Private School vouchers should be utilized in the United States.

Okay, first I will post my argument for the system which I described, then I will rebut my opponent's case. The Case for Vouchers 1. Vouchers instill competition into the educational system Public Schools are one of the few socialist elements of America. History has shown that the monopolies created in socialist systems will almost always fail. The school system is a prime example of socialism's failure. UNICEF ranked the United States' educational system 22nd out of 30 developed nations. That is clearly failure. The school system is choked by bureaucracy and standardization. There is no accountability for schools. If they fail, they aren't hurt, if they succeed, they aren't rewarded. A voucher system would create a market-style school system, if a public school fails, students zoned for it will go to private schools. In a way this competition already exists, but not to its full extent. In many cities the schools are failing. This is for a variety of reasons, most of which stem from the socialist model, but those who can afford to go to private schools go to private schools. Poorer children are left in the failing schools. They have no where to go. As long as the school has a captive student body, it has little incentive to improve, and the children who have to go there are left with a very poor quality education. 2. Vouchers are necessary in order to provide quality education As I said before, many low income students are stuck in bad schools, schools described by the Chicago Tribune as "An institutionalized case of child neglect." If these schools are failing, children need a way out. Vouchers provide a way out. 3. Voucher Systems Have been very successful elsewhere In Colombia, a nation with a fairly similar educational system, a voucher program was developed. Unfortunately, as Colombia is a poor nation, only 50% of those eligible for vouchers could get a voucher. Luckily for us, this allows us to compare the success of the vouchers to the traditional system. The Brookings Institution performed a study of this program and it found that there was an increase among voucher winners in those taking college entrance exams, voucher winners being about 9% more likely to do so, a 5-7% increase in high school graduation among winners, and winners were much less likely to fail a grade. The authors of the study said "On balance, our results suggest a substantial gain in both high school graduation rates and achievement as a result of the voucher program. Although the benefits of achievement gains per se are hard to quantify, there is a substantial economic return to high school graduation in Colombia." Also, in 1994, a conservative government in Sweden made a voucher system that was so successful that when the liberals took over, politically they could not end the system. 4. Vouchers would address problems that other programs would not The problem with public schools is not money. Public school systems spend an average of about $10000 on every student, whereas private schools spend substantially less. It is not money, it is how the money is spent, and private schools that by nature are forced to compete have shown they can spend the money better, it is better to let people make the choice to instill competition, than it is to consign people to failing schools that seem broken beyond repair. Now, to rebut. I agree that if there is no reason to use or not use vouchers CON wins, but I have provided reasons to use vouchers. Then he claims that if vouchers are justified everyone should get them. This is just not true. There is no reason to give Warren Buffett or Steve Jobs money to send their kids to private schools. While this is an extreme example, it still applies to the less rich. If they can afford the tuition, we don't need to pay for them. Vouchers are in a way like welfare, you wouldn't give welfare to someone who didn't need it, that would be wasteful and expensive. He also complains that the cutoff is unfair, but there is no need for a cutoff. Voucher eligibility could be determined by necessity, with an applications system to determine if one needs a voucher. If families can't afford tuition, we'll pay for it. Then he says $5000 is not enough. First, I said the cost of an average secondary private school, which according to the outdated info I got was a little under $5000, it is actually $6600 (USDE). Even so, my opponent will obviously claim that they can only go to half the schools, as he did in Round 1. While this is true, it is not a significant problem, as according 1999-2000 USDE study, the average private school is better than the average public school, even if one takes into account selective admissions etc. And besides, most who receive vouchers will go to below average city schools, so even an average school is a major improvement. Then my opponent claims that money will be taken away from public schools if a voucher system is in place. Again, although there is truth to this, the whole point is to instill competition. If a public school is competitive and attracts students away from private schools, they will get more money, if a school does poorly, it will get less money. It all depends on the number of students at a school as to the amount of money it will get. Even though a school may be getting less money, it will also be providing for less students, making it cheaper to run and balancing out the money decreases. Finally, my opponent says it would be better to reform the public school system. This is not true, as I said before, the public school system is broken beyond repair, it is an over-centralized monopolistic dinosaur in today's age, we need to create a voucher system, and bring it into our market society.