I wonder if theyre telling people who live in those areas who ALREADY have their children in private schools?
posted by billy at 11:52 A.M. EST on Wed Dec 20, 2006 #
OK, so if my child "should" go to one of these schools, but I've already pulled them out and put them in a different school district are they still eligible? Sorry, totally confused!
posted by justsimplyholly at 12:55 P.M. EST on Wed Dec 20, 2006 #
What do you all think about vouchers? It seems like the parents who use the voucher program are probably the parents who are involved in their children's education, and are already trying their best to make sure their children succeed. In practice, it's probably applied to the better students. Will this drain the higher achievers and funding out of TPS, and make the district look worse than it should? Does anyone think there are better long-term solutions?
posted by frosty at 01:41 P.M. EST on Wed Dec 20, 2006 #
What do you all think about vouchers?
i support them completely.
In practice, it's probably applied to the better students.
not true. as discussed on a similar post recently, vouchers and charter schools often get the lesser student. this was according to a havard study which looked at existing school choice programs (voucher, charter school, and tax credit). if what you said were true, what do you tell the parents of those "better" kids? "sorry, you're out of luck. your child needs to stay in this underperforming public school. it just wouldn't be fair to our school's test scores."
Does anyone think there are better long-term solutions?
is banning the teachers unions an option? could i also vote for the firing off half of the "adminstrators"? seriously, though, true competition must be introduced. through competition comes innovation and better performance.....for ALL schools (yes, even the public ones). blow today's system up and never look back.
it is beyond me why people don't consider true school choice.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 03:32 P.M. EST on Wed Dec 20, 2006 #
I wonder if theyre telling people who live in those areas who ALREADY have their children in private schools?
that's a good question. while my area's school isn't on the list (it almost met the necessary criteria), we opt out of tps for a private school.
we know quite a few families, though, that have their area schools on this list. their kids don't go to those schools, but do attend a private institution. one family somehow got their kids enrolled in washington local while living in central toledo.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 03:38 P.M. EST on Wed Dec 20, 2006 #
wholesaler1972 said: "it is beyond me why people don't consider true school choice."
Today's Blade article on the vouchers is yet another affirmation of WHY people don't accept them. Foley derided the program personally. His class of person is involved in the school system and any choice system cuts their throats.
But it goes beyond the conflict-of-interest crowd (as represented by Foley). There is a widespread belief that if the public can choose to avoid the public school system, then that same system suffers from a lack of participation -- both in student body, parental involvement, and of course funding.
To a certain extent, this belief is correct. Yet it is still the right of each individual to choose how their child is educated -- as long as they ARE educated, as the Ohio constitution demands.
It's a terrible thing that these two viewpoints cannot be reconciled. The "mandatory participation" class can't ever allow people to freely flee a bad school system, since people WILL flee it, leaving a bad school system at another large disadvantage. The "free to choose" class can't ever allow mandatory participation, since that traps them into a school they can't control.
posted by GuestZero at 05:28 P.M. EST on Wed Dec 20, 2006 #
not true. as discussed on a similar post recently, vouchers and charter schools often get the lesser student
Actually, admittance to Toledo Catholic high schools is based on a placement test. They were not willing to accept everyone just because they had a voucher. So really they accepted the cream of the crop.
I have no knowledge of the other area private schools, excluding charter schools, but I am sure that they too exercise selective admissions.
I support private education, but what gaurantees are there to these students who transfer on the pretext of a voucher, and then their home school moves up a level on the poor performance radar and then they lose the voucher for the next year.
In my opinion, a magnate or academy high school for TPS would be a better solution, rather than a one year voucher.
posted by fish4 at 07:29 P.M. EST on Wed Dec 20, 2006 #
Maybe the whole public school system should be eliminated. Maybe the parents of school age children should either teach their kids themselves or shop around for whatever private school they so choose.
Vouchers, government subsidies, tax abatements, and the like sound like socialism to me. They are everywhere. Whatever happened to real capitalism and the free enterprise system???
Hey, why can't I get a voucher to drive on toll roads like the Ohio Turnpike. Or how about tax abatement on my house to encourage me to renovate, remodel, get an addition, etc. - after all, that work will create jobs. Or how about a subsidy on my gasoline purchase so I can drive to a job and to the doctor's office and to the grocery store.
Seems to me that everyone wants some government entitlement or handout. I want my share too.
posted by Beowulf at 08:04 P.M. EST on Wed Dec 20, 2006 #
I think this is an interesting article on school choice....
posted by MaggieThurber at 09:00 P.M. EST on Wed Dec 20, 2006 #
In my opinion, a magnate or academy high school for TPS would be a better solution, rather than a one year voucher.
I like the voucher system a great deal because it forces the public schools to step up. As a general rule competition between organizations is a good thing.
I definitely agree with you on the magnet school for TPS. Toledo is the only major city I'm personally aware of that doesn't have a magnet school established. Magnet schools allow TPS's brightest students stay in the district and receive an education that is unparalleled in the city. They foster creativity and instill a sense of academic standards that stimulate students to excel.
posted by HeyHey at 12:03 A.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
Actually, admittance to Toledo Catholic high schools is based on a placement test. They were not willing to accept everyone just because they had a voucher. So really they accepted the cream of the crop.
that's false. in the voucher programs, private schools aren't allowed to use placement test with those students. while "regular" students still take the tests, i am fairly certain voucher students would not.
in fact, i have read where some programs (i think milwaukee and washington dc) don't even allow the private schools to view the student's record.
being doing this, there simply is no skimming off of the top.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 12:33 A.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
Interim Toledo Public Schools Superintendent John Foley called the vote "a challenge to urban education" and "a slap in the face to teachers."
