"Failing schools" and vouchers

[Nightingale 0]

If whoever is homeschooling the kid is a credentialed teacher and meets all other state requirements for testing, accreditation, etc, then yes, they should be able to receive vouchers.

In most religious schools, religion classes are mandatory and many other classes (science, for example) are taught with a religious viewpoint. IMO, giving government money to schools such as these would be "respecting an establishment of religion". If the school's religion classes were truly elective, and the other classes were taught without bringing religion in, then I wouldn't have a problem with vouchers, provided the vouchers were used only to fund non-religious programs.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

In most religious schools, religion classes are mandatory and many other classes (science, for example) are taught with a religious viewpoint.

The classes are not mandatory by definition for any private school. There is a "choice" to attend the entire curriculum - vouchers would allow that.

I don't want my daughter to be religiously indoctrinated - therefore, I wouldn't CHOOSE a religious school. If someone does want that, it's not my business to deny them that as long as the school meets minimum requirements.

I don't want my daughter to be indoctrinated in a leftist viewpoint (or in some areas, a rightwing viewpoint) - therefore, I wouldn't CHOOSE certain public schools.

Vouchers would also give me the option to meet those goals. Right now, I can't use the tax money dedicated to my child to make ANY choice in how and what quality education she gets unless I choose to be very mobile in where I live so I can luck out and get the right school.

Moving to a different school district is the ONLY 'voucher' program option available today. I'd like more choice.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

I don't want my daughter to be religiously indoctrinated - therefore, I wouldn't CHOOSE a religious school. If someone does want that, it's not my business to deny them that as long as the school meets minimum requirements.

I wouldn't deny them either. If they want to pay for it, their kid can have any kind of education they want. I just don't think the people as a whole should have to help pay to promote religion. It's not the place of the government or the taxpayers to do so, because the government should not be helping any group establish or promote any religion.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

If whoever is homeschooling the kid is a credentialed teacher and meets all other state requirements for testing, accreditation, etc, then yes, they should be able to receive vouchers.

Unless the school district is so terrible that a student basically cannot receive a reasonably acceptable education (such as some inner-city schools), then I disagree. Homeschooling one's children is optional, as long as there's a reasonably competent public school to which to send them. People pay taxes for the use of the community as a whole; they shouldn't have the right to carve out line-item exemptions for taxes that support public services they happen to not personally use.

[Nightingale 0]

I don't like the voucher idea to begin with, but if we're going to do them, homeschool is a problem. We'd have to figure out the difference between a homeschool and a private school. Many homeschool networks have different teachers for different subjects, and they teach several (sometimes 10+). If you're going to include private schools in a voucher program, it may be hard not to include some home schools, provided they meet all the requirements.

[Andy9o8 2]

I agree that homeschooling and private/parochial schooling should be placed on par with each other IF there are going to be vouchers (or tax credits, etc.) in the first place.

But generally, unless the local school district is so bad that a typical kid is, for all practical purposes, deprived of an adequate education, then that's why I don't approve of vouchers: because taxes are for the benefit of the community as a whole; I don't approve of pro-rata discounts for services one particular taxpayer chooses not to use.

Come to think of it, it occurs to me that school tax credits could open a legal can of worms if a taxpayer wants to invoke an Equal Protection argument. For example, a taxpayer who doesn't have a car may use an Equal Protection claim to demand a pro-rata discount on taxes because he doesn't want to share in the upkeep of local roads. Another taxpayer may send a letter to Town Hall opting out of fire protection, and then demand a pro-rata discount for that portion of taxes dedicated to the fire dept., etc. Or maybe a taxpayer who has no school-age children will demand not to be forced to pay school taxes.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I wouldn't deny them either. If they want to pay for it, their kid can have any kind of education they want. I just don't think the people as a whole should have to help pay to promote religion. It's not the place of the government or the taxpayers to do so, because the government should not be helping any group establish or promote any religion.

You keep ignoring the point about meeting 'minimum' and defined educational requirements. That's what the tax money supports. Not the other stuff. I think the public schools are doing a lot of indoctrination above and beyond math, science, history, language. We are paying for that. Why is political and environmental brainwashing any different than religious brainwashing? Anything above and beyond the minimums in any other school is none of my business, and the parents should have the SAME opportunity to select the kid's environment even if it doesn't align with your personal biases.

how does a parent choosing religious school A, another parent choosing totally different religious school B, another parent choosing secular school C, another parent choosing environmental wackjob school D result in the government supporting a single religion (provided all 4 schools still teach the basics as defined in order to redeem vouchers, and also have other curriculum that the parents want to see taught)?

