How do you feel about school vouchers?

[disneyjunkie]

The intensive work is a collaborative effort among the classroom teacher, the parents, and a resource teacher. Anyone left out of that equation will hurt the child's progress. If the parents are involved and vested in their child's education then that child will succeed. Parents who do not work with their children at home will not see success in a challenging school setting. As much as I would like to claim sole responsibility for getting my children ready for 2nd grade I can't.

At this point you have no way of knowing if the voucher parents will be involved or not. It sounds like you are expecting the worst from these kids and their parents.

 

[creativeamanda]

Tenure protects teachers that shouldn't be teaching.

One of the worst performing states in the US as far as education goes is South Carolina. They do not have tenure, are not unionized, and still have poor performing schools. Sure, it's hard to get rid of a poor performing teacher, but ask my district--it can be done as long as there is documentation. Further, contracts are given on a year-to-year basis. We decided to get rid of a program this past year--the teacher did not get a contract. Case closed. No recourse.

I maintain the problem with education now is everyone wants to point the finger at someone else rather than get to the job of educating the kids, seeing where they are, taking them from there, and providing every child equal access to education based on what they can do.

 

[Sinderelli]

At this point you have no way of knowing if the voucher parents will be involved or not. It sounds like you are expecting the worst from these kids and their parents.

I was responding to a previous post that asked if the public schools were failing because of a lack of parent involvement. That topic spun off into the one you quoted. I am not making generalizations about the students who may be coming into the private schools. I will provide them with the exact education I give to all of my students, along with extra help if needed.

 

[Master Mason]

The right to an education is not in the constitution. However, it is in the constitution that Congress can tax and spend for the general welfare. So that is what they are doing with the Fed Dept of Ed. And with federal grants of money -Congress can attach conditions to the money.

Those powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved for the states, Education was something that the founders believed strongly in, as a states issue. If the Feds would quit dictatating to the states, perhaps the states could start spending the money more wisely, the US ranked a whole lot higher on the list of world education, BEFORE the feds got involved.

Yeah good idea, make them poor AND stupid.

You were the one that said they were robbing from the poor to give to the rich, I was simply pointing out that the money originally belonged to the rich, so how could they steal from themselves?

I will say it again, read the Constitution, I have, thank you very much. Separation of church and state. And, if you had really read my posts, it's paying for a religious school with vouchers is what is wrong, not to opt out of a failing school. Do not pretend to know what I have read and not read.

Kathee

And if you read the Supream court rulings, they will tell you that your wrong. So, I'll just leave it at that.

I am against school vouchers for 2 reasons:

1. Separation of church and state. While I am a Christian and would love to send my children to a Christian school, I do not think it's a good idea to put govt money into a Christian education. Before long, groups like ACLU will have probs with the money going here and the govt will step in and ask Christian (and other religious schools) to stop teaching doctrine. If I am sending my kids to a Christian school it is because I also want them to teach doctrine. I don't want the govt involved in that, but eventually they'd have to be.

Please see above, the establishment clause doesn't apply, according to the Supream Court ruling already posted.

 

[Silly Little Pixie]

School vouchers used for private or religious schools are absolutely NOT unconstitutional. First of all, we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Secondly, does freedom of religion trump our freedom of education? Should a child be forced to suffer a sub par education simply because the alternative would be to sit next to a christian in math class?? or go to private school and sit next to wealthy kids?? Does anyone see anything that makes this all unconstitutional??

Yes, because the state is funding a religious education. While this is all well and good when the children are attending a Christian school... are you so tolerant when it is a madrassa? A school that teaches jihad? Or one that teaches White Supremacy? A slippery slope, my friends. One we had best not go down. I for one will not allow my tax dollars to support such things... but if religious education can be funded by vouchers, how does the state choose what "religions" are okay?

I went to Catholic schools, and my parents worked 2 jobs or more to pay for it. Even when our family business closed and we lost our home, they kept up my tuition. Why? Because we lived in a gang infested area. They worked hard for my education, which made me work all the harder to achieve. My behind would have been in a sling if I didn't get top grades. And I learned from my parents that education is worth the sacrifice.

Which brings me to my point: School success is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. When parents believe that this setting is "good", they support it and make sure their children do their work. When people believe a school is poor, they are so. Those schools have far less parent involvement, and the students aren't involved either. We all know that when people work for something, and get it, they take care of it. When it is handed to them, they don't. It's the difference in why Habitat for Humanity works and public housing doesn't, even if people are both paying a low monthly cost. It's personal investment, period. That's why many private schools work. It's not that their curriculum is so superior or their teachers are that much better. When you pay for something, you appreciate it.

