the streets. The list goes on and on. Tell you what…I’ll throw down the gauntlet to all of you anti-government ultra conservatives: go just 48 hours without once relying on a government provided or regulated service that you could not expect to reliably receive without the existence of the government and see how that works for you.

Glad to see your private school educations are really paying off.

By Jay

January 23, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

“Competition is not good for education. A ‘good’ school would be judged like a ‘good’ teacher. Most students say that a teacher is ‘good’ when they give all A’s even if that teacher doesn’t teach anything.”

Parents are the ultimate judges, and parents don’t care what kind of grading system’s in place, as long as the school’s sending its graduates to elite colleges.

Competition is the best thing that can happen to education (e.g., U.S. universities). It rewards high achieving schools and penalizes—eventually eliminates—inferior ones. No more damn grumbling about how underpaid teachers are; the market would set their salaries, instead of the government installing arbitrary floors and ceilings on pay.

By KC

January 23, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

Also…all of you who think Private School educations are so fantastic should really pay more attention. I’m certain there are many excellent private schools, just as there are many excellent public ones.

The problem, my friends, is that private schools have no standardized system of curriculum development. Speak to my cousin who, as core History class, took “The History of Rock’N’Roll” at a very respected Atlanta area private school.

Talk to my wife who taught French at a private school and quit teaching all together after she was verbally and physically assaulted in her classroom by the father of the star quarterback who failed French. The administration, because the father was the wealthiest parent at a notably wealthy school, was supported, the teenagers grade was changed from F to B and she was told, in effect, not to make waves. And where, exactly, was she to go for support?

No my friends, private schools have ALL of the same problems as public schools. It’s just that well off parents paying high tuition can’t see past the spotless school uniforms and acres of white faces.

Have a nice day everybody.

By Todd

January 23, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

“KC Sure, let’s have vouchers. As long as the following conditions are met. 1. The department of education gains oversight for private schools. 2. Private schools have to meet the same “No Child Left Behind” requirements as public schools. 3. Private schools can use only the ability to pay tuition as an enrollment requirment. First come, first can pay, first served.”

Some is not that bright. I disagree with vouchers, but even if we had vouchers, none of this would have to be true. We have Pell Grants and Stafford Loans that students use to attend public school, private secular schools, and even private religious schools.

If vouchers are ever approved, it just needs to be like it is with colleges. The schools accept who they want and you obtain the voucher or loan or grant (whatever it is going to be) from the government and they then pay it.

If you start controlling the private schools, they become as thugized as the retard public schools.

Economics has nothing to do with it in the end. I have an M.Ed. and I have seen kids in college, high school, and middle school who come from poor backgrounds but who are brilliant and achieve high grades and succeed. I have seen rich kids who are stupid and screw themselves over with drugs. It is the family and how you are raised that makes a difference. The teacher does teach, but you succeed based on what you learn and teach yourself.

In Savannah, trash thugs claimed racism that the old Savannah High School was old and worn down. So they built a brand new school, with state of the art technology. Then the old Savannah High was renamed Savannah Art Academy and is now the highest achieving school in Savannah.

It is the students, not the resources. The new Savannah High is as thugized as can be already.

By KC

January 23, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

Jay, Despite some of my other rants here that probably make me sound like a beret wearing revolutionary…I’m not, but I am pretty passionate on this one subject…I agree with you to a point.

The problem with competition in schools (and it’s the same problem I have with all the No Child Left Behind standardized testing) is that if you give the best teacher who ever existed 30 horrible, rebellious, “ain’t never gonna do what you tell me to do!” type kids they are all going to end up performing poorly and the teacher will now, in a competitive market, be judged a failure.

Great teachers rescuing a class of malcontents make for great cinema, but rarely can that trick be performed in real life.

Honestly, and this I suppose is what I consider the strongest suit of private schools, it’s the parents who get involved who make the best students and private school parents, because their money is on the line, tend to get more involved.

Vouchers being “free” money I would say that those of you who believe voucher kids would harm private schools might have a point as their parents wouldn’t have as much financial push in the back to get involved.

