School Vouchers, what are the arguments for & against?

The only argument against vouchers is that it would disenfranchise the Teachers Unions. Private schools do a better, cheaper job of educating students.

There is no legal issue with Religious schools as emilyrose has stated. The Federal Government routinely provides tuition assistance to college students at religious private schools and seminaries.

I see to major arguments against the school vouchers:

1. They provide enough money to attend Catholic schools but not secular private schools (which are more expensive). This forces people to attend relgious schools if they want a decent education. This is a clear violation of the first ammendment right to freedom of relgion.

2. They will destroy what is left of the public school system. The school vouches will take the brightest students and the most active families out of the public schools. This will result in lower quality classes and zero chance of change.

_______________

You're right that there is nothing in the constitution that mandates a public education system. There are, however, several state, local, and federal laws that require that children attend school (or be educated at home using an approved curiculum). There are also federal laws that require that the states provide an education for all children. The constitution isn't actually the only law in the country.

At the point at which the state is providing all of the funding for all private schools they are no longer private. Or do some people still have to pay to attend? When they are no longer private, they will face the same problems that public schools face now.

Secular private schools cannot provide the same low-cost education that many religious schools can because they believe in smaller classes and do not receive funding from the Church. Maintaining a school is expensive. At most private schools, even full tuition does not cover the cost of educating a student. How to you reduce cost to something the government is willing to pay for? Bigger classes, fewer teachers, fewer books, fewer desks, older computers, fewer extracurricular activities, etc. In short, all the problems the public schools face today.

What would happen is some private schools would fill the role currently take by public schools. Others would continue to provide a high-quality education at a high cost for those who can afford it. How is that an improvement on the current situation?

Arguments Against School Vouchers

First off, the requirement for public schools was in the Northwest Ordnance, which was created under the Articles of Confederation and grandfathered into the Constitution at its inception, so yes the federal government (through the states) does have a requirement to provide primary and secondary eduction to children at public expense.

Second, there are good public and private schools just like there are bad public and private schools. The arguement for vouchers is not primarily that the public schools are bad, it is that people whose children attend private schools have taken the responsibility onto themselves to provide their children an education. They feel that they are being charged for a service they are not taking advantage of, so in fact they are paying for two educations for each of their children. The voucher is a way for the government to refund to them some of the money they have paid through their taxes for that education. Of course, where does that leave those of us without children? You don't see us claiming to be discriminated against, paying for education we are not using; we understand it is a responsibility as a citizen to help provide for the future, whether or not our DNA will be there to take advantage of it.

The argument against vouchers is even more simple. The people who want vouchers demand that there be absolutely no limits to the use of the vouchers. If the parents want their children to attend a school that discriminates against applications from chidren because of race, religion etc. It is not the business of the United States government to reward people for discriminating because of these reasons. Make the recipients of the vouchers recognize the law against discrimination and they can have the money. After all, it is only by refusing public money that private schools have the moral authority to discriminate in any and every way they desire.

I was for vouchers when the subject first came up, but have changed my mind on it. The major drawback is the two, public and privet are not playing on the same playing field. The privet schools can pick and choose who they educate while the public schools cannot. The public schools have to take everybody handy cap, problem kids, everybody. If you do have vouchers it will destroy the public schools ability to compete with the privet schools and make it economical impossible to maintain any type of an education for the kids left over after the privet schools get their pick. And every kid deserves the best education that is they can handle.

It gives parents, which by the way are taxpayers, the right to take the money that would be put into public education and allow them to give their child the education that they want, even if previously they couldn't afford to do so