TODAY’S MOST IMPORTANT STORY {Copy & Paste}

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Unless something major happens, the most important news item of the day – the one news item that could have the greatest possible impact on the future of this country – is a court case styled Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. Arguments in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris are being held before the US Supreme Court today. There are some poor people who are making the trip to Washington to be there when this momentous event happens. They’re
making the trip from Cleveland.

The issue here is a school voucher program in Cleveland. It’s working. Working well. Parents of children in failed Cleveland government schools are using the $2,250 voucher to send their children to private schools where they are doing so much better. Some of the private schools are run by churches. Oops … that’s supposed to be bad.

The principle opponents of the school voucher program are --- and you won’t be surprised here --- the teacher’s unions. The National Education Association and the United Federation of Teachers. They are using the old “separation of church and state” argument to try to kill off the voucher programs. The argument seems to go like this. The government returns school taxes to parents who decide they don’t want their children to attend failed government schools. The parents then have the right to make their own independent choice as to where there kids will go to school. A charter school, private school, private tutoring … whatever. Some parents make the private and independent choice to use the voucher to send their kid to a school that is operated by a church. This, the teacher’s unions say, violates the constitution.

Isn’t it odd that these teacher’s unions are so eager to use the Constitution to protect them from competition in the educational market place, but so reluctant to teach the story of that Constitution in class?

Suffice it to say that these teacher’s unions are in court for one reason, and one reason only. They don’t want competition. They want the government to force parents to consume their
flawed product. Give consumers free choice and competition enters the picture. Every single day you can go into virtually any newspaper in the US and find a story about some business asking the government to put restraints on their competition. Today’s it’s the teacher’s unions up to bat.

 

[MissTaken]

Hmm as usual Todd, you latch onto an article concerning education in the US which makes a few inflammatory statements and role with it.

The NEA is NOT against charter schools or freedom of choice in education. Currently, charter schools are autonomous and deregulated. While this could be a good thing, a deregulated school is only as good as those running the school.

Their second concern is that charter schools tend to encourage homogeneous poplulation. The NEA is working with four other states to develop charter schools that provide freedom of choice as well as quality education.

On a local level, our charter school sucks. Their are 12 children in grades K-12. Teh children lack social skills and become quite isolated from the community. When we interviewed the school, they stated that they would develop my sons curriculum around his interests. Well, perhaps an hour a day devoted to trucks and blocks is fine, but what five year old is able to make these sorts of choices for himself? The longevity of youth attending our charter school is about one year.....parents try it and then, pull them out. Huh????

Perhaps, it is a good thing that the NEA isn't supporting a blanket voucher system that allows schools to pop and sell themselves regardless of the quality of the end product?

Todd, I am focussing on Charter schools as I don't have time to research parochial schools etc. It does appear though, that the NEA 's gravest concerns are with charter schools.

 

[RawHumor]

Now, Todd, it's easy for you to say that the NEA has their own best interests at heart and hold public schools' and the union's interests ahead of that of the children... but... well... well, it's easy to say because they seem to prove it time and time again!

I know in Milwaukee, charter schools are supposedly doing great things. I haven't heard much about other areas... but with all due respect, MissT:

Perhaps, it is a good thing that the NEA isn't supporting a blanket voucher system that allows schools to pop and sell themselves regardless of the quality of the end product?

The quality of the end product is the very reason for school vouchers. If you can see that a school is failing your kid, then you could pull your kid out of that school and send him/her somewhere else, without having to pay double what everyone else is paying - once for the public school he/she is NOT attending and once for the private school he/she IS attending.

 

[MissTaken]

And in theory, we all could hope that this would be the case.

However, there need to be some consistent measures of accountability for Charter schools.

Perhaps, this already the case in Milwaukee.

As a parent, I welcome freedom of choice, but would hope that the choices could be improvements on the current school system, rather than a game of russian roulette.

 

[RawHumor]

As a parent, I welcome freedom of choice, but would hope that the choices could be improvements on the current school system, rather than a game of russian roulette.

There will always be a gamble no matter where you send your kids to school. The public school next door to you may be better run than the private one down the block, but it may NOT be.

I just think that the parents who decide that the private school is better should have that option, and have their share of the tax money go to pay for the school where their kid is going.

 

[JazzManJim]

And in theory, we all could hope that this would be the case.

However, there need to be some consistent measures of accountability for Charter schools.

I have to disagree with you on this one, MissT.

If there's a consistent measure for Charter Schools, there needs to be one for public school also. Right now, despite that they say there is one, there isn't. Right now in my neck of the woods there's no accountability for the school system and nearly no way for the parents to have their educations desires met.