Living in an area with both outstanding parents and outstanding public schools I feel that, once again, there is nothing wrong with public education that a paradigm shift in the way many parent couldn’t fix.

Have a great day everybody.

By JustMe

January 23, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Jay,

You are really wrong about parents. Not all parents see it the way that you describe. Some parents complain, fight, etc. just to get their kid the grade of an “A” in high school and do not see the long term view of college (either college acceptance or what happens once their kid is in college).

For those types of parents, they will seek out “easy” schools so that their kid can graduate with a 4.0 gpa (or higher), thinking that this is in the best interest of their child’s future. Because of this, the competition will result in some high schools being very easy (therefore inflated grades) to lure the voucher money into the school.

It will only be after it is too late for their child because the parent will realize that their child doesn’t have an education when their SAT scores come back so low. Even if their child does get into a college, it will be too late and the kid will likely flunk out because they never learned a darn thing in that easy high school.

So much for competition in schools.

By KC

January 23, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Todd, You are correct that economics are not determining factors.

However I must still speak to the matter of fairness. At this time, even without vouchers, private school students do not have to pass the No Child Left Behind muster. They must pass no mandatory standardized test to advance grades or graduate. While I am willing to sign off on the fact that the best private schools likely provide a better education than a top public school (not night and day better, but likely better still) I am not ready to believe that private school students should be allowed to advance and graduate based strictly on coursework while public school children do not receive the same break.

It puts into question the ability of a public university to fairly judge the transcripts of public and private schooled applicants side by side. I’m not issuing judgment on which stack of applicants should be given deference, only that an inequality exists.

I hope people can see that you do each group of students a disservice when you expect them to both perform and be judged on results they each achieve in a radically different environment.

Have a great day

By Commentator

January 23, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

Well, here goes. What is being hinted at but not clearly said is the use of vouchers will allow certain kids (most probably whites) to get away from low performing schools with a high minority population (as in, black or Hispanic) which allegledly has lower academic standards which in turn devalues the education received by the white kids. Or, under scenario two, vouchers are used to send kids to schools run by churches or other religious organizations thereby violating the Separation Clause. Does that pretty much sum it up? How’s this for a solution… When I was coming of age, the standard bearer’s slogan was “free your mind and your @ss will follow.” Nowadays, however, it appears that wanting to get a truly decent education is on its deathbed, whether due to the standards imposed by the “NCLB Act”, minority kids, drugs, MTV, what-have-you. This naturally results in “haves” (well educated) and have-nots (poorly educated) and all the disparities in income, social standing, opportunities, etc. Soooo, my solutio is open up the vouchers. Let those who want a good education find one somewhere they aren’t now. The only kicker is like what happened with VMI years ago in it’s efforts to stay male only. In taking federal funds, VMI had to comply with federal law; ergo, if a school accepts vouchers it must also abide by federal mandates as far as admissions, etc. Thus, a Catholic School would have to accept non-catholics, a historically balck school would have to accept whites, and so on. There, problem solved. As for me, I would prefer my children attend a private school where the worries of violence, drugs, etc. are less and the quality of education better and the heck with diversity concerns, etc. Education should be about providing an education, not social engineering.

By JustMe

January 23, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

Todd,

What you descibe is “separate but equal” and I believe that this philosophy was outlawed a while back.

Private schools cannot be “separate but equal” to public schools. If they are equal, then they all have to play by the same rules: accept whatever student comes into the door, accept NCLB crap, and so on. Otherwise, the private schools should not get public money - via vouchers or other method.

By yesiamworried

January 23, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

Can anyone guess which group opposses vouchers the most? Suburban republicans. Yep! Suburban republicans are afraid that inner city children will use their vouchers to buy their way into the suburban schools.

Suburban republicans are the reason that NCLB will never totally succeed in totally destroying public education — the walls have been put up to keep inner city children from transferring from their failing schools to the non-failing ones (in the suburbs).

By KC

January 23, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

Hey yesiamworried…I’m a suburban Democrat and I oppose vouchers. Give us wacky Libs some credit!

