Talk:School voucher

message: There are a large number of unsigned posts as far as I can see. Sign posts with four tildas at the end: Alkrensel 07:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SIGN YOUR POSTS ON THE TALK PAGE

message: ::Fundamentalists (who strongly oppose any government oversight of their operations) state that, if a church-run school accepts a government voucher, they have thus allowed the government the "right" to dictate the school's operation and, by extension, the church's operation as well. Therefore, the government could order the church to stop speaking against practices such as abortion and homosexuality, since it now "controls" the church through its acceptance of government funds.
Is this accurate? It's a private school, and the government has no right to decide what to put into the curriculum. Isn’t that what makes it constitutional to have a voucher program? Then shouldn't this be deleted or a comment about its validity made? --Aviper2k7 02:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The right to dictate school's operations? 

message: Why does this guy get quoted twice? He seems to be just one particular thinker/theorist, and a radical one to boot.
*Radical? He won the Nobel prize for economics. He also hosted a 10 part miniseries on PBS called "Free to Choose" JettaMann 18:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Milton Friedman

message: I think that the impact is nebulous and disputed.  The article does a fine job of hinting at what the arguments on the many sides of the issue are.  The 'establishment' of teachers unions and others assert that the net effect of voucher programs will be to severely weaken or even cripple school systems, especially those in Urban areas, which are (undoubtedly) most in need of proper funding and staffing.  There are also claims, put forth in the article, that it constitutes a violation of church and state, and though the supreme court ruled on the issue, I do not expect it to die a quiet death just like that.
There are also those who are in favor of school vouchers for many of the same reasons - they see "urban blight" and "rotten schools" and think that religious intervention is the only solution.  A good parelell is the 'faith based initiatives' - school vouchers, by the religous right, are a way to put "god back into government". --Colinahern 20:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact in government 

message: I don't want to formally file an expansion request but I was hoping that people would continue to add to the list of proponents and opponents. As I was reading this article and the comments it seems like too many of the authors have had opinions. If we were to present a list of respected individuals and organizations that support and oppose the school voucher idea then I think that this article would be come much more useful and contain much less of our opinions and more of the well known figures in this debate. I started a short list, it's a sentence long for both but was hoping that if people had more information they could add to both. Thanks
Wikifan5554 05:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion request

message: Many public systems outside the US allow students to attend a school other than their local one. As such I've removed the reference to Los Angeles - it's far too localised and US-centric. El T 02:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movement between schools 

message: My apologies if this is obvious to everyone else, but why is this article entitled "Education voucher" rather than "School voucher"? The latter is substantially more common and precise - "education voucher" could easily mean a voucher for continuing education rather than schools per se. El T 07:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of this article

message: A comprehensive list of countries and states/provinces (where applicable, such as in the U.S.) that have approved voucher programs would be useful. -- Beland 18:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion request

message: Many of the claims made in the article aren't connected with any specific source mentioned in the references.  Some of them are probably unsourced.  The inline references should probably be made into footnotes. -- Beland 18:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 1. So basically parents can choose whatever school their kids want to go to except it is payed by the government? The school can charge whatever it wants on the resources they need as well as tuition, and the government pays for whatever the school charges. Is this correct?
OR
2. Is it: the government will the tuition for any child that cannot afford private school ONLY while letting rich people choose their own education. Is this correct? 
Number 1 seems like it is correct, but maybe I misread.
Zachorious 02:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the government pays a fixed amount, which may or may not be enough to cover the cost of tuition at a private school. AFAIK charter schools will generally if not always accept the voucher at face value, so even the poorest students can get in. —Traal 20:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the best of my knowledge, that's how the concept of vouchers work.  The government already pays x number of dollars per pupil to the public schools.  The voucher, in effect, would be giving that money directly to parents to give to the school of their choice, instead of having it go directly to the local public institution.  In theory, this would allow a poor kid from a bad neighborhood to go to a swanky prep school (the public school money is pretty significant), but it doesn't take into account matters like transit, incidental expenses, and so on. 216.236.252.234 16:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also consider that on average public education usually costs far more than private education.  In the US public education cost anywhere from 1/3 higher per student to over twice the cost of private education. In NC for example, the average private elementary school charges $4,200 a year, while the average public elementary cost $9,200 a year per pupil.  Because tax money is automatically paid out, parents rarely appreciate the fact that they collectively paid more to send their kids to a public school than private school.  To add insult to injury, private schools almost always have far better test scores, higher graduation and collage acceptance rates.  Arguably private schools are far more efficient with the money they get.  Everyone pays taxes that are automatically used to fund public schools, without vouchers parents who to want to put their kids in private schools are paying double, as they're funding both public schools and private schools simutaneously. Jadon (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  So it's like this? 

