Everyone has their soap box. I am an undecided voter that's focus is Education. I have looked indepth at both Obama and McCain and their stance on the education system. I have one hang up....I simply believe that school vouchers (while a clear infringement of seperation of church and state) could possibly put an end to the public school system and create a form of education where the rich/smart get smarter and a chance at a better education. On the other hand Obama has great education ideas including tracking students (which is the problem of our school system today tracking schools instead of students) but alot of his ideas are also going to cost alot of taxpayers dollars.......can someone make this more clear to me?

Everyone has their soap box. I am an undecided voter that's focus is Education. I have looked indepth at both Obama and McCain and their stance on the education system. I have one hang up....I simply believe that school vouchers (while a clear infringement of seperation of church and state) could possibly put an end to the public school system and create a form of education where the rich/smart get smarter and a chance at a better education. On the other hand Obama has great education ideas including tracking students (which is the problem of our school system today tracking schools instead of students) but alot of his ideas are also going to cost alot of taxpayers dollars.......can someone make this more clear to me?

 

I don't see school vouchers as a clear infringement of seperation of church and state. Not all private schools are parochial schools. And the schools are funded by my tax dollars as it is.

 

By that token, you could say that by being able to deduct donations to my church on my taxes, then the government is funding church activities with tax dollars.

I don't see school vouchers as a clear infringement of seperation of church and state. Not all private schools are parochial schools. And the schools are funded by my tax dollars as it is.

 

By that token, you could say that by being able to deduct donations to my church on my taxes, then the government is funding church activities with tax dollars.

 

I agree with you.

Also the federal government has no reason to be involved in eduacation as the Constitution does not grant the federal government any educational role.

If you want federal involvement, pass an an amendment allowing it to be invovled.

So what about NCLB? That is federal..

Why would vouchers further the wealth divide, looks to me like they would provide a chance for students from poor families the ability to have a top notch private school education. I don't believe all private schools are better than all public schools, but in some areas they are. Looks to me like vouchers would give every child a chance to attend the best school and ability to afford tuition would be a much smaller issue.

thewaterboy,

 

Please explain more about your opposition to vouchers so that I can accurately address them

First, I want to say I appreciate thewaterboy's involvement in this thread and this is an excellent, and under-discussed, topic in this election.

 

I have a lot to say about it and will do so later tonight when no clients are coming in.

 

Making a living can be such an interferent to doing what I want to do sometimes.

I like the idea of the voucher system but here is my concern. The way I understand it the government issues you a voucher proportionate to the amount that is spent on your childs education, correct? You then have the choice of which school to send your child too. Once you make your selection you give said school the voucher and they turn that in to the government for payment. Any fees above and beyond the face value of the voucher you are responsible for. Example: My voucher is worth $5000, I decide to send my kid to Henderson County High School. It will cost $8000 a year to attend Henderson (I made that number up). I give HCHS my voucher and now owe them another $3000.

 

Two questions/concerns...

1. Are all schools now technically private?

2. What keeps schools from constantly raising their rates? Will the voucher value keep pace with rising tuition costs?

He wants to track students and pay for teacher performance. One thing I do not agree on. It can never work.

I like the idea of the voucher system but here is my concern. The way I understand it the government issues you a voucher proportionate to the amount that is spent on your childs education, correct? You then have the choice of which school to send your child too. Once you make your selection you give said school the voucher and they turn that in to the government for payment. Any fees above and beyond the face value of the voucher you are responsible for. Example: My voucher is worth $5000, I decide to send my kid to Henderson County High School. It will cost $8000 a year to attend Henderson (I made that number up). I give HCHS my voucher and now owe them another $3000.

 

Two questions/concerns...

1. Are all schools now technically private?

2. What keeps schools from constantly raising their rates? Will the voucher value keep pace with rising tuition costs?

 

I would say that a few things would happen, and some are "tangent".

 

In answer to number two, no, I doubt the vouchers would keep pace with rising costs. However, this could be a benefit in a way:

 

Schools would have to become more efficient. There's no way they'd be able to justify raising the incremental tuition if the quality of the school would decline. It wouldn't work for long to tell parents costs have risen, we're raising your tuition, but you'll get the same services. Parents would have to weigh heavily the value of the incremental tuition at the new school, versus the services they'd receive for free at their "home" school.

 

In answer to number one, I wouldn't think so, as they are still being funded primarily by the taxpayers.

 

Sorry to answer in reverse, but the 2nd question was the more important one to me.

I would say that a few things would happen, and some are "tangent".

 

In answer to number two, no, I doubt the vouchers would keep pace with rising costs. However, this could be a benefit in a way:

 

Schools would have to become more efficient. There's no way they'd be able to justify raising the incremental tuition if the quality of the school would decline. It wouldn't work for long to tell parents costs have risen, we're raising your tuition, but you'll get the same services. Parents would have to weigh heavily the value of the incremental tuition at the new school, versus the services they'd receive for free at their "home" school.

 

In answer to number one, I wouldn't think so, as they are still being funded primarily by the taxpayers.

 

Sorry to answer in reverse, but the 2nd question was the more important one to me.

Nice explanation.

 

IMO, if this were put in effect, the vouchers would be able to cover the costs for nearly all schools (or at least all of the ones that are free know). You know, the federal government alone spends > $9,000 per each student. I'd assume that a $7,000 voucher would cover most schools.

Nice explanation.

 

IMO, if this were put in effect, the vouchers would be able to cover the costs for nearly all schools (or at least all of the ones that are free know). You know, the federal government alone spends > $9,000 per each student. I'd assume that a $7,000 voucher would cover most schools.

 

The federal government does not spend 9000.00 per student. Local public schools are lucky to spend close to that number and most of that money comes from local taxpayers, then the next biggest contributor is the state, and finally the federal government.

Under Obama's plan, if Little Joe, a plumber's son, brings Buffalo Hot Wings in his lunch box, he might have to share with Hiram, whose parents could only afford peanutbutter and crackers.:scared:

I pay about $12,000 a year in real estate taxes, most of which goes to the local school districts. I pay roughly $30,000 a year in private school tuition for 4 children.

 

I am all for school vouchers not only because it would help me personally, but I think it would promote the beneficial schools while causing the closure of the non-performing schools.

 

I am talking about school performance, not student performance. Parents know which schools are good and which are not. The schools that are not good will not have any students and will be forced to close.

 

That solves the problems between the "have" and "have-not" school districts. At least in theory.

Under Obama's plan, if Little Joe, a plumber's son, brings Buffalo Hot Wings in his lunch box, he might have to share with Hiram, whose parents could only afford peanutbutter and crackers.:scared:

 

It's very christian like to share and helpthe needy.