Fla. Court Strikes Down School Vouchers

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I also think it is a mistake to say that a voucher wouldn't cover the tuition at a private school. I think that is the exception more than the rule. There are elite schools where that is the case, but in my experience(limited albeit) in looking to send my kids to private schools, they are all below the $4500 amount someone mentioned above. Most of the options, K through Highschool, were under $3000 a year.

You can't wipe your ass with that at a private school in New Jersey, even at the bad ones. Vouchers will always provide parents with mediorce options, that just shift accountablity from some bureaucrat to a cleric, if the school is religious.

I once judged a science fair for a Catholic school in Illinois near where I was stationed back in the Air Force. And I was agast as what was the same sort of problems that public schools face. In some cases, it was even worse. These schools often lacked the basic resources that I recalled having as a student about 12 years prior to that time and if that wasn't enough, the teachers were just as cynical about what they were providing the students.

That really changed my view about the differences between the schools in many of these areas, especially in places that aren't particularly affluent. Sure, they can weed out the "problem" kids, because they don't have to accept all of them. But, as far as truly providing "more" opportunity, I think that's generally overstated.

And if you want quality, you're usually going to pay for it. Even at private schools that aren't consider elite, but better than average. If you don't buy that, ask the parents who routinely avoid public schools to send their kids to them.

No vouchers will ever change that, because you think those parents want a bunch of the kids they've been avoiding in the same schools with their kids? Think again.

[duckman]

Would any of you be open to parents electing to have whatever they paid towards public education (property taxes, etc.) be paid back to them for tutiton since their children would not be attending public schools?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by duckman

Would any of you be open to parents electing to have whatever they paid towards public education (property taxes, etc.) be paid back to them for tutiton since their children would not be attending public schools?

That's essentially what vouchers are, except equalized so that sending your kid to private school doesn't become a tax shelter.

edit: At least, that's my understanding.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

That's essentially what vouchers are, except equalized so that sending your kid to private school doesn't become a tax shelter.

edit: At least, that's my understanding.

My understanding was it is the average cost per student (like Oklahoma's average is $3,000) and not actual taxes paid in.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by duckman

My understanding was it is the average cost per student (like Oklahoma's average is $3,000) and not actual taxes paid in.

Well since that cost is funded from taxes, I'm not sure there's a difference. You're just looking at it from the other side of the balance sheet.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by duckman

Would any of you be open to parents electing to have whatever they paid towards public education (property taxes, etc.) be paid back to them for tutiton since their children would not be attending public schools?

In fact in one of my earlier posts I supported the idea that parents who CHOOSE to enroll their kids in private schools be allowed an excemption to School tax portions of their property taxes.

However that amount is nowhere NEAR what the vouchers are worth. For example, a low income region like mine (Buffalo, NY) the median property taxes where I live are approximately 2000 per year, of that less than 30% goes into the local school district. So about 600 bucks.

Vouchers are qorth upwards of 3-4 THOUSAND a year. Thats a WHOLE lot of other people's tax moneys going to some other kids education bills. That I feel is wrong. If you want to privately educate your child, it becomes your responsibility to pay for it, not the public's.

[duckman]

What about those who don't have any children? Should they also be allowed to be exempted from paying their property taxes towards public schools?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by duckman

What about those who don't have any children? Should they also be allowed to be exempted from paying their property taxes towards public schools?

Im intrigued by this debate now, minus the bW stuff....Is there any effect to having an area or community have a well educated k-12. I mean doesnt a lower crime rate, better work force, etc. effect even those without kids going to school. I think that there is some anonymous businessman in Michigan, Kalamazoo perhaps, who feels this way and is sponsoring ALL kids with k-12 education(s) (IOW I believe giving donations to the schools AND a full scholarship to one of the public colleges in the state. I think that this is true....so there is a thought that the education is more than just heloing the individual but the community too. right?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by duckman

What about those who don't have any children? Should they also be allowed to be exempted from paying their property taxes towards public schools?

Unfortunately, no, because they are still part of that community and as such should be supporting the school their community has. it doesn't sound fair, but they have no vested interest either way, they still have to pay the taxes in some form, so by default it goes to the public coffer. if they had a specific NEED for the funds, as the parents of the private school child do. Remember also that the child being sent to the private school is not a drain on the public coffer any longer, so a childless persons portion is doing more good for their community in the long run.Lacking a need for an exemption, they still pay their full tax burden like the rest of us with kids in the system.

