Alright... we haven't had a lot of people vote yet, but everyone who has voted (all three of you) said that you are for it. And the rest of you are welcome to continue voting. But I'm going to express to you the conversation that went on in my head after I finished reading about this referendum.
Pro:
Well... what do you think?
Con:
Don't like it.
Pro:
Why not? What's there not to like?
Con:
Umm... Several things. I don't think it really does enough. I think $3000 probably won't pay the cost of tuition for most schools, and that's the maximum that anyone will receive. There's a good chance that most people won't receive that much.
Pro:
Yeah, but it sure helps to pay the costs. Think about it. 3 grand off of tuition at a private school. That's a big chunk. Surely people could afford the rest.
Con:
You are probably right... except for the people who need it the most. It really won't help them at all.
Pro:
But it isn't like it is going to hurt them at all. And at least it gives some people a choice.
Con:
I'm not so sure about that... I mean the part about not hurting the poor.
Pro:
How could it hurt the poor?
Con:
By decreasing the amount of middle and upper class kids in public schools. Let's face it... Wealthy parents want their kids to have a nice school, and will donate to this and that so it can be nice. Poor kids benefit from that.
Pro:
Yeah... but it isn't like all the kids are going to just up and leave. Besides parents don't donate that much.
Con:
Well... I don't know how many parents would leave. That's the problem. Nobody does. And the other thing is that after 5 years, public schools will receive less money because they have less students. (Why 5 years... I have no idea.) So public schools will be poorer. And the poorer they get, the more the middle and upper classes will leave.
Pro:
Well, by that time, I'm sure there will be private schools a plenty that offer prices that the working class can afford.
Con:
Do you think they will be as good as the schools the middle and upper classes take their kids to?
Pro:
Well, I don't know, but certainly they will be better than the public schools.
Con:
But that's just it... do you see what we are describing here. Class segregation. The working class has their schools, the middle has theirs, and the upper class I'm sure will have its own too. I don't like the direction this is moving.
Pro:
But shouldn't I worry about my family first? And then worry about the rest? This would certainly help my family. And I don't think the damage to the rest will be as bad as you think.
Con:
Yes, my kids would certainly get a better education in some respects. But not all. They would grow up in a world were everybody has money, and poverty is something you read about in books. The teachers would be great, and if we didn't like how the school looked we would find another one. It definitely has its advantages. But there are things they wouldn't have.
Pro:
Whatever they don't have, they could get at a different school right?
Con:
Yeah... I suppose. But the things I'm thinking about I don't know that I would want to change their school for. For example, they wouldn't have much experience with poverty. And therefore, they wouldn't understand what it really means to be poor. And also, let's face it. The bureaucracy of public schools and the slow pace of learning does have some advantages. It prepares them for the bureaucracy of life, and having to be patient. And often, though going to a public school can be hard on a kid, it teaches them how to deal with bullies, and punks, and all the other types. I remember when I left private schools... there was a culture shock for me. I'd hate for that to happen to a kid when he gets into the real world. I think private schools tend to shelter the kids too much.
Pro:
So, you are saying, that you would want your kids to go to public schools so they could be bullied?!?!
Con:
Not so that they can be bullied, but so they can learn to deal with bullies. There are always bullies... but people need to deal with them. We can't just run away from them and pretend they don't exist.
Pro:
Oh brother. Every school has bullies.
Con:
Maybe, but private schools tend to watch for that more. They don't want the kids to leave, and so they kinda shelter them, to keep the parents happy.
Pro:
Ok, well, think what you want on that... but all of this would make the public schools better. They would become more like private schools... they'd have to, to keep students enrolled.
Con:
You know... I think the biggest problem that public schools have is one they can't fix. And that's all the legal stuff they go through... they have to do this, they can't do that. They need to watch for this, and they can't teach that. There is an endless series of laws that prevent them from being very effective. I think that's the biggest reason they struggle, and they can't get out from under that. And what's more, is that this referendum is going to put some of that burden on the private schools too. Maybe not very much at first, but little by little they will have as much of a legal yoke as the public schools do. And the only way they will be able to shake it off is by not taking the vouchers.
Pro:
But I went to a private school. It was good for me. Don't you want that for your own kids?
Con:
Sigh... yes. I do. And if there was more help for the poor than a maximum of $3000, I would be all for this. But as long as it segregates, I don't think I can be for it. Sure it would help my family. But I can't agree to kicking those who are already down.
Well... that's where my conversation ends. I really do want to vote for this... but I don't think it is good enough. I think it will hurt the state more than it will help. Of course, you are all entitled to your own opinions. I don't think I would ever be able to change mom's opinion on this. ;-) And that's fine. But this is how I feel about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
BJ- I like the conversation going on in your head! I have to tell you that it is almost identical to the one going on in mine. Except, I never experienced private school like you did. Everyone who knows me well, knows about my public school experiences and that it was much to be desired. I have spent A LOT of time thinking about this. Before my own kids entered school, I was dead set on wanting private school for them because of it. Financially, it just wasn't possible though. Even if the vouchers had existed, it still would not have been possible at that time. So, we entered the public school system and have been lucky enough to have them at a really good school. Not to say that I don't have to be on top of things because I do. My kids have been just fine to this point, and I've always said, if anything starts to slip, we will look at getting tutors. That said, I still think that I should never say never, and that at some point I might come upon a time where private school was the direction to go. I would be gratful for the vouchers if that time came. In the end, I still think that I've decided that parents deserve the choice. Even though I completely agree with you about the fact that this really isn't the perfect solution. 'Nuff said!! Thanks for a great discussion.