Have a great day everybody.

By Deb

January 23, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

Mick-you’re right that private school vouchers would cause education costs to spiral out of control like medical care. The same thing has happened with the HOPE scholarship and college costs. I am a college student who gets Hope, and I’m grateful for it, in a way. But colleges have simply raised the costs of meal plans and dorm rooms so they can keep tuition costs low and affordable so the Hope scholarship can fund everyone’s education. So I’m not sure if I’m actually paying less for my education than I would be if the Hope had never been created. But I don’t want to stop getting it b/c the system has been set up for kids who have the scholarship, and the others just have to pay outrageous meal plan costs and dorm expenses, in addition to the modest tuition costs. So, in closing, there are many reasons why vouchers are a bad idea, including ridiculous increases in education costs if they are implemented.

By Jay

January 23, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

“The problem with competition in schools (and it’s the same problem I have with all the No Child Left Behind standardized testing) is that if you give the best teacher who ever existed 30 horrible, rebellious, ‘ain’t never gonna do what you tell me to do!’ type kids they are all going to end up performing poorly and the teacher will now, in a competitive market, be judged a failure.”

Yeah, but private schools would have the right to not admit those students, or to discipline/expel admitted students who have become a distraction without a lot of red tape.

Many kids act rebellious now because they know they can get away with it. Under a privatized system they’d lose the leverage public schools afford them.

Of course, teaching will never be a perfectly meritocratic field: Some will get credit/raises when they don’t deserve it, others won’t when they do. But isn’t this true of every profession? I’m simply arguing that teachers would be paid more closely proportionate to their skill if all schools were privatized.

By Dan

January 23, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

As a former Florida and current Georgia teacher, I have seen first hand the damage to public education that vouchers can do. First of all, private schools have no accountability. In Florida, public schools are graded based on the FCAT and private schools are not. Same tax dollars, different standards. Second, the amount of money spent on public education is already near the bottom. It’s counter intuitive to think taking more money away will help the problem. I could go on, but I’m supposed to be teaching right now.

By ckt

January 23, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

It’s quite simple. With vouchers you give money to the rich to subsidize their privileged child’s private school education, while leaving many impoverished students without enough money to attend private school.

I understand that you want private education so your poor, suburban, white child doesn’t have to involve himself with.. hmhm.. blacks and hispanics and those that can’t buy suburbans… but why do you care so much about ruining other childrens lives. You have the money to support your kids - leave it at that. Sure, hate the impoverished inner city parents all you want - but why do you insist on removing any change these poor kids have???

People in the south, for all their bloated holiness, are some mean folk. Really, really, ignorant and mean.

By catlady

January 23, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

I am all for vouchers as long as the public school TEACHERS get to pick who is offered them FIRST. Then, the parents have to find a private school who will agree to accept the little dears.

One serious rule for vouchers: once you opt out of the public system, you cannot come back!

By Dan

January 23, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

I have another wrinkle. All parents who put their children in private school no longer have to pay public school taxes.

By SET

January 23, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

KC:

Your post directed at Mr. Liberty is a little presumptious. You seem his point of view has no validity at all. Wrong.

Collective debate and decision making is better (more deliberate, more rational and more wise) than individual decision making. Among other things this is the basis behind the notion of jury trials. It’s not that the judges aren’t more educated and experienced than common jurors. The belief is that it’s harder to put something over on 12 people than one - even if the one is Judge Judy.

Mr. Liberty’s point of view as is all the others on this blog are required if any of us are to walk away with our own ideas, beliefs and conclusion tested. So you can’t complain about his point of view not agreeing with yours - that’s exactly what he and all of us are here for.

We bring a collection of training and experience to the table to test and shake out each other’s positions, statements and conclusions. So I for one look forward to seeing Mr. Liberty’s comments as well any other we can find that’s contrary to the politically correct storylines. They make us think and sometimes think better.

And by the way, If the readership keeps agreeing with me - the end is near for this country.