Test scores are a start, but they remain at the same general level, and have done so for a few years, despite "improvements".

I'm willing to give another school a chance, especially one that grants me more control over how they handle my children and that allows for direct responsibility on the school's behalf.

 

[MissTaken]

I just think that the parents who decide that the private school is better should have that option, and have their share of the tax money go to pay for the school where their kid is going.

Agreed!


I would hope that for those parents who lack the skills or intellect to make good choices or watch dog their children's academic experience have someone somewhere who can help them and their children not to lose on that gamble.

There needs to be some sort of a system to measure the success of the school systems....all of them. Obviously the government hasn't proven that it is capable, hence, grand modifications are necessary.

U,mmmmm Now I digress from the original point....

 

[Calamity Jane]

If you choose to send your children to a school other than the local public school, you should have to foot the bill. I find it ironic that the same people who bitch about the size of the government, bitch about social welfare prgorams, and bitch about the federal government having too much input into our lives are the same people who somehow think that the government should pay for private education.

If your school isn't doing it's job in educating your child, get yourself out there and be active. Attend PTA meetings, talk to teachers and administrators, make your voice heard. If that fails, then by all means, send your child somewhere else, but don't ask me to pay for it. Most private schools offer scholarship programs to qualified students, or financial aid to students of low income families.

Also, isn't it in your best interest as a community member to invest in the local schools whether or not your children attend? Your neighbors children probably attend them, children of family members, etc. I paid taxes to schools long before I had children, and pay them even though my children aren't yet of school age. I consider it an investment in the quality of my community, and I don't bitch about it.

I may or may not send my children to public school. The ones here are awesome, and I know my children will have the opportunity to receive an excellent education. If that changes, then I'll reevaluate options, but I won't expect the government to finance their education in a private school.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Todd. Grow up. Soon.

 

[MissTaken]

Basically, PCG:

I do agree with nearly all that you have said. You are fortunate to have quality public schools in your area.

I am directly involved in my children's education and my presence is known to the school. I have advocated locally as well as on a state level for improvements. Professionally, I have been involved with school districts, developing programs designed to assist children to be more successful and advocating for creative alternative progams for children who aren't able to be successful in teh general population. Primarily, in this situation, I was assisting parents to understand the issues faced by their children and express an informed opinion.

However, the issue of who pays for the choice of private schools, I don't believe that choices in education belong only to the well off. The voucher system might best be used as an income based supplement to those who can't afford to send their children to the alternative schools.

Just a brain fart .....


And nope Jimster! Standardized testing isn't the complete solution.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Ok, let me get this right a parent who does not wish to send there kid to public school but to priavte school should not only have to pay the tuition to the private school, but also the same taxes{approximate value of the vouchers} to not send their kids to public school. thus paying for two schoolings the one they want and the one they don't want.

talk about paying through the nose

 

[login]

This is not about competition. It's about trying to kill a very, very, bad idea.

The proponents of school vouchers fail to consider the long term consequences of their pet programs. Yes, it seems to be working well in Cleveland. It's working because of its limited scope. It simply will not scale up to serve more than a small percentage of the students.

Let's pretend that the voucher advocates get their way, and the program succeeds.

Taxpayers are funding education not once, but twice. We pay for the public schools, then have to turn around and pay again so that students don't have to go to those schools.

Taxpayer moneys ARE being used to support church institutions under this plan. One of the most important principles of our constitution is the seperation of church and state. I know that religious zealots find that tremendously irritating, but I think it's a large part of what makes our country strong.

We will be pulling money out of already under-funded schools. Isn't asking them to do more with less a big part of the problem? Those schools will get worse, not better. But the voucher users don't have to worry about that.

Just what do the voucher supporters think is going to happen when the student population of those private schools explodes? Do they think the churches have some magic solution that will keep their schools from having the same problems that the current schools do? Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. The primary reason they look good now is that they are dealing with fewer kids. Fewer kids = fewer troubled kids. Fewer kids = higher teacher/student ratios.

I'm also troubled by the more lenient teacher certification requirements for private schools, less accountability for budget expenses, and restricted information available on the curiculum taught at these schools.

Vouchers aren't the solution. They're a way to avoid the problem. The problem is how to increase the quality of education for all students. We need to look for solutions within the public school system already in place.

To summarize: I believe that this move to private schools will decrease the quality of education available at both private and public schools, while costing taxpayers much, much more.