Sweetie, you might very well be right. The hard part is that we simply don't know. Even at the top of this discussion-the lawmakers, the politicians etc. they don't even know what will happen. I guess we just have to vote with our gut and hope that it all works out. Thanks for the discussion!
Well, you make a strong case, hon. I agree that the referendum leaves something(s) to be desired. I admire how altruistic you are. I think that while this referendum is designed to help those with less money, it fails to look at long term effects on education. I also wonder how the law of supply and demand would fit into this- because of an initial increased demand of private schools, those schools might actually increase their tuition because they couldn't accommodate everyone. Maybe there is a provision for that... I don't know. But if not, the low and even middle income families would very probably not be able to benefit from it.
Having said that, I don't know that voting against it is better or not. And if it were to pass, I might possibly use it to send my own kids to private school someday. But, like you and byucougarland :) said, it is hard to tell what will happen if it passes. In some ways I hope that it doesn't pass, and that some revisions will be made and THEN they try to pass it again.
interesting convo you've had with yourself.
i'm sure there are many more pros and cons to tackle- still.
that's the problem with the unknown! no body knows...and can only speculate if education will get better or lose something in the translation.
anyway... i enjoyed. :)
Interesting conversation with self. I don't know that I agree with the whole thing, particularly the idea that somehow, kids who don't attend public schools never understand poverty. I think that kind of learning and understanding is up to the parents, not the schools. There are ways to teach your children to be generous and to understand that other people don't have as much and may need some help at some point. Going to a private vs. a public school won't necessarily make that difference. And I also think that a voucher, as small as it may be, might be that little boost that a less-well-off kid needs to get out of a potentially bad environment and into an environment where they actually have a chance to dream. Does that happen in public schools as often? I don't know. My school experience was unique -- I came out of one of the best public school systems the US has to offer, and it isn't even IN the US. Go figure. :) But it also wasn't wholly public It was a weird sort of mix... but it worked. And it was good. VERY good. I don't know all the answers. We'll find out. If it doesn't work, it can always be changed again in five years. These are some of the advantages to having a democratic system... things can change if they need to. Why not give it a chance? It might surprise us all... That said, will anyone in America ever REALLY understand poverty until they've lived in a 3rd world or developing country (I've lived in 2, so I ask out of experience, not arrogance)?
Anonymous, I really wish you would make yourself known. Most of my family disagrees with me, I won't like you less for your opinion.
That said...
Your argument about having parents teach their kids about poverty is interesting. It is true that they should teach, but how will the kids learn if they don't know anyone "less advantaged". I would think it would be easier for a parent to teach their kids math, and English, than to teach them what it means to be nice to somebody who doesn't come from a goodly home.
The other argument that people keep siting for this is that if it doesn't work, we will change it back in 5 years. I think this is not well thought out. I think it could fail miserably in the areas I'm talking about, and nobody would notice, except perhaps the poor. And the poor have the least opportunity to do anything about it. Also, the schools won't start losing money until after that five years. So some of the bad side-effects won't even happen until we vote for it or against it in five years. It is my opinion that who ever drafted this law was pretty crafty to think of that. And if it gets voted in, I do not foresee that it would get voted out. People in general don't like change. A fact I'm relying on to fail this referendum. But if it does pass, you can be assured that it will not get revoked in five years.
Yea! for voters! Referendum 1 failed something like 30-70.
Hey guys. We just found your blog and have enjoyed looking through it! This is Amy Parker from your ward, by the way.
The whole issue is over for now, but I think that vouchers are wonderful idea in a different environment and with some revisions. I had to vote against it.
Dude, nice arguments. I'm surprised and a little excited that Utahns voted the way they did. I think vouchers are a brilliant idea if you live in an area where the schools are wretched (see PG County, MD) and the vouchers are large enough to actually get any kid into a private school. Utah's proposal didn't meet those criteria.
About exposure to poverty: I do think that public schools place kids in a setting where they can view the rich and the poor in a neutral setting. Private schools don't afford that opportunity. It's still extremely difficult to try and understand poverty if you aren't poor and even more difficult if you never have contact with the poor beyond passing them on the street and maybe driving through their neighborhoods. I think without exposure to people with lower incomes, you run the risk of developing a classic paternalistic view of the poor. As public school is intended to be the great socializer (or sausagemaker), it affords kids the opportunity to meet and befriend richer and poorer kids and to learn to see them (ideally) as equals, not "Oh, look mother! A poor person! How interesting! How may we help this poor soul?"
Oh, and I totally take exception to your reference about "somebody who doesn't come from a goodly home" as being equated with someone in poverty. Sounds elitist. Just being a PC Easterner
You are right... I should have been more PC in that. I definitely do not want to sound elitist. Sometimes it takes another set of eyes to catch things that come off the wrong way. What I should have said was a wealthy home. For some reason I was thinking of how Nephi talks about having goodly parents, and one of the definitions (though not one the church prefers) of that is wealthy parents. Oh well... everyone makes mistakes once in a while. ;-)
Post a Comment