[Klinglerware]

A couple of points. As for Catholic vs Public school academic quality, as others have stated, there are good and bad schools in either category. But in general, if your primary concern is academic quality, a well-funded public school is typically a much better bet than Catholic school. As I mentioned earlier I went to Catholic school. Because Catholic schools tend to be run with shoestring budgets, education tends to be no-frills and lowest common denominator. When I went to college, I found that I was much less prepared than many of the public school kids who had 10+ AP classes and mandatory Westinghouse competition particpation, etc. It's all water under the bridge now, but I probably would have been much more prepared for college if I went to my local public school--the resources that school had compared to my own were quite breathtaking.

On the issue of how much Catholic school really costs--I've finally found a recent figure (2003-2004) for the average cost of Catholic school tuition: $5,870.

http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Apr/20050401News015.asp

The average voucher is not going to cover that. That is my main complaint about voucher programs--if they don't cover the entire cost of tuition, they are basically useless for the families who need them. That's my main issue with vouchers. I don't have problems with school choice or with the religious issue, but I do have problems with the fact that they are touted to afford low-income families true choice in making educational decisions for their children, when in fact, vouchers don't have enough monetary value associated with them to actually make good on their promise.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by duckman

Would any of you be open to parents electing to have whatever they paid towards public education (property taxes, etc.) be paid back to them for tutiton since their children would not be attending public schools?

A lot of towns, like my old one in New Jersey, would provide parents with transportation for their kid to go to school outside of the town since they werent' going to the public schools. Since like half the towns kids (almost all the white kids and half the black ones) didn't go to school in town, the public school district could not actually provide busing for its own students, because it provided transport to all of those students who go to private schools elsewhere throughout the state.

[st.cronin]

I don't think vouchers are intended to fix the public schools. Voucher supporters sometimes say that they will spur improvement because of competition but I think that is bullshit - it can be ignored.

Most people, as far as I can tell, seem to think that it's ok to redirect tax income slated for the public schools to help offset tuition of children of taxpayers who do not use that public school. Render described some sort of tax credit along those lines. I see one major problem with this, which is that the economic health of a community is directly related to the quality of it's public schools. This is why property owners without kids pay the same taxes as those with many kids.

Having said all that, I don't see anything wrong with a community (be it federal, state, or smaller) deciding to augment, on a need basis, the cost to families that want to send their kids to private schools. Making this need-based, I think, should answer those who are concerned about separation of church and state - because the funding is not based on religion, it's based on NEED. Although the school may have a religious charter, the business of the school is education, not religion. Catholic schools are not really much like madrassahs, you know.

There could be some reasonable cap on the aid per child that the parents and schools would have to make up. This is pretty much how federal aid for colleges work. There is no reason, in terms of what is at stake for the community, that it couldn't work the same way for primary schools.

Having proposed this, I should reiterate that I don't think there is anything seriously wrong with our public schools. Obviously SOME schools have serious problems, but overall our schools are a strength, not a weakness. Radical innovation should be approached with caution.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Most people don't realize that Brown, for example, is a Baptist school.

It was founded by Baptists, but Brown became non-denominational in the 1930s. Some traditional links do remain--undergraduate baccalaureate and commencement is still held in a Baptist church. Considering that the Aga Khan was the Baccalaureate speaker one year, there is precious little that is Baptist about Brown (if the co-ed dorm bathrooms didn't give you fair warning ).

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

keep in mind the vouchers were not about choice, but a lottery wherein poor parents would have to somehow make up the difference in costs and the schools get Federal subsidizing EVEN IF IT IS A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL, thereby violating the constitution.

Nit pick time -- subsidizing private religious schools is not against the Constitution, nor is there any amendment anywhere in the Constitution that accounts for a "Division of Church and State". It's simply not there.

[ISiddiqui]

Depends on how you read the Establishment Clause.

(Note: I don't believe that a strict seperation is what the Constitution mandates, but definetly some seperation... the question is how much is too far).

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Nit pick time -- subsidizing private religious schools is not against the Constitution, nor is there any amendment anywhere in the Constitution that accounts for a "Division of Church and State". It's simply not there.

Unfortunately for you, Congress, and the governemnt in general disagree with you, including the Judicial branch.

THe argument over wehter the Establishment clause as has been said, truly defines this is another discussion altogether. The laws and legislation of this nation accepts seperation of church and state as factual and binding.

please come to terms with this.

