Libertarians have it right on education-school ouchers people, school vouchers.

American high school SAT scores fell by an average of 50 points between 1970 and 1995. During the same time, the federal education budget nearly doubled from $19 billion to $35 billion. In other words, private schools are rewarded when they succeed. Government schools are rewarded even when they fail. Libertarians don't think we're getting our money's worth from the government-run school system. We believe that a dollar-for-dollar tax credit should go to any individual who pays for a child's education. We also believe that the federal government needs to get out of education. The decision-making and money matters should be returned to the states, communities, and parents. Private schools get better results and there is a reason.

It seems as if your solution to this "problem" is to just redirect money. You think that simply handing out a tax credit that is equal to what one pays for school will be a good enough answer to the falling test scores. This couldn't be further from the truth.

First of all; there is one major flaw in this plan. If you re-implement all federal funding to those that pay for school, you will simply be keeping more and more from school. What about those that can't afford public schooling? The ones that the government pays for? Certainly, these people are in the minority, but, you are basically doing the same thing for the millions that can afford to pay for school. With this refund, people will barely lost money, if any.

This also will hurt test scores even more, because it takes away the reinforcement that a middle class American will have for school. The real reason that private schools perform better, is because the ones that partake in those endeavors know that if they perform poorly, it's there money that's going down the drain. Sure, there are still bad scores, both in private, and in public, but this logic can still be utizlized.

By implementing this plan, you are essentially making school free for those that can normally afford it. I understand that school is free for most underprivileged, but this is also quite different then making it free for those that are, in fact, privileged. Throughout history there have been people that come from poor backgrounds, that become successful in the world. Why? Because they know how it feels to be at the bottom of the barrel.

Those in the middle class don't know this, and could, and do, let their education fall by the wayside, because they have a false sense of security.

In conclusion, this plan is flawed on many levels. It could take away the education that matters, from those that will actually use it, I.E. the under-privileged, and it also will hurt a lot more then it helps, by giving the current people that pay for school no reinforcement to perform better.

I thank you for opening this debate, and I look forward to your reply.

-BBE

I'll first extend all of my first points, and continue on with another argument:

Another flaw to this plan, people that are paying for private schools, are going to have to pay more, if this plan is implemented, because the reason private schools perform so well, is because of the money they get. They have to fund better professors, better textbooks, and better technology.

There are so many flaws to this plan, and it will hurt more then it helps.

You're going to eliminate the people that might actually perform better in the adult world, those that know about being impoversihed, those that get education for free. With this resolution, you're eliminating that, and just putting more people in poverty, and making us look bad as a whole.

Thank You

Again, I'd like to reiterate my main points...

It's sad that you so vehemently believe in something, to the point that you're bringing your own party into this, and yet you can only create one argument supporting your view. You're not doing a lot for your parties credibility right now.

Thank you all that read this debate.