Private School vouchers should be utilized in the United States.

Well, it's not my fault you forfeited the round. My opponent then references a study showing that public schools performed better on average than private schools saying "This clearly shows that when other factors that influence education are accounted for, private schools are not better than public schools. They appear so because they receive the students already in the best position to succeed who have already shown they are good students. At best for my opponent, there is no reason to implement vouchers, which means you vote CON. Add in the downsides of vouchers, and they are more likely to be harmful than helpful to students, and you vote CON. " There are even more Department of Education studies showing the superiority, so if my opponent wants to get into a study-war, then bring it on, I've got more than enough studies to use. Even if this is true, allowing students to make a choice is most important. There are undeniably good private schools that a voucher child would now have access to. This creates the survival of the fittest effect, weeding out bad schools, and letting everyone go to good schools. Also, it would be fair to conclude that private and public schools are on average equivalent, as all we have to counter each others studies is more studies. If we conclude that we still have the fact that many schools in low income areas are below average, and vouchers let children get out of those schools, and also that vouchers cost less than most public schools, we could use the money we save to improve public schools, to fund reforms. The thing is, adding capitalism to education is one reform that will improve it already. Why this stipulates a PRO vote: Saving money is a viable reason to do things. If you can pay less for an equal or greater product you should do so. Also, adding capitalism helps reform the school system in America. Third, this system eliminates schools that have proven themselves so unfit to educate our children that no parent wants their child sent there. Then, my opponent says that "Also, many other countries only test their best students, whereas we test everyone, which could also be a big factor. " He never supports this fact, and even so there is other empirical measures of education that show that America is failing. For example in 1972, the College Board reported 2817 students scoring above 750 on the verbal portion of the SATs, 22 years later, they reported 1438 students scoring above 750, about half of the older statistic even though more students were taking the test. Furthermore, most education experts will conclude that our schools are failing. Why this means a PRO vote: As I have shown public schools are failing our children. Earlier in this debate I proved that the overcentralization and humongous bureaucracy of public schools that private schools lack leads to their ineffectiveness. My opponent agreed saying "Furthermore, the biggest reform that seems to be needed with public schools is to majorly cut down on administrative costs. " (Round Four Rebuttal). I have shown that the monopolistic model that schools use is the cause of these problems, which my opponent never denies, giving me victory on that point. If I win that point I prove that vouchers should be used to solve that problem. Then, he compares the voucher system to NCLB saying "Under NCLB, if a school was failing you could attend a different school, and it created a system of accountability, if your school doesn't do well you lose money(same thing vouchers are supposed to do that would work). " There is an important contrast that shows that these negative side effects of NCLB would not be present with a voucher system. One, in this case a school with less money would also have proportionately less students. The education it provides would not deteriorate, it would simply be downsized. The incentive to compete is offered by the fact the the faculty has their jobs on the line, and they are forced to work to keep their school up to par. Why this means a PRO vote: It shows that the voucher system is cheaper, and, if not an improvement, it is not negative. At worst with this system education does not change at all, and we simply save money, which is a good goal. Then my opponent claims that bad teachers will be fired vouchers or no vouchers. Unfortunately he is wrong. Often teacher's unions prevent schools from firing teachers for being bad teachers. If you want I can provide studies. This goes for PRO as I show that it solves a problem that would otherwise remain unsolved. Then, he claims that the government can fix the administrative problems without implementing the vouchers and without any ill effects. Well, first, as I have repeatedly shown vouchers can't cause harm. Next, even if the problem could be at least partially fixed by the government stepping in, we still have bad schools that need to taken out of the system, as subpar education is not a good goal. Also, the government is to d*mn inefficient to do something about huge bureaucracies. the only way it will happen is if they're forced to do so, as vouchers would do. Why this is a vote for PRO: This shows that vouchers solve problems that can't be solved effectively otherwise, which means we should do them. When he attacks my studies his claims are unfounded. As for the Colombian public schools being really bad, so the private schools will obviously have better statistics, the private schools are very bad too, but they are better, as this study showed. The nation was picked for the study because of similarities with our nation. Also, the vast majority of those lucky enough to get the vouchers got accepted, so even taking that into account, the vouchers were a success. As for Sweden, which also has a similar educations system, and a similar voucher system, although it is not definite that we will share their success, there are so many parallels that it seems very likely that we will. This gives me back this strong empirical evidence, supporting a PRO vote. Then, he claims the plan hurts students, which it doesn't as I have repeatedly stated and proven. He then puts a turn on my argument that other program's inaccuracies will not necessarily be replicated by saying neither will successes. But, we will have learned from history, replicating what is good, eliminating what is bad. This kills CON's point here. He then says that some students will not be able to attend private schools, citing transportation problems. IF this is a real problem private schools will offer transportation to those who need it so they can tap that market. Also, this system does not hurt the public schools, it only can improve them. Also, addressing the school scarcity problem, the private school market would be forced to undergo expansion as demand increases, if the school operators want money they will expand their programs to fit more students. If the private schools can't take enough people public schools will still be there to take all who need the education. They won't be any worse off if this happens, so there is no real loss. Why this means you vote PRO: I have shown that the negative effects listed will not be present, and that we can only improve with this system. More for Less is a concept we should always strive for. Finally, he readdresses the school scarcity, which I have shown won't occur. Why you vote PRO: 1. My opponent forfeited a round. 2. Vouchers cost less. 3. Private schools provide an equal or greater education, especially when compared to inner-city schools. 4. Vouchers have negligible negatives. 5. Vouchers solve problems other plans can't solve 6. Vouchers have historically been effective in improving education.