Now, back to the topic at hand.....::

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

A couple of points. As for Catholic vs Public school academic quality, as others have stated, there are good and bad schools in either category. But in general, if your primary concern is academic quality, a well-funded public school is typically a much better bet than Catholic school. As I mentioned earlier I went to Catholic school. Because Catholic schools tend to be run with shoestring budgets, education tends to be no-frills and lowest common denominator. When I went to college, I found that I was much less prepared than many of the public school kids who had 10+ AP classes and mandatory Westinghouse competition particpation, etc. It's all water under the bridge now, but I probably would have been much more prepared for college if I went to my local public school--the resources that school had compared to my own were quite breathtaking.

Not to let facts get in the way of a good argument or do I really want to do much more than watch this thread, but this has as many facts as the BW arguments- it's anecdotal evidence.

I'd wouldn't point this out but I'm curious as to facts proving either side of this argument. I'm guessing it will be that private schools are better and that it's probably because the average cost is significantly higher thus the real correlation is between wealth and education but I have no idea.

SI

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Unfortunately for you, Congress, and the governemnt in general disagree with you, including the Judicial branch.

THe argument over wehter the Establishment clause as has been said, truly defines this is another discussion altogether. The laws and legislation of this nation accepts seperation of church and state as factual and binding.

please come to terms with this.

Now, back to the topic at hand.....::

Are you this irritating in real life? DAMN. If so, I feel for your friends. I was simply making a point that the CONSTITUTION, not how it's interpreted, but the ACTUAL WORDING makes no mention. I'm fully aware what the Supreme Court says about the subject.

Render, every time I post you seem to make it your job to try and ridicule me at every step, and I'm getting really tired of it. Give it a rest, dude.


Jesus.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'd wouldn't point this out but I'm curious as to facts proving either side of this argument. I'm guessing it will be that private schools are better and that it's probably because the average cost is significantly higher thus the real correlation is between wealth and education but I have no idea.

SI

My guess is that the totem pole goes like this (generalized and with a Northeastern bias):

Elite private schools (Andover, Exeter, Choate, etc)
Well funded public schools with admissions policy (Bronx Science, Stuyvesant)
Open admissions suburban high school
Suburban parochial school

And yes you are correct--money is a powerful correlate for educational success. That is why suburban northeastern schools tend to produce better prepared students--more money is spent on education on a per capita basis than in other regions of the country. Also, family wealth is a primary correlate for success later in life...

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Are you this irritating in real life? DAMN. If so, I feel for your friends. I was simply making a point that the CONSTITUTION, not how it's interpreted, but the ACTUAL WORDING makes no mention. I'm fully aware what the Supreme Court says about the subject.

Render, every time I post you seem to make it your job to try and ridicule me at every step, and I'm getting really tired of it. Give it a rest, dude.


Jesus.

..but much like the bible, aren't it's words only as good as it's interpretation? I mean many killers know the Bible front and back prior to their killing but their interpretation is skewed (some say that they are crazy although they could probably quote scriptures that in their head prompted their killing). Therefore the Constitution's actual type means nothing until people interpret it, and luckily in our country continue to interpret it and reinterpret it for over 200 years. yes?

[st.cronin]

Generalizing about the quality of private schools vs. public schools seems pointless to me. I think it makes more sense to think of private schools as specialty schools - including military academies, parochial schools, special needs institutions, etc. They fill in the gaps that public schools leave open.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Are you this irritating in real life? DAMN. If so, I feel for your friends. I was simply making a point that the CONSTITUTION, not how it's interpreted, but the ACTUAL WORDING makes no mention. I'm fully aware what the Supreme Court says about the subject.

Render, every time I post you seem to make it your job to try and ridicule me at every step, and I'm getting really tired of it. Give it a rest, dude.


Jesus.

That's why we a Judical branch, experts in law to interpret such documents.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

..but much like the bible, aren't it's words only as good as it's interpretation? I mean many killers know the Bible front and back prior to their killing but their interpretation is skewed (some say that they are crazy although they could probably quote scriptures that in their head prompted their killing). Therefore the Constitution's actual type means nothing until people interpret it, and luckily in our country continue to interpret it and reinterpret it for over 200 years. yes?

Please don't talk about the Bible anymore unti you actually read it. Your ignorance on it continues to astound. The Bible says what it says, and anybody who studies it in depth in particular through its original Greek and Aramaic consistantly gets what it says without contradiction. Much unlike our Constitution, which fluctuates with whatever the present-day fad or trend that those who we allow to interpret it decide for it.

Like the recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that government could take land from one private interest and award it to another soley for the increased tax revenue to the state that it would generate. Madison is still spinning in his grave over that one.

[Flasch186]

I think the mere fact that there are so many different denominations of Christianity would somewhat say, since they are all based on the same book, or would lead people to think, that there are multiple interpretations of the Bible. Im not trying to tell you that one is better than any other, just different. If you took offense to the fact that there is more than one, than that is your problem, its your religion with the different denominations...Mine has a bunch too.

