Could Federal Educational Vouchers Aimed at the Poor and Useable in Public Schools Work?

[BrentWil]

Vouchers, as currently envisioned by the Republicans, seem to be a means of funding certain private school and taking resources away from poorer school distracts. However, despite the bad imagine, I think a targeted voucher program at the federal level might work.

I would not and do not support giving vouchers to everyone. What I would suggest is giving vouchers that are means tested to the poor and lower middle class. In other words, start providing full vouchers (10K) for families making less then 30,657 for a family of four (133% of poverty level for a family of 4: http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html) and phase out completely when income reaches. $46,100 (200% over the poverty level for a family of 4). The vouchers would be usable at any school. In other words, it would be a Federal vouchers that could be used at a local public school or private school. It would not interfere with current funding streams and would work to add to them. This would provide a huge economic stimulus to poorer communities because they have a large amount of the student that would be enrolled in the program. Also, the vouchers would have to be significant, given the lack of resources many of these families have. I threw out the number 10K, but the real number would take planning and study.

To ensure that there is some quality in the standard of education, as a consequence of taking the vouchers schools would have to provide a statistically significant sample of their students to be tested. However, the test would be extremely board and something that most students would fail. The child would never know his score but it would provide some measure for the school. The effort here would not be to test the child, but see that a school is using curriculum that will aid the child and that the school is generally producing some results. In other words, you test broadly so no school can never teach towards the test.

Some thought would have to be put in place for how this would work with home schoolers. However, I think the general idea creates a flow of resources that parents can control for the benefit of their child. I think it could have some positive affect, even if the only effect is to provide federal dollars into local school districts.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

1. In a word, no, except if by 'work'

you mean robbing public schools of resources to give to religious institutions and other "private" entities.

Once a mechanism is put in place to distribute vouchers to fund education, IMO it's impossible to enforce restrictions on who gets them.

Currently, parents who want to prevent their children from going to school with minorities or children of lower socioeconomic status must pay taxes for public education they choose not to use. Vouchers would allow them to supplement the tuition they currently pay with tax dollars stolen from public-school children.

And 80 percent of "private" schools are run by religious institutions. Under your plan, tax dollars would be used to teach children that evolution is heresy and that Jesus was a supply-sider.

The very genesis of school voucher plans was during the desegregation era. Southern school districts closed all their public schools to avoid desegregation, and southern politicians sought to use public funds to run all-white "Christian academies".

IMO you have been drawn into a scam promoted by right-wingers who've tried for 50 years but never have been able to show that "private" schools do a better job of educating children than public schools when the private schools must take the same students as the public schools.

[BrentWil]

5. How is providing an additional funding stream robbing? If the money comes from a new federal

program, how does it effect school funding, which is mostly at the state and local level?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

8. If the feds do it, why wouldn't

state and local governments follow suit? If your federal voucher program withstands constitutional challenge, what would stop state and local governments from yielding to tremendous pressure from those who want to supplement what they're paying now with government help?

Your federal voucher mechanism IMO would open the floodgates for depriving public school children whose parents cannot afford to pay tuition in order to benefit parents who already send their children to religious and other 'private' schools.

And for what? You haven't spelled out any benefits of your proposed radical scheme.

[BrentWil]

11. Because they are already running schools

Would be a very difficult thing to do. Moreover, the federal vochers targeted to the poor. Wouldn't be mainly a means to get federal money into poorer districts while giving some options, where those options are there.

I have spelled out benefits. Did you read the OP?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

15. Yes, I read the OP. But I don't see ANY

benefits listed. Please list concisely the benefits you see from your radical voucher funding scheme.

[BrentWil]

16. Here are the portions of the OP

What I would suggest is giving vouchers that are means tested to the poor and lower middle class. In other words, start providing full vouchers (10K) for families making less then 30,657 for a family of four (133% of poverty level for a family of 4: http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html) and phase out completely when income reaches $46,100 (200% over the poverty level for a family of 4). The vouchers would be usable at any school. In other words, it would be a Federal vouchers that could be used at a local public school or private school. It would not interfere with current funding streams and would work to add to them. This would provide a huge economic stimulus to poorer communities because they have a large amount of the student that would be enrolled in the program. Also, the vouchers would have to be significant, given the lack of resources many of these families have. I threw out the number 10K, but the real number would take planning and study.