"It doesn't support us making progress but hinders our progress," he said.
progress? what progress? if he wants to see what hinders the progress of public schools, he should look within. this type of rhetoric is dangerous.
while he and the others hope for progress, there's another batch of kids not learning and being set up for failure.
congrats.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 12:50 A.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
Again, wholesaler1972, Foley is merely defining progress as a potential, which the TPS is largely unable to reach with its current administrative structure. He can never admit the latter, of course. Now as acting Superintendent, he is merely fulfilling the role of advocate. What's the real problem here is that we even HAVE such a position. No public institution should have what's effectively a "Chief Liar" position. As with any modern CEO, Foley's job is now to lie to the public in order to support the "stock price" (i.e. the goodwill or reputation of the organization that leads to confidence in its abilities).
I've asked before why, Why, WHY we need a $150K employee of the TPS when we have a Board of Education that can make all of his decisions. That just leads to considerations of why again, we have a literal army of administrators in the TPS. Just go into the Board of Ed building on Manhattan and try to even FIND the person who's responsible for your concern at the moment. There are too many of them, and it's led to the capital-B, stereotypical or defining Bureaucracy that has destroyed the TPS's ability to actually educate children.
Allowing people to avoid such a school system is not only rational but the very definition of ‘merciful’.
posted by GuestZero at 03:36 A.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
This news report, from NBC24, linked on the Ohio Federation of Teachers website, http://oh.aft.org/index.cfm?action=article&articleID=f1755f97-91a4-4b90-b301-eb4035276b67, gives local proof that local high schools did not admit all who tried to apply with a voucher. I know of one school that had 11 apply and they admitted 4.
The OFT of course is trying to bring down the voucher program. But little can be said of what they do support to try to change the status quo. I agree that inner city teachers should be paid more due to the challenges they face, however, the union's stance on merit pay proves they are not willing to step up to the plate and really do something.
posted by fish4 at 08:26 A.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
well, fish, that's an interesting piece from the union. if true, that is different from most programs which do not allow them to use placement tests. if true, it should be changed. again, i know other programs have laws against this. if a child is a voucher student, they are not permitted to use placement tests (see wisconsin state law).
could you clarify something for me? you mentioned you knew of school that had 11 voucher students apply and only admitted 4. according to the blade piece, only 10 students in toledo applied to participate in the program.
what school is this? outside of toledo?
posted by wholesaler1972 at 09:15 A.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
Again, wholesaler1972, Foley is merely defining progress as a potential, which the TPS is largely unable to reach with its current administrative structure.
foley's comments are nothing more than political speak. he feels threatened and sees he could get backed into a corner. this is simply scare tatics/ rhetoric.
being "interim" or not, do we really expect anything constructive from him?
posted by wholesaler1972 at 09:22 A.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
Maggie:
I read the article you provided a link to: Helping All Students Make The Grade By Ed Feulner. It’s a good read, but I don’t agree with all the points that Mr. Feulner makes. For instance, Mr. Feulner decries the claim made by John Edwards, that there are two Americas, one for the rich and another for the poor. Mr. Feulner uses statistics from the US Census Bureau about the number of chronically poor people in the US to support his argument. I would argue that for a person to be rated as economically poor by the US Census, that person would have to be living in absolute abject poverty. The inverse of this is also true for the wealthy.
Mr. Feulner then states the obvious, that wealthy people can choose where they want to live, and so they choose locations that provide good schools. I’d like to add that in any wealthy community that uses public schools (some do not. The children attend expensive private schools.) the school system will be built or developed not just because of the high-income level of the population, which gives them the ability to develop an excellent school system, but also because of the high level of education among the populace. Mr. Feulner tells us that the poor and low income families have been aware that the schools system in the gated community are better than the urban public school system. What he fails to state is that the poor don’t realize just how much greener the grass really is on the other side of the wall, because they can’t see it.
Given the poor state of the Toledo school system, I think that the school voucher program is a good, feasible way to fix the problem. Eventually the Toledo school system will improve to the point that the voucher program can be discontinued.
posted by madjack at 10:57 A.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
Private schools accepting vouchers are not required to participate in the achievement testing on which the public schools are judged to be "failing".
How do we know the private schools accepting the vouchers are actually any better than the schools the children are leaving? The fact is we don't.
Why are my tax dollars now supporting schools where there are no mandated measurements of accountability? How can parents know they are making a better choice? The fact is they can't.
posted by tpsparent at 11:44 A.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
How can parents know they are making a better choice?
Uh, by being a little more involved with things than just relying on what the "achievement testing" results are? By visiting the schools and seeing for themselves what's going on and making their own decisions?
Dunno, just a couple random thoughts...
posted by billy at 12:10 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
I believe the blade story refers to the initial applications acception during the initial enrollment period. Due to the limited awareness, a second enrollment period followed that lasted until Aug. 4th.
It is a Toledo school, but I don't think the school needs to be exposed for not accepting students.
The law should not be changed because it is not right to admit the kids knowing that they will not be able to keep up academically. As it is, these schools already turn away regular applicants each year who they know will not succeed. To graduate from one of Toledo's Catholic high schools you have to complete almost 2x the current coursework required for a state high school diploma.
posted by fish4 at 12:13 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
Billy,
Of course, anyone can use feelings to justify to themselves their decision about choosing a school. I want to be able to look around, ask questions, observe and look at data. Without data I'm just making a decision based on emotion and perception.
My point is that tax dollars are going to private schools that can't prove they are