The Bible has led to countless different actions based on different interpretations.

If the list below doesnt work for you, perhaps this one will:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._denominations

Regardless, I'm not saying what is in the Bible or trying to interpret it myself, just pointing out (which you apparently baffleingly disagree with) is that there are different interpretations of the verbage itself.

[Flasch186]

DOLA:

* African Methodist Episcopal (2)
* African Methodist Episcopal Zion (2)
* African Orthodox Church (1)
* American Baptist Churches USA (4)
* Amish (24)
* Anabaptist (4)
* Anglican Catholic Church@
* Antiochian Orthodox@
* Armenian Evangelical Church (2)
* Armenian Orthodox@
* Assemblies of God (20)
* Associated Gospel Churches of Canada@
* Association of Vineyard Churches (5)
* Baptist (154)
* Baptist Bible Fellowship (2)
* Branch Davidian (3)
* Brethren in Christ (1)
* Bruderhof Communities (11)
* Byzantine Catholic Church@
* Calvary Chapel (3)
* Calvinist (6)
* Catholic (1671)
* Cell Church (15)
* Celtic Orthodox@
* Charismatic Episcopal Church (2)
* Children of God (COG) (8)
* Christadelphian (16)
* Christian and Missionary Alliance (6)
* Christian Churches of God (1)
* Christian Identity (7)
* Christian Reformed Church (5)
* Christian Science (10)
* Church of God (Anderson) (3)
* Church of God (Cleveland) (4)
* Church of God (Seventh Day) (2)
* Church of God in Christ (2)
* Church of God of Prophecy (1)
* Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (151)
* Church of Scotland@
* Church of South India (2)
* Church of the Brethren (7)
* Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America (2)
* Church of the Nazarene (17)
* Church of the New Jerusalem (4)
* Church of the United Brethren in Christ (2)
* Church Universal and Triumphant (3)
* Churches of Christ (36)
* Churches of God General Conference (5)
* Congregational Christian Churches (3)
* Coptic Orthodox@
* Cumberland Presbyterian Church (1)
* Disciples of Christ (13)
* Episcopal@
* Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (4)
* Evangelical Congregational Church (5)
* Evangelical Covenant Church (1)
* Evangelical Formosan Church (1)
* Evangelical Free Church (3)
* Evangelical Lutheran Church (32)
* Evangelical Methodist Church (1)
* Evangelical Presbyterian (1)
* Fellowship of Christian Assemblies (1)
* Fellowship of Grace Brethren (3)
* Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (2)
* Free Church of Scotland (4)
* Free Methodist (6)
* Free Presbyterian (2)
* Free Will Baptist (4)
* Gnostic@
* Great Commission Association of Churches (2)



* Greek Orthodox@
* Hutterian Brethren (4)
* Independent Fundamental Churches of America (4)
* Indian Orthodox@
* International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (3)
* International Churches of Christ (7)
* Jehovah's Witnesses (35)
* Living Church of God (8)
* Local Church (8)
* Lutheran (40)
* Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (17)
* Mar Thoma Syrian Church (7)
* Mennonite (27)
* Messianic Judaism@
* Methodist (19)
* Moravian Church (3)
* Nation of Yahweh (4)
* New Frontiers International (1)
* Old Catholic Church@
* Orthodox (104)
* Orthodox Church in America@
* Orthodox Presbyterian (2)
* Pentecostal (25)
* Plymouth Brethren (4)
* Presbyterian (72)
* Presbyterian Church (USA) (17)
* Presbyterian Church in America (11)
* Primitive Baptist (4)
* Protestant Reformed Church (10)
* Reformed (14)
* Reformed Baptist (9)
* Reformed Church in America (4)
* Reformed Church in the United States (3)
* Reformed Churches of Australia@
* Reformed Episcopal (9)
* Reformed Presbyterian Church (6)
* Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (5)
* Revival Centres International (4)
* Romanian Orthodox@
* Rosicrucian@
* Russian Orthodox@
* Serbian Orthodox@
* Seventh Day Baptist (4)
* Seventh-Day Adventist (51)
* Shaker (14)
* Society of Friends (44)
* Southern Baptist Convention (13)
* Spiritist (2)
* Syrian Orthodox@
* True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days (4)
* Two-by-Twos (3)
* Unification Church (12)
* Unitarian-Universalism@
* United Church of Canada@
* United Church of Christ (14)
* United Church of God (3)
* United Free Church of Scotland@
* United Methodist Church (113)
* United Reformed Church (2)
* Uniting Church in Australia@
* Unity Church (3)
* Unity Fellowship Church (2)
* Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (2)
* Virtual Churches (13)
* Waldensian Church (3)
* Way International, The (4)
* Web Directories (8)
* Wesleyan (9)
* Wesleyan Methodist@
* Worldwide Church of God

[Bubba Wheels]

You just really prove my point. Study of the Bible to understand the difference between style and substance (how you believe as opposed to what you believe) makes it important that you do that (study it).