I would suggest funding come from an increased income tax at the top tax bracket.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

18. The only alleged BENEFIT for poor children I see in your posts is

"economic stimulus to poor communities". But since IMO your proposal simply would redirect the current 9 percent federal funding of K-12 education ostensibly targeted to poor children, this alleged benefit is nonexistent. In fact, your scheme IMO would REMOVE significant funds currently directed to poor children whose parents cannot afford private school tuition.

[BrentWil]

23. Where am I suggesting that?

Where am I suggesting redirection of current funding? I am suggesting that the federal government give vouchers directly to poorer families and they decide where the money will go, either to local public schools or private schools. I have not mentioned nor would I want to eliminate any program.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

30. See post #17 below. You are

proposing a duplicate program with ostensibly the same goals as the existing Title I.

Any congressional committee marking up your proposed funding bill would take note of this fact and either reject your bill out of hand (Democrats) or apply it to money already being spent (Republicans).

To argue otherwise is extremely naive given the current debt and deficit. No Democratic administration would support national school vouchers in any way.

School vouchers are the best means to the Republican end of eliminating public schools, replacing them with schools that will be segregated and wiil distort history and science toward Republican political beliefs.

Privatizing schools brings about "consumer sovereignty": children whose parents can afford to supplement tax-funded vouchers with tuition money will get better educations. Children whose parents cannot supplement the voucher will get clearly and openly inferior educations, preparing them for minimum-wage inferior roles in adult society.

[BrentWil]

31. While not popular on this board, there is plenty of evidence that some Dems do support

something like this. And i think if politically possible, the Obama administration might. I would suggest you look at some of the statements coming from the administration, for example.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

35. I DARE you to find a WH.gov link

that voices official Obama administration support for national school voucers to privatize K-!2 education. You are slandering President Obama.

[BrentWil]

43. That isn't what I said

I said statements from the administration. For example, this one from Secretary Duncan on the DC voucher program:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-03-04-duncan-vouchers_N.htm

"I don't think it makes sense to take kids out of a school where they're happy and safe and satisfied and learning," Duncan told said. "I think those kids need to stay in their school."

Publicly, he has been much more supportive of charter schools and other reforms. However, I don't think one can argue that he doesn't think that some reform is needed.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

49. Is that support for a national voucher program

to privatize K-12 education and eliminate public schools?

[BrentWil]

50. What I said is that if you read some of their statements

One understands that they aren't against certain reforms. Of course they aren't gong to come out for a national program as outlined, right now. But to suggest that all Dems would be against it, is wrong, I think.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

51. So you admit your ultimate goal is to destroy public schools--

'Of course they aren't going to come our for a national (voucher) program ... now."

Your modest proposal is like criminalization of "partial birth abortion". Once a criminal statute is in place, expanding it is easy--to all abortions after the second week of pregnancy, then to all abortions, then to contraception.

You actually linked in this thread to a story about the DC voucher program Republicans forced onto the "nation's last colony." Your national program restricted to the poor would be a next step. Then finally all restrictions on who could get a national K-12 voucher would be lifted.

Following the federal precedent, state and local governments could follow suit and establish their owh voucher plans. Public schools would wither as "private" K-12 schools--80 percent of which are run be religious institutions--would eliminate the line between church and state. Churches would use tax revenues to indoctinate clildren with distorted history and science books, and distorted righr-wing notions of religion.

Nice plan, but you are busted.

[BrentWil]

53. I would assume the ultimate goal is education...

But this doesn't destroy anything.

As I stated in the OP, one would have to figure out a means to provide some control over curriculum.

