school voucher system

is beneficial in that it expands the private sector and makes schools first and foremost accountable to parents.

Chubb and Moe (1990: 32) argue that school vouchers expand the private sector and make schools first and foremost accountable to parents.

is problematic in that private schools, insofar as they can select or reject students based on any criteria they please, are poised to leave children with disabilities, inadequate test scores, or a lack of certain religious qualifications to languor in an increasingly de-funded public school system as those able to enter private schools effectively take that money away from the public schools.

Public schools must accept everyone regardless of disabilities, test scores, religion, or other characteristics... private schools can show favoritism or discrimination in selecting students. Private schools can establish any criteria they want for selecting or rejecting students. Thus, they can discriminate or make eligibility standards much more difficult for poorer students. Public schools on the other hand must accommodate all types of students regardless of what challenges they present. Government funds should be kept with the public schools that take on these challenges rather than private schools that may discriminate.

is problematic in that, 95% of the time vouchers are used for religious schools, and thus, effectively amount to a roundabout way for religious adherents to defund the public school system and effectively replace it with a tax-payer supported school system in which Christian ideas such as intelligent design can be taught to children without government oversight.

The fact is that over 95 percent of all school vouchers go to religious schools. The Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment was put in specifically by the framers to avoid the abuses that inevitably come about in state-sponsored religious education. Centuries of religious wars in Europe plus the Middle Eastern wahabism serve as painful examples of religious dogma in schools. Religious ideas are invariably based on opinion & centuries-old teaching rather than scientific proof. Thus, they don't belong in the classroom, but in the home. Once government starts funding religious schools, it might start funding other religious institutions. Eventually, we have a religion-dominated society which can lead to discrimination (against gays, women, etc.) and take away individual freedoms (such as pornography, alcohol, etc.).

is problematic in that, by dismantling public education, private schools, which are 95% religious, are not subject to government oversight and can thus use taxpayer dollars to give children a religious education.

Private schools aren't subject to as rigorous of oversight (other than from the market for schools)... thus, they may not act responsibly. Public schools are subject to government oversight and more rules & regulation. Thus, tighter control is placed on the teaching methods and system of education. With little or no oversight, we don't know how well private schools will perform. Only the marketplace can govern their actions... in other words, the only means of oversight is the ability of parents to take their children elsewhere for an eduction.

is problematic in that, by diverting public resources to private schools, already struggling public schools become further defended, thus making bad schools worse.

Vouchers take funds away from already underfunded public schools. One of the biggest reasons public schools are failing is that they can't keep up with the ever increasing cost of books, teachers, computers, security, etc. If we start subsidizing private schools, much-needed funds will be diverted from the public schools. This will only make bad schools worse.

is a good thing because it permits competition to develop among schools. The injection of competition would promote a healthy variety of schools to develop.

Friedman (1962) argues that school vouchers permit competition to develop among schools. The injection of competition would promote a healthy variety of schools to develop (Friedman 1962: 93).

is a move against the romanticized ideal of universal public education which resonates with the cognoscenti who oppose vouchers while poor urban families just want the best education for their children who will need it to function in our high-tech and advanced society.

While the romanticized ideal of universal public education resonates with the cognoscenti who oppose vouchers, poor urban families just want the best education for their children, who will certainly need it to function in our high-tech and advanced society.

is in no way equivalent to so-called school 'choice' because (1) rich families will have their private school costs defrayed (2) poor families will be unable to cover the balance of private school costs and so will stay in their public schools (3) money will be taken out of public schools, resulting in the complete destruction of the public school system and a second tract of wealthy schools without the accountability of public schools.

A voucher program does not constitute school choice. If an upper-middle-class or rich family uses a voucher to help pay for a private school their child already attends, it takes away money from public schools. If a middle-class or poor child wanted to attend a private school, a voucher typically would not cover the entire cost of that private school, so the child likely could not attend because the parents still could not afford the tuition. There would be no "school choice" available to these parents or their children . . . Basically, what DeVos wants to do is take money away from public schools and give it to private schools without guaranteeing access to all students and without requiring the same accountability that public schools face.

school voucher system, n.All

school voucher system