School Vouchers?

[Deus Naturae]

I oppose them. Its not fair for students moving to transition to a completely different curriculum.

You realize that school voucher programs would be voluntary, right?

I also don't want to risk allowing schools to teach creationism.

Maybe don't give funds to creationist schools?

Also, how about a poll?

[Deus Naturae]

I oppose them. Its not fair for students moving to transition to a completely different curriculum.

You realize that school voucher programs would be voluntary, right?

I also don't want to risk allowing schools to teach creationism.

Maybe don't give funds to creationist schools?

Also, how about a poll?

1. Yes, but that doesn't mean it still won't affect people. Parents who believe in vouchers will be inclined to send their child to a voucher school when they move. Even if they decide to move their child from a charter school, that's a drastic change, since other schools will probably not have a similar curriculum. Also, transitioning from a charter school to a regular high school (which does occur in some school districts) is an unavoidable drastic change for charter school students.

2. That's my point. Public schools should not be allowed to teach creationism.

3. The problem with polls is that they usually result in empty quoting.

1. Using that reasoning, parents wouldn't be allowed to pull their children our of public schools and send them to private ones, or vice versa. Yes, curriculum changes can be hard for kids in the short term, but in the end it's the parent's decision.

2. What I meant was that if you were concerned about creationism being taught in classrooms, simply require schools to meet certain curricular requirements (such as teaching evolution in biology) to receive voucher funds.

3. Fair enough.

[Deus Naturae]

I oppose them. Its not fair for students moving to transition to a completely different curriculum.

You realize that school voucher programs would be voluntary, right?

I also don't want to risk allowing schools to teach creationism.

Maybe don't give funds to creationist schools?

Also, how about a poll?

1. Yes, but that doesn't mean it still won't affect people. Parents who believe in vouchers will be inclined to send their child to a voucher school when they move. Even if they decide to move their child from a charter school, that's a drastic change, since other schools will probably not have a similar curriculum. Also, transitioning from a charter school to a regular high school (which does occur in some school districts) is an unavoidable drastic change for charter school students.

2. That's my point. Public schools should not be allowed to teach creationism.

3. The problem with polls is that they usually result in empty quoting.

1. Using that reasoning, parents wouldn't be allowed to pull their children our of public schools and send them to private ones, or vice versa. Yes, curriculum changes can be hard for kids in the short term, but in the end it's the parent's decision.

2. What I meant was that if you were concerned about creationism being taught in classrooms, simply require schools to meet certain curricular requirements (such as teaching evolution in biology) to receive voucher funds.

3. Fair enough.

1. It doesn't necessarily last short term. If School 1 teaches a certain class in 9th grade while school 2 teaches that same class in 8th grade, and a student moves from school 1 to school 2 between 8th and 9th grade, they will miss out on that certain class. I don't necessarily approve of private schools either, but I think we need to make public schools successful enough in education to make private schools unpopular. I don't think we should ban them.

2. While creationism is the thing I disagree with the most about unregulated charter academies, I don't approve of any schools having differentiated curriculums. Why should a student in New York and a student in Oregon be offered different opportunities in education because of the political opinions of their region? I don't see what's fair about that.

all private schools should be banned

Explanation?

1. I suppose there's an argument to be made for a universal, one-size-fits-all curriculum in that it is more comfortable for students who have to transfer schools, but I think in the end too many universal education mandates only succeed in harming students by decreasing that number of educational opportunities out there and by trying to apply an overly simplistic approach to the many unique situations students face. Many of our current ones certainly do. And anyway, any standards that you think need to be met could simply be prerequisites for receiving voucher funding.

2. First off, I think you might be confusing charter schools with private ones. I certainly haven't heard of any charter school that taught creationism (of course, if you can provide me with evidence, I'll acknowledge that there are).  But to the point, if you truly believe that a large number of universal curriculum standards are necessary, those could easily be prerequisites for voucher funding.
 
As for TNF, I think he opposes private ownership of anything but guns.

[Deus Naturae]

Bad idea.

1.  Public money shouldn't fund religious instruction.

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

3.  Private and even charter schools in poor neighborhoods ultimately just hurt the neighborhood schools by filtering the more involved parents and high-performing students out of the system.   