Another thing.. One reader said something about whites & the private schools…

Got news for the readership. The whites are likely to take care of themselves individually even if they (collectively) have destroyed the USA by rejecting values that built the nation and arranging for a 3rd world invasion of the States. The resulting violence and economic collapse (now in progress and visible) will produce hard times for the country as a whole. The people who will be totally screwed are the left side of the bell curve, not the right side.

So don’t worry about (most of) whites, Jews, Asians, etc. They may catch colds, but it’s the Blacks and browns that get pnuemonia. No matter which policy we are talking about - schools, AIDS non-suppression, Violent Crime, Jobs, Housing, whatever - the casualty list is the same.

By Jmarsh

January 23, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

You pretty much nailed it, catlady. Resistance to vouchers is merely a scheme to keep control with anyone but the parents.

The primary beneficiaries of the voucher programs in place on a limited scale are minority students. It’s often the only way minority parents that care about the education of their kids can get them out of poor schools. The educational establishment has been trying one form or another of the “throw money at it” program for decades.

By Jenny

January 23, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

My kids attend private school and I can assure you that the tuition bill is only part of what parents put into private schools. Most private schools expect extra money donations on top of tuition and they also expect lots of volunteerism from the parents. Most private schools are not very good. They are run by churches and the folks who teach at them are not trained teachers, more like moms whose families attend the church. These schools do not adhere to any set standards and the students they turn out are below par on most levels. You have to look very hard to find good private schools and when you do the acceptance rate is very low and the tuition very high. Vouchers would not cover it, believe me. Vouchers are just a pipe dream for those who don’t want to pay their property taxes. Vouchers would be terrible for those students whose families cannot afford private schools. Also, the numerous “Christian Academies” we see popping up all over the burbs are just a form of segregation. They are, for the most part, very poor schools but all the parents care about is not having their kids go to school with black kids or hispanic kids. Well, if that’s what you want, then pay for it yourself. I do not expect the government to fund my kids private school education. If I want to send my kids somewhere besided public schools then I am prepared to open my wallet, others should do the same.

By Dan

January 23, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

Those of you that think vouchers benefit the poor minority students couldn’t be more wrong. Vouchers were brought about by rich white politicians to benfit their rich white constituancy. Most vouchers do not cover the actual expense of a private school tuition, leaving the recipient to cover the balance. Most poor minorities can’t afford this. Go whitey.

By lovelyliz

January 23, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

Every voucher program I have heard about has fallen short of covering the TOTAL cost of your average private school tuition. When attending public school, items such as transportation, books, and in some cases lunches are covered. They also attempt to educate special needs and disabled children. On the other hand, many private schools require that parents pay in addition to tuition:

-uniforms -books or book fees -building and other mandatory funds -transportation since schools don’t bus -lunch expenses -sports, band, activity expenses

Add those costs up and you realize that the only people helped by vouchers are those with children already in a private school or those who can almost, but not quite afford it. The poor children are going to be worse off than ever. These students often have parents who are dependant on public transport or unreliable transportation to get around. Driving them to school isn’t an option. Neither is buying uniforms which can end up costing more than the clothes they already have. Students on reduced cost or free lunches won’t be able to come up with the money to pay for the catered lunched that many private school provide.

Of course this is all predicated on there being enough open slots in enough affordable schools that are willing to accept these students. Remember that private schools can and quite often do deny admission to those they deem undesirable for any number of reasons. Where will these students go because they don’t fit the right religious-racial-academic-economic-social profile?

By catlady

January 23, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

Why does this spark such fierce debate? Well, teachers have seen the top 20% or more of students “skimmed off” due to homeschooling or private schools. So the idea of losing the next 30-50% of the most motivated families to private schools via vouchers really means the poorest, dumbest,worst behaved, less motivated and more disfunctional will be left in public schools.

If public schools were not being held to arbitary (NCLB, etc) standards, it might be less controversial. PreK isn’t controversial because it is only one year and who cares? It is just day care for 4 year olds. If the lottery paid for private school for 4-10 year olds, the ante would be upped considerably.