 

[login]

talk about paying through the nose

Would it be more fair to ask me to pay for someone else's child to go to a private school, when I'm already paying for the education they don't want?

The taxes for our school district are among the highest in the area. We moved into this district specifically because it is consistently one of the highest ranked districts in the state. We will still be here even after our youngest graduates next year. We'll still be paying high school taxes, with NO children in school. That's expected, but what's not expected is part of my federal taxes going to put somebody else's child through private school. That's what I call paying through the nose.

 

[RawHumor]

Taxpayer moneys ARE being used to support church institutions under this plan. One of the most important principles of our constitution is the seperation of church and state. I know that religious zealots find that tremendously irritating, but I think it's a large part of what makes our country strong.

Um, exactly HOW does allowing me to use MY tax money to send my kids to a private school instead of a public school violating these words?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

It's not establishing a religion. It's not prohibiting anyone from exercising their freedom of religion. It's only violating that if they say that we can use our money for Lutheran schools but not Catholic ones, or Christian schools but not Jewish ones.

Plus, not all schools that fall under these plans are even religious ones, but often they're just private schools that have stricter standards or less beaurocracy to them.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Would it be more fair to ask me to pay for someone else's child to go to a private school, when I'm already paying for the education they don't want?

The taxes for our school district are among the highest in the area. We moved into this district specifically because it is consistently one of the highest ranked districts in the state. We will still be here even after our youngest graduates next year. We'll still be paying high school taxes, with NO children in school. That's expected, but what's not expected is part of my federal taxes going to put somebody else's child through private school. That's what I call paying through the nose.

so because your being sscrewed by paying for a kid you don't have once parents who want to send thier kid private school should not only have to pay those taxes your paying but also the cost of the private school

the only thing these vouchers are supposed to be is to give back the money that set of parent payed in taxes, not what other paents paid in taxes and to use what that set of parents were paying the oublic system and to use it as that set of parents see fit

i also think you brought up a good point that there should be a group lobbiying as well childrenless couple shouldn't have to be paying school taxes until they have kids

 

[Calamity Jane]

It's not establishing a religion. It's not prohibiting anyone from exercising their freedom of religion. It's only violating that if they say that we can use our money for Lutheran schools but not Catholic ones, or Christian schools but not Jewish ones.

Which is precisely why I think the seperation of church and state argument is a poor one in this case.

to me the issue isn't that some, probably even a vast majority, of these vouchers would be used to send children to parochial schools. the issue is, if you make a choice to send your children elsewhere, you should have to fund that decision.

How is this different than choosing to attend Harvard over your state university? Your taxes still go to the public college, and you have to come up with the money to attend the 'better' school. You made a choice, and it's your responsibility to make it work for you.

 

[login]

so because your being sscrewed by paying for a kid you don't have

I don't feel that I'm getting screwed by being asked to pay school taxes when I have no kids in school. I expect that. Social institutions such as schools, law enforcement, roads, etc..... are the reason we have government, and taxes to fund those government programs.

I do feel screwed over when I'm asked to pay twice for the same program locally, for local schools, and federally, for someone else's choice to send their child to a private school. Their choice, their child. It should be THEIR money.

 

[login]

It's not establishing a religion...

I was using the broader interpretation of seperation of religion and government, but I'm willing to concede your point.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

I don't feel that I'm getting screwed by being asked to pay school taxes when I have no kids in school. I expect that. Social institutions such as schools, law enforcement, roads, etc..... are the reason we have government, and taxes to fund those government programs.

I do feel screwed over when I'm asked to pay twice for the same program locally, for local schools, and federally, for someone else's choice to send their child to a private school. Their choice, their child. It should be THEIR money.

but it is their money its the money they are paying for public school being given back to them to use for private school

everything I have ever read on the vouchers they are worked out to what the people in that area pay into taxes for public school being given back to them, nothing more, not his nieghbours, not the stranger down the road, not yours but what that idividual family paid into for school taxes being given back to that family to use as they see fit

 

[RawHumor]

I do feel screwed over when I'm asked to pay twice for the same program locally, for local schools, and federally, for someone else's choice to send their child to a private school. Their choice, their child. It should be THEIR money.

It IS their money - that's the point. It's THEIR taxes that they want to use to send their kids to a private school, NOT your taxes.

Originally posted by pagancowgirl
How is this different than choosing to attend Harvard over your state university? Your taxes still go to the public college, and you have to come up with the money to attend the 'better' school. You made a choice, and it's your responsibility to make it work for you.