[sabrina 1]

75. Arne Duncan is the worst thing to have happened to education for a long time.

First, the man has shown over and over again that he knows nothing about 'education'. But he knows a lot about 'business'. To him, education IS business.

I would not use Arne Duncan to bolster your case for vouchers. He should be fired, actually he never should have been given this position. As an educator I can say he is one of the worst and most uninformed people I have ever seen in the position he is in.

[BrentWil]

82. Maybe...

But he is still a in the Democratic Party. My point isn't rather he is good or bad. It that there are democratic voters and office holders who would support something like what I am saying.

[Edweird]

96. There's plenty of evidence that some "dems" support all kinds of RW policies. So what?

It's still RW policy and it still sucks.

[BrentWil]

97. How is a federal program that gives money to the poor, "RW"? NT

[Edweird]

100. Privatization is RW.

[BrentWil]

101. Who is providing privatization?

I am simply saying, "You, who have never had any economic power in education.... Here is some power."

[MattBaggins]

22. If you can get this money, why no provide money to the schools that are poor?

Where are all these kids going to go?

[BrentWil]

24. Because it gives the power to the poor family and actually does give them a some economic power over

education. Basically, I am suggesting we do what the republican CLAIM they want to do.

They will go wherever they as individuals can make best use of the voucher. I am sure more options will open if the program is were to be funded. In 5 years, I would suggest, the question of where they would go would go, will look silly.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. And the kids whose parents don't bother to apply are out of luck.

You don't see a problem with that??

[BrentWil]

39. The school would have a self interest in insuring the money is there..

I don't see where this would be a huge problem or that any kids would be out of luck. But certainly, the law couldn't be written in which there was an application process that excluded anyone.

[sabrina 1]

78. And what happens if every family accepts these vouchers?

That would end the Public School System. Which of course is the goal of the rightwing. To privatize all that Public School funding. The Right wants to get its hands on all public funding, and put it into private hands. Medicaid funds (which they have now almost fully succeeded in doing) Medicare, Education, any funding set aside for the public have been the target of the right for decades.

[BrentWil]

79. Everyone in the income will and most of the money will go to Public Schools

Read the OP

[ProgressiveEconomist]

17. How would this be a "NEW" federal funding stream?

Presumably, your plan would redirect the 9 percent of K-12 spending already funded by the feds. Ostensibly, through Title I and other laws, federal school funding already is targeted to the poor. But somehow, fully 50 percent of all public schools already get federal funding.

IMO your scheme would blunt the targeting much much further, given politicans' attentiveness to religious institutions and to parents who can afford to pay private school tuition.

[white_wolf]

2. Not just no, but hell no!

We shouldn't encourage the privatization of schools, we should invest more money into public schools.

[BrentWil]

7. WHy?

[white_wolf]

10. I firmly oppose any attempts at privatization of formerly public services.

This voucher program is just an attempt to erode support for public schools.

[BrentWil]

12. Why?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

41. because privatization doesn't work

It's a scam, designed solely to take a big pile of public education money and put it in the hands of private corporations who, I promise, care much more about next quarter's results than they do about educating children. There are services that should never be privatized. Public schools are in this category.

[BrentWil]

44. Rich kids like private schools and it seems to work for getting into Harvard, for example

Moreover, I think Public schools are a key foundation of the society. I wouldn't want them touched. This doesn't touch them.

[sabrina 1]

80. Why don't you check out the history of the Public Schools, and maybe you can

then understand why privatizing education is such a bad, and that's putting it mildly, idea.

I really miss MadFloridian at times like this.

[limpyhobbler]

3. I don't have a problem as long as they are only good at public schools and that's it.

On edit -
Kids in poor districts could then go to the rich kids' school. It could be an equalizer.

[JDPriestly]

4. This would not work because there is not enough room in the top schools for all the

children who might choose to attend. You need some way to decide who gets to go where.

I favor neighborhood schools. Our neighborhood school was not well rated, but my daughters went there and have done extremely well.

[BrentWil]

13. But it does give a means to pay and a reason for people to develop "topnotch" schools in poorer

areas. At worse, it gets more funding into schools that have to educate a poorer population.