Dan, re your post: then who??? would pay for the vouchers?

By KC

January 23, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

SET… Yes, all viewpoints are required. And maybe I was a bit testy with MrLiberty. As you can see from my many other posts I am typically pretty rational. I find, however, the tone from his post to be less about presenting viewpoints and more about making sweeping social pronouncements about the worth and stature of many segments of our society. So less civil discourse and more soapbox lecture.

I, of course, responded in kind and though I stick to my guns on my ideas and observations I should have framed my discourse to reflect rational disagreement rather than letting my temper be piqued.

I agree wholeheartedly that the last thing I want is the final say in how this country is run. I simply demand an equal voice, not a dominant one.

Thank you for pointing out in a very frank and sensible way that though discourse requires both the civil and uncivil among us to sit at the same round table. I still think the “all government is evil” position is overly rash and difficult to defend when viewed from an informed position. That’s not saying there isn’t PLENTY wrong with government, just that it’s a necessity we must do our best to control.

Have a great day everybody

By Jmarsh

January 23, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

Dan, nearly all voucher programs in existence are in inner cities have few, if any, non-minority kids going to school there to begin with. DC, New Orleans, and others.

You also have the costs backwards. Most voucher programs do cover the costs of private or charter school tuition. A $5500 voucher (DC, IIRC) pays for $3800 in private school tuition just fine. However, the “cost” of educating a child in a DC public school is over $14,000 a year at last count. The vouchers get capped at a rate far below what the school system spends on a child for a simple reason: the state (or city, in this case) gets to keep the balance of property taxes generated per child, while you only get a portion back for your voucher. So, the school “loses” a kid that needs to be taught, but none of the property tax they collect for education. Admittedly, by decreased enrollment, they gain fewer “federal” and block grant type benefits. But hey, it’s supposed to be about the children, right? Not about the money, right?

By JS

January 23, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

Vouchers would only be another give away to the rich. It would help to fund private schools for their kids while inner city kids would be left out. Its also becomes another way for religious based organizations to impose on people and maybe discriminate against kids that or none christain. Vouchers will cause a great deal of confusion. Its also a way to privately segregate people based on religion,race, and wealth. Thats the whole motivation vouchers. We don’t need vouchers to set things back the way they were before intergration, separate but not equal schools.

By atlmom

January 23, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

Vouchers are a great idea. They could work JUST LIKE the funding for college is, right? The state would give you a voucher for a certain amount of money - and you could use it where you want to send your school (and yes, if there’s a shortfall for what the school is willing to accept, then you’d have to pay for it). The state/fed govts fund private, religious universities/colleges ALL THE TIME. Yet for some reason, no one has a problem with that…

Also.. I LOVE the way the PreK program runs. That’s a voucher program - the state has told schools how much they will pay for - and the schools decide whether or not they will take it (and plenty have decided they will…). And I get to choose the school I want my child to go to.

And… We all KNOW which are the good and the bad schools - look at housing prices, look at the schools - we all are well aware of which schools perform well, which schools have involved teachers, parents, etc. So only those who can afford to live in certain areas end up getting those good schools - how ‘fair’ is that? NOT AT ALL. Lower income people with fewer choices as to where to live should NOT have to be made to only choose bad schools (if, in fact, that is the case… don’t know).

It’s ludicrous that our schools are completely unaccountable to the parents and the children they teach. That is why we have bad schools - the unions are only interested in more money.

By catlady

January 23, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

Let’s take race out of the equation. In my county: (1%) black, 15% motivated illegal Latinos with children born in Georgia, and 84% white, we would probably lose most of the best and brightest whites to a good private school if there were one. We have two sectarian private schools, both of which cater to the perpetually disatisfied, unable-to-behave-in-public-school (but with money), or the right wing religious. Neither private school is a viable option for up-and-coming non-fundamentalist families. If vouchers were available, and IF there were a fair/good nonreligious private school available, most middle class parents would pull their kids out of public school, not because of race but because of their concern about poor discipline and lack of parent concern from the white parents. So it isn’t just an issue of race, although in many areas race=class.