message: The Criticism section includes the following sentence, "Further criticism comes from various rich and poor people, assuming their vouchers will actually meet their taxes." I do not know if "meet their taxes" is a typo, or if it has a meaning I am not familiar with.  What does it mean for a voucher to "meet their taxes"?  Any ideas?  --Mikebrand 17:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's referring to cost basis... of matching vouchers to a public school's tax cost per student. Jadon (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Meet their taxes?

message: I removed a large section which was introduced in the August 19th edits, it was really bad.  --Xyzzyplugh 19:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removed a bunch of text

message: Is education really a rivalrous good ? I mean, if you have 21 pupils instead of 20 in a classroom, there is almost no change... And if i can say that, then someone else probably thought about it before. So, can this argument be included in some kind of a "criticism of the criticism" section, even if additionnal citations would be needed ?
:I think education is pretty much a rivalrous good, but if you find any citation...--Ezadarque 01:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article states that education a rivalrous good, but then it says that the number of seats are limited and students could only be place if there was room. That implies that it is a scarce good. It assumes that the amount of schools are fixed; that schools cannot be expanded and new private schools cannot be built. Barney Gumble 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every economic good is scarce. If it were abundant, like air, there would no reason for  trade to occur. --201.51.250.20 13:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Scarce does not mean it cannot be expanded. Scarce means that it has a cost of any sort. A scarce good is something with a cost that you would rather have some of than none of. So basically everything falls under this category with some markable exceptions (such as any bad) but generally speaking it works.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the nature of education 

message: Someone wrote "a belief found to be without merit in a 2006 Bush Administration Dept. of Education study"
When I checked the study available at , the conclusion was different from the above quote. It stated that students at private schools achieved at higher level than students at public schools, but when adjusting the comparisons for student characteristics (Race, gender, english as a first language, computer at home, etc...), the difference was insignificant.
Now let's see, most private school students are white, middle/upper class, and from stable families. While most students in urban public schools are ethnic minorities, immigrants, and from low income families. So I see this "adjusting the comparisons for student characteristics" laughable, as it's obvious private school students and public school beneficiaries, don't share the same characteristics. So instead of misleading the reader, the author should have examined closely the study, to understand that the conclusion was that, private schools have better results because they attract priviledged students, not because they offer better education.
Vincent Shooter 10:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both versions are wrong! I checked the study out too and it does not support any of the conclusions being thrown around. In some cases private schools may have performed better, and other times not so. Then there is the issue of 'adjusting' which certainly changes things up a bit, but not in the simplistic way suggested by Vincent Shooter. Besides, the whole conclusion about the private schools only doing better because they attract certain students and not because of the education, is not supported by the article. It is not cited. It is biased. It is not a statement of accepted fact. Its just some partisan claim. Its even original research. It should not go in there, nor should the original stay. I'm not even sure the study proves anything worth generalizing. The article should not be about making original arguments or parsing data. 147.4.185.127 01:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference in quality between public and private schools 

message: This article clearly shows a bias against school vouchers.
- The proponents section is a tiny compared to the opponents section
- Some claims are critically evaluated, while others are not
- The references section has one article against vouchers, on neutral one, but no articles in support of it. This is terribly unbalanced.
Most striking, is that people seem to be using this article like its some sort of research project. This is not the place to do original research, or make your own presentation of vouchers. This article reads like it is someones personal take on the issue, or reflects their opinion, based on research, of vouchers in general. Who could think that this article is encyclopedic? Whether one thinks vouchers are good or bad, succesful or unsuccesful, does not matter. The article should just present a straightfoward, objective, summary of what vouchers are, with equal devotion to arguments for and against. For those who want to explore the issue further, and perhaps take a side on the issue, external links should be provided, featuring both pro-voucher, anti-voucher, and neutral articles.
Here is a great template:
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/school_vouchers.htm
I say we follow it.
147.4.185.127 01:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is much better than the article. The article reads like a 5th grade editorial. It's choppy poorly written, and loaded with original research. Barney Gumble 20:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is terribly biased 

