<p>If a school is failing, and families are offered vouchers to attend other schools, then that’s great for those kids whose parents can take advantage of them. So now the kids in the failing school with the most motivated parents, and those who are able to manage transportation, leave the failing school. So you’re left with a still failing school, populated with students whose parents can’t - or don’t care enough to - take advantage of vouchers. Isn’t it better to try and FIX the failing school? </p>
<p>I live in the South, and many private schools are run by fundamentalist churches. Education is a lower priority than religious indoctrination. Are we better off if our taxpayer money is used to send kids to these schools? These schools have religious participation requirements to enroll, and you get kicked out if you or your family questions or violates doctrine. One local school makes it very clear Catholic, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, and Mormon families are not welcome. Do you support vouchers to these schools? What about Muslim schools? Who makes the rules? And what if there are no private schools within a reasonable range? Again, here in the South, some kids are on a school bus 45 minutes to an hour just to get to the local public school - private schools can be even farther away and offer no transportation. It may work in cities or areas where there are clusters of schools in a reasonable range, but that isn’t the case across the country.</p>
<p>I have always sent my kids to diverse, urban-ish (as urban as it gets in my small city) public schools. Yes, there are challenges. But I would take them any day over the religious indoctrination or homogeneity that comes at many private schools, including the one I attended as a child.</p>
<p>I think the real issue is that everyone wants whats best for their kid and they don’t care so much about what happens to other peoples children. It also depends on where you live and what the public school is like that your kids would end up attending. My dad was a public school teacher in a small town. The public schools there are fine. However we don’t live there. When we bought our house we made sure to buy a house in one of the better middle/high schools in the state. Sure we could have bought a house for lot cheaper less than a mile away but then the kids would have gone to different schools where the test scores are considerably lower. I’m all for fixing the public schools but the reality is no one wants their kids to be the ones to blaze the trail. I don’t know if vouchers would help or not. But I’m not going to criticize a parent for wanting the best for their kid.</p>
<p>This is a good question. My guess is that people who send their kids to private schools, support the “idea” of public schools (like Matt Damon), and claim to “support” their community schools by paying property taxes and voting in favor of bond measures, but they probably do nothing else to effect change and improvement in the public schools. It is difficult enough to effect change in the school your kids attend, let alone one you have little first hand knowledge of.</p>
<p>MichiganGeorgia, the criticism is for shilling for a failed public school system while sending your own kids to private schools.</p>
<p>Just because some kids in affluent suburbs or some inner city charter schools get a decent education, doesn’t mean our public education system is working.</p>
<p>Look at how much we’re spending for education and what the resuts are.</p>
<p>I guess you can say that my kids are getting a good education so who cares, but that’s pretty short sighted. The societal costs for having failed schools is tremendous.</p>
How much does any one person “owe” doing something to effect change and improvement in public schools? I paid my taxes, I sent my kids to public schools and sent them well-fed, rested, from a home environment that encouraged learning, and so forth … But is it my “responsibility” to go sit on a school board or effect change? I can’t fix everything in my community that needs fixing, I can’t sit on every charity in the world.
To Hunt’s point, the taxes on a $15 MM house are, I’m guessing, a heck of a lot more than anyone else here is paying on his or her house.</p>
<p>So are we to conclude then, that by virtue of his tax bill, Damon has done waaaay more for his local public schools than the students/parents who actually go there and are working to make the school a better place?</p>
<p>I am a conservative who supports school vouchers, but the conservatives who ignore IQ and pretend that the main reason inner-city public schools have low test scores is that they are public schools are evading reality. The same structure of unionized, government monopoly schools produce much better results in affluent suburbs, but at a higher cost than necessary.</p>
<p>So if someone pays their school taxes but does not have any family member occupying a seat in a public school or otherwise using any of the public school staff or services, they are not in some way helping? Are they expected to volunteer in a school they have no child attending? In this social climate, that might be seen as sketchy.</p>
<p>“Care to respond to my post on why you support a failed a public education system while sending your own kids to private schools?”</p>
<p>I don’t believe defunding failing schools is supporting public education. That I send my kid to private school on my on my own dime takes away nothing from the public school system. In fact, I am for increasing school aid to failing schools. I also take issue that our public educational system is failing. That there are some schools which fit that description is a fact but to paint the whole public educational with that brush is untrue. </p>
<p>Imo, those who are for a voucher system are the ones who are anti public education and would like nothing better than to see it fail.</p>
At least here, there are programs for that. I have done it myself. Some people volunteer with actual students, but some also volunteer for things like organizing the library, upgrading the computer systems and so forth. Also, there are corporate partnerships that provide spectacular benefits to schools. So it does happen.</p>
<p>With respect to the POTUS specifically, the First Children have special security issues that necessitate them going to private schools. Sorry, I would say this about any president, no matter his or her political party or policies on schooling – their children deserve the highest level of security possible, and a place like Sidwell Friends is well equipped to handle that security, and I find it undignified and not worthy of people to critique a president – any president – on that basis. I find it ugly behavior, much like the ugliness of people who “resent” the security that the First Family gets or the perks of travel that they get.</p>
InigoMontoya,I partially agree w/ your argument, which is why politicians who do not support school choice should be the first to keep THEIR children in the public schools. Your argument suggest the poor children w/ motivated parents should be forced to stay in failing schools while the politicians who are denying them a chance at a better education are sending their own children to private schools. IMO, that is hypocritical.</p>
<p>No one is required to do anything other than pay their taxes. But they will have -zero- impact effecting change and improvement in the schools if that is all they do in that regard. Claiming that paying taxes alone defines one as a big “supporter” of public schools is a hollow assertion.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I don’t resent the president or his family’s security at all. But if the family had chosen public school for whatever reason of their own, then the security would have been managed. Unquestionably. The Obamas chose the best school for their individual children for whatever reasons were important to them. I’m betting dollars to donuts it was mostly academic because the DC public schools really are problematic. And you know what? It’s their money, not mine, so God bless them.</p>
<p>I am a conservative and I fully support private vouchers. However, I have a problem with the concept of using public funds for my own thing. To me, that is the antithesis of conservative.</p>