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

[Deus Naturae]

The rich shouldn't be able to buy their kids a better education.

Why not just improve public education to make it better than private education?

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

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

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

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

[Deus Naturae]

Bad idea.

1.  Public money shouldn't fund religious instruction.

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

3.  Private and even charter schools in poor neighborhoods ultimately just hurt the neighborhood schools by filtering the more involved parents and high-performing students out of the system.   

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

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

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

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

[Deus Naturae]

I oppose them. Its not fair for students moving to transition to a completely different curriculum.

You realize that school voucher programs would be voluntary, right?

I also don't want to risk allowing schools to teach creationism.

Maybe don't give funds to creationist schools?

Also, how about a poll?

1. Yes, but that doesn't mean it still won't affect people. Parents who believe in vouchers will be inclined to send their child to a voucher school when they move. Even if they decide to move their child from a charter school, that's a drastic change, since other schools will probably not have a similar curriculum. Also, transitioning from a charter school to a regular high school (which does occur in some school districts) is an unavoidable drastic change for charter school students.

2. That's my point. Public schools should not be allowed to teach creationism.

3. The problem with polls is that they usually result in empty quoting.

1. Using that reasoning, parents wouldn't be allowed to pull their children our of public schools and send them to private ones, or vice versa. Yes, curriculum changes can be hard for kids in the short term, but in the end it's the parent's decision.

2. What I meant was that if you were concerned about creationism being taught in classrooms, simply require schools to meet certain curricular requirements (such as teaching evolution in biology) to receive voucher funds.

3. Fair enough.

1. It doesn't necessarily last short term. If School 1 teaches a certain class in 9th grade while school 2 teaches that same class in 8th grade, and a student moves from school 1 to school 2 between 8th and 9th grade, they will miss out on that certain class. I don't necessarily approve of private schools either, but I think we need to make public schools successful enough in education to make private schools unpopular. I don't think we should ban them.

2. While creationism is the thing I disagree with the most about unregulated charter academies, I don't approve of any schools having differentiated curriculums. Why should a student in New York and a student in Oregon be offered different opportunities in education because of the political opinions of their region? I don't see what's fair about that.

all private schools should be banned

Explanation?

1. I suppose there's an argument to be made for a universal, one-size-fits-all curriculum in that it is more comfortable for students who have to transfer schools, but I think in the end too many universal education mandates only succeed in harming students by decreasing that number of educational opportunities out there and by trying to apply an overly simplistic approach to the many unique situations students face. Many of our current ones certainly do. And anyway, any standards that you think need to be met could simply be prerequisites for receiving voucher funding.

2. First off, I think you might be confusing charter schools with private ones. I certainly haven't heard of any charter school that taught creationism (of course, if you can provide me with evidence, I'll acknowledge that there are).  But to the point, if you truly believe that a large number of universal curriculum standards are necessary, those could easily be prerequisites for voucher funding.
 
As for TNF, I think he opposes private ownership of anything but guns.

1. Depending on the special condition, I would support that being put into a universal curriculum, not a reason for vouchers. Could you give an example?

2. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/hundreds-of-voucher-schools-teach-creationism-in-science-classes

1. I was referring less to the fact that some student have learning disabilities (though that's a big concern as well) as much as i was talking about the fact that different students learn differently. I'm probably being biased here, but my own experience with Common Core has seemed to confirm that. That said, I'm  more open to a universally mandated curriculum that deals solely with course structure (ex: science courses will be structured as Biology, Chemistry, etc.) which, as I've said previously, could be a prerequisite to receiving voucher funding.

2. Those are private schools, not charters. I've already addressed how the government could prevent funds from flowing to creationist private schools.

[Deus Naturae]

I oppose them. Its not fair for students moving to transition to a completely different curriculum.

You realize that school voucher programs would be voluntary, right?

I also don't want to risk allowing schools to teach creationism.

Maybe don't give funds to creationist schools?

Also, how about a poll?

1. Yes, but that doesn't mean it still won't affect people. Parents who believe in vouchers will be inclined to send their child to a voucher school when they move. Even if they decide to move their child from a charter school, that's a drastic change, since other schools will probably not have a similar curriculum. Also, transitioning from a charter school to a regular high school (which does occur in some school districts) is an unavoidable drastic change for charter school students.

