George Bush supports the use of tuition vouchers for private schools, to be funded with both Federal money diverted from schools, and matching funds from states, to "improve" failing schools. Al Gore supports offering additional federal money for building new schools, federal money for hiring additional teachers, closing failing schools and reopening them with a "turn-around" team of teachers and administrators, and teacher testing for new teachers. Both support testing of students to determine school effectiveness.
I am against tuition vouchers for private schools. In my opinion, either we believe that all children deserve a decent education, or we don't. If we believe that all children should have a good education, then we've got to do whatever it takes to make the public schools capable of delivering that education. If that means teacher testing and scrapping the tenure system, so be it. If that means security scanners and officers in public schools, so be it. Bear in mind, I hate the idea of police officers in schools. But schools have to be safe before any learning can take place, and it is unconscionable that they aren't.
Public schools are the only ones required to serve all children. And no voucher program is going to make a private school take a child they don't want to take. On top of that, I have not yet seen a voucher program that would pay the entire cost of a private school's tuition - meaning that poor parents will not be able to use them to send their kids to a private school. Their kids will still be stuck in those failing schools decried by all and sundry. The only difference is, those schools will have even less money to deliver a "decent education" to the kids stuck in those schools.
To those who suggest that "competition" will some how improve those failing schools, I have to say: I'm sorry, but I don't think there will ever be competition for educating poor children. There's no profit in it. Educating poor kids is one of those things people mean when they talk about "a public good." It does not belong in the private sector, and it won't be addressed by the private sector. In short, if we leave the job of providing "a decent education" to those who can make a profit from it, the kids of poor parents won't get one. Period.
If we are going to take money out of the public school system instead of fixing the public schools, we might as well drop all the pretenses and stop saying that all kids deserve a good education, and say what we really mean: I want my kids to get a good education, no matter what the cost to anyone else's kids. And if that's what we really mean, then we might as well just close the public schools, stop collecting those taxes, and let the parents use that money to buy whatever they can in the way of education for their kids. Sure, a lot of kids will fall through the cracks, but hey, that's not our problem, right?
Until, of course, those un- and under-educated kids embark on their career of crime, because that's the only thing they'll know how to do.
~Karen~
Next page > Environment > Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
