Vouchers will not help students escape struggling schools, but will merely provide yet another tax break to people who would send theirr kids to private schools. Not to mention that private schools will not take everyone-- unlike public schools.
I have sent my kids to a small private school because of a dispute over state-mandated cut-off dates for kindergarten-- but I will pay the tuition myself and gladly, on top of what is charged me to pay for the public schools in my area.
So then you'd be one of those people who'd be helped by vouchers, which makes you not poor. Yet even as a teacher, you found some fault in the public education system sufficiently grave to warrant paying for private school.
You think maybe poor parents might have a similarly grave concern but lack the means to solve it the way you did, with the almighty dollar?
Ms Cornelius said:
"I have sent my kids to a small private school because of a dispute over state-mandated cut-off dates for kindergarten-- but I will pay the tuition myself..."
Ah, yes, and those who're too poor to pay the tuition? Let them eat cake!
"Vouchers will not help students escape struggling schools"
Really? Why not? Because they'd be too dumb to use the vouchers?
What absolute rubbish! What incredibly illogical thinking! But I suppose I should take into account the fact that it comes from a proud unionoid!
Rags, you really need to increase your dosage.
Hey doc, got any hypocrisy medication for Ms. Cornelius? I mean, as long as your prescribing....
Ah, Michael Moonbat, having fled the field of logic - remember the "teachers vs. rocket scientists" thread? - good to see you back in action.
How would vouchers be an obstacle to building an "alternative school system"? That is a complete misrepresentation of what voucher supporters hope they would achieve.
And why can't we "improve the work of teachers" and have a voucher system at the same time? Do they cancel each other out somehow? The logic is way off here. Why are the legitimate wishes of so many of us dismissed with such arrogance and bad arguments by so many in the ed establishment?
SLM, I didn't say vouchers are an obstacle. But there's nothing inherent in a voucher plan that guarantees that schools will be good at educating children. Some parents might be able to choose a better school. Some parents might choose a worse school.
Perhaps we could have vouchers and improve the work of teaching. But having vouchers doesn't guarantee that would happen. And I haven't heard vouchers supporters call for across the board improvement of teaching in all schools for all kids. I'd like to discuss that, actually, with people who are pushing voucher plans.
ALso, I'm not arrogant about this. Just saying what I think.
"Some parents might be able to choose a better school. Some parents might choose a worse school."
So you'd like to prevent people from choosing what they think is best for their kids? Even though the American public school system, awash in money and ed-school theory, is failing its students?
That strikes me as arrogance.
No, it's not. For one thing, I'm not the person standing in the way of vouchers. There are many, many other forces at work. Michigan, for example, has twice had vouchers on the ballot, in 1970 and in 2000. It failed both times. Most recently, the failure came from people who were concerned that their kids would be on the short-end of choice, that in the scramble to find better schools, they'd be shut out because of lack of capacity or something. (I have studied this election at length, so trust me on this one. That's why people voted against it. It wasn't religion. ONly 8 percent of voters said religion played in their vote--either way.)
Whoops, cut myself off.
So consider: my goal is to make sure that every kid, and especially kids who've got a lot stacked against them because were unlucky in getting born, receive good teaching. Why? Because it's better if they get jobs and pay taxes, rather than committing crimes or needing welfare. Also, because my sense is that if we offer education to our children as a public good at public expense, then everyone ought to get something good. Not just a few.
I don't think intent vouchers is that last goal. So vouchers don't loom large in my view of educational or policy tools that will really make things better for all.
The point isn't whether there are other forces working against vouchers or not; it is whether you support them or not.
It doesn't matter whether vouchers passed or failed, whether people voted against them because of religion or misinformation or something else.
The question is, who are you to deny a parent a choice in where to educate his children? That is arrogance.
"So consider: my goal is to make sure that every kid, and especially kids who've got a lot stacked against them because were unlucky in getting born, receive good teaching."
This is the same tired argument that the unionoids have been parroting for lo! these many years. Perfection for all, and while we labour towards that goal, let them eat cake! Right?
Why don't you let those poor kids take a voucher and go to a good school?
And given the track record of progress in education, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any improvements.
ACtually, the teachers union didn't really start saying things like this as a group until sometime in the 1960s or 1970s. I think that although teachers' unions were founded before that, many teachers might have supported segregation and similar policies.
"ACtually, the teachers union didn't really start saying things like this as a group until sometime in the 1960s or 1970s."
So at least 25 years, correct? I'd say that "lo! these many years" seems accurate.
And what of my main point, that these are useless talking points, fiddling while Rome burns, or at least while poor kids and rich kids alike are ground into mush by the public schools and you, the ed-school researchers(!).
Ragnarok... Ground into mush?
The problems we face are in my head a bit deeper: Life in New Jersey
our state released the annual report from Kids Count. In 2004, there were 251,000 children in NJ living in poverty a 7% increase from the year 2000. The number of poor kids under age 5 increased by 23% and the number of kids with out health insurance went up 51% ..since 2000.
We all... have much work to do...
Be well... mike
Jenny D,
I do think many in the ed system are arrogant, to include yourself. You dismiss vouchers for the rest of us because you can't personally see their value to your particular long- term goals.
I'm not talking about abandoning the public school system. I want the kind of innovation that comes with people willing to take risks, experiment, and learn from the mistakes. But the arguments against any kind of real change will always roll back around to the poor and to those kids with parents who make poor choices for them.
How on earth are vouchers going to hurt these groups? I like how supporters of public schools always brandish the poorly educated as a weapon against school change. It seems self-defeating.
But I do enjoy reading your blog and the debates. Thanks for providing a place to really duke it out.
SLM
JennyD wrote:
ACtually, the teachers union didn't really start saying things like this as a group until sometime in the 1960s or 1970s.
About the time the "Michigan Mafia" changed the NEA from a professional association into a trade union.
I think that although teachers' unions were founded before that, many teachers might have supported segregation and similar policies.
1850 according to wikipedia. I would assume that the membership was reflective of society in general meaning that some supported racist policies and some didn't. By the way, the record of organized labor here in the U.S. is anything but admirable with regard to racism, NEA included.
Mike wrote:
The problems we face are in my head a bit deeper: Life in New Jersey
Then maybe the problem is a focus that's a trifle too broad. Perhaps concentration on education, rather then trying to craft a just, equitable society, would result in a more effective educational system that's better able to handle the effects of poverty.
allen...
schools are not islands...they are embedded in their communities...
be like a doctor just focusing on uncloging an artery rather then looking at the entire system....
What kind of system do you envision that would be able to deal with the "effects" of poverty with out going beyond the school house door??
"be like a doctor just focusing on uncloging an artery rather then looking at the entire system...."
Ah, I think I understand you now. You're saying that it would be better for the doctor to let the patient die of a clogged artery while he ponders a perfect solution to all the ills of the world. Right?
Ragnarok... not quite right 
In NJ there are quite a few things going on that is an attempt to do more then keep the patient alive...
Many of those things have been positive ...including full day pre-K .. extended day programs... etc...
I am all for looking at "public" school transformation... but lets not make our discussion too narrow...
be well rags... mike
I've only just come across this, and I did not say that Newark teachers are paid less than in the state and the nation. What I said exactly, was that last I heard, they were paid less than NYC teachers.
When NYC teachers received their second-to-last contract, much was made in the news about how they'd now be making more than Newark teachers. The best info I can find on the net suggests Newark teacher pay maxes at 85K, 5K less than NYC.
Commenting by HaloScan