2. That's my point. Public schools should not be allowed to teach creationism.

3. The problem with polls is that they usually result in empty quoting.

1. Using that reasoning, parents wouldn't be allowed to pull their children our of public schools and send them to private ones, or vice versa. Yes, curriculum changes can be hard for kids in the short term, but in the end it's the parent's decision.

2. What I meant was that if you were concerned about creationism being taught in classrooms, simply require schools to meet certain curricular requirements (such as teaching evolution in biology) to receive voucher funds.

3. Fair enough.

1. It doesn't necessarily last short term. If School 1 teaches a certain class in 9th grade while school 2 teaches that same class in 8th grade, and a student moves from school 1 to school 2 between 8th and 9th grade, they will miss out on that certain class. I don't necessarily approve of private schools either, but I think we need to make public schools successful enough in education to make private schools unpopular. I don't think we should ban them.

2. While creationism is the thing I disagree with the most about unregulated charter academies, I don't approve of any schools having differentiated curriculums. Why should a student in New York and a student in Oregon be offered different opportunities in education because of the political opinions of their region? I don't see what's fair about that.

all private schools should be banned

Explanation?

1. I suppose there's an argument to be made for a universal, one-size-fits-all curriculum in that it is more comfortable for students who have to transfer schools, but I think in the end too many universal education mandates only succeed in harming students by decreasing that number of educational opportunities out there and by trying to apply an overly simplistic approach to the many unique situations students face. Many of our current ones certainly do. And anyway, any standards that you think need to be met could simply be prerequisites for receiving voucher funding.

2. First off, I think you might be confusing charter schools with private ones. I certainly haven't heard of any charter school that taught creationism (of course, if you can provide me with evidence, I'll acknowledge that there are).  But to the point, if you truly believe that a large number of universal curriculum standards are necessary, those could easily be prerequisites for voucher funding.
 
As for TNF, I think he opposes private ownership of anything but guns.

1. Depending on the special condition, I would support that being put into a universal curriculum, not a reason for vouchers. Could you give an example?

2. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/hundreds-of-voucher-schools-teach-creationism-in-science-classes

1. I was referring less to the fact that some student have learning disabilities (though that's a big concern as well) as much as i was talking about the fact that different students learn differently. I'm probably being biased here, but my own experience with Common Core has seemed to confirm that. That said, I'm  more open to a universally mandated curriculum that deals solely with course structure (ex: science courses will be structured as Biology, Chemistry, etc.) which, as I've said previously, could be a prerequisite to receiving voucher funding.

2. Those are private schools, not charters. I've already addressed how the government could prevent funds from flowing to creationist private schools.

1. I would be open to loosening the universal curriculum as long as a universal curriculum is in place. As I mentioned earlier to dead0man, why are we offering charter schools as an option though? If we want improve education, we should focus on improving public education directly, not offering an alternative that leaves the children in public schools behind.

2. Ah, sorry, I misread that source.

The problem as I see it is that, inevitably, public schools are going to be unequal (for several reasons). Students who live in a neighborhood with a subpar public school should have other options. As such, I support most programs that will provide students with more choices. That includes private school vouchers, charters, and competitive matching processes within the public school system.

[Deus Naturae]

I oppose them. Its not fair for students moving to transition to a completely different curriculum.

You realize that school voucher programs would be voluntary, right?

I also don't want to risk allowing schools to teach creationism.

Maybe don't give funds to creationist schools?

Also, how about a poll?

1. Yes, but that doesn't mean it still won't affect people. Parents who believe in vouchers will be inclined to send their child to a voucher school when they move. Even if they decide to move their child from a charter school, that's a drastic change, since other schools will probably not have a similar curriculum. Also, transitioning from a charter school to a regular high school (which does occur in some school districts) is an unavoidable drastic change for charter school students.

2. That's my point. Public schools should not be allowed to teach creationism.

3. The problem with polls is that they usually result in empty quoting.

1. Using that reasoning, parents wouldn't be allowed to pull their children our of public schools and send them to private ones, or vice versa. Yes, curriculum changes can be hard for kids in the short term, but in the end it's the parent's decision.