I am a public school teacher, and have 2 kids in public school. When my school opened just 6 years ago, we had the lowest scores in our large district (and that was saying something). Our goal was to be the top in 5 years. We did it in 4, along the way being named a Distinguished School, and have blown past the test score level the state sets as it's goal that all schools eventually achieve. We did it because our principal accepted nothing less than academic excellence from the students, teachers... and parents. Gone were the "fluff" artsy projects etc, and "instructional minutes" were paramount.

We did all this without vouchers, or fancy "reforms". It's called hard work, and fortunately for us all 3 necessary elements have bought into it... parents, teachers, and students. The more successful we felt, the more successful we became.

Sound like some tv-special you saw about a voucher school overcoming poor education? It's not. It's a regular old public school. But nobody wants to report on that.

 

[MrsKreamer]

What I don't understand is why these children from poor performing schools deserve to get a better education at a private or parochial school. Why not just give them an opportunity to attend a better performing public school in their district. If the goal is a better education, than it shouldn't make a difference if its from a private school or a high performing public school.

I live in the same area as the OP, and to answer this question, generally speaking there are NO better schools in the district. It is generally a "bad" public school and a Catholic school. This is a very LARGE problem.

 

[Master Mason]

Yes, because the state is funding a religious education. While this is all well and good when the children are attending a Christian school... are you so tolerant when it is a madrassa? A school that teaches jihad? Or one that teaches White Supremacy? A slippery slope, my friends. One we had best not go down. I for one will not allow my tax dollars to support such things... but if religious education can be funded by vouchers, how does the state choose what "religions" are okay?

Way back on post 26 of this thread, the pertinate Supream Court Decision that was made, telling you, you are wrong is posted

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=26405117&postcount=26

 

[golfgal]

I am against school vouchers for 2 reasons:

1. Separation of church and state. While I am a Christian and would love to send my children to a Christian school, I do not think it's a good idea to put govt money into a Christian education. Before long, groups like ACLU will have probs with the money going here and the govt will step in and ask Christian (and other religious schools) to stop teaching doctrine. If I am sending my kids to a Christian school it is because I also want them to teach doctrine. I don't want the govt involved in that, but eventually they'd have to be.

2. Children with special needs--they won't be allowed in the private schools because of admission standards and would be eventually stuck in the public schools. This would, in effect, be throwing them back into separate schools again and be discriminatory in nature.

I am very pro conservatism until it comes to education.

Yes, because the state is funding a religious education. While this is all well and good when the children are attending a Christian school... are you so tolerant when it is a madrassa? A school that teaches jihad? Or one that teaches White Supremacy? A slippery slope, my friends. One we had best not go down. I for one will not allow my tax dollars to support such things... but if religious education can be funded by vouchers, how does the state choose what "religions" are okay?

I went to Catholic schools, and my parents worked 2 jobs or more to pay for it. Even when our family business closed and we lost our home, they kept up my tuition. Why? Because we lived in a gang infested area. They worked hard for my education, which made me work all the harder to achieve. My behind would have been in a sling if I didn't get top grades. And I learned from my parents that education is worth the sacrifice.

Which brings me to my point: School success is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. When parents believe that this setting is "good", they support it and make sure their children do their work. When people believe a school is poor, they are so. Those schools have far less parent involvement, and the students aren't involved either. We all know that when people work for something, and get it, they take care of it. When it is handed to them, they don't. It's the difference in why Habitat for Humanity works and public housing doesn't, even if people are both paying a low monthly cost. It's personal investment, period. That's why many private schools work. It's not that their curriculum is so superior or their teachers are that much better. When you pay for something, you appreciate it.

I am a public school teacher, and have 2 kids in public school. When my school opened just 6 years ago, we had the lowest scores in our large district (and that was saying something). Our goal was to be the top in 5 years. We did it in 4, along the way being named a Distinguished School, and have blown past the test score level the state sets as it's goal that all schools eventually achieve. We did it because our principal accepted nothing less than academic excellence from the students, teachers... and parents. Gone were the "fluff" artsy projects etc, and "instructional minutes" were paramount.

We did all this without vouchers, or fancy "reforms". It's called hard work, and fortunately for us all 3 necessary elements have bought into it... parents, teachers, and students. The more successful we felt, the more successful we became.

