America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

From “The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are (Still) Going Broke” (2003)

Any policy that loosens the ironclad relationship between location-location-location and school-school-school would eliminate the need for parents to pay an inflated price for a home just because it happens to lie within the boundaries of a desirable school district.

A well-designed voucher program would fit the bill neatly. A taxpayer-funded voucher that paid the entire cost of educating a child (not just a partial subsidy) would open a range of opportunities to all children. . . . Fully funded vouchers would relieve parents from the terrible choice of leaving their kids in lousy schools or bankrupting themselves to escape those schools.

We recognize that the term “voucher” has become a dirty word in many educational circles. The reason is straightforward: The current debate over vouchers is framed as a public-versus-private rift, with vouchers denounced for draining off much-needed funds from public schools. The fear is that partial-subsidy vouchers provide a boost so that better-off parents can opt out of a failing public school system, while the other children are left behind.

But the public-versus-private competition misses the central point. The problem is not vouchers; the problem is parental choice. Under current voucher schemes, children who do not use the vouchers are still assigned to public schools based on their zip codes. This means that in the overwhelming majority of cases, a bureaucrat picks the child’s school, not a parent. The only way for parents to exercise any choice is to buy a different home—which is exactly how the bidding wars started.

Short of buying a new home, parents currently have only one way to escape a failing public school: Send the kids to private school. But there is another alternative, one that would keep much-needed tax dollars inside the public school system while still reaping the advantages offered by a voucher program. Local governments could enact meaningful reform by enabling parents to choose from among all the public schools in a locale, with no presumptive assignment based on neighborhood. Under a public school voucher program, parents, not bureaucrats, would have the power to pick schools for their children—and to choose which schools would get their children’s vouchers.

Call it what you want.

If "voucher" is a dirty word than abuse the term "school choice".

The dems are for "choice"- I hear it all the time.

A half voucher system isn't going to open up a bunch of choices. The better schools will limit class size, thus blocking out many who would utilize the program.

Open it up to competition, private schools, public, charter, religious schools and you will see real change in the quality of education.

let the schools decide their own curriculum..?? That would get interesting... you'd have 4.0 students graduating with 7th grade edjumucations...

Matter of fact when I left private school, I had straight A's the first year in public school. After that I was failing classes because I was dying of boredom. Never had to study for tests; I always got A's on them so I never did the homework and that's what flunked me.

students get passed but not with 4.0s... but if there wasn't any gubment funding there wouldn't be much of an incentive to pass the kids at all...

where do you live?

The cost of building schools is different from yearly school budgets. Usually building's are built with bonds paid over years. I work in westchester, ny. I think having an unlimited budget is unreasonable, although I do agree with community support. The school district I speak of just happens to have unlimited resources.

As far as charter schools many are great but often operate under their own rule's which... (I won't get into that debate) but research charter schools pros and cons.

@tailgater I applaud your decision to keep your child in a public school. I can only.speak for where I live and work but public school teachers are more qualified. They are required to have a teaching license issued from an acredited university and a masters degree in education, and 175 course hours of continuing education every 5 years. Private schools don't even require a teaching certification from their state. (Disclaimer: I am sure there are highly qualified teachers in private schools but since it is not required and the schook probably pays staff less in most cases you will find more qualified teachers in public school.

Kids go to the local public school unless they choose an alternative:
Private
Charter
Home school
School choice/vouchers

Each of these options could be better or worse. But nobody is ever forced into taking one.
If the non-public school has inferior teachers because of different requirements then people wouldn't send their kids.
If a charter has fewer amenities that appeal to you, then you don't send your kid.
But instead, we have people trying to prevent others from having that choice.

Great schools are composed of many things.
A strong history and community support (non financial) is every bit as important as financial resources.

In your town, it sounds like the public schools are top notch. You're very fortunate and the decision to send your kids there sounds like an easy one.
And my local is a good option for many kids, but the charter school was a much better option for my middle daughter. An option that might not be available in the future if the teaching unions continue to force their agenda.

Now that is a really interesting analysis and conclusion of the situation.
Where did you get it?

I am not a proponent of school choice or vouchers.
You want your kid to attend XYZ High School? Then move there.
That's how my parents did it.
You moved into a town that you "could afford". But towards what end?
Do you get the biggest house in a mediocre town? Or a tiny home in a very good town?
You sacrificed and did what you felt was best. Some more than others.

Nowadays?
You just b*tch and moan enough and send your kid to the ritzy town. Because that's what you consider fair.
You didn't sacrifice. You didn't earn it. You just whined until everyone gave in.

... we care about the poor?

Since when?

And how is the ability to move not part of "choice"?

Why do you care about whether obama cares about the poor? He's not president. Trump is. I'll restate. Since when have we cared about the poor?

I doubt we do now. I certainly dont.

Maybe we cared in the 1800s... but I doubt it then too....

sounds more like freedom...

liberty or freedom.. kind of cut from the same fabric.

Just give me more of both!