posted on May 3, 2001 07:16:50 AM new
The House and Senate have defeated Dubya's school voucher initiative. Do you think the government should fund a child's attendance in private school?
posted on May 3, 2001 07:23:42 AM new
Of course not! Then just any old body could get in the better schools. Best to keep private schools for those who can afford them.
posted on May 3, 2001 07:42:29 AM new
The voucher system would have done nothing to improve public schooling, and provided only a conditional $1500. to subsidize a parental move of children to private schools, hardly enough to cover the cost. The bills to be passed allocate large increases in school spending across the public board and is a much more reasonable approach to education reform than the hairbrained Bush scheme to ignore schools while pretending to aid students. The truth is that the measly $1500. vouchers would have enabled very few student's access to private domain education and was nothing more than a 'see me' political ploy to make it seem possible that disadvantaged students could really go to private schools.
posted on May 3, 2001 07:48:25 AM new
Seeing as how North Carolina is hiring "teachers" that are not even certified, I believe as parents, we should be able to send our children to a private school.
We pay school taxes, so why shouldn't the money go to the school our children attend.
I would rather pay a few hundred dollars more a year in taxes to get REAL teachers in the classrooms of public schools.
My oldest just entered the school system this year, as did his teacher. I am absolutely ashamed to say, this teacher can not even spell correctly(spelling happens to be one of my pet peeves). Newsletters prepared on the computer routinely come home with misspellings. What ever happened to spell check?
The same thing with handwritten notes. I originally brushed off the spelling problem as having to compose a note with 22 five year olds in the room. But, when the newsletters(prepared at home, on her personal computer) came home, I was incredulous to the mistakes. Someone else proofreading it before making copies and distributing it to the students would probably not make a difference. The quality of education in this state is atrocious.
posted on May 3, 2001 08:11:13 AM new
toollady- there are two issues here. one is the quality of education in your state. if the test scores and/or percentage of college admissions etc. is poor, then the citizens should be exerting great pressure on their elected officials to correct the problem. certifications and good spellers are not enough to insure good education, although a lack thereof is certainly a red flag. the second issue is the sensitive one of whether or not the government should fund a private/religious education. IMHO- i am not in 100% agreement about funding a private, non-religious education. but i am in 100% disagreement regarding funding a religious education due to my strong separation of church and state beliefs.
posted on May 3, 2001 09:12:06 AM new
The children in the state are under a great deal of pressure to perform well on tests.
Unfortunately, the majority of teachers are not qualified to teach at a level so these children may pass without massive cram sessions just prior to the testing.
I am fortunate in that my child happens to be "gifted". He is afforded every opportunity to excel. He is already enrolled in the accelerated reading program as a kindergartener. (He currently reads at a 1.10 level - 1st grade 10th month). My concern is with the children that can and DO get left by the wayside because they are "just average". They are not being afforded the educational opportunities to help them reach their full potential.
If the school system can not provide for the needs of the children, then, we as parents should be able to place our children in a private setting without the burden of solely funding it ourselves.
Today's children are tomorrow's leaders. If the system is not working the way it stands, maybe it is time to change the system.
Obviously, after 13 years of primary education(K-12) and at least 4 years of secondary education, if a teacher is unable to spell, there is something very wrong with the system.
[ edited by toollady on May 3, 2001 09:13 AM ]
posted on May 3, 2001 09:40:39 AM new
I was recently offered a position at a local top-notch private school.
Teaching certification? not me.
All that is required to "teach" is a plain old 4 year degree from an accredited university. Any major, any grades.
Very Scary.
Private schools do not necessarily consist of better educators.
posted on May 3, 2001 09:46:09 AM new
I think one big reason private schools are so effective really has nothing to do with the schools themselves. The parents are a big factor. If mom and dad are shelling out the bucks for tuition they obviously have taken an active interest in the childs education. Parental involvement is so important.