message: In Australia, New Zealand and the UK, the term "Public School" can in fact mean "Private School"; while the distinction between public and private is fairly clear in this article, it should be clearer. I won't do anything without some kind of consensus, but wouldn't it be better to use the terms "State" and "Public", which, as far as I know, aren't ambiguous? User:Wozocoxonoy 13:54, 30 November 2006 (GMT)
Or rather, "State" and "Private" should be completely unambiguous. Also I'm Australian and not aware of the usage of "public" school in this way... but regardless. Any complaints to this? Alkrensel 07:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "State" and "Public" are the exact same thing. Think about it, if something is owned by the State, and the State is not private, it has to be Public.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But if it is public it doesn't mean it's owned by the state. See Public_transport#Airline 194.207.86.26 (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Actually Wozocoxonoy has a point but he is also partly mistaken. In the UK, a "public school" can indeed be what most would call a private school. See the article for details. Whether this terminology is accurate is a somewhat moot point since it is used in the UK. However the key point which Wozo got wrong is that it is not the case in Australia and New Zealand (although it is the case in Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan) Nil Einne (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  The British terminology dates back from when Private Tuition meant being taught individually or with a small group of siblings or friends' children, usually at home. Then a Public School was one where the general public could go but had to pay. Then the State started to provide universal schooling. Also anyone familiar with Hogwarts from Harry Potter will realise that "Public School" in the UK usually includes board and lodging. So in the UK private schools are much more expensive, eg $51,020.50 for Eton, than public schools and a voucher scheme wouldn't really help with affordability. For example Steve Jobs says US parents would only have to find $1,000 to make up the difference. This isn't comparable to the situation in the UK. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  State, Public and Private Schools 

message: Some support school vouchers only when coupled with standard tests. They reason that if there are no standard tests, the schools in the school voucher system may be tempted to give more students passing grades or "lower their bars" in order to attract students.
This is said twice word for word in both the "opponents" and "grade inflation?" sections, which are right next to each other. I think that the "grade inflation?" section should be taken out as it is not needed, it is very short, and it makes the article seem even more biased than it already is. Nasakebukai 12:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Grade Inflation?" 

message: It seems the article is biased against vouchers. The section on vouchers is significantly shorter. Places where vouchers have suceeded are simply listed as a fact (which is good) but places where vouchers have lost have been heralded as a good thing (definitely not good). Furthermore, the Opponents section could be significantly shortened and given more credibility if all the statements starting with "Some beleive..." "Some support..." were removed. Who are these "some"? Cite said sources, or remove the statements. It would add credibility and objectivity to the opposing side if this were done.
Edit: Added "citation needed" tags to anywhere where "Some economists...", "Some people...." etc. is mentioned. Also some small grammatical corrections.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Voucher bias 

message: Added an update on the Utah Voucher law getting defeated by voters in the state, with notation. TheStormofWar 15:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on Utah referndum 

message: A large majority of Economists support a school voucher system.  In a survey performed by Robert Whaples (Professor of Economics at Wake Forest University),
67.1% of Economists agreed that parents should be given educational vouchers that can be used for government or privately run schools. Only 30.1% were opposed. Ref: Wwhaples,R. Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!, The Economists Voice. Vol 3(9):2006. 
The opponents need to be better identified, that is, the vast majority of the opposition comes from Teacher' unions and supporters thereof.
The Economics section is specualtive, unclear and largely irrelevent to the article and should be eliminated.
M1mauney (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "The opponents need to be better identified, that is, the vast majority of the opposition comes from Teacher' unions and supporters thereof." is a POV Statement. As to your opinion about the Economics section: Economics is obviously important to the subject of School Voucher's if you think that the opinion of a majority of economists in a single study should be mentioned.Kairos (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proponents / Opponents  and Economics 

message: The following statement is made in the Economics section:
:Public education refers to the goal of educating the entire public for their own benefit and the benefit of society as a whole. Looked at from this point of view, public education is a public good
Since many aspects of public education can be rivalrous, (for example, a desk, a textbook, the teacher's personal attention), but by its public nature be non-excludable, wouldn't public education be better described as a common good or common-pool resource? EPM (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Education: Public good or Common good?

message: The entry for the "20/20 Report on the American public school system"
(under "External links") seems to have a URL that doesn't work.  (for me...) 
I tried the link - to a URL of 
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA
but, no luck.  I could not seem to find it.   
On a hunch, I did a 'search' within youtube for the character string
<< "20/20 Report on the American public school system" >>
and I got some hits... the first one: 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI2WySWYDHI
seems to be a video response from a Canadian guy, saying that 
Stossel and 20/20 were wrong / misleading / unfair, on certain things.  
And, one of the "related" videos [to that] which was shown, 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw&feature=related
may be [another copy? of] the 20/20 report; although 
the URL probably works OK without the "&feature=related" added
to the end - - so I think 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
would work OK. Mike Schwartz (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: [PS:] Why is this "URL update" needed?  Is it because the "original" entry on youtube for the video about "20/20 Report on the American public school system" is no longer out there? Mike Schwartz (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link?  (some ideas for fixing it) 