By catlady

January 23, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

I really think letting public school teachers nominate children for voucher scholarships would be great! I think we should even sweeten the pot, to $8000 or more! Then, give the parents of the “winners” a wakeup call, to find a school that would accept and keep their child/money, warts and all. The child could not retreat to the public school after the voucher was disbursed. Talk about more accountability! Vouchers COULD be designed to be a win-win for public school students, but won’t be. And, who knows, the vouchered kids might find a climate more able to assist them.

By Jenny

January 23, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

Jmarsh, do you really think that a $3800.00 a year tuition is realistic?? I have never heard of a private school that costs so little unless it is a Catholic school propped up financially by the archdiocese, in which case, the low tuition does not cover the costs, the church does. No independant school worth anything can run on $3800.00 a year per student. You cannot get quality teachers, books or a good facility for that money. I had to laugh out loud when I read that figure. You don’t know what you are talking about.

By atlmom

January 23, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

but who’s to say that some (now) public schools wouldn’t KEEP the kids they have and get more? We have to verify residence with 100 pieces of ID in my district because the schools are overcrowded because they are so good, so people are clambering to get in!

Do good, get the money. That is how supply/demand works. Give people a good product and they will use it…

By Heard it here first

January 23, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

All for it.. then idiots like Laura Mallory can take her kids and beliefs with them wherever they both are welcome. However, before that can happen, I also believe that schools should reserve the right to remove distractive students from their schools so teachers spend less time disciplining and more actually educating.

Perhaps someday parents will wake up and realize they are the main reason our children are failing in schools.

By jim d

January 23, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

Well HIHF,

I’m kind of anxious to see what happens if Ms. Mallory wins.

Would it bring an end to teaching biblical history in our public schools?

Using the exact arguments she has presented one might think so. Mallory might get a lot more than she bargained for should she win.

Not much difference between Witchcraft – Magic and Miracles. The bible is full of stories like a man parting the sea, turning a staff into a snake, healing of the sick, walking on water, turning water into wine (one of my favorites). Not to mention raising the dead and the earth standing still without everyone on the planet flying off.

Might this end the teaching of Biblical history in Georgia schools?

By Jmarsh

January 23, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

Jenny: Via Cato.org: However, many people believe that such a small amount could not possibly cover tuition at a private school; they may be thinking of such costly schools as Dalton, Andover, and Exeter and concluding that all private schools cost in excess of $10,000 a year.

If you’d like to look here: here the table of costs includes some private school in Fulton and Dekalb counties, among some others from around the country. Yes, there are some schools in that chart that cost 11k a year in 94, but there are some that are under three grand. I advise you check the article out, since even though it’s an old article, it puts to rest many myths that the educational establishment uses, particularly about costs.

Many of the schools are not secular schools, but there is at least one Islamic school in the Fulton/Dekalb mix. Establish the program in “minority areas” only, so “rich white kids” can’t have the same choice as the minority kids. That’s fine with me, except the educational mafia is afraid of even doing that, since they know it will spread. You can even cap vouchers at 1/2 or 3/4 of the “cost” of a public student’s education, to ensure the public schools get a “free” rebate of tax money even if they lose students. Spare me the platitudes about “hurting the funding” of public schools. Private schools can easily function cheaper than public schools, for many reasons, not the least of which is the ability to fire inept or useless staff.

The system isn’t working, and hasn’t worked for decades. Anti-voucher folks are all about protecting the system, not the kids, period.

It’s about the choice afforded of the parents. You seek to deny any parents the choice of choosing the educational path of their child. Use reverse racism to only offer it to po’ minority folk, and we’ll still be better off.

By erpe

January 23, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this

privateschooldad, As a public school teacher, I noticed your horrible grammar right away. You attempted to use “kids” in a possessive form, yet did not even use an apostrophe. I don’t know how many kids you have, but if it is more than one, then your second “kid’s” is wrong, too! Either way, maybe your private school kid(s) can help you with this. In public school, we teach this in 2nd grade. Good luck!