I would support vouchers if they were used properly. I think any child who wants to learn should have the oppurtunity to attend the very best school available even if that meant subsidizing 100% of the cost.
posted on May 3, 2001 09:51:30 AM new
School vouchers would only have served as a subsidy to those who already have kids in private schools. If you believe otherwise, please enlighten me: 1)Where are the thousands of built, staffed, and empty private schools, just waiting to provide the voucher kids with a first rate education? It's not as though the existing private schools are going to kick out the kids who are there now (their parents can afford lawsuits, after all). And they're not going to run at 300% of capacity to accomodate the voucher kids. 2) Do you think that a fair and proportional number of voucher kids will be admitted in each new class? Doubtful. The private schools wouldn't even have to change their current admission criteria to keep the voucher kids out and make sure their "paying customers" get in. I know of one kid who had to go to his third choice in private high schools because he only had a 3.8 and half a dozen extracurricular activities. I somehow doubt that a kid from a typical public school is going to beat out the children of monied WASPs who have essentially been raised with admission in mind.
To the extent that anyone whose kids aren't already in private school thinks they'd benefit from vouchers... you've been conned. It's a hoax.
-gaffan-
posted on May 3, 2001 09:57:47 AM new
Eyeguy6, Good points about parental involvement.
I found it interesting (in a previous thread of mine) that those who felt they had a pretty good public school system for their kids were the ones who responded that they were actively involved with the schools.
posted on May 3, 2001 10:09:55 AM new
I imagine childless people and those whose children are grown and no longer in school would like to get a $1500 voucher to spend on something of their choice, but I haven't seen anybody advocating that.
posted on May 3, 2001 10:27:10 AM new
I'm actively involved with my son's school. Not because I think the school system is great, but, to the contrary I feel if I am not involved, my child will not be getting the education he deserves.
mrpotatohead,
Consider the money, childless and people with grown children contribute, an investment in the future leaders of this country. Do you really want illiterates deciding what is best for you in your senior years?
posted on May 3, 2001 10:54:41 AM new
mrpotatohead,
I don't know your age, but when I went to school, the basics were taught and was all that was required. Electives were 2nd language, computers (I learned to "keypunch" on a univac machine and computer operations on an IBM 360 mainframe ) and if you were proficient in math, you could take calculus.
Today, however, children are expected to be proficient in a 2nd language and computer literate (many still do not have computers in their home, so this is part of curriculum), sometimes, all before the 6th grade. Meanwhile, the basics are being glossed over. On top of all of the additional work we did not have, when we went to school, many districts also require community service. Now, when are the children supposed to fit all this in and still be children?
Ask a teenager, the next time you are in the store, what your change is supposed to be before they punch in the amount received and the cash register tells them. I think you will be very surprised to find many are not able to even make simple change.
There is just too much information out there to be taught by unqualified "teachers".
It's not fair to the children, nor the "teachers" hired. Frustration mounts from both sides and nothing gets accomplished.
In order for the children to learn, the parents must be involved. There in lies the problem. Many children come from either a single parent, or dual working parent home and time is at a premium.
Teachers don't have time to really delve into an area if a child is finding it difficult. Either the child is able to master the coursework, or the parent has to pick up the slack.
By allowing parents to decide what school would give their child the best learning experience, you are allowing the child to achieve their goal in the least stressful setting. Private education usually affords a student a smaller class size and more individual attention for mastering required classes.
I don't want to go too far off topic, but, I think because of the amount of learning that needs to be accomplished, it has contributed to the violence we see in our schools today.
Children are so stressed by the demands, it literally makes them want to kill somebody.
And, if we are to believe news accounts, these violent acts are committed by middle of the road students. They get lost in the shuffle and lash out as a result.
For bright students, there are gifted programs. For students that have a hard time keeping up, there is tutoring. What is there for average students?
posted on May 3, 2001 11:11:17 AM newFor bright students, there are gifted programs. For students that have a hard time keeping up, there is tutoring. What is there for average students?
I wish that was the case here. My son is extremely bright and considered gifted by the school district. What this means for him is he gets to spend 2 hours a week with other gifted students. The rest of the week he is held back re-hashing what he learned the first time around that the rest of the students didn't. I don't know that private school is the answer, but he is not getting the education he deserves now.
posted on May 3, 2001 11:40:54 AM new
The Bush voucher system is nothing but an
attempt to pull the wool over everyone's
eyes. He is not concerned with the poor
children.
A 1500 voucher could not pay for any private
school of course and the families of the poor kids who may really need the money
cannot raise the remaining 4 to 5,000 necessary to pay for a Private School.