Sound like some tv-special you saw about a voucher school overcoming poor education? It's not. It's a regular old public school. But nobody wants to report on that.

Religious schools already get federal/state money for some of their programs. Your tax dollars already DO go to religious schools for non-religious programs, especially special education programs.

 

[GeorgiaPeach8]

Tenure protects teachers that shouldn't be teaching.

Yes...there are SOME situations where tenure protects teachers who should not be teaching. The problem is blaming a lack of quality teaching in the classroom on tenure is just sheer laziness. I can't tell you the number of administrators I have had who whine about tenure and not being able to get rid of certain teachers. The fact of the matter is...if adminstrators followed through and wrote up teachers even with tenure they can be fired.


Let me give you a perfect example of how this situation goes wrong...three years ago I was asked to mentor a new teacher. Male, teaching building construction. I was called into the principal's office and was told to "go easy" on him because we needed more males in the building. In his mentor meetings I tried to talk about lesson planning, class managment etc.. I was cut off at every turn by the principal. Of course, new teacher passed intern year with flying colors. This past year he received tenure. In the spring, a student in my 4th block class showed me a pix from his cellphone camera...it was this teacher--feet on desk, sound ASLEEP!! Students in room using power tools.

The trick to tenure is it exists so I can fight for better benefits, pay and not be subject to district or administrative retaliation. It is so simple for administrators too---get rid of poor quality teachers BEFORE the get tenure. An administrator doesn't even have to give a reason during those first years.

 

[luvmy3]

I live in the same area as the OP, and to answer this question, generally speaking there are NO better schools in the district. It is generally a "bad" public school and a Catholic school. This is a very LARGE problem.

I come from the largest district in my county. We have tons of schools, some bad, some good. I find it very hard to believe that you don't have any good public schools in your district. If that is true then clearly you have a bigger problem in your area than the debate about vouchers.

Vouchers are not the answer for a failing school district, it won't solve anything. It just allows some students to go to a better school while others still have to remain in the failing schools. Then you still have the same problem that the vouchers were suppose to be fixing, how does that help anyone in the long run.

 

[GeorgiaPeach8]

Sorry, but you're wrong. The NEA wields unparalleled political power. I'll stand corrected on my hyperbole, however. As you'll see from the links below, the NEA is SECOND among the top 10 political donors in the nation for federal candidates and elections, and SEVENTH for overall political donations from 1989 to 2008. Another labor union, AFSCME, which also incidentally opposes school vouchers, is first. Really, to argue that the NEA isn't a powerful political force that buys candidate after candidate is simply absurd. They've bought more political influence than the National Rifle Association and Exxon Mobil COMBINED.

I don't even see your Patton Boggs making the list, but I do find Milky Ways to be a really tasty confection — particularly when frozen — so I'm darned glad to hear our soldiers are getting them.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/19/unions_are_6_of_top_10_political_donors/

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

Thanks for the links...interesting reading. However, you misunderstood my point. I meant to contradict the idea that the NEA is the top political contributor. I never meant to indicate that the NEA wasn't powerful. There power has declined in recent years, if you look at the data from your second article...these are overall contributors (dating back several years).

Feel free to google or wiki Patton Boggs...lots of information out there--also discussed in The K Street Gang.

 

[castleview]

Thanks for the links...interesting reading. However, you misunderstood my point. I meant to contradict the idea that the NEA is the top political contributor. I never meant to indicate that the NEA wasn't powerful. There power has declined in recent years, .

Not to mention that younger teachers are not into the union as much as the older ones who will be retiring in a few years.

 

[Cool-Beans]

It's very easy to be against the vouchers when you aren't flat broke and just stuck with things that are called "schools", but don't actually educate the children.

Contrary to the popular excuse, "Well, okay, our kids don't do well on the tests, but it isn't our fault - it's those kids' fault. And their parents! And society!" not all kids (or their parents) are just not able to learn. The schools just suck.

When the vouchers came out here, so many of the parents with kids in the Cleveland Public Schools wanted them that they had to go to a lottery system.

The public schools are against the vouchers because they know damn well that other people do it better and that the parents won't pick them (even though they COULD, the voucher could be used any old place.) They're worried that their never-ending supply of tax money for their ridiculously high salaries and their friends (sorry, "consultants"), fun hotel parties and all the rest will dry up and go away.

If the schools had done their job, they wouldn't be so worried that the parents would take the voucher money and use it elsewhere. But they didn't do their job. And they still don't do their job. And they don't care at all about that. All they care about is that they keep getting the money.