The Bible is objective truth. The constitution is subjective truth. The differences you cite in denominations are almost all based upon how they worship (Church of God doesn't allow musical instruments, the band at the mega-church I attended this morning was doing a Deep Purple tune among other songs before the talk.) That's the general of it.

And I also noticed you included some such as Jehova's Witness that do not even believe in the Deity of Christ to begin with. Morman's have their own complete new book. Can't really classify those as Bible-believing Christians if they don't really believe in the Bible to start with.

[st.cronin]

Well, I tried.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, I tried.

Oh well, maybe next time...

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, I tried.

Right, like without me stirring up the pot with the religious angle your thread would have continued past this point or even earlier. I'm officially out of this thread, I'm sure is will go another 2 pages at least. Yawwnnn.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

The Bible is objective truth. The constitution is subjective truth.

I think that that pretty much sums up why Bubba cannot debate with anyone with any semblance of an ability to empathize with others.

If you have swayed any of the people on this board with your debate tactics and stances towards your POV I would be shocked. Not saying I have either, but your cemented absolute view of yourself, your book, and others allows for no room to accept anyone else....intolerance at its finest.


A denomination or church's decision to not allow music or dancing or picking of one's nose, I would venture to guess, is due to someone's interpretation of a passage in the Book that they worship and how that applies to their life.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Much unlike our Constitution...

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

You just really prove my point. Study of the Bible to understand the difference between style and substance (how you believe as opposed to what you believe) makes it important that you do that (study it).

Much unlike all language it is vauge at best. There is no such thing as objective language. That would be impossible, it would mean you would not have to study it

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Are you this irritating in real life? DAMN. If so, I feel for your friends. I was simply making a point that the CONSTITUTION, not how it's interpreted, but the ACTUAL WORDING makes no mention. I'm fully aware what the Supreme Court says about the subject.

Render, every time I post you seem to make it your job to try and ridicule me at every step, and I'm getting really tired of it. Give it a rest, dude.


Jesus.

The why open your mouth at all? You knew that statement would get a direct reply, yet you did it anyway.

Perhaps I irritate you because you lack a valid viewpoint or anything to support it. Your post was nothing more than trying to stir up that very response.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by RendeR

The why open your mouth at all? You knew that statement would get a direct reply, yet you did it anyway.

Perhaps I irritate you because you lack MY viewpoint or anything to support it. Your post was nothing more than trying to stir up that very response.

Fixed it for you. Just because I don't share your warped liberal viewpoint doesn't mean I don't have one. You can disagree without being insulting, but yet you constantly try. Example: I'm fairly sure Flesch and I differ on pretty much every single topic, but we can discuss things, and have discussed things without getting insulting. Hell, I even admitted I was wrong in a recent topic.

You, however, cannot seem to make "your point" without insulting someone or making some sort of snarky comment.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Are you this irritating in real life? DAMN. If so, I feel for your friends. I was simply making a point that the CONSTITUTION, not how it's interpreted, but the ACTUAL WORDING makes no mention. I'm fully aware what the Supreme Court says about the subject.

Render, every time I post you seem to make it your job to try and ridicule me at every step, and I'm getting really tired of it. Give it a rest, dude.


Jesus.

Just to clarify, in NO post in ANY thread have I directly ridiculed you without your provocation. I have agreed with OTHER posters comments, but never instigated ridicule. Stop trying to play the martyr.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Fixed it for you. Just because I don't share your warped liberal viewpoint doesn't mean I don't have one. You can disagree without being insulting, but yet you constantly try. Example: I'm fairly sure Flesch and I differ on pretty much every single topic, but we can discuss things, and have discussed things without getting insulting. Hell, I even admitted I was wrong in a recent topic.

You, however, cannot seem to make "your point" without insulting someone or making some sort of snarky comment.

So sorry you can't take a snarky remark. I feel so horrible that my personality so disturbs you.


My god you're whiney.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by RendeR

So sorry you can't take a snarky remark. I feel so horrible that my personality so disturbs you.


My god you're whiney.