By nowg

January 23, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this

But state officials routinely fund free pre-kindergarten programs for 4-year-olds who attend church-run classes

The Pre_k assessment for the state of Georgia requires that “religious instruction, activities, and materials are not used during the instructional day.”

Waterbug 24 is correct. These public pre-k classes are merely housed within the church buildings. That’s it. Did Bridget really think they were church-run?? We have to do our homework!!!!

I haven’t been here in forever. Just wondering — where is Patti Ghezzi? I’m out of the loop! Thanks

By Blind Homer

January 23, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

It’s more important to try and fix the public schools than to fund the flight to private schools. I doubt the competition will improve public schools. If you can’t find a decent public school you just have to save yourself.

By KC

January 23, 2007 5:09 PM | Link to this

erpe

Zing! I was staying off of the bad grammar in so many posts, but I have to give you a high five.

Somehow I made it through public school and a public university and manage to hold a job and a family together. Obviously something is wrong. I need help.

Have a great day everybody.

By Concerned

January 23, 2007 5:10 PM | Link to this

I agree with catlady. Let the public school teachers nominate the students for vouchers. They most likely would nominate the worst/undisciplined students in their class. That would be a simple way to get rid of all the problems in public school. Also, I believe the formula is backwards. Public school should be free until a student starts misbehaving and stops others from learning. Then the parents of that student should have to pay a private school to teach him.

By Janine

January 23, 2007 5:15 PM | Link to this

RE: students with vouchers not qualifying for private schools AND the voucher not enough to pay for one…..There is the notion around that if vouchers do come about, new private schools will spring up, lower requirements for entrance…lower tuition….Can you see where this is going???

By Jmarsh

January 23, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

Blind Homer, the hated class of “rich and white” can usually already afford to send their kids to private school. Footing the entire bill, while continuing to pay property taxes for schools. Vouchers are a way to help lower and middle class parents have some sort of choice. You still get to nail the rich for taxes, everyone, chill.

As for “fixing” public schools: ok, how does that happen? More money? Student teacher ratio? Physics textbooks printed yesterday? I know, more money!

And yet another generation of kids wastes away, waiting for someone to figure out the answer.

BTW, NCLB was written by Ted Kennedy. On that note, once a school has been categorized as a failing school according to NCLB regs, why is it so hard to get your kid out? Because school districts have come up with all sorts of nasty ways to make sure you don’t have a chance. NCLB was supposed to provide a choice, and the districts do things like “losing” the mail that is supposed to inform parents they can now move their kids out, etc.

“Competition” can’t fix public schools, any more than competition can make union workers build better cars (they can’t really be fired anyway, in either case.) It’s about providing an alternative that will educate your child in the basics. You get to choose whether they get neu-progressive indoctrination, or a Catholic one. Everyone is happy but the teacher’s unions!

By Bridget Gutierrez

January 23, 2007 6:09 PM | Link to this

nowg and waterbug24: You are correct. State guidelines prohibit Pre-K classes from being religious in nature. But churches can and do operate the programs as state-approved providers, they don’t simply “house” them.

By Lee

January 23, 2007 6:26 PM | Link to this

As a parent who is paying BOTH private school tuition and taxes, let me say that, although I would love the financial help, I am against using vouchers for private schools.

When dealing with the government, remember this adage, “There is no free money. There are always strings attached.”

With vouchers, the upper tier private schools would remain exclusive. They would merely raise tuition to a point that would exclude most.

The second tier schools that did accept vouchers would find themselves inundated with government rules, regulations, and red tape.

Finally, a third tier of private schools would crop up. These would be the fly-by-night organizations set up to get the vouchers. Wouldn’t be long before someone would get scammed and then would start crying to the government to save them from the mess they got themselves into.

Public schools? They would probably become the dumping ground for every conceivable pathos imagionable. Heaven help the average student caught up in that mess. (oh wait, they pretty much already are…)

No, leave private schools private. They are working very well, as is, thankyouverymuch.

