My Thoughts on School Vouchers

I have put in another post that we are not so open-minded today. We believe what our political party teaches (or what the party members say it teaches), we believe whatever our religous leaders tell us, we believe whatever makes us feel good, or sometimes worried even. That is all true. There are some issues that is not so much related to conservative, liberal, libertarian, independant, etc. The issue of school vouchers is interesting because a libertarian for example could make a valid point for school vouchers based upon libertarian philosophy, and a libertarian could also make a point against school vouchers using libertarian philosophy. Compared to most political parties or political names, libertarianism is good at it's members being consistent within their philosophy of the government (thought they may live totally different lives). It is probably the libertarians, but perhaps the conservatives, that support school vouchers the most.
The issue is still small, and nor real change from the current system to school vouchers seems to be happening any time soon, but the idea is growing. In 1985, homeschooling would be either unheard of, or considered stupid by most people. Now, a growing amount of people including myself are homeschooling or being homeschooled. This is not saying we should treat any education change as good change, but the system is not where it should be.
So what is school vouchers, if you don't know. Basically, the way I see it, would be a system in which the government takes education tax money, and sends it to the school of your choice. The schools then get the money, and use it the way they desire, and basically compete for your child. The argument for school vouchers is that it provides school choice, and eliminates a government/teacher union monompoly on education. Schools would hire and pay teachers based upon how good they are, not what the teachers unions claim. Furthermore, supporters argue, Protestants could go to Protestant schools, Roman Catholics could go to Roman Catholic schools, Jews could go to Jewish schools, and atheists could even go to atheist schools, and so on.
Still, some people are worried about the big "C" word- competition. Competition, they say is bad for schools. Schools are not supposed to compete for students. They say that education goes beyond competition. They also have other points against it- such as that school vouchers is wrong because the government uses tax money to go to religious schools. Another argument against school vouchers is that the government gets their hands into the what-is-now private school sector. They say that the situation becomes worsened because both what is now public schools and what is now private schools even out, and they all become bad. Some would say that any choice of getting a good school is thrown out the window because there is no good private school that is not government-controlled. The supporters claim that the government merely funds the schools, and doesn't run them.
So what is my take? I want to make the point, first, that the school system is corrupt- not just because people go to public schools and learn more about drugs and sex than about math and English (though that can be part of it), but because the government sends much more money to public education per child, than the average private school costs (I think they spend approx $10,000 per year per child); yet the average private school outpreforms the average public school by a lot. And it is the private school that help the "problem" children out more than public schools do. And about the "real world," I think that those who are homeschooled and in actual private schools do better in the "real world" than those who are in government education. The government school supporters tell us that they prepare them by letting them see different religions, for example, and decide for themselves (yet they still teach evolution and are minimum on God, prayer, and Christianity).
If that does not convince you, consider this. It would be bad if the government established a church, took your tax dollars, and used them without your permission to teach the governments theology, and you were forced to go to church. Furthermore, you would either go to a government-appointed church in you "church zone" or pay extra to another church, that the government still made sure was okay. That would be wrong. The public education system, or government education system, is a mirror duplicate of an established church. You go to church one to two days a week for an hour or two; you go to school five days a week for about seven hours a day. Religion can still be tied into education as well. That is why we have debates over what can and can not be taught in public schools. They are either offensive, or politically correct when it gets right down to it.
So if the system needs changing, then do I think that school vouchers is the way to go? One libertarian might tell me it provides competition which they say is good, while another libertarian may say it creates a bigger government. I understand both sides, but my gut feeling is that it does not hurt. If school vouchers made government bigger, then how come politicians don't convince us or try to convince us of school vouchers. Today, so many people would fall for it. If the government does take control of the schools, then we could start back with private schools like they are now. We wouldn't gain anything, but we wouldn't loose anything either. Beyond that, it saves those in private schools money by only paying for one education, not two for only one result. Yet, I do know that private schools may not want them getting money from the government. There is a chance you take. Furthermore, not every person wants an education. I do, but not everybody. Why should you be forced to an education. I want an education to glorify God, and to support a family, and make money. You are not forced to have a house, which is two of the three things I mentioned above. You are not forced to believe in God- that's the other. Why should you be forced to have an education.
Please don't get me wrong. I am not against minimum government spending on education. There are poor people who desire an education, and if charity's fail, then the government may can step in. They problem is once they step in, they want to step in more and more. I am not against public school students, or public school teachers. I don't like the system. The government does not provide houses for everyone, churches for everyone, shoes for everyone; so why should they invent a system for education for everyone. At least school vouchers provide choice, but even that is somewhat of a compromise I think.