What I was saying is that we should be able to discuss without being snarky, and your response is to be insulting (again) and snarky (again).

Sigh.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

The Bible is objective truth.

False. the Bible is purely subjective to every individual, as is faith in all forms. There is no specific Truth within it that ia not open to ANY individual's imterpretation. YOU on the otherhand can never understand this because by your own statements your BELIEF doesn't allow you to.

[Glengoyne]

A couple of points, just in reference to the thoughts that the vouchers are essentially a way for people sending kids to Private school to get their tax money back. I have pretty strong feelings against any voucher program that makes this possible. I think the best voucher systems focus on lower and middle class children enrolled in failed public schools. If private schools could be left out of the equation, then I'd be for that as well, so long as there are adequate public schools to accomodate the students. The deal is that most people believe that a private school education is superior to a public school education, so it is hard to exclude a better option for education from a program aimed at helping students get a better education.

I'm a proponent of voucher programs, because some of our public schools are failing, and the voucher programs offer an alternative for those trapped in the system. I find it interesting that most of those that oppose vouchers aren't opposing them because the children are being hurt. The problems they focus on are related to "Church v. State" and the like. In my opinion the Teachers' Unions are opposed because they are protecting their turf. I don't think the Teachers' Unions give more than lip service to looking out for the students when it comes to topics like this. Like I said, if we could leave the private schools out of the mix, I'd be all for it.

Essentially I'm for vouchers because they represent another option for a system I see failing.

I've seen some pretty darned sad excuses for teachers/principals/schools in the public system and I've seen some of the best examples of each in public education as well. The product varies. My daughter is enrolled in public school, and I'm following along with her education fairly closely. If my wife and I feel that her education is falling behind her, we'll make the change to Private school. She'd be going to a Private school now, if my wife would feel better about sending her to a Catholic school. We're protestant, and I simply don't trust the non-catholic"Christian" school options. Mainly because some of us "Christian" folk are frankly nuts, and I don't want any whackos teaching my kids. A lot of my friends in college were products of the local catholic schools, and I think I'd feel more comfortable with my daughter in that environment.

[GMO]

People should be able to send their children to any school that meets education standards.
It's freedom of choice.
We wouldn't want to be told that we have to buy from Wal-Mart all the time so why can't we have freedom of choice in education.
As for spending government tax money on private schools - it's not the governments money. The money belongs to taxpayers, not the gov't. Taxpayers should tell the gov't where they want to spend education dollars. The gov't and Supreme Court should not tell people how they can spend what is their (taxpayers') money.
The gov't and Supreme Court should not tell parents what school they should their own children, unless you believe the gov't and judges always know best.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by GMO

People should be able to send their children to any school that meets education standards.
It's freedom of choice.
We wouldn't want to be told that we have to buy from Wal-Mart all the time so why can't we have freedom of choice in education.
As for spending government tax money on private schools - it's not the governments money. The money belongs to taxpayers, not the gov't. Taxpayers should tell the gov't where they want to spend education dollars. The gov't and Supreme Court should not tell people how they can spend what is their (taxpayers') money.
The gov't and Supreme Court should not tell parents what school they should their own children, unless you believe the gov't and judges always know best.

Parents already have the choice, they simply have to pay for it. Its not the government telling you where your tax moneys go, its the other parents tax money that the voucher kid is spending that should be saying "no".

The vouchers aren't that single parents tax dollars, the vast majority of that money is from other tax payers in the same district, so they're spending everyone ELSES money on their kids private education, and thats still wrong, period.

Your arguments regarding keeping the government out of the decision might have merit, but based on the system we have your coming at the problem from the complete wrong direction. In a perfect world everyone could send their kids wherever they wished, the world, and this country, are far from perfect.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by RendeR

...

The vouchers aren't that single parents tax dollars, the vast majority of that money is from other tax payers in the same district, so they're spending everyone ELSES money on their kids private education, and thats still wrong, period.
...

See, I don't think so. Money isn't being spent to give some kid a private education, that money is being spent to see that the kid gets a good education. The money will be spent regardless of its destination. That it goes to a private school, shouldn't matter.

Tax payer money is being put to its designated use...to educate children. If the public school is failing, and can't provide that "good" education, then why not provide those funds to a private school that will?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

See, I don't think so. Money isn't being spent to give some kid a private education, that money is being spent to see that the kid gets a good education. The money will be spent regardless of its destination. That it goes to a private school, shouldn't matter.

Tax payer money is being put to its designated use...to educate children. If the public school is failing, and can't provide that "good" education, then why not provide those funds to a private school that will?

