school vouchers.

school vouchers are essentially tax write offs for families who choose to send their children to non-government, or privately funded and parochial schools. the reason for this tax break according to supporters is that families should not have to pay taxes to help schools that their children do not attend. i stand in firm negation, and will expand on the four main arguments in opposition of these vouchers. 1. since most of the schools in the program are religious, government funding violates the 1st amendment separation of church and state. if parents want to send their children to a school that incorporates faith based teachings into their curriculum, that's fine. but why should my tax dollars support a school that teaches christianity if that is not what i believe in or want my money being spent on? supporters of the voucher are hypocritical in this regard. they don't want to have to pay for school that their children don't attend (and therefore support), but they want other tax payers to have to fund a school that they do not support. i think this is a huge flaw in their argument. expecting the government to help fund public schools makes sense; they are not incorporating religious teachings and therefore are open to anyone. they are public schools with public goals: the teachings of reading, writing, etc. leave the religion at home where it belings, i'm all for that. but shouldn't schools exist that are open for everyone regardless of income? if not, an even greater separation of class exists, literacy in the united states goes down (and history shows us that non-literacy leads to disaster like serfdom and other hierarchies). plus, what if these people who can afford private school are no longer able to? should their children suffer? how would a class system ever be able to be overcome? 2. vouchers take funds away from already underfunded public schools. there is already a huge discrepancy between the success (college admission, eventual income, etc.) of children who attend public school vs. private school. taking away government funds to help children who can't afford more expensive ("better") education is doing a great disservice not only to the individuals to society. you are stifling some potential great minds and perpetuating a rigid class system. it's already bad enough; the government should be concerned and trying to fix the education system - not break it even more. 3. private schools aren't subject to as rigorous of oversight; thus, they may not act responsibly. parents could be paying a lot of money for a school that does not comply with adequate academic standards. the united states protects children's rights to a certain extent; that is, ensuring that they are able to receive a decent education. if a minor wants to attend a public school, but his parents want him or her to attend private school with less academic credential, the student is being robbed of his right to an education that we grant in our constitution and bylaws. furthermore, a minor may be forced to pray, worship or learn about a religion they may not believe in or want to participate in. again, this comes down to an issue of why private schools should receive funds for inadequacy instead of funds supporting an academic standard that ALL people of ALL faiths and economic backgrounds can agree to. 4. public schools must accept everyone regardless of disabilities, test scores, religion, or other characteristics; private schools can show favoritism or discrimination in selecting students. public schools provide equal opportunity for all regardless of class, race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. schools that can discriminate based on admission create stereotypes, rigid social and social class hierarchies, etc. public schools must exist to prevent rule by a small minority. that would cease and destroy democracy, the founding of our nation's beliefs. without government funded schools, many institutions would be destroyed. families who could not afford schools, or pay teachers decent salaries, will have school-less children, or youth being taught by inferior educators. vouchers would take away money being put into schools, and our schools are already considered inferior compared with the schools in other nations. again, this would do a disservice to not just individual families, but the entire nation. the prestige of the united states will suffer. school vouchers are a bad idea. they do not consider the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number of people, utilitarianism, which is a maxim that makes sense. i defend the principle that the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure is optimal amongst society; to combat this, my opponent would have to be con on the position of why utilitarianism is not the best moral maxim. if they cannot, you must except my maxim, and therefore my stance that being con on the issue of school vouchers is morally preferable because school vouchers inhibit utilitarianism. thank you. source: http://www.balancedpolitics.org...