[s1artibartfast]

I think we will have to disagree. Religious topics aside, I am still a big proponent of vouchers, if only to get more kids out of bad public schools and hold them accountable.

It isnt stealing money because the schools dont deserve it. Students success should be the focus, not institutions.

[consteval]

Right, but you're describing a self-eating animal. If student success if the intention, diverting money from public schools won't help in the long run. It will work for a while, but as public schools get drained then private schools will be the only competitive option.

Then, of course, you would jack up the prices. Private schools are only limited in greed due to competition with the public sector. The more you erode the competition, the more expensive and lower quality private schools will become. Eventually we'll reach an inflection point, in which private schools are too expensive for vouchers, or our public funds would have to increase.

I also disagree on the institution not mattering. What many don't realize is there are virtually zero standards for private schools. Even today, many are not competitive. Rather, they exist as a way for insane parents to "educate" their children on fringe teachings. Sometimes that's religious schools, sometimes it's cult teachings, sometimes these private schools are more or less abuse centers or conversion camps.

SOME private schools have competitive education. It's not a given they have more competitive education, and I'd actually argue it's far less likely, because they have no rules anywhere saying what they have to do. Public schools are, at least, pretty reasonable in process and curriculum.

The reason conservatives are so keen on dismantling public education and pushing private schools isn't due to quality, although that's a convenient talking point. It's due to this lack of standards that allow conservative beliefs to flourish. It's often said education is an anti-conservative space. Naturally, the end goal is lower quality education, and this is simply the propaganda used to get to that desired end state.

[s1artibartfast]

It seems like you have a lot of unsupported assumptions.

First seems to be that public schools cant compete with private schools on student success. This seems strange from a public school proponent.

Why do you think private school competition will erode over time?

Why cant students flow back into public schools if private ones become expensive and terrible over time.

In my opinion, the whole point of vouchers is to let failing institutions fail. If you think accreditation criteria are too lax for private schools, then that is a workable objection. I think they should be the exact same as public schools.

[consteval]

> First seems to be that public schools cant compete with private schools on student success. This seems strange from a public school proponent

No, please read carefully. I said if this continues and more money is diverted from public schools, this will be the case. This should be obvious - every dollar on vouchers is a dollar NOT in public schools. That's not a side effect by the way, that's the entire purpose of these developments.

> Why cant students flow back into public schools if private ones become expensive and terrible over time

Because the public schools have no money now because you took it. That money doesn't fall from the sky.

> let failing institutions fail

Okay, so you agree with me. If we go down this path public education will fall. Once again this is the nature of this political movement, not a side effect.

> If you think accreditation criteria are too lax for private schools, then that is a workable objection

Sigh. No, no it's not. Because then you have a school that has accreditation and curriculum managed by the government that receives public funds.

Um... you just described a public school. That will never happen because the very idea is at odds with the ideology behind it.

The idea isn't "public school 2.0". The fact private schools have no standards is not an oversight, it's the motivation.

[s1artibartfast]

>No, please read carefully. I said if this continues and more money is diverted from public schools, this will be the case. This should be obvious - every dollar on vouchers is a dollar NOT in public schools. That's not a side effect by the way, that's the entire purpose of these developments.

Why cant public schools scale up and down, just like private schools?

>Because the public schools have no money now because you took it. That money doesn't fall from the sky.

Maybe I wasn't clear. the money follows the students in the form of vouchers. IF more kids want to go to public schools because private ones have become shitty, then the public schools will have more money.

>> let failing institutions fail

>Okay, so you agree with me. If we go down this path public education will fall. Once again this is the nature of this political movement, not a side effect.

It will at least shrink. If public schools get better and provide comparable student education, then they will survive. IF they cant, I wouldnt want them anyways.

>> If you think accreditation criteria are too lax for private schools, then that is a workable objection

>Sigh. No, no it's not. Because then you have a school that has accreditation and curriculum managed by the government that receives public funds. Um... you just described a public school. That will never happen because the very idea is at odds with the ideology behind it.

Public universities have accreditation requirements, that doesnt mean they are government institutions. It means they are regulated. Just like your doctor, butcher, or dentist are regulated but not government.

At the end of the day, what exactly are you worried about? If you and like minded people want to keep sending their kids to public schools they can do so. Is it more about controlling what other students and parents do?

When I have spoken with other people on this topic, their concern is generally the latter. They think that good students pull up bad students, and therefore it is acceptable for them to be dragged down by bad schools and bad students.

[consteval]

> Is it more about controlling what other students and parents do?

It's about attempting to stop the American right from achieving their decades-long goal of destroying public education.

I'm not stupid, I can see this issue for what it is. The conservatives thrive on a stupider population, and everyone knows that. It's no wonder that since Reagan our public schools have been under constant attack.

The end-goal here is having no public education at all, and instead forcing children to attend private schools where they will be taught religious teachings and other obviously wrong ideology. In the ideal outcome for the right, those who cannot afford education will simply not receive it, becoming fodder for the next generation of conservative propaganda. Without poor, stupid people the republicans have no voter base to manipulate.

Once republicans stop trying to put the ten commandments in public schools and stop trying to pass genital inspection legislation for school children, I'll humor your position. Until then, I'll stick with the reality that the right simply does not like the fair and equal access nature of public education.

[s1artibartfast]

That concern just doesn't ring true to me. I'm in one of the most liberal enclaves in the country, and every parent I know wants their children in private schools for the educational benefits.

I have progressive friends who teach in public schools but pinch pennies to send their children elsewhere. It isn't because they want to abolish education education.

I see atheist Chinese immigrants who pay top dollar to send their kids to catholic schools because they know it maximizes their education and path the IVY league.