Skeeter:
The point of vouchers is that everyone has a choice of where their kids go to school. That's not possible, at present, for low-income kids. There's no reason why "public" schools should go to hell; if they have the ability to draw pupils, then they'll get the vouchers.
The rich receiving vouchers is pretty much irrelevant; the middle class may not have to scrimp as much to send their kids to school; but, IMHO, the biggest beneficiaries of vouchers will be those that can't afford to send their kids to a decent school under the present system.
Under the pressure to compete for vouchers, schools will be more responsive to the parent's concerns regarding grades and discipline. Unfortunately, those kids whose parents don't really care, will probably fare worse, or maybe the same, than at present...and then there'll be some real zoos that end up with the kids no other school will tolerate. But those are kids that are ruining the education system right now, so I don't know that they'll really be worse off...I do think other schools will be better without them, though.
Right now, the thing that designates a school private is that one has to pay extra for their child to attend. That difference may disappear, or will be lessened, with a voucher system. What we now call public schools will still remain, but they'll be funded in a different, and hopefully a more effective, way.
The wealthy will always have a more expensive school system, they have it now, and I'm sure they'll have it with vouchers, too. That's not going to change. What will change, is that low-income people will finally have a bigger choice and a louder voice (their vouchers), in what their kids learn, and where they go to school. |