message: The controvery section appears to represent a US POV with one mention of an Australian party. While some of the details may apply to countries other then the US, this is not clear from the section, nearly all of the examples are from the US and some the details clearly don't apply worldwide. For example, criticism in other countries may come from teachers unions, but it clearly doesn't come from the "National Education Association". And private universities are unheard of in some countries. Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: It seems that the voucher programs in Maine and Vermont dating back to the 1800s should be included in the History section at the very least. I can add some of the information for that. Anyone else want to pitch in?--Arationalguy (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The NEA is not against vouchers "for concern that it could erode educational standards". To put it bluntly they are concerned about it because it would mean fewer kids in public schools, and some public school teaching jobs would be lost and private school ones created, which would be non-union jobs. Now we could maybe say they are concerned about funds being diverted from public schools, or even that it could erode public school standards, but the concern is not that kids at private schools are not getting a good education. Gtbob12 (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced and arguably misleading 

message: The text of the article says that test scores, "when adjusted for student and school characteristics", such as "race, gender, and free or reduced price lunch program eligibility" are the same across the spectrum. I don't really comprehend what that's supposed to mean. So are the students in private schools performing better academically by the same standards or not? Are the underprivileges students expected to perform less well so the "adjustment" means that they are considered at the same level, despite the fact that they did much worse? I don't get how this works. I mean if this is true and this "adjustment" means that even if they did worse in tests they are considered at the same level given their environment, wealth and other factors, well, I must be a bloody genious growing up in a 2nd world poor and corrupt East European country and all that.
So the thing is that I don't understand the methodology used in the U.S. for determining the general and particular educational levels of the country's students.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 15:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether they are in a private school or not needs to be isolated from the students that attend the school. If it wasn't than private schools would be at an advantage or disadvantage when compared public schools regardless of whether private schools are actually better. This is what the adjustment is trying to compensate for.--Jorfer (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  If held to exactly the same testing standards (looking at the test scores and college placement) private schools almost always perform significantly better than publics schools.  However, not all of this difference is due do the quality of the received education... generally IQ, testing performance, lower delinquency / criminality, college placement, graduation rates, and various other stats all improve with increased parental wealth / socioeconomic status.  Unfortunately, there's also a strong and persistent racial gap in academic performance between Asians, Caucasians, Hispanics, and Blacks.  Sense very few poor children and racial minorities (particularly Blacks and Hispanics) attend private schools (even per capita), this study by the Department of Education (who oversees the public school system) seeks to compare the performance by adjusting for race and socioeconomic status.  It's alleged that when you make these score offsets private schools only perform slightly better.  However, even if you accept their adjustment methodology this is like comparing a top performing sports team to one of persistently lesser performance and saying that in spite of the actual scores and outcomes these two teams are the same when "adjusted" for pay / wealth and race.  Obviously, comparing real outcomes to adjusted theoreticals is a weak argument and common sense should always have you wanting to put your child on the winning team regardless of how fair the competition is.Jadon (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do they mean by "adjusted"??? 

message: The author(s) frequently use the term, "Now," to refer to the time of writing. These references need to be changed to an appropriate date as information related to various school voucher programs is changing rapidly. Jeffme (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  For example Steve Jobs paid $5,400 to send his daughter to a private school which seems cheap compared to the public schools fees of $27,000, but that was in 1976 which the article doesn't mention. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time perspective needs to be mended throughout the article 

message: Much of the info here is specific to certain jurisdictions, mainly the USA, and is therefore not accurate worldwide. I have tried to make some changes to reflect a more worldwide view in the introductory section. Also, very little in the introductory section was referenced. Please help work towards rectifying this. 123.2.117.167 (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed info (Feb 2014) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on School voucher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929003630/http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/pub/6_2/news/2771-1.html to http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/pub/6_2/news/2771-1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130609125601/http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=587 to http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=587
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071217202856/http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news/news_details.asp?c=1&id=274 to http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news/news_details.asp?c=1&id=274
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150106215010/http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/2008_2.htm to http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/2008_2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We should update the citation for the general public's opinion on vouchers--not only does the link not lead to any information on vouchers, the current citation was retrieved back in 2008. Perhaps we could even find new information on US citizens' opinion on vouchers since the American climate is very different now than it was in 2008. Ryanucsd (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States and Political Support 