By WakeUpAmerica

January 23, 2007 6:34 PM | Link to this

The socialist NEA (backed by Globalists like the seditious Rockefeller & Ford Foundations) wants a monopoly on their Governmental indoctrination. Of course they’ll try to derail & undermine all voucher and homeschooling efforts whenever & however they can. It’s all about control!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2006/07/25/neakeepstiltingtothe_left

By JW

January 23, 2007 8:34 PM | Link to this

Some facts:

The No Child Left Behind legislation was co-authored by Department of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, Texas lawyer Sandy Kress, and Spelling’s Chief of Staff David L. Dunn. NOT Ted Kennedy. I wonder how that rumor was started.

Margaret Spellings was a “senior advisor” to Governor Bush in Texas.

Robert Spellings (Margaret’s husband) is/was a lobbyist for school vouchers in Texas.

Does anyone still wonder why public school officials & supporters are so suspicious/paranoid about the true intentions of NCLB?

By Heard it here first

January 24, 2007 8:15 AM | Link to this

Wow.. a standing ovation for jim d on that comment for sure. Well said. I have made that VERY same comparison/argument before and received some uhh very “colorful” responses from the bible crowd.

By Elijah

January 24, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

Teachers, for the vast majority, always have been accountable. Yes, as in any working population you will have a certain percentage that just don’t belong there, but in teaching many believe it’s very small. Yet the easiest scapegoat always is the ground level employee – and in the case of public education that’s our teachers.

What has been touched on to a lesser point in this dialog, but needs to brought to the forefront, is the responsibility of parents, (a topic politicians do not want to touch)either public, private or homeschooled, to not only ensure their children are doing their schoolwork, but also to set the proper environment away from school for learning. This includes — GOD forbid — actually making the little tikes do their homework and other assignments, and if they are having a difficulty that the parent is not competent in helping them with, getting them help! This obviously (maybe not so for some) includes limiting the plethora of distractions our chidlren face today such as television, videos, computer (for entertainment), and if need be …GASP…sports. It boggles my mind when I see young elementary students playing in organized sports leagues well into the evenings on school nights! I’ll give you three guesses as to what many of them should probably be doing. I help you with the answers—studying and then sleeping! On the sleeping issue, I know for a fact by simply looking out my window that many young students are up well past the time they should be getting rest for the next school day.

Yes, there are many children who are naturally bright and will do well under almost any circumstances. Then there are the many who need the proper nudging to do what they should be doing and that’s where parents need to step up and be parents. Parenting is hard, hard work. Many have trouble setting up the expectation and environment for their chidlren’s education success. Even at the so-called worst public schools, you will find those chidren that seem to shine despite the circumstances. In the majority of those cases I’ll bet a lottery ticket that there’s a parent or other adult stressing the importance of education, and doing the hard part of setting up the support structure and environment outside of the classroom to make it happen.

The problem is that society has now brainwashed itself into believing that learning can be legislated and administered from domed capitols and crowded meeting rooms. It is still primarily a partnership between the child, school, and parent/adult. Vouchers will do nothing to address that fact.

The politicizing of education has does neither our children nor our society’s future no great favor.

By Elijah

January 24, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

Oh, before you (you know who you are) start, yes I had a few typos doing this in a hurry, but don’t let that distract you from the point.

By Sue Taylor

January 30, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

My son is in a private school. It is not based on religious preference, but for his education.

He has a Learning Disability and the phsychologist at our local public school advised me not to bring him into the public system because they would not be able to (effectively)support his LD.

It was interesting to hear talk in the last couple of years regarding cutting funding for schools. What was one of the first services that was mentioned to drop? Support services. Of course, there was more outcry about the possiblity of dropping music from parents.

We then tried myriad private (and religious schools) who would not take him, because they could not support a child with LD.

Somethings gotta give folks!

I am dismayed that parents who have their children in private schools would oppose this bill.

I am sick, out of pocket thousands of $$$ and really tired of constantly having to advicate for my child for it to fall on deaf ears.

We are talking about the wellfare and future of children. Not how much government may encroach on your private schools!