[JDPriestly]

37. I do not see that it would get more funding into schools that have to educate a poorer

population.

If you want to improve the quality of education in this country, you would have to improve the quality of television programming. That is where the parents of the children who are not performing well in school get their information and their education. And most of the TV shows are anti-intellectual and discourage children and their parents from learning the skills they need or developing the values they need to succeed in school.

TV is the national hog trough, and the water in it is really filthy.

[BrentWil]

38. If the money is only given to the poor to use,

and they have to give it to the school they go to, the money goes to schools that educate the poor. How does it not?

[JDPriestly]

90. You are thinking in the abstract.

In reality, the schools that the poor would use their vouchers for either don't exist, are too far from the homes of the poor or would not accept very many children who are poor. That is, at least, true in a city the size of Los Angeles. The poor and the rich live in very different areas of this large city.

The reality is that, noble as the idea of vouchers for the poor sounds, it doesn't work well. I have done the long-distance-communting-to-school with my kids. It was horrible.

5 p.m. and your kids are still not home. You call the school district and learn that their bus had a small accident and the kids are waiting for the arrival of a replacement bus to pick them up.

Vouchers are not the answer. Good, local schools are. And to improve our schools, we have to improve our culture -- starting with television.

[BrentWil]

91. No I am not...

I am thinking about economic power. The reason they exist far away from the poor, is because the poor can't afford to pay for the schools. If given 10K dollars, people would either move in to offer some choice and most of the money would be federal money for poorer public schools. Either way, the system I am suggesting works.

That is not to say that most voucher systems wouldn't be awful for poor kids. However, if you did design the right system, vouchers would be great for the poor because it gives them economic power.

[LiberalFighter]

6. You don't need vouchers for public schools.

[PA Democrat]

9. Public schools by law have to provide a "free and appropriate education"

for students with disabilties. Private schools can pick and choose which students are admitted to their schools. They can expel "problem" students.

Vouchers will enable private schools to drain funds from the public schools while admitting only those students that are the LEAST EXPENSIVE to educate.

[BrentWil]

14. How does it drain funds, if the funding comes from a different source?

[PA Democrat]

20. Because special education is not fully funded by the federal and state governments.

A significant portion of the cost of educating students with special needs comes out of individual school districts' general funds. If public schools are left with a higher percentage of special needs students as private schools skim off the easiest students to teach, the public schools are left financially strapped to educate a student body with a higher concentration of students who are more expensive to educate.

[BrentWil]

26. The tax base and the current funding streams are still there..

This is a only a federal funds. So the local school system still has its same tax base. The only difference would be that if the special needs child is poor, there would be 10K attached to him/her for whatever school the they picked.

[PA Democrat]

29. $10K to educate a child with special needs? That is a drop in the bucket

in the total costs to educate most kids with special needs. There are kids who need full-time aides, who recieve multiple special therapies, such as speech and OT. Smaller classrooms and special instructional materials are a must because of the unique needs of the children in the placement. Staff need additiponal training and education.

Unless a family is rich, a child with special needs will remain in the public school that will be faced with a higher percentage of special needs students.

Additionally, the public schools would most definitely face a cut in funding since the federal and state portions of funding of public schools are based upon enrollment. The local tax base would remain the same under your scenario, but total funding would decline.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. There's a point you're missing: most states fund schools based on the number of students attending

If School A drops from 500 to 400 because the best students all left for the suburbs, School A loses 20% of its state aid.

How is that supposed to help it improve?

[BrentWil]

46. If you have less students..

Then it would follow that you need less money (less teachers, etc) That is current funding, and I see no problem. However, for the 400 that are left, some of them will more then likely get 10K in vouchers. in pooer areas, 90 to 80 percent might. If 90 percent of the 400 got 10K, the school would basically get a $360,000 federal grant to educate their students. This would be in addition State and local money.

However, the key thing is, it would be in the Schools interest to keep the poorer kids there. It gives the power to the poor and they have an economic choice.