 

[Charade]

What makes a school bad? What makes a school good?

What changes a bad school to a good school?

 

[creativeamanda]

Religious schools already get federal/state money for some of their programs. Your tax dollars already DO go to religious schools for non-religious programs, especially special education programs.

I have no problems with my tax money going to a religious school. You missed my point. I don't want the state going into a religious school and telling them they can't teach theology anymore.

Kids with special needs are afforded services under IDEA and deserve those services. I have no problem with the kids receiving the services in a private school, because they aren't being taught theology at the time.

If I choose to pay for my kids to go to a Christian school, I don't want the govt stepping in and saying they can't get theology anymore because the ACLU has stepped in. AND, I would still expect the speech therapist to come in and give them services because my tax dollars pay for them to be afforded that right.

 

[SamRoc]

My kids went to K-8th grade in Catholic Schools in Brooklyn and had a great education. DH and I paid for their education and we are both Catholic, thats why we chose the schools we did. In the past few years i have seen more non Catholics coming into the schools, and every one of the parents told me it was because they felt their kids would be "safe" there. I thought it was ridiculous, Brooklyn has some great schools. My kids both went to public high schools there and they were fine. The problem was the newer parents didnt want their kids to participate in First Holy Communion, Confirmation and the other religious Sacraments. They wanted their kids to be seperate from this.I can see these parents wanting a good school for their kids, but chosing a Religous one different from their own is going to be very hard for the child to understand. This is where the problem begins, you want your kids to be "safe" you send them to a Catholic school, and then you want things to be changed to satisfy your beliefs. Well in our school that didnt happen. The kids who werent Catholic, just sat in the back of the Church during Mass. And during classroom time, they had to study what every other kid studying. I dont mind any child getting a better education, but you should not change the rules of a Catholic school. Thats where I would draw the line.

 

[creativeamanda]

My kids went to K-8th grade in Catholic Schools in Brooklyn and had a great education. DH and I paid for their education and we are both Catholic, thats why we chose the schools we did. In the past few years i have seen more non Catholics coming into the schools, and every one of the parents told me it was because they felt their kids would be "safe" there. I thought it was ridiculous, Brooklyn has some great schools. My kids both went to public high schools there and they were fine. The problem was the newer parents didnt want their kids to participate in First Holy Communion, Confirmation and the other religious Sacraments. They wanted their kids to be seperate from this.I can see these parents wanting a good school for their kids, but chosing a Religous one different from their own is going to be very hard for the child to understand. This is where the problem begins, you want your kids to be "safe" you send them to a Catholic school, and then you want things to be changed to satisfy your beliefs. Well in our school that didnt happen. The kids who werent Catholic, just sat in the back of the Church during Mass. And during classroom time, they had to study what every other kid studying. I dont mind any child getting a better education, but you should not change the rules of a Catholic school. Thats where I would draw the line.

And that is what I am worried vouchers will do. Sooner or later, a parent who sends their kid to Catholic School with a voucher will contact the ACLU and the ACLU will require all schools receiving vouvhers to stop teaching theology. That's a risk of vouchers I'm not willing to take.

 

[castleview]

And that is what I am worried vouchers will do. Sooner or later, a parent who sends their kid to Catholic School with a voucher will contact the ACLU and the ACLU will require all schools receiving vouvhers to stop teaching theology. That's a risk of vouchers I'm not willing to take.

I think I put it in a previous post, but one mother did sue over her non-Catholic daughter saying a Catholic prayer at the CS she was given a voucher for. I can't remember if it was Milwaukee or Cleveland.

 

[GeorgiaPeach8]

Not to mention that younger teachers are not into the union as much as the older ones who will be retiring in a few years.

That is soooo true...I'm mid-career. I'm kind of a union moderate. I was raised in a two-union household. I mostly joined because I taught special education my first few years and needed the liability coverage offered. But I'm shocked at how many new teachers just don't see the point.

 

[castleview]

That is soooo true...I'm mid-career. I'm kind of a union moderate. I was raised in a two-union household. I mostly joined because I taught special education my first few years and needed the liability coverage offered. But I'm shocked at how many new teachers just don't see the point.

Probably because they didn't deal with the crap teachers dealt with in the 70s - one of my dad's co-teachers left the profession because the principal took his gradebook and changed some grades. Also, newer teachers can move around. DH did because he was Physics which was in short supply at the time. I still think the union is a necessary evil.