Because , in turn, you are then depriving the public school of funds it needs. Yes those funds will be used for education, no doubt, but a voucher designates those funds for one specific child, and frankly, my taxes are part of those funds and I want MY tax dollars going to the public schools to try and amke the education better for ALL the kids, not just little miss "my mom and dad think I'm better than everyone else"

If you want your kids in private school or even religoous based schools, I have NO objection, I DO object to those funds being taken from public tax dollars to support YOUR kids education. You want them in a better school, fine, YOU flip your own bill. Its not the other taxpayers duty to support individual children, its to support the community unit.

Thats really my only beef here, you're hurting the very system your complaining about by using the voucher systems. Fix the vouchers so that only those truly in NEED get them and do NOT take money away from an already crippled system financially.

Vouchers fix only the few who can afford the difference in costs right now, and thats a complete misuse of public funds. The fact that giving a voucher for a private or parochial schooling may in fact not help your child's education at all is another discussion entirely. When they can guarentee that the kids getting vouchers (paid for without hurting their original school) are getting a much BETTER education then I might actually support them, but there is no such data, it can't be said that there is a definite upgrade in the wuality of education using the vouchers for privatization of education.

Its great to think it will help, but there is no guarentee it will. Public dollars need to fund public works, not private endeavors when it comes to education funds that are so very hard to come by.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Because , in turn, you are then depriving the public school of funds it needs. Yes those funds will be used for education, no doubt, but a voucher designates those funds for one specific child, and frankly, my taxes are part of those funds and I want MY tax dollars going to the public schools to try and amke the education better for ALL the kids, not just little miss "my mom and dad think I'm better than everyone else"

If you want your kids in private school or even religoous based schools, I have NO objection, I DO object to those funds being taken from public tax dollars to support YOUR kids education. You want them in a better school, fine, YOU flip your own bill. Its not the other taxpayers duty to support individual children, its to support the community unit.

Thats really my only beef here, you're hurting the very system your complaining about by using the voucher systems. Fix the vouchers so that only those truly in NEED get them and do NOT take money away from an already crippled system financially.

Vouchers fix only the few who can afford the difference in costs right now, and thats a complete misuse of public funds. The fact that giving a voucher for a private or parochial schooling may in fact not help your child's education at all is another discussion entirely. When they can guarentee that the kids getting vouchers (paid for without hurting their original school) are getting a much BETTER education then I might actually support them, but there is no such data, it can't be said that there is a definite upgrade in the wuality of education using the vouchers for privatization of education.

Its great to think it will help, but there is no guarentee it will. Public dollars need to fund public works, not private endeavors when it comes to education funds that are so very hard to come by.

Almost all of the voucher programs around today ARE targetted at those who are needy. Not all students use vouchers to move to private schools...Some students use vouchers to move to better Public schools. There are plenty of private schools with tuitions that would be completely funded by a voucher, in fact I'm beginning to understand that it is the minority of situations that a voucher wouldn't pay a student's tuition in full. The voucher programs aren't in existence to subsidize wealthy families sending their kids to private school. That is the rhetoric I'm hearing, but as far as I can tell from the media reports and descriptions ... that isn't the case.

If, as you say, public dollars are meant to fund public works how is fully funding the education of a student NOT a pubic work? The fact that a private entity performs the service for the government, shouldn't matter. Still a case of public funds accomplishing a public good. Doesn't the government contract private firms to complete public projects all of the time? Why is education different?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Almost all of the voucher programs around today ARE targetted at those who are needy. Not all students use vouchers to move to private schools...Some students use vouchers to move to better Public schools. There are plenty of private schools with tuitions that would be completely funded by a voucher, in fact I'm beginning to understand that it is the minority of situations that a voucher wouldn't pay a student's tuition in full. The voucher programs aren't in existence to subsidize wealthy families sending their kids to private school. That is the rhetoric I'm hearing, but as far as I can tell from the media reports and descriptions ... that isn't the case.

If, as you say, public dollars are meant to fund public works how is fully funding the education of a student NOT a pubic work? The fact that a private entity performs the service for the government, shouldn't matter. Still a case of public funds accomplishing a public good. Doesn't the government contract private firms to complete public projects all of the time? Why is education different?

You're ignoring the fact that right now every voucher system out there takes that money away from the school. A school already having problems isn't going to ever get better if you take money away from them. Throwing money at them might not be the answer either but I guarentee the situation will never improve if they keep losing money.

Public funds go to fund public endeavors, if you want those funds to support a single child then that child MUST enter a public school because those funds will do more than help that one child, it will help the entire school.