Wealthier parents, especially in inner
cities are already sending their children to
private schools. The middle class may
possibly raise the needed money but the
poor are left out in the cold.
posted on May 3, 2001 11:43:04 AM new
the question is whether the "right" to send a child to a private non-religious school at public expense could be implemented. the "right" to send a child at public expense to a religious school is not IMHO more important than the separation of church and state.
To be perfectly honest, I have practically no personal experience regarding the things that are going on in public schools today. I have, however, noticed that nearly all parents, when commenting on the state of education, believe that their children deserve better. Everybody wants the best for their kids, but obviously, there can never be enough money for that. What the answer is, I don't know. I do know that people with children already get a tax break not afforded to childless people- maybe they could use some af that towards their childrens' education.
If it seems that I am a little touchy on this subject (parents paying the costs incurred as a result of choosing to have kids), it is probably because we just had to fill out enrollment forms for our medical insurance here at work. As a single person, I am required to make a monthly co-payment of $60, while the guy down the hall who has a wife and 9 kids is making a co-payment of $100. A good deal for him, I guess- why they expect me to help pick up the slack has not been explained.
posted on May 3, 2001 11:49:45 AM new
Of course there is limited space available in private schools. How would they select the kids to fill the few available spaces? Probably by GPA...which means that a few select gifted students might make it into private schools, leaving the average and slower students in the public schools. While this might be good for a select few, it hardly addresses the problem of a quality education for all.
The goal of school vouchers seems (to me) to benefit the wealthy constituents which already have kids in private school and would be glad to have money to help with tuition.
I don't know the answer, but I am sure that it doesn't involve funneling money into private schools that could be used to improve public schools.
Lisa
posted on May 3, 2001 11:54:35 AM new
Seriously, I found the public schools (in Florida at least) to be woefully understaffed and underfunded, with poor physical facilities. Is the answer to put our tax dollars into private schools? That would be making the problems worse, IMHO.
posted on May 3, 2001 12:18:11 PM new
Here's something else I've often wondered about. From reading the papers here (where I live), I understand that parents don't like the idea of the federal government being involved in making decisions for schools- they feel that decisions regarding school policies, curriculum, etc. should be left under local control. How does one with that outlook justify the attempt by the federal government to involve itself in education through granting tax cuts?
posted on May 3, 2001 12:37:31 PM new
Hi stusi, I was making a joke re tax dollars to religious organizations. My synagogue has a full time religious school.
I am against the use of tax dollars to fund private schools of any kind. Helen said it well.
Public funds should be used toimprove public education.
posted on May 3, 2001 12:55:28 PM new
In my own personal opinion, church schools are what this whole voucher thing is really all about. Conservatives have tried for years to get vouchers for religious schools so that parents would have a choice. For obvious reasons, that idea has never flown with the American public, which has always believed that public schools should get public funds, and parents should pay if they don't want their kids in public schools.
This seems to me to be a sly new packaging of an old idea. Instead of it being about kids already in church and private schools getting vouchers, it's about *your* little Johnny and Janie having the opportunity of going to a good school. Never mind that the opportunity is mostly illusion...
No, I believe this is just a round about way of getting money for kids already in private and church schools. This president has already shown a great disregard for the separation of church and state, and this was just another example of it, IMO.
Lisa
posted on May 3, 2001 01:24:33 PM new
I'm not sure if I am for a voucher system or not at this point.
However, if a voucher system were in place and parents were able to move their children into a private school setting, ideally it would lower the student to teacher ratio within the public schools for children who are unable to attend private school.
This in turn just may help some of those students. From what I've read on the matter, the less pupils in a class the more learning that can be achieved.
Schools all over the country are in need of major renovations. There is one school in our district that needs to be replaced. It was built in the 40's and it has cost over $600,000 in the last 3 years just to patch it up. It also is over capacity by 20%. How can children learn under such conditions?
As far as not enough room in private schools, there are charter schools popping up all over our state. There isn't one in my area, or I would seriously consider it.
posted on May 3, 2001 02:10:20 PM newHowever, if a voucher system were in place and parents were able to move their children into a private school setting, ideally it would lower the student to teacher ratio within the public schools for children who are unable to attend private school.
It was my understanding that public schools received funding based (at least, in part) on enrollment. If that's the case, reduced enrollment would mean reduced funds available to the school, which would seem to lead to a reduced number of teachers, and therefore, no lower student to teacher ratio, but I could be wrong...
) and if you were proficient in math, you could take calculus.