[zoechen]

19. If a private school...

Is good enough for the president I am not sure why It would not do for my children (assuming I had any).


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/21/sidwell-friends-obama-gir_n_145606.html





WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama and his wife have chosen Sidwell Frien\ds School for their two daughters, opting for a private institution that another White House child, Chelsea Clinton, attended a decade ago.

"A number of great schools were considered," said Katie McCormick Lelyveld, a spokeswoman for Michelle Obama. "In the end, the Obamas selected the school that was the best fit for what their daughters need right now."

She said Sidwell can provide the security and privacy that Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, will need as part of the new first family and Sidwell can help with that. She also said that Sasha and Malia had become good friends with Vice President-elect Joe Biden's grandchildren, who go to the school.

Sidwell is a private Quaker school with a campus in northwest Washington for grades 5-12 and another in suburban Bethesda, Md., for kindergarten through fourth grade. Malia is in fifth grade and Sasha is in second grade, suggesting that the girls would attend schools at different locations.

Michelle Obama and her daughters visited Sidwell and another elite private school, Georgetown Day, earlier this week. The soon-to-be first lady visited both schools last week, without her daughters.

Lelyveld said that while public schools were considered, the Obamas felt that a private school was in the best interest of their children. The two girls currently attend the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, where Michelle Obama is on the board.

Michelle Obama went to public schools on Chicago's South Side, and understands the importance of strong public schools, Lelyveld said, and the administration plans to work hard on that issue.

Jimmy Carter's daughter, Amy, went to a public school, but Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton chose Sidwell for Chelsea. Hillary Clinton later said she received "unfortunately, good advice" that the press would bother Chelsea if she attended public school.




Sidwell Friends has already proven protective of the Obamas' privacy, refusing earlier this week to say whether the girls had visited the school after a motorcade was seen outside.

Messages left with school administrators on Friday were not immediately returned. A woman who answered the phone at the home of Bruce Stewart, Sidwell's head of school, said he was not home. But she said the school would not release a statement before Monday.

Al Gore III, the son of former Vice President Al Gore, also attended Sidwell, where tuition is $28,442 at the lower school and $29,442 at the middle and upper schools.

The quality of the school and its extra security make Sidwell Friends a good choice, said Letitia Baldrige, who was Jackie Kennedy's social secretary and chief of staff during the Kennedy administration. Caroline Kennedy attended first grade in a makeshift third-floor classroom inside the White House.

"The children are under enormous pressure from the press and their fellow students and especially the mommies of their fellow students," who are eager for their children to attend sleepovers, Baldrige said.

"I'm sure they'll both be athletically inclined and play on all the sports teams, and they'll have a lot of fun," Baldrige said. "But it won't be easy."

Rob Lippincott, a member of the board of trustees at Sidwell, where his daughter is a high school senior, said he could not confirm whether the Obama girls had chosen the school. But he said if so, students and parents will be excited.

"We're obviously delighted if that is the case. I have not heard anything officially," said Lippincott, senior vice president for education at PBS. "I'm certainly aware they came and visited. From everything I understand, they'd be a great addition to the school."

[newspeak]

21. There are certain departments I believe shouldn't be privatized

prisons, schools, security, postal service are just some. The main goal of a corporation is to make profits. Sure there are some non-profit; but not most of them. We will wind up spending more so they can have that profit margin; while cutting costs by decreasing wages and hiring uncertified instructors.

My worse nightmare is the greedheads on the hill privatizing the shite out of everything public. Where the people are beholding to the corporations, paying more, with little or no representation of the people against the corporate mob. Where corporations, being funnelled our money, while we are FORCED to be a consumer to them, gain more and more power; while the peoples' power is greatly diminished.

So, by my rant; you can see I am against a voucher program and I'm against a privatized SS program (yeah, let's hand greedy WS more of our money to screw with).

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Take my word on it

10K will not buy you two weeks at Sidwell.

[msanthrope]

32. 10k could buy you a whole year at Sidwell. The average tuition award there is over 20k.