2. What I meant was that if you were concerned about creationism being taught in classrooms, simply require schools to meet certain curricular requirements (such as teaching evolution in biology) to receive voucher funds.

3. Fair enough.

1. It doesn't necessarily last short term. If School 1 teaches a certain class in 9th grade while school 2 teaches that same class in 8th grade, and a student moves from school 1 to school 2 between 8th and 9th grade, they will miss out on that certain class. I don't necessarily approve of private schools either, but I think we need to make public schools successful enough in education to make private schools unpopular. I don't think we should ban them.

2. While creationism is the thing I disagree with the most about unregulated charter academies, I don't approve of any schools having differentiated curriculums. Why should a student in New York and a student in Oregon be offered different opportunities in education because of the political opinions of their region? I don't see what's fair about that.

all private schools should be banned

Explanation?

1. I suppose there's an argument to be made for a universal, one-size-fits-all curriculum in that it is more comfortable for students who have to transfer schools, but I think in the end too many universal education mandates only succeed in harming students by decreasing that number of educational opportunities out there and by trying to apply an overly simplistic approach to the many unique situations students face. Many of our current ones certainly do. And anyway, any standards that you think need to be met could simply be prerequisites for receiving voucher funding.

2. First off, I think you might be confusing charter schools with private ones. I certainly haven't heard of any charter school that taught creationism (of course, if you can provide me with evidence, I'll acknowledge that there are).  But to the point, if you truly believe that a large number of universal curriculum standards are necessary, those could easily be prerequisites for voucher funding.
 
As for TNF, I think he opposes private ownership of anything but guns.

1. Depending on the special condition, I would support that being put into a universal curriculum, not a reason for vouchers. Could you give an example?

2. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/hundreds-of-voucher-schools-teach-creationism-in-science-classes

1. I was referring less to the fact that some student have learning disabilities (though that's a big concern as well) as much as i was talking about the fact that different students learn differently. I'm probably being biased here, but my own experience with Common Core has seemed to confirm that. That said, I'm  more open to a universally mandated curriculum that deals solely with course structure (ex: science courses will be structured as Biology, Chemistry, etc.) which, as I've said previously, could be a prerequisite to receiving voucher funding.

2. Those are private schools, not charters. I've already addressed how the government could prevent funds from flowing to creationist private schools.

1. I would be open to loosening the universal curriculum as long as a universal curriculum is in place. As I mentioned earlier to dead0man, why are we offering charter schools as an option though? If we want improve education, we should focus on improving public education directly, not offering an alternative that leaves the children in public schools behind.

2. Ah, sorry, I misread that source.

The problem as I see it is that, inevitably, public schools are going to be unequal (for several reasons). Students who live in a neighborhood with a subpar public school should have other options. As such, I support most programs that will provide students with more choices. That includes private school vouchers, charters, and competitive matching processes within the public school system.

As I said earlier, I support the Colorado system, which allows you to choose which school you want to go to, but with the elimination of charter schools. But we should be focusing more on improving our run-down schools, not offering alternatives so that they suffer.

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

[Deus Naturae]

It takes parents who care and kids who can be good influences out of schools that need them.

Even if a kid can be a good influence, I still think that they should at least have the option of transferring to a better school. A school with kids of mixed academic backgrounds has it merits, but I still think that high-performing kids should at least have the opportunity to choose the school that best allows them to meet their potential.

[Deus Naturae]

It takes parents who care and kids who can be good influences out of schools that need them.

Even if a kid can be a good influence, I still think that they should at least have the option of transferring to a better school. A school with kids of mixed academic backgrounds has it merits, but I still think that high-performing kids should at least have the opportunity to choose the school that best allows them to meet their potential.

Their potential could be met even in local schools if we provided the necessary funding for programs that offer challenging curriculum for the smart kids.

What you advocate is just taking the cream off the top.  Cream for you... skim milk for everybody else.

Even assuming a public school system in which all schools are fairly equal and have ample funding, I still don't see what would be wrong with school vouchers. It seems to me that they would increase per-pupil funding in public schools (by easing the burden on schools in populous areas), increase the number of educational opportunities present, and encourage innovation and improvement in education (by creating competition between schools).