Seriously... why is this such an issue?

If I am not mistaken there is no law that currently exits stating "all children who reside in the United States must attend a public school, to determine committment to our government". If I am misinformed please correct me. In my opinion the purpose of early education through high school is to establish a foundation of basic knowledge and skills for success. Along this journey, educators make the decision to either teach the bare minimum of what's required or expand the curriculum and expose students to unlimited possibilities. True enough, parents should not be dependent upon the school system entirely to assure thier child is recieving all life and learning experiences necessary, and parents should take responsibility in the learning process of thier children as well. However, the reality is that an average child spends majority of his or her time in a school and can go into evening hours due to day care or extracurriculars. As citizens who dwell the "land of opportunity", it should be parent choice to send their child to any type of school that will best meet that child's needs (mentally, physically and emotionally). Sadly, there are some families who cannot afford full tuition or afford housing in areas with excelling schools. A great number of urban schools, across the U.S. are not performing well acadmeically for various reasons (quality of teachers, environment surrounding school, poor community involvement, misappropriation of funding, demands required to meet some student needs, quantity of staff). With that in mind, I think it was more than just to establish the voucher program.

According to Noll, the issue with vouchers that created controversy in 99-00' school year was that 96% of Cleveland students who recieved assistance were enrolled in religious/faith based schools. What's the problem? Like most new programs you have to lay out your basic rules and as time progresses you will learn what works best and what new guidelines must be established. I think the voucher program fits that idea. Noll informs us that the program is designed to give tuition vouchers to certain students in the Cleveland public schools who want to be transfered to a participating school of thier choice. Choices in the project include public schools in adjacent districts, nonreligious private schools and religious private schools. Again what's the issue?

This all ties into the idea that all children should have the opportunity to recieve equal education and no one should be left behind. With vouchers, this gives families the chance to take advantage of the opportunity and give thier kids the best education possible. But this program has brought in the debate of keeping church and state separate based on our U.S. Constitution (Noll). Glenn mentions that hostility toward relgious schools is not only a matter of keeping church and state separate but comes from the self-image of many educators who think they know whats in best interest of a child. These same educators who are teaching in poor performing districts have shown the public what they feel is in best interest of the child, and the results are acadmic watch and poor test scores. The separation of church and state has lead to a decline in morality in public education, especially now that schools are taking on greater responsibilities to assure the well being of its children (free meals, day care, free health services). Peterson says that Catholic schools have an outstanding record for teaching democratc values as well as moral values. Based on my personal experience, I agree.

I think vouchers should be provided to families who not only meet fiancial and geographical need but should be awarded to students who will meet certain acadmic requirements. The purpose of the program is to provide students with an equal opportunity to recieve a good education correct? What's the point of awarding monies to a family who doesn't see that thier child is taking adavantage of the education? Just a thought.