The Friends believe in economic diversity, and thus, the average tuition award is about 2/3rds of the tuition.

A 10k voucher would put a family in the running quite nicely.

My child's class has kids of all economic levels. Without a doubt, many families get financial aid from the endowment.

[KamaAina]

25. Why would anyone use such a voucher in a public school

that is already free?!

[BrentWil]

48. Because it offers a better value then other schools in the area..

What I am basically saying, if the child goes to a public school, the voucher is given up. If they go to a private school, the voucher is given up. Wherever they go, that school gets 10K from the federal government. Thus, it would be a huge benefit for public schools that serve poorer areas.

[ProSense]

55. This

Because it offers a better value then other schools in the area..

What I am basically saying, if the child goes to a public school, the voucher is given up. If they go to a private school, the voucher is given up. Wherever they go, that school gets 10K from the federal government. Thus, it would be a huge benefit for public schools that serve poorer areas.

...reads like an argument trying to justify private school vouchers by concocting a scheme to introduce an unnecessary voucher scheme to public schools. The question is why?

Here's a better idea: Improve the damn schools, prepare the teachers and provide adequate funding. The U.S. just spent more than $100 billion a year for nearly a decade on two stupid wars.

[BrentWil]

56. Because this puts the power into the hands of the poor

And gives them some of the economic choose and power that the rich have, at least in terms of education.

[ProSense]

58. Nonsense

"Because this puts the power into the hands of the poor"

It denigrates the concept of public education and opens the system to abuse.


"And gives them some of the economic choose and power that the rich have, at least in terms of education."

This is the same argument used to support vouchers for private schools. Vouchers for public schools, which are free, is unnecessary.

[BrentWil]

60. A child that brings 10K to a public school would not be irrelevant.

My father spent his adult life as both a teacher and administrator in a very poor district in North Carolina (Edgecombe County). A child that carried 10K dollars in funding would not have been unnecessary to him. It would have meant a huge benefit for the school.

[ProSense]

64. Wait

A child that brings 10K to a public school would not be irrelevant.

My father spent his adult life as both a teacher and administrator in a very poor district in North Carolina (Edgecombe County). A child that carried 10K dollars in funding would not have been unnecessary to him. It would have meant a huge benefit for the school.

...public schools are free, remember?

The government doesn't have to attach $10,000 to a student, it simply has to improve the schools, prepare the teachers and adquately fund the damn public school system. Period.

[BrentWil]

66. Do you know what 10K of free money to a poor school or school district means?

If they go to a public school, the school basically gets a 10K block grant per poor child. That would be huge for any public school district in a poor area.

[ProSense]

69. What?

Do you know what 10K of free money to a poor school or school district means?

If they go to a public school, the school basically gets a 10K block grant per poor child. That would be huge for any public school district in a poor area.

What the hell is "free money"?

[BrentWil]

76. Federal money for local districts with no strings is free money, for them NT

[ProSense]

81. That's

"Federal money for local districts with no strings is free money, for them"

...absurd!

[BrentWil]

83. Maybe...

Some strings attached would be smart. Would want some control over the curriculum (i.e. no creation teaching). However, I think it is possible to set up a system that works and allows maximum autonomy and direct funding.

[BrentWil]

71. Local schools and districts are the means to do that...

This provides them with extra money to do just that.

[sabrina 1]

84. Hell must have frozen, but I could not agree with you more. n/t

[BrentWil]

88. We agree on most things, actually...

1. Freedom of Speech
2. Freedom of Religion
3. Freedom from unwanted searchers.


Just look at those three and remember that some of that is under attack in the United States and it isn't established elsewhere. On the big stuff, we agree on a ton.

[ProSense]

54. Because

"Why would anyone use such a voucher in a public school"

...when advancing RW ideas, stuff doesn't have to make sense.

[BrentWil]

57. Do you really think the GOP would support a program as outlined above?

Just because I am suggesting a voucher program, doesn't mean the GOP would support it. I am saying, one should only target those who need it. The GOP at the local area want to use tax payer money to pay for kids that are already going to private schools or have that option.

