Private School vouchers should be utilized in the United States.

I'll just go down what my opponent has just posted. First, he attacks my case. The UNICEF stat I mentioned is here (This is a different one, I can't remember where I found the original stat, but this is 18 out of 24, rather than 22 out of 30) http://www.cbsnews.com... Then he says that NCLB created accountability in a sense, but that failed. I agree with that statement, but vouchers would create as separate form of accountability, giving children the choice between failing schools and succeeding schools, as well as giving schools an incentive to compete. Then my opponent claims that schools are not getting enough money. The average state spends $9100 combined with an approximately $1500 federal spending per student (FY2007 budget) leads to $10600 per student on average, with about $600 more for special education students. The average private school spends less money per student: $6600. If private schools are giving more for less, then we know that money is not the issue. Then he says vouchers won't make our teachers better, nobody becomes a teacher for money. Not to offend teachers or anything, but that isn't true. Although teachers are not paid a fortune, there have been studies that show that some teachers are teachers because they could not get a better job in their field. And besides, if someone's job is on the line, they will work much harder. Then, he says that if schools are failing, we need to fix them. Socialism almost always fails, public education, like it or not is a socialist concept. Because there is no competition, schools will fail. A voucher system would force schools to compete for students and funding, creating a successful capitalist system. The he questions the peer-reviewed Brookings study i mentioned claiming that voucher winners were given vouchers for performance, but that is incorrect, vouchers were given in a lottery, a random lottery among low income students. Second, all I was saying with Sweden is that it was an idea that was not liked at first and became very popular, but since you asked, Sweden instituted vouchers that gave students thee choice between public and private schools in their community. I was not able to find many statistics, but the system was so popular, the Social Democrats, who strongly opposed the idea, could not end the system. Then he has doubts about my claim that money is not the issue, but that management of the money is the issue, a claim which I partailly substantiated in the beginning of this rebuttal, and will substantiate more here. According to a study by the Baltimore Sun, Harford County schools had 64 non-educational administrators managing a system of 36000 students, while the Baltimore Archdiocese, managing 34000 Baltimore area Catholic school students had 7. An even more striking example is New York City, the largest public school system in the US, with 6000 administrators to the 25 of the New York Archdiocese that had almost half as many students as the public school system. That is no way to spend our money. This is a direct result of the socialist model upon which our schools are based. There is a way to fix this problem, and that's by instilling competition, by creating a voucher system. Next, my opponent claims a quality education is a luxury. If that is his argument, than sure, he can win this debate, but I contend that quality education is not a luxury, but a necessity for success and prosperity. Then, my opponent claims that the government would not be accurate in determining whether students needed vouchers or not, using the example of FAFSA, but that does not mean that evaluation will always be inaccurate, we can reform evaluation of necessity in this system, we can't assume it will be inaccurate, simply because other programs have been before. "There is already the mindset that private schools are better than public schools, so students will leave the public schools for private schools even if it is a good public school. This will decrease the quality of the schools because they will receive less money. No matter how many students a school has, they have many expenses they will incur whether they have 300 or 3000 students. All of the facilities costs. Faculty costs. Whether there are 30 students in a science class or 10 students the teacher will get paid the same amount, but the school will be bringing in less money to afford those costs. That money will be taken away from other programs, perhaps sports and co-curricular activities, as well as books and equipment for classes. That will decrease the quality of education. Or maybe they do decrease what their staff are paid, in which case they will get the worst teachers at that school because they cant get hired at schools that pay more. Also making the schools worse. Those who still have to go to these schools will receive a far worse education than without the voucher system." While there is an element of truth to this, it should be taken with a grain of salt. The whole point is that bad schools will be forced out of the market, only to be replaced by better schools. His argument that even good schools will lose students is not valid however. A characteristic of many good schools is a large population of well-to-do students. Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland is one of the best school systems in the country, and Maryland happens to be the richest state in the US. A truly good school will not lose students, but will only get better. If schools can't pay for 50 teachers, they will have to downsize, and only pay 35. The only reason they would lose money is if they lost students, so the loss of teachers would not be a major concern. The whole point is survival of the fittest schools to educate our children. Our children don't deserve a bad education. And, to answer my opponent's concern about the effectiveness of competition, that is precisely why competition would be so successful, only the best would survive. Then, my opponent claims that schools are not beyond repair, and that he receives a quality public education, and that my claim is not warranted. I believe that 18 out of 24 is failing, and that as shown money is not the problem. Public schools spend more and give less, the only fix is to force them to get up to par, and that can only be fully achieved through a voucher system. More funding, better teachers will all help, but the biggest fix would be a voucher system, as I have shown. Then my opponent again claims that schools are underfunded, which I have again and again shown was false. Finally my opponent says "Finally, With a greater pool of applicants, the private schools could be more selective over which students to admit, excluding those who do not belong to a preferred group such as religion or ethnicity, those with disabilities, and those with disciplinary problems. By law, the public schools must accept any student. They would presumably end up with all students whom the private schools turn away for such reasons. This would likely further undermine the reputation and competitiveness of the public schools, leading to a vicious circle that tends toward the total abolition of the public schools and perhaps the end of universal education." Again, while I must admit that this may occur to a degree, there is no evidence that ethnic discrimination would occur. Religious discrimination may occur to a small degree, but only at some religious schools. Students with disabilities can always find schools, as there are many private schools geared towards disabled students (I can provide examples if necessary), and finally, disciplinary problems are a legitimate concern for all schools, as scholastic anarchy is beneficial for none. Students with severe disciplinary issues would be shunned from most public schools as well. Finish in com.