message: While all of the information talked about under the United States section is relevant to school vouchers and the United States, there is an unnecessary focus on Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It may be beneficial to readers to know that this city was the first in the US to implement a voucher program, but the information following this fact seems to be irrelevant. In fact, a lot of the information under the United States section (especially under Political Support) seems to lack cohesiveness--it's almost a list of random facts that detracts from the article. Ryanucsd (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further investigation, I'm not sure that that Milwaukee, Wisconsin "factoid" is even correct. Not only is it not cited, but earlier in the article, it's stated that "The oldest continuing school voucher programs existing today in the United States are the Town Tuitioning programs in Vermont[2] and Maine,[3]". Further, these aren't even the first programs in the US, but the oldest, continuing programs. I've left this Milwaukee, Wisconsin paragraph up in case I've somehow misread this section in its entirety. Ryanucsd (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States section revisions 

message: Here's an article from the NYT which describes three reports on voucher schools, all of them negative. These seem to be well-designed studies. The article also gives some good background on Milton Friedman's influence, more concisely than this entry does it. I'm sure there have been other WP:RS writing about these reports, so you don't have to go with just the NYT. But this is a good overview of all three studies. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/upshot/dismal-results-from-vouchers-surprise-researchers-as-devos-era-begins.html
Dismal Results From Vouchers Surprise Researchers as DeVos Era Begins
Kevin Carey 
New York Times
FEB. 23, 2017
My notes: 
Three consecutive reports, each studying one of the largest new state voucher programs, found that vouchers hurt student learning.
Origin of vouchers in 1955 essay by Milton Friedman. Government should pay for schools because democratic society requires common values, literacy and knowledge. But government could give parents vouchers to choose schools, and limit its role to ensuring that schools met minimum standards. 
Republicans in 2000s expanded vouchers to 178,000, particularly in IN, LA and OH. Most voucher schools must give standardized tests. 
2015 results, Indiana, under Mike Pence, tens of thousands of students, voucher students "significant losses" in math, no improvement in reading. 
Feb 2016, Louisiana, lottery, large negative results in reading and math. Older voucher programs had mixed results, modest improvements for some subsets. 
June 2017 study by Thomas B. Fordham Institute, large program in Ohio, found “Students who use vouchers to attend private schools have fared worse academically compared to their closely matched peers attending public schools.” 
The new voucher studies stand in marked contrast to research findings that well-regulated charter schools in Massachusetts and elsewhere have a strong, positive impact on test scores. But while vouchers and charters are often grouped under the umbrella of “school choice,” the best charters tend to be nonprofit public schools, open to all and accountable to public authorities. The less “private” that school choice programs are, the better they seem to work.
--Nbauman (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT: Voucher schools get bad evaluations 

message: Based on School voucher public policy in the United States, with a short summary of that remaining as a subsection under Implementations. Comments? - Snori (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested new U.S. article

message: Please clarify. Does this mean 0.1 years, then put 0.1 years?See WP:DECIMAL 194.207.86.26 (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "complete .1 more years"  

message: I propose that this entire section titled "Teaching creationism instead of evolution" be removed. I don't see how it contributes anything, as creationism is simply one of MANY subjects that comes up when discussion religious vs secular education. Why is this specific one being singled out, and why does it deserve an entire section? I believe there is no justification for its inclusion.
Furthermore, I don't see how the section is relevant to the article as a whole. While it is grouped under "Opponents", it doesn't seem to fit here. It's just sitting there, for no apparent reason. The entire section is simply stating that creationism is being taught. So what? Why is this even being stated? Yes, this is being taught in some schools. Is it because of an implied and unstated assumption that the very existence of creationism being taught is a "criticism" or "opposition"? If there are people who do not believe in creationism, and they are critical of school vouchers being used at schools which teach it, then those criticisms can be lumped with the other criticisms underneath "Opponents". (And goodness, that section is arguably way too long too, but for now, I'm just suggesting this subsection be deleted.) Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal that "Teaching creationism instead of evolution" section be entirely removed. 

message: Under "Implementations", 7 countries are mentioned, and each gets an average of about 300 words. Meanwhile, the US has its own "School voucher public policy in the United States" section, comprised by almost 5000 words. I believe that it's important to give readers information both in quantity and quality, however, talking about the intricacies of Trump's 2018 budget, or the nuances of Ohio's supreme court and judicial processes may be beyond the scope of this article. This is an article about school vouchers, far from an exclusively (or even mainly) American issue.
I am quite new to editing Wikipedia and not familiarized with all its rules, so I'd be glad to hear other's opinions on this. 190.135.164.10 (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe too US-centric?