[ProSense]

61. Actually

Do you really think the GOP would support a program as outlined above?

Just because I am suggesting a voucher program, doesn't mean the GOP would support it. I am saying, one should only target those who need it. The GOP at the local area want to use tax payer money to pay for kids that are already

...yes, and for the very reason I stated: It denigrates the concept of public education and opens the system to abuse.

You advocate a RW proposal disguised as something you believe sounds progressive (and it's not), and then insist it's progressive because you believe the GOP wouldn't support it.

In the end, it's still a RW proposal.

[BrentWil]

63. Arguing something is RW doesn't make it so...

Nor does it add much strength to your argument. You still haven't answered how a program that doesn't effect current funding, will somehow affect current funding.

[ProSense]

65. Do

Arguing something is RW doesn't make it so...

Nor does it add much strength to your argument. You still haven't answered how a program that doesn't effect current funding, will somehow effect current funding.

...you mean "affect"?

I don't have to answer why paying for public schools is necessary because public schools are free.

[BrentWil]

67. Why would a federal block grant to public schools that educate poorer kids be bad?

Sorry on the effect thing. I did not go to fancy schools growing up.

[ProSense]

68. I

"Why would a federal block grant to public schools that educate poorer kids be bad? NT"

...believe I stated why:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=315837

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=315926


"Sorry on the effect thing. I did not go to fancy schools growing up."

...neither did I: public schools.

[BrentWil]

70. How does does this "denigrates the concept of public education and opens the system to abuse"

What abuse? And how is the concept denigrated. You stated this as a fact. You have provided no evidence to support it.

[ProSense]

72. Well,

How does does this "denigrates the concept of public education and opens the system to abuse"

What abuse? And how is the concept denigrated. You stated this as a fact. You have provided no evidence to support it.

...suggeting that people pay for free education isn't brilliant, and you provided no evidence that paying for a free education improves education.

[BrentWil]

73. I woud argue that giving more funding to poor public schools allows the local school the tools

needed to improve education. Or does school funding not matter in terms of education results?

[ProSense]

74. It's

I woud argue that giving more funding to poor public schools allows the local school the tools

needed to improve education. Or does school funding not matter in terms of education results?

...like you're talking in circles. See the "better idea" here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=315686

[BrentWil]

77. Still haven't answered why more funding for poorer schools is a bad thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Vouchers are a means to privatize education

Also, I'd like you to find a good private school that only charges 10K a year. This is a way to quickly create a two tier system.

Oh and republicans are not about improving the commons, but privatizing anything not nailed down. Why are you adopting their frames?

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. No. We should help ALL of our low income kids.

Not just the few whose parents apply for vouchers.

[BrentWil]

40. I would want no real application process...

it shouldn't be that hard to identify those under 133% of the poverty line. The schools could also have a role in the process. I doubt any school public school would want to pass up on 10K from the federal government.

[TheKentuckian]

59. 133% of poverty is fucking poor, those folks will not have the rest of the money for private school

200% probably can't come up with it at all and then you leave everyone else out in the cold to fend for themselves or without choices.

Want to bolster Public Schools and education all around? Stop accrediting private schools. Make those diplomas worthless and force the wealthy kids into the "small people" world.

The big private (Catholic) schools around here cost more than state college.

[BrentWil]

62. Accreditation for Private schools are done by independent private bodies, I thought

Like college. Only professional degrees (JD, Medical Doctor) have a real governmental element. And even that, the State Bar, is an independent body.

On your first point. Okay, then poorer public schools will get more funding.

[TheKentuckian]

86. They have to have money to operate, they operate across state lines, and credibilty is

conveyed some how which means that they can be weakened if not undone.

Hell, no Federal dollars for certain accrediation might just do it any way. No money for the schools, no Federal grants or loans for their graduates, and no money for the universities if they have too many "unaccredited" students and that would include research dollars or help with bonding issues.

