Here's the one trouble. It seems that demographics make more of a difference than public or private school in achievement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/28/ed...n/28tests.html
Now I'll get the usual backlash out of the way beforehand. Yes, it's a government-financed report. Yes, it's in the NY Times.

I don't think it actually shows that public schools are doing better and I think vouchers might (note that I say might) have a positive effect. But what the study does show is that a parent's preparation and help for the kid, as well as the living environment, is more important than the quality of the school. As such, I don't believe vouchers will do much for the bulk of those oming from poor families unless they are paired with more personal tutoring and help for the parents in parenting skills.
It can't be discounted that most poor and working class families 1) don't understand how college works or how to prepare their kids for it, 2) use authoritarian parenting styles that often set kids up for working class mentality and at extremes can make kids socially underdeveloped and even violent, and 3) if a parent never learned how to do something like calculus, he/she cannot help the kid very well with advanced class homework.
The trouble I have with voucher support is just that some people seem to believe that it will be a magic cure for the education system. People often ignore that schooling is only part, and not so large a part as we think, of a child's eductation and intellectual development.
Unless we help poor parents, we are not going to do much good for poor kids.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Agreed. But better quality schools certainly can't help.

__________________
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?

I think you meant "they can't hurt". I'll agree with you there. But I just hope we don't use vouchers as a bandaid for the larger problem of helping all kids achieve to their best potential.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

I dont see why anything would be different. What happens in Public School now if students fail to meet the state's standards?

A condition of the vouchers would be that students have to meet minimum standards. If they want the money, they have to deliver results. Greed will take care of the rest.

And naturally, higher test scores will look good to Parents shopping for schools...so schools have even more incentive to produce high test scores on standardized tests. By contrast, public schools have a captive audience. They know they will get permanent funding, no matter what.

As long as there is improvement of any kind, why does it matter? it doesnt have to be perfect to be worthwhile. It just has to be better.

So far no one has given me an argument as to what it will make worse.

Vouchers are an EQUAL portion of tax dollars. Since the poor pay fewer taxes than the wealthy, it amounts to a form of welfare. A voucher system is to the advantage of poor people.

Additional funding for Public Schools is the real Bandaid. Vouchers are a potential cure.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

But that's just it. They're not a cure. They deal with some of the symptoms but not the rest. I'm all for vouchers being implemented, but I think we delude ourselves by saying that there is any chance that the voucher system is a cure-all.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Ahhhh, yes. Ooops.

__________________
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?

They deal with as much or more than the Public school system deals with. What exactly is it you want either of them to do?

The Public School system is not Social services. Vouchers wont be either. You are petitioning the wrong department.

The fact that nobody (not even the most pessimistic opponents) seem to be able to tell me what the potential downsides are is a pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) good indication of it's potential, dont you think?

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

pretend to be you, S.S., for a moment and say:" perhaps, you haven't noticed the potential downsides because you don't like to acknowledge them" .

I would truly enjoy seeing what would happen if private schools in Birmginham were forced to accept poor black students. I am a complete cynic at this point. I feel sure that it would pan out that blacks would be excluded from private white schools and affluent whites would be able to divert their share of property tax toward the education of their privately educated white kids.

Special ed. funding is a major consideration because many kids in inner cities schools would probably qualify for this extra help if they happened to be in more affluent communities. These inner city communities are not wealthy enough to pay for the help these kids need. WHO is going to pay for it? The Cleveland voucher program spent a couple thousand extra per pupil. This money aided 33% who were ALREADY in private school. 21% had already gone to public school, the rest were just beginning school so it is hard to say where they would have been placed. If the country is planning to spend a bunch more money on education than it is really important to think about the best way to spend it and who needs it the most. If we are going to embark on a voucher system then it is vitally impotant IMO to release public schools from fed. mandates like NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND and allow them the freedom to be innovative.

If the Private school is taking vouchers they cannot exclude anyone on the basis of race.

__________________
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?

You would have to define what they are in order for me to acknowledge them.

So far the only "downsides" I have seen are things the Public School system is not responsible for either way. They are social services. The school system does not = social services.

Who says they would be "forced"? They would probably be eager for the new revenue stream.

Anyone accepting state money would of course have to comply with non-discrimination laws. Even assuming they didnt, what makes you think new schools would not form to exploit this new market?

I understand that. I am not sure why though. So far you have not been able to explain any downsides over the current system.

How can you "feel sure" when you cant even articulate the reasons? It really sounds to me like you want to punish white people for refusing to embrace your point of view.

Either way, it can only be a good thing for the poor. They can shop elsewhere if the state cant provide them with what they need.

I have already covered that. Would you like me to cut and paste my response again?

If you dont think it'll work, then just explain WHY. Why is that so difficult?

Then give them their tax money and let them shop elsewhere.

You want to pin them down to the poor inner cities. I want to let them roam and give them a choice.

The same people paying for it now: Tax payers.

Why shouldnt it? They are paying taxes arnt they? Why shouldnt they have access to their own tax money?

I would like to see your source on the Cleveland program.

I dont know the details of the Cleveland program. Why was the extra money required? What did it pay for?

Why?

Not that I necessarily disagree with you. But I want to hear your reasons.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page