This is why vouchers for schools don't work. (vote, status, percentage)

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

So long as the government funds something it will influence it. It is incredibly naive to think that private schools wont turn into the same "social experiment gone amok" once the flow of govt subsidies and hand outs find their way into the school budget.
And expect tuitions to rise at private schools once a third party (govt) stars paying.
Dont believe me? Look at the modern university system

For sure if the schools take the money, they'll have to follow some rules about how to use it.

[Frank DeForrest]

Originally Posted by pghquest

I'm not in a better position to dictate to you what school your kids should attend. If you choose to send your kids to a school thats tainted more than others, thats YOUR CHOICE..

My point is they will all be tainted why do believe otherwise?

The only way for private schools to maintain integrity is to remain private and refuse public money.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

My point is they will all be tainted why do believe otherwise?

The only way for private schools to maintain integrity is to remain private and refuse public money.

So if schools lack integrity because they take public money, whats this say about every public school in the nation?

[Frank DeForrest]

Originally Posted by pghquest

So if schools lack integrity because they take public money, whats this say about every public school in the nation?

They lack integrity and teach only what the govt wants taught.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

They lack integrity and teach only what the govt wants taught.

The private schools now have to teach what the government wants, or they revoke their license, just like home schooled students must learn what the government wants. The only way to remove government completely is to have people pay for their own kids and banish property school taxes..

Here is the PA application form to get a license..
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...59568121,d.aWM

[OpinionInOcala]

Originally Posted by pghquest

And not having vouchers doesnt get parents engaged either, not a valid point

It's a very valid point since schools alone do not determine academic performance. The voucher system presupposes that they do. Conditions at home play a large role in the educational and ethical development of children, and forcefully imposing the often problematic children of such disengaged households into private environments does a disservice to the preexisting student body.

Originally Posted by pghquest

And once again, the public school system doesnt tailor to students abilities either.

You're right, and they should. In fact, the entire educational system should be redesigned. But that's for another discussion.

Originally Posted by pghquest

In fact a voucher program would remove those from the public system who are capable of working within the system, leaving more money, and less students so the classes left could be tailored.

No, a voucher-for-all system would remove [any] children whose parents feel so inclined to select another choice. Not only is the original problem left in tact, but additional issues are created as a result.

Originally Posted by pghquest

There is no mandatory religious indoctrination taking place, even if tehre was a voucher system. You would CHOOSE to send your kids to a school, YOU WANT TO..

It is not a legitimate choice to effectively say: 'The quality of your child's education may be influenced by their ability to cope with the specific spiritual perspectives and initiatives requisite of our curriculum.'

Also, the use of caps lock is rather infantile and completely unnecessary.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Completely ridiculous. The 1st Amendment ensures freedom of religion, it doesnt forbid any money going towards them. When the Constitution was written, there were numerous government established churches.

Case law deems that the 1st Amendment also preclude the establishment of a single religion. And, while it may have been the case 200+ years ago that there existed government-established churches, not only is this 2014 (according to my calendar), but a 'church' as an entity is (and should be) a wholly separate entity from a K-12 institution receiving public dollars.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by OpinionInOcala

It's a very valid point since schools alone do not determine academic performance. The voucher system presupposes that they do. Conditions at home play a large role in the educational and ethical development of children, and forcefully imposing the often problematic children of such disengaged households into private environments does a disservice to the preexisting student body.

There is nothing in a voucher system which does anything which you just suggested it does.

Originally Posted by OpinionInOcala

You're right, and they should. In fact, the entire educational system should be redesigned. But that's for another discussion.

I agree

Originally Posted by OpinionInOcala

No, a voucher-for-all system would remove [any] children whose parents feel so inclined to select another choice. Not only is the original problem left in tact, but additional issues are created as a result.

no, the original problem is parents who dont give a crap about their kids education and kids who dont take their educatin seriously, or even those who cant be educated during the "standard" process. Removing kids from the environment that arent a trouble, leaves the school in a better position to focus on those left.

Originally Posted by OpinionInOcala

It is not a legitimate choice to effectively say: 'The quality of your child's education may be influenced by their ability to cope with the specific spiritual perspectives and initiatives requisite of our curriculum.'

Agreed, which is why removing kids out of the picture that can cope with the curriculum allowes the school better resources and ability to focus on who cant.

Originally Posted by OpinionInOcala

Also, the use of caps lock is rather infantile and completely unnecessary.

Bull..

Originally Posted by OpinionInOcala

Case law deems that the 1st Amendment also preclude the establishment of a single religion. And, while it may have been the case 200+ years ago that there existed government-established churches, not only is this 2014 (according to my calendar), but a 'church' as an entity is (and should be) a wholly separate entity from a K-12 institution receiving public dollars.

So you cite the first amendment, and then when I point out that the first amendment doesnt proclaim what you say it says, you whine about the fact that its 200+ years ago and not relevant.

Then why did you cite it?

[OpinionInOcala]

Originally Posted by pghquest

There is nothing in a voucher system which does anything which you just suggested it does.

It does so by virtue of its very nature. Your say-so otherwise doesn't change that, as much as you may believe that it does.

Originally Posted by pghquest

I agree

I'm glad we're at least on the same page here. The educational system as it currently exists is quite disappointing.

Originally Posted by pghquest

no, the original problem is parents who dont give a crap about their kids education and kids who dont take their educatin seriously, or even those who cant be educated during the "standard" process. Removing kids from the environment that arent a trouble, leaves the school in a better position to focus on those left.

It does both what I said and what you're now implying erroneously to exclusivity. As such, it is more a shuffling than a net improvement, and with additional issues to possibly confront. The difference between how you appear to see it and what I previously stated is that your view on this particular point seems to suggest location-based form of academic segregation. If that's the case, it would certainly not be the answer, but rather, a problem in itself.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Agreed, which is why removing kids out of the picture that can cope with the curriculum allowes the school better resources and ability to focus on who cant.

Again, this is indicative of a location-based form of academic segregation. I'm fine with grouping individual classes according to achievement potential, but what you're suggesting is the forceful prevention of intermingling; a form of social class warfare.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Bull..

In a back-and-forth discussion, shouting -- or its internet forum equivalent -- is absolutely unneeded. The only purpose it serves is to denote that you're emotionally bothered by what amounts to being a simple difference of opinion, and that's undeniably myopic, if not dangerous.

Originally Posted by pghquest

So you cite the first amendment, and then when I point out that the first amendment doesnt proclaim what you say it says, you whine about the fact that its 200+ years ago and not relevant.

Then why did you cite it?

The 1st Amendment does indeed proclaim what I said, along with what you said as well. I also never said it wasn't "relevant," so I'd appreciate your not attributing specific wording to me that I never used. And, since you clearly haven't read it in a while, I'll quote the pertinent verbiage from Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". It's really not all that hard to see that your response was a half-truth at best, coupled with the denouncement of readily observable fact in an effort to marginalize my own opinion simply because you want to disagree with it. Reality doesn't work that way, unfortunately.

[natalie469]

Vouchers won't work unless the parents can get their kids there and pick them up which most can't do. I know a lot of you blame the teachers but honestly the parents are even more at fault.

[totsuka]

I would support vouchers across the board for anyone that had a child in public school. It would save the taxpayers money and put more emphasis on the parents to take interest in their child's education.