If you're sneaky enough, you might even stick it into some unrelated legislation that gets the opposition to supply the votes and then beat them up for while "somehow" never changing it.

Perhaps anyone not enrolled in public school could be deemed truant until they comply. They may still go to private "school" as an outside activity but it may not be used as a substitute for reconized education.

If the point is to give poorer schools more money, then fight for that. You cannot put the poor on the same footing as the wealthy, they can always price us out. The objective then becomes to force the wealthy to share our burden instead of allowing them to set up alternative infrastructures for their own benefit.

[BrentWil]

87. To what end?

How does this better education any?

[Hugabear]

42. No, no, no, TEN THOUSAND TIMES NO

If schools were PROPERLY FUNDED, there would be no need for students to transfer to another school.

The problem is that schools - predominantly those in heavily minority areas - are woefully under-funded. If they received the same funding and attention as schools in predominantly wealthy (white) areas, you'd fix the problem.

By allowing students to transfer out, you're basically just throwing in the towel and admitting defeat. You're condemning those 'failing' schools to a vicious circle, making it even more difficult for them to succeed.

[BrentWil]

47. Then this would solve that problem. So there we go. NT

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. +1

[Snake Alchemist]

45. No! The poor need to be confined to their own

Failing schools. They would simply drag down the good wealthier children if they were allowed to their schools.

[BrentWil]

85. Either very good sarcastic remarker or really bad post NT

[Major Nikon]

89. School vouchers always have been and always will be a nutty idea

Personally I think all public schools should either be federalized or much more heavily regulated than they are presently. There should be no such thing as a rich school district and a poor school district. Every child in the US should be given the same education opportunity.

[BrentWil]

92. You would outlaw private schools?

Rich kids will all buy their way out of that system in two blinks of an eye. The federal government would destroy public schools.

[Major Nikon]

93. I'm fine with private schools just so long as I don't have to help fund them

[BrentWil]

94. Then you will have a poorly administered national school system that only the middle to poor class

go to. That is the result. Local control works far better in education. The federal government would create a huge mess if they actually tried to run schools.

Hell, Look at No Child Left Behind. The real secrete is at the local level.

[Major Nikon]

95. Local control of the school system is what has created the mess we have

Local control of the school system gives you schools that teach junk science over real science. You get too much emphasis on building elite football teams at the expense of everything else. You get some schools which have way too much money while others get barely enough to stay open. You get school boards that defy federal law and use taxpayer money to defend unwinnable lawsuits. You get an unstable funding source that leads to all sorts of problems. You get school administrators that make more than the President. Along with all of this you still get 'No Child Left Behind'. In other words, you get everything bad that comes with federal control and nothing that's good about it.

[BrentWil]

98. No Child Left behind is federal control...

THere are problems with local control. Some sort of sort control over curriculum might be helpful. But the feds running it would be a disaster. THe federal government is a large insurance company with a defense department. When it moves past that, it doesn't really perform that well.

Federal programs should be simple (transfers of wealth from rich to poor) or absolutely needed (i.e. environmental protections). In general, government works best at the local level.

[Major Nikon]

99. Exactly

So even with local control you still get No Child Left Behind. That's the point.

You're making the same argument that the looneytarians make which is to point out the absolute worst things about federal control and pretending that it would all be that way. Where the harm comes in is when you introduce more political elements into the process. So instead of only having one political element, you have an almost infinite number of them. That's why and how things get so fucked up. Our national transportation system works beautifully because there is very little political influence at the local level. The same goes for the military. Say what you will about federal law enforcement, but it's infinitely better than local law enforcement. Say what you will about the federal courts system, but it's infinitely better than state and local courts. Most of the local programs that work well are those which are heavily regulated by the federal government. You have city managers, school superintendents, and all sorts of other local government officials even in smaller cities that make more than the President. No federal employee has a higher base salary than a rank-in-file member of congress. There's far less corruption at the federal level because every agency has a standardized system of oversight. There's far less waste and fraud at the federal level. The more chiefs you have, the less efficient your organization becomes.