Posted on 05/25/2004 6:00:22 AM PDT by frithguild
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:39:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Parents of inner-city school children locked in failing public school systems should be given school vouchers to attend private or public schools elsewhere, a coalition of black clergy leaders said yesterday.
"For the 26 years I have been in New Jersey, there have been a host of public school reform proposals, a multitude of major state Supreme Court rulings and billions of dollars spent to achieve parity and improve test scores," said the Rev. Reginald T. Jackson, executive director of the Black Ministers Council. "Yet, the fact remains, that with few exceptions, urban schools and most minority students still do not meet minimum state standards or receive a quality education," Jackson said, speaking at a news conference in Trenton.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
This may not be a popular idea among conservatives, but I've said for some time that school vouchers are not a good idea. Eventually the cure will be no better than the disease -- because these vouchers will have so many strings attached to them that we'll end up with private schools that are no better than their public counterparts.
It's only a first step but even those children whose parents don't care will eventually benefit.
At last people speaking up for right rather than politics as usual.
Who says the teacher unions don't have a sense of humor?
This is the slippery-slope fallacy. Vouchers are a more just schooling system than the current system. The possibility of a less just schooling system arising in the future cannot be used to justify preventing the establishment of a more just schooling system now.
-- because these vouchers will have so many strings attached to them that we'll end up with private schools that are no better than their public counterparts.
This is the worst case scenario. Even in this worst case, parents will still be able to send their children to unregulated, non-voucher-redeeming private schools.
Regardless, there is reason to believe that private schools will be less vulnerable to government regulation under a voucher program than currently because under a voucher program participating parents will fight to prevent the regulation of their schools. Parents participating in the voucher program will represent a much larger interest group than the number of parents who currently send their children to private schools.
The Dem Party has evolved into merely an obese lump of special interests.... it makes for an inconsistent platform and interests slamming into one another harder by the day.
The governor is opposed to strengthening the authority of the adults with the most responsibility for the education of "a limited number of students." He prefers that the authority (control of "critical education funding") remain with the educrats who do not have actual responsibility for the education of any child other than their own. Educrats who, likely as not, exercise their authority over their own children's education by sending them to private school rather than to the public school system.
That is hyperbole IMHO. If the private schools which accept vouchers are no better than public schools they will go out of business; granted that the vouchers may and, if Ted Kennedy has any say in the matter will, have undesirable strings. But the Kennedys of the world are on the defensive on the fundamental issue of ceasing to seperate responsibilty from authority in education.When a college sends out the bills for tuition it does not address the envelope to anyone but the parents of the students, and no public school educrat is willing to pay that bill for you. And that proves that it is not the educrat but the parent who is responsible for the child's education. If the parents - especially black parents who are the bedrock support of the Democratic resistance to uniting responsibility with authority - demand to have authority commensurate with their responsibility then vouchers will come. The battle will continue on the issue of educrat regulation of voucher-supported schools, but IMHO toney private schools will continue as they have without accepting vouchers at all.
No, they won't. Look at what happens on the collegiate level here in the U.S. -- it is extremely rare for a school to go out of business even as the quality of education has declined substantially. What eventually happens is that the bad schools will no longer be concerned about the quality of the education and will instead channel their efforts on increasing the size of the vouchers.
If you don't believe me, just ask yourself how so many mediocre private colleges stay in business these days even as the cost of "education" at these places goes through the roof.
Gov. James E. McGreevey opposes vouchers. >>>>
So does Schundler and the rest of the NJ pubs, Govt. control is the new excuse.
Many are opting for tuition tax credits but I don't know how that will help the poor since they pay NO taxes or very little in taxes.
Can you verify that Schundler is AGAINST vouchers?
Powerful message. I thank you.
Can you verify that Schundler is AGAINST vouchers?>>
That's an easy one, Yes, I heard him say that. He is MORE in favor of Tuition Tax Credits than for vouchers.
And what I didn't hear him say was last week while he was on the show "On the Record" with Michael Aron, where he did NOT say he was pro life, another consensus builder I presume (like Murphy and Schroder), what's so hard about saying the words, "I am pro life" seems many of the republican candidates are having a hard time saying those words while those on the flip side have NO problem saying they are "pro choice". I hope Bret is still against tolls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.