That's an excellent point, and one I'm still trying to come up with a decent answer for. One difference is that I don't HAVE to go to college, but I DO have to attend elementary and high school (to some extent, at least). If my kids MUST go somewhere, could I at least have the choice of where?

 

[patient1]

If you choose to send your children to a school other than the local public school, you should have to foot the bill. I find it ironic that the same people who bitch about the size of the government, bitch about social welfare prgorams, and bitch about the federal government having too much input into our lives are the same people who somehow think that the government should pay for private education.

If your school isn't doing it's job in educating your child, get yourself out there and be active. Attend PTA meetings, talk to teachers and administrators, make your voice heard. If that fails, then by all means, send your child somewhere else, but don't ask me to pay for it. Most private schools offer scholarship programs to qualified students, or financial aid to students of low income families.

Also, isn't it in your best interest as a community member to invest in the local schools whether or not your children attend? Your neighbors children probably attend them, children of family members, etc. I paid taxes to schools long before I had children, and pay them even though my children aren't yet of school age. I consider it an investment in the quality of my community, and I don't bitch about it.

I may or may not send my children to public school. The ones here are awesome, and I know my children will have the opportunity to receive an excellent education. If that changes, then I'll reevaluate options, but I won't expect the government to finance their education in a private school.

Well spoken, Pagan Cowgirl.

Unless your state & local taxes are paid per child, it's not your money & your choice about spending it to educate your child. It's public money.

It's spent collectively.As for federal money, which amounts to next to nothing per child on a % basis, & state income taxes, those of you with kids get tax deductions for the # you have, so it's slanted in your favor,too, in terms of education. It's not user fee. It's public money. Parents lose sight of that on this issue.

They also forget that they can move to another school district, too.What? You can't afford that? Maybe your community can't afford to give you the education you want. By using a voucher or whatever, you're trying to take public money away from your community. That's selfish. If you're not commited to making the most of education in your community when you have an obvious stake in it, it's time you left.

I got involved even though I'm childless. I served on my schoolboard, and a regional educational board. It was in effect,
an unpaid part time job.

We don't need school choice to prove that an unregulated school can outperform a regulated one.

Money comes with strings. I don't want somebody else's church to get their hand in the public pocket, & I don't want the gov. running my religion. Best if they stay seperate & be true to their own interests, rather than corrupting one another.

School choice aggravates a major educational problem, lack of long range planning. I think choice allows parents to avoid problems with schools rather than solve them.

 

[patient1]

Todd, I've never read a school choice plan that was based on taxes paid. A $2,250 or any amount per student is cost or subsidy based, not based on taxation. A taxation based subsidy would be per taxpayer based. It would vary according to each person's income & taxes. One student might have two taxpaying parents living with her in the district. Another student might have
8 siblings and one mother on public assistance, living in public housing. They wouldn't have the same vouchers in a tax rebate system.

If you want to discontinue taxing the childless, why not privatize the sytem outright?.The two income/one child households will often be subsdising larger families the way the childless do. Then the question becomes do you still make education mandatory?
Then we could prosecute the poor for failure to educate, or we could let them skip school altogether.

We have public educaton because it serves the public interests :
less crime, better workforce, a more cohesive society. It sure has room for improvement, that doesn't mean it should be replaced.

As for the religion question, whether it's the president's faith based initiative in social programs, or putting public money into parochial schools ,if it's not establishment in the strictest sense of the word, it's subsidising the promotion of a religious organization.That money allows the organization to reach more people.

 

[Weird Harold]

For those interested in more info...

Catch Allen Keyes on MSNBC at 10:00 pm tonight. School vouchers is going to be one of his topics tonight.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Re: For those interested in more info...

Catch Allen Keyes on MSNBC at 10:00 pm tonight. School vouchers is going to be one of his topics tonight.

cool I am going to check that one out

 

[BlondGirl]

We will be pulling money out of already under-funded schools.

This is the whole problem. Public school supporters who keep rambling about this issue seem to believe that the public schools can only get bigger and consume more and more and more. They don't seem to even be able to conceive that perhaps, JUST PERHAPS, any public school can decrease in volume.

My town is closing a government school and bussing the kids elsewhere. They have no problems with building newer and bigger and more and tax-money-hungrier "schools". They just have a problem with saying, "Okay, there is a decreased need here. What can we do to decrease money consumption since the kids are not of such a huge volume here anymore?"

what's not expected is part of my federal taxes going to put somebody else's child through private school.

OH!!!!! I GET IT!!! You are only interrested in funding the SCHOOL. NOT a child's education. Login, the education is not what is importantto you, only your funding of the bureaucracy. Now I understand completely.