I detest the idea that people think its right to create an elite number of students who get this special benefit while the other 300-500 students in the same school get shit upon because their school now has less to work with. Think about THAT, you're helping ONE child and screwing 400. Yeah, thats better. Definitely.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You're ignoring the fact that right now every voucher system out there takes that money away from the school. A school already having problems isn't going to ever get better if you take money away from them. Throwing money at them might not be the answer either but I guarentee the situation will never improve if they keep losing money.

Public funds go to fund public endeavors, if you want those funds to support a single child then that child MUST enter a public school because those funds will do more than help that one child, it will help the entire school.

I detest the idea that people think its right to create an elite number of students who get this special benefit while the other 300-500 students in the same school get shit upon because their school now has less to work with. Think about THAT, you're helping ONE child and screwing 400. Yeah, thats better. Definitely.

I'm not sure, but I think you're incorrect. Schools are funded based on how many students they enroll (at least, in some places, afaik) - so if a student is pulled out, that school loses the money anyway.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm not sure, but I think you're incorrect. Schools are funded based on how many students they enroll (at least, in some places, afaik) - so if a student is pulled out, that school loses the money anyway.

That's not entirely true. In Oklahoma, the money is distributed equally among the school districts regardless of enrollment. For example, Oklahoma City school district receives the same funding as Perry school district despite their obvious despairity between them.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You're ignoring the fact that right now every voucher system out there takes that money away from the school. A school already having problems isn't going to ever get better if you take money away from them. Throwing money at them might not be the answer either but I guarentee the situation will never improve if they keep losing money.

Public funds go to fund public endeavors, if you want those funds to support a single child then that child MUST enter a public school because those funds will do more than help that one child, it will help the entire school.

I detest the idea that people think its right to create an elite number of students who get this special benefit while the other 300-500 students in the same school get shit upon because their school now has less to work with. Think about THAT, you're helping ONE child and screwing 400. Yeah, thats better. Definitely.

I think all of the 300-500 students would qualify for the voucher in the case that the vouchers are going to students at a failed school. As for the harm done by removing a student from a school...I'm not sure there is really much to that. That student is gone, but the school doesn't have to provide services for that child anymore either. That also assumes that another child doesn't transfer in and replace the vacancy. Why anyone would want to transfer into a failed school is beyond me, but I'm sure it happens. Heck people even elect to stay in them.

What I guess I'm saying is that say 20% of a school opts out with vouchers. The school reduces the number of active classrooms and the number of teachers accordingly. The remaining students get the same quality of education they would have had if no one had left, perhaps with a better quality teacher. It just happens on a smaller scale.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think all of the 300-500 students would qualify for the voucher in the case that the vouchers are going to students at a failed school. As for the harm done by removing a student from a school...I'm not sure there is really much to that. That student is gone, but the school doesn't have to provide services for that child anymore either. That also assumes that another child doesn't transfer in and replace the vacancy. Why anyone would want to transfer into a failed school is beyond me, but I'm sure it happens. Heck people even elect to stay in them.

What I guess I'm saying is that say 20% of a school opts out with vouchers. The school reduces the number of active classrooms and the number of teachers accordingly. The remaining students get the same quality of education they would have had if no one had left, perhaps with a better quality teacher. It just happens on a smaller scale.

you said this earlier so now Im confused. Do you think student come in and replaced the transferring students because as populations grow in the locale, of course they are to some point.

Originally Posted by glen

I have no trouble with school vouchers. I'm somewhat against allowing them to be used for Private schools, but that is because I don't want well to do folks to be subsidized. If the voucher program targets children of middle and low class homes, I would withrdraw that objection.

I really don't have a problem with taking money from a school with a failing grade...The student that money was allocated to isn't going to be there anyway. I think for that reason, the argument that we're taking money from the public school is a bit overstated. Students are being redirected, and some of them will be replaced by other students at their old school...so there may well be no difference in attendance or funding for a school. That said, if my child were at a scholl designated as failing, I'd damn sure want the choice of transfering her to another school...public or private.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

you said this earlier so now Im confused. Do you think student come in and replaced the transferring students because as populations grow in the locale, of course they are to some point.

Well yes. My point is that I'm just not sure how much a school is being hurt when a student opts out with a voucher. We hear how much they are being hurt, but I've just not seen it quantified or measured.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm not sure, but I think you're incorrect. Schools are funded based on how many students they enroll (at least, in some places, afaik) - so if a student is pulled out, that school loses the money anyway.

I wouldn't expect the actual school budget to be enrollment-based, so that would vary based on the funding source (e.g. state or federal funding might be, local funding probably would not be).