Comments on: WSJ Editorial on Vouchers

By: Owen Murphy

Owen Murphy — Mon, 24 May 2010 22:01:43 +0000

Home Schooling is also nice since you got to always see your kids.,’:

By: Brad

Brad — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:41:33 +0000

>>*Rich parents* still have a choice.
>Rich parents will always have more choices [...]

The point is that parents who cannot afford private schools do not have as much choice as they should have.

By: Tyson

Tyson — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:33:42 +0000

Rich parents will always have more choices because they have more money. Their kids will always have more than others with less resources. It is a fact of life. They can choose from bigger houses, nicer cars, and “better” schools than those that cannot afford it. I wanted to go to Cal-Arts, but its tuition was way too much for me. I went to USU instead, and I don’t regret that decision one bit. They (USU) may not have the resources (of cal-arts), but what they offer with the limited resources in the art department is still very valuable.

As a side note, if vouchers cover private schools, then they should cover home schooling too. It just seems ironic that home schoolers are excluded from the proposition.

By: Cantrell

Cantrell — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:07:45 +0000

Rich parents still have a choice.

By: Tyson

Tyson — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:35:47 +0000

P.S. Private Schools have been, and will still be there without vouchers, so parents still have a choice.

By: Tyson

Tyson — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:30:33 +0000

I know many teachers, they are friends, family, and others by association through teaching my own kid. I think that they all do an excellent job. I take issue with the negative characterization that the PCE is promoting about our public education teachers. If that is one of their main issues, then I have no reason to vote for vouchers because I know too many good teachers to believe otherwise.

Of course there is room for improvement in every situation, no matter who you are you can do better. And yes, Private school can do better.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:43:22 +0000

Doesn’t the reaction of the teacher’s union scare anyone?

Teachers have always tried to protect themselves from any whim of competition, anything that resembles accountability, will scare them to the point that they travel the country in search of socialists, who see the source of their power depedent on the ability of the poplulance to be “under-educated.” If you really do care about our kids, why don’t we seek to have them educated by the best?? Do you have accountability in your job? Do you have some sort of performance requirement? WE CAN DO BETTER!!!!!!!!! It has been proven over and over, that union activity will result in lost productivity. As evidenced in the Auto Industry, and in the “Teaching Industry.”

By: SLCSpin » Blog Archive » Kim Campbell, Leave The Poor Kids Alone!

SLCSpin » Blog Archive » Kim Campbell, Leave The Poor Kids Alone! — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:16:01 +0000

[...] KVNU has a link to a WSJ editorial on vouchers [...]

By: Tom Grover

Tom Grover — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 03:09:44 +0000

Tyson,

I have written a series of articles on why this voucher program is bad that I will publish on this blog next month. Each article addresses why under a different libertarian principle this is a bad idea. Given that voucher supporters invoke free markets, Milton Friedman and liberty so frequently, I hope my libertarian arguments will provide a strong indictment of how truly awful this program is (and I emphasize I oppose this particular program, not vouchers in general).

If you want perhaps the best, most intelligent and articulate voucher proponent DO NOT go to Parents for Choice. The best, candid advocate is Rep. Steve Urquhart. His blog is at
http://www.steveu.com/blog.

If you have a question, he’s very responsive. I don’t always agree with Rep. U, but I admire his accessibility and transparency.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 02:57:57 +0000

Many private schools have tuitions of $4000 or less.

Even if you don’t have kids, you benefit when students transfer from public to private school b/c of vouchers.

Vouchers are a smaller subsidy ($3000 maximum voucher) than public schools (more than $7000 cost to taxpayers).

By: Tyson

Tyson — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:11:34 +0000

I am not a big fan of vouchers, but I admit I don’t really know enough about them to have a solid opinion against them.

I figure that the term “school choice” is inaccurate, since that implies that there were no real choices before vouchers.

Even with vouchers, wouldn’t private school costs still be extremely high? It seems to me that they would only benefit a few people that aren’t exactly poor (as it seems vouchers are meant to benefit the “poor”).

These are assumptions that I am making, I haven’t researched anything on this or know much about private school tuition costs.

I can’t afford the fastest computer, so I make due with what I have. I can’t afford the biggest house, so I make due. I can’t afford private school for my son, so he attends public school, and he seems to be at no disadvantage.

As a side note, if a person with no kids has to pay taxes that end up in public education, why should people that choose to send their children to private school not have to pay the same taxes?

Somebody let me know if I am wrong.