It's hard to explain... and better to come from someone who actually is black.... i suggest reading this

http://loveisntenough.com/2007/08/06/when-intelligence-is-seen-as-acting-white/

There are a lot of statements made by others that usually make the same claim. Even Thomas Sowell states that black culture embraces anti-intellectualism. That is, if you are well spoken and intelligent, you are 'acting too white'. I've read a few blogs from school teachers at almost all-black schools stating the same scary thing.

There are a lot of statements made by others that usually make the same claim. Even Thomas Sowell states that black culture embraces anti-intellectualism. That is, if you are well spoken and intelligent, you are 'acting too white'. I've read a few blogs from school teachers at almost all-black schools stating the same scary thing.

They are supposed to offer a certain standard. That doesn't quite work out, though. The issue is that teachers are coerced to push through kids that aren't at proper levels of education, as they fear they will get fired, or funding pulled from the school. The idea of a voucher system is that if a school operates at a level that is grossly incompotent, then parents have an incentive to pull their kids out of that school and go elsewhere. If private schools are allowed to accept the kids, then these parents may not have to send their kids to school further than they do.,

Again, the problem is that the government is *supposed* to ensure that all public institutions are great and have a standard, but in general, that standard is circumvented because of fear of layoffs, firings, and other such things.

I don't have a problem paying public money to education. My problem is what I get for it. I have a problem that there are better schools out there in my area, yet I have to pay only for the crappy ones. If I want the good ones, I have to pay twice as much. Is that really fair? I would prefer to pay once, and have the best education possible for my kids.

Well, here in Romania part of the tax money you pay every year is for education. You don't pay directly to the school. It seems quite odd that your tax money goes directly to the school your kids go to.

The proble with your voucher sistem, as I said, is that there are going to be kids forced to go to the crappy schools (because there isn't going to be enough room for all the kids in the better schools). This will lead to the crappy schools becoming even crappier. Also, what will be the schools' selection criteria for students? You may want your kid to go to a better school, but so will everybody esle. Right now the school from you district has to accept your kid. But why should that better school accept your kid and not soem other kid who wants to go there? And why should your kid get a place in that school and not some kid who actually lives in that better school's district?

I don't think this voucher system will change much. It seems like one of those "running away" solutions. I also bet there's gonna be a lot of cases of corruption regarding which kids get accepted to the better schools and which don't. Improving the schools seems like a much better ideea in the long run.

Regarding the teacher situation, a solution would be to evaluate them using different criteria, rather than the performance of their students.

The thing is, with the voucher system at least some kids get a better education in the worst case scenario. The best case scenario is that due to no districts, there may be as many schools as needed to support children in a given area. You assume there can only be 1 good and 1 bad school in an area. This would not need to be the case. The crappy school would have to get better, as if it failed to do well, other schools could be created that would outperform this bad school. Again, it destroys the need of districts and instead focuses on how schools can specialize and improve, rather than merely stagnate or devolve due to their monopoly on education.

A voucher system would change a lot, despite your argument. With a virtual monopoly on students, public schools have very little incentive to be good, and make changes as needed to ensure kids get a good education. If that monopoly was taken away, they would have to either get better, or close up shop. You attacked the voucher system without providing any tangible arguments on how to fix our horrible education system.

As for teacher evaluations - unfortunately, the NEA is opposed to the idea of paying teachers via their worth, or fire them in most cases. That is one major hinderance to our education system: The NEA always believes that, no matter what, more money will fix education problems.

I still don't see how things would improve? People will send their kids to the other side of town to the "good schools". You still haven't answered exactly how the admission process would be? Schools cannot accept an infinite number of children. What will be the criteria of admission? These vouchers will lead to corruption where the "good schools" will accept students based on bribes. And not all parents can afford to send their kids on a school on the other side of town. And the kids of the parents who don't bribe will be stuck in the "poorer schools", schools who will still have no reason to get better, because they'll still be getting students (the kids that can't get into the good schools will have to go there). The biggest losers will still be the kids.

You assume that schools are a zero-sum product. In the public system, this is the case. In the private world, it is not the case. Since there is no limit on the number of schools available in an area, more can be built and sustained, as there are no forced laws as to how many students a school can or cannot accept.

As for the admission process, I'd imagine it works like it does now. Parents/kids are screened and they usually select the ones that meet their criteria. The criteria can be anything, which can allow for multiple types of schools with different types of focuses. For example, Cornerstone in Detroit focuses heavily on black kids and parents on welfare. Cornerstone is a great example of a private school. What happens when they get overcrowded? They build a new school in a new part of town that accepts local kids. Since they have a good model for discipline and teacher requirements, most schools have very similar performance standards (which yield graduation rates 3 times higher than that of public schools in the same city).

The biggest losers won't be the kids. Private schools already greatly out-perform public schools by wide margins, even with the same kids and demographics. You are grossly mistaken to attack a system you know nothing about.

You're saying The crappy school would have to get better, as if it failed to do well, other schools could be created that would outperform this bad school. Who will create these schools? Will they just magically pop up? Wouldn't the money spent building a new school be better used to fix the existent one? And if this is so easy, why aren't crappy schools just closed now, and better schools being built in their place?

No. No. And No. Putting more money into a school to make it better is exactly why our schools are failing. More money does NOT yield better success in American schools. Its been proven time and time again. The best state in America in terms of scores is also the state that spends 1/2 the national average (Utah). In fact, spending less money usually results in better education because of less resources, they focus on efficencies which usually yield better students.

And yes, new schools would 'magically' pop up. Its called acquisition. If you have a product such as a good school, you put yourself in a position to grow the business and make more. As long as the staff and administration is picked properly, it will likely be of similar quality. Many businesses do this

Fixing teh schools and making sure they're offering quality services is the best course of action. I may not give any specific arguments on how to fix your educationalk system, but I have provided arguments for why this voucher system is a terrible terrible solution, that won't really fix anything.

Without making specific statements on fixing the schools, you really aren't proving anything. With any research into American schools, you will find that we keep spending more money on schools, and face stagnating quality in terms of graduation rates/student proficiencies. You use the same stupid argument the schools do: "Oh, to fix our schools we need money to buy X, Y and Z! We need more computers! More pay for teachers! A new school building!". And despite these things given to schools time and time again, they never actually help student performance.

As for the voucher system, you haven't really proven in any quantifiable way that it'd be bad. You offer unproven theories as to how it would be bad using faulty, zero-sum logic that assumes that good schools must be of a limited quantity, thus bad schools must be of a limited value. The problem is that in a free market, capacities can be added or reduced as needed. Good school programs can grow and the proper techniques can be emulated at a rapid rate, which is not possible under our current system that is monopolized by the government.