<p>This Amazon example isn’t like vouchers in any case. </p>
<p>Vouchers involve public funds, not money from a private company. Also, the vouchers typically don’t cover the full cost of private school.</p>
<p>The Amazon example is like the public school example - public funds are used for public libraries and the quality of libraries in the neighborhoods of some cities might not be as good as in other areas. The people in those areas have may have little choice as to which library to frequent due to lack of transportation (although they have more choice here than in the school example since in many school districts one can’t simply go to a school in a different area) and Amazon represents the private company willing to provide a certain level of service in exchange for the same cost as the public option. You could replace Amazon with Barnes and Noble - and didn’t I see in another thread that B&N is actually running the bookstores on some college campuses - maybe even public colleges? Hmmm.</p>
<p>
If they don’t ‘adequately’ cover the costs then there’s no worry for the ‘public school regardless of quality’ advocates because there won’t be a private company to receive the vouchers. In that case, why are these advocates so worried about the voucher program?</p>
<p>“I was not a very good test taker” - MD.</p>
<p>So how did he get into Haavaad?</p>
<p>[Matt</a> Damon Loves Teachers (via Chicago Teachers Union) - YouTube](<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube)</p>
<p>For those of you that support vouchers would you support a voucher program where the voucher could only be used at another public school?</p>
<p>For example a kid in Newark could use a voucher and attend Milburn schools but not Saint Benedicts.</p>
<p>Why would you need a voucher for that?</p>
<p>Because if you live in Newark you can not attend a public school in another town say Milburn. But if that public school has space and you want to pay tuition you can attend. Thus poor kids need a voucher to do it.</p>
<p>Tom–well, I don’t support vouchers, but I also don’t think that Newark school money should go to pay Millburn to educate some kids (not that I think there’s a snowball’s chance in heck that Millburn would allow in Newark students given any choice!)</p>
<p>I do think that the condition that Newark school kids live in needs to be changed in order to see a change in Newark schools (H was the primary pediatrician for thousands of Newark school kids in the “worst” of the worse neighborhoods, so he has an idea of what they face before they ever set foot in a classroom, and teaching now in a Title One school in a nearby town has only made that clearer to him.)</p>
<p>Then it’s no longer a public school then, is it?</p>
<p>No but Union or West Orange or several other towns might if they have declining enrollment and need the kids to fill the space.</p>
<p>I do not support vouchers for private schools bit I can see how it could work moving kids from the worst public schools to better schools in neighboring towns.</p>
<p>Why isn’t a public school?</p>
<p>In a lot of public schools you are lucky to make it through the day without getting asaulted, much less learn anything.</p>
<p>[Walter</a> E. Williams: Why are inner-city schools more violent today than in the past? | Deseret News](<a href=“http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765550887/Why-are-inner-city-schools-more-violent-today-than-in-the-past.html?pg=all]Walter”>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765550887/Why-are-inner-city-schools-more-violent-today-than-in-the-past.html?pg=all)</p>
<p><a href=“Office of Budget and Planning”>Office of Budget and Planning;
<p>Tom–but if the money for those kids follows them out of Newark, that just reduces the resources left for the less able-to-figure this out. And I really don’t see the towns around Newark taking the least “presentable”. They’ll want to cherry pick just like everyone else.</p>
<p>(I live in a border town; we already have plenty of Newark students, though not any money to come with them!)</p>
<p>riprorin if a private school takes a voucher would they be required to continue to educate a disruptive student like the public school?</p>
<p>garland I favor public school funding that follows the child so if Newark loses 300 kids to other public districts the other public districts should get that money.</p>
<p>Tom, I believe that voucher schools can suspend or expel students at will, which is a very positive thing.</p>
<p>If they take public dollars they should follow the same rules required of public schools. Once they accept that voucher they should be required to educate that child for the year. If not any comparison with public school performance is inaccurate. Of course you can appear to be a better school if you can get rid of the troubled kids or the poor performers.</p>
<p>And after the voucher school expels the student, the public school is obligated to enroll them however the voucher school is not oblgated to turn over monies already recieved to educate him to the public school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. </p>
<p>While I do not like standardized testing at all in general (even hate the SAT), I understand why California public schools, especially LAUSD uses them. Some of CA’s schools are abysmal. How else would you know whether your kid is learning at an acceptable pace if there is no standardized testing done?</p>
<p>In my experience in CA public schools, many people simply keep their kids home on testing days if they don’t want them tested. This doesn’t however, solve “teaching to the test” if that is what one objects to. I’d like to hear what is objectionable about the testing content that people don’t want their kids to be taught, before I agree with this argument.</p>
<p>I did not object to my kids taking the public school standardized tests, because it confirmed what I thought about how horrible my kid’s math teacher was, or that my kid was uneducable in that area - it was one or the other because he went to class everyday. There was value for me in knowing that.</p>
<p>“Well, what if the public library is in an appalling state in certain areas of a city and a private business (Amazon for example) decided they’d be willing to provide the book lending for the same taxpayer rate as the public library gets. Would you support that or would you say ‘no way’ to public funds going to the private business of Amazon, even under these circumstances, and that the people need to just live with the awful library in their neighborhood?”</p>
<p>No, I wouldn’t support that. If Amazon wants to do something in areas of the country with poor libraries, they can use their own funds for it. They can even start their own foundation to support it.</p>
<p>
There’s nothing to say that since voucher systems don’t exist in the majority of locations and the rules surrounding the vouchers don’t have to be the same everywhere. Generally speaking, a private enterprise can’t simply keep the money if they’re not providing the service so if a student is kicked out then the money for services not yet rendered should go with the kid. Of course, if the kid attended a few years at the voucher school and then gets in trouble and is no longer permitted to attend then the school can still keep the money for the first few years where it delivered the service.</p>