Simple - Set the minimum and auditable requirements necessary for a "school" to redeem vouchers. Be uniformly and fairly blind to the rest and let the market handle it.

Anything else is promoting viewpoints and being terribly biased.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nightingale 0]

Vouchers would be giving government money to schools that promote religion. Therefore, the government would be assisting those schools in promoting religion. If the school can show that the money goes only to classes that are not taught from a religious view, fine. If they're using the money to promote their religion, that's not fine.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Vouchers would be giving government money to schools that promote religion. Therefore, the government would be assisting those schools in promoting religion. If the school can show that the money goes only to classes that are not taught from a religious view, fine. If they're using the money to promote their religion, that's not fine.

It's only promoting "a" religion if they restrict money to a SINGLE religion to the exclusion of the rest. Such as the religion of secularism. Do you define 'religion' by only one of the choices out there?

By restricting to only secularism, you are advocating a government sponsored belief......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nightingale 0]

No...

The government can't promote religion. Keeping religion out of government sponsored schools is appropriate. Teaching religion in government sponsored schools is not. By not teaching religion, the government is not advocating atheism or non-belief. The government is not interfering with anyone's practice of religion by not teaching it in government sponsored schools. The government would be simply allowing children to learn religion in an appropriate forum: outside the classroom.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It's only promoting "a" religion if they restrict money to a SINGLE religion to the exclusion of the rest.

I disagree

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .

It doesn't say anything about the government not showing preference of one religion over another, it states the government will not make laws respecting any establishment of religion.

Giving voucher money to a church run school seems to be respecting an establishment of religion, no matter how many different religions are represented.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

that's your opinion - Every school teaches a set of "subjective beliefs" and also has a charter to "promote social morals" - that's all a religion really is.

So by your arguments - we already have established a nationally sponsored religion. Even if every single school has dramatically differing viewpoints.

Neither of you responded to the specific point that the vouchers should be allowed ANYWHERE they can demonstrate the teaching of an approved minimum curriculum.

Interesting, so even if a "church" (or corporation, or co-op of independent teachers, etc) is able and willing to teach a government defined minimum curriculum --- they should NOT be allowed to because it's not the content that matters, it's the building. I suspect we should also arbitrarily restrict (insert example here for anyone or any organization that is capable and willing the teach but is private)

I think there's a hidden pro-NEA, pro-public school bias here, because the only way to ensure that only the religion of rabid secularism is guaranteed (your position), is to completely eliminate any voucher from ever reaching any private school.

Silly me for thinking that minimum requirements should be enforced and to let the parents choose where their children can best be taught.

What was I thinking?



What if the private school just CALLED themselves secular, even though they might have a couple of theology electives and opened the morning with a prayer or two and it was ok with the parents? Maybe the teachers have a cross or star or cresent in the room in the corner. and they just 'contracted' even if it was free a couple rooms in a church/mosque/temple - and the teachers just 'happened' to be nuns/etc. Would that be ok?

Can Nun make a few bucks teaching in a public school? Or should we get out the torches and pitchforks on that too?

You have to decide, is content (which can be defined externally)? or is just the building? which is important?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lindsey 0]

One thing that strikes me as funny is that while people are up-in-arms about vouchers and what they will do to public schools, it's the individual states that set the standards that must be met for schools to receive a passing grade. Some states set the bar low enough that it's really, really difficult to "fail." Arkansas, for example, has NO schools that have received a failing grade.... Schools pass, no vouchers....everyone's happy. Right????

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Schools pass, no vouchers....everyone's happy. Right????

They tell us - "Thou shalt be happy, and thus the devine happiness of the masses doth maketh the public ignorant of school choiceth on voucherisity. And thus, thine NEA contributions and inspired leverageth doth continueth to flowest into mine coffers"

so sayeth the church of environmental secular educationism - part 14 subpart 11 paragraph 12

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[akb 0]

Public schools must accept any and all students. Only when private schools are willing to do the same and not "pick and choose" their students would vouchers really become a vaible alternative for all parents and students.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

the only way to ensure that only the religion of rabid secularism is guaranteed (your position)

Actually, I wasn't the one who wrote the First Amendment, although I do agree with it.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

the only way to ensure that only the religion of rabid secularism is guaranteed (your position)

Actually, I wasn't the one who wrote the First Amendment, although I do agree with it.

I agree with it too. And to me it means you do not bias policy for OR AGAINST any specific faith or for or against all faiths in general. (I'm agnostic, it would help my personal position in life much better if it was biased against because those like me would be at an advantage, but that's not right)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TheAnvil 0]

Incorrect. Vouchers in most cases go to the parents, who in turn give the voucher to a school. The parents - not the government - make the decision how the $ are spent. The taxpayer with direct control over tax revenues being expended on his or her behalf - dear God what a nightmare for liberals.

Your argument is akin to stating a person can't take a portion of their tax return and donate it to a Church. Or stating a government employee couldn't donate his or her hard earned $$ to a Church. Ludicrous by any standard.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Incorrect. Vouchers in most cases go to the parents, who in turn give the voucher to a school. The parents - not the government - make the decision how the $ are spent. The taxpayer with direct control over tax revenues being expended on his or her behalf - dear God what a nightmare for liberals.

Your argument is akin to stating a person can't take a portion of their tax return and donate it to a Church. Or stating a government employee couldn't donate his or her hard earned $$ to a Church. Ludicrous by any standard.

You have grossly misinterpreted what I wrote. Taxpayers do not and should not have direct control over how taxes are spent. That is the collective responsibility of voters, and those representatives that they have voted in. While voters also tend to be taxpayers, it is a different civic hat for each role.

Furthermore, money received in a tax return is, by definition, not tax money. If it were tax money, it would not be returned to the individual taxpayer. Since it is not tax money, the government has little say in how it should be spent.

People should not be able to opt out of taxes because they get their services elsewhere. Parents have every right to send their children to religious schools if they choose, but that does not free them from their civic responsibility of financial contributions, via taxes, to public schools.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I agree with it too. And to me it means you do not bias policy for OR AGAINST any specific faith or for or against all faiths in general. (I'm agnostic, it would help my personal position in life much better if it was biased against because those like me would be at an advantage, but that's not right)

No one is saying that parents cannot send their kids to religious schools, but the First Amendment states they cannot do it with government funds.

Once you pay your taxes (overpayments notwithstanding), it is no longer your money. It belongs to the collective population, for whom the government acts as trustee. It is the price we pay for living in a civilized world.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Public schools must accept any and all students. Only when private schools are willing to do the same and not "pick and choose" their students would vouchers really become a vaible alternative for all parents and students

I agree. It's actually kinda amazing how a private institution, like a school, will usually take anyone if there's money in it. And you know, I can typically pick and choose what clients I represent, though I am usually less choosy with a client who either can afford me or has an opposing party that will pay me.

If there is money, a private entity will take it (customers).
If there is money, a government entity will be even better at taking it (taxes, fees, etc.).
If a private entity has money, another private entity will move in on the action.(Competition)
If a private entity has money, a governmental entity will take its cut. (Taxes, fees, fines, assessments, etc)
If a governmental entity wants to take money from a private entity, it will find a way. (It'll pass new taxes, fines, fees, assessments, etc.)
If a private entity wants to take money away from a governmental entity, no fucking way! (Sayonara to vouchers)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If there is money, a private entity will take it (customers).
If there is money, a government entity will be even better at taking it (taxes, fees, etc.).
If a private entity has money, another private entity will move in on the action.(Competition)
If a private entity has money, a governmental entity will take its cut. (Taxes, fees, fines, assessments, etc)
If a governmental entity wants to take money from a private entity, it will find a way. (It'll pass new taxes, fines, fees, assessments, etc.)
If a private entity wants to take money away from a governmental entity, no fucking way! (Sayonara to vouchers)

And there will be a lawyer getting his/her share of the action every step of the way!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Parents have every right to send their children to religious schools if they choose, but that does not free them from their civic responsibility of financial contributions, via taxes, to public schools.

Now I understand why you don't get it. The voucher discussion is about private AND public schools. Choice in Education has NOTHING to do with whether the money is used in ANY type of private school, even if the school is sponsored by and organized religion, a private teaching co-opt, or corporation that can do it for profit.

Quote

but the First Amendment states they cannot do it with government funds.

I believe you are seriously misinterpreting the intent of that amendment.

Explain to me how, if there is a Catholic 'sponsored' School, a Muslim 'sponsored' school, a public 'sponsored' school, a private school run by an enterprising group of retired teachers, a corporate run school.

5 schools, approximately 20% of all the kids in town go to each and they use their vouchers at the school THEY ARE ATTENDING.

Each school has a base curriculum that the government has defined. They are all complying with that requirement per audit by independent agencies. Each school has a series of other classes that they teach as well. Parents chose to send the kids their school for various reasons: it's closest, it's cheapest, it's the best education, they prefer the electives over the other schools for personal reasons, who cares why, it's only the business of the parents.

How, in this case is the government "establishing a state religion"?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Now I understand why you don't get it.

I don't think it's me that doesn't get it.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Now I understand why you don't get it.

I don't think it's me that doesn't get it.

I edited above - take another look at the example. I don't mind difference of opinion, but you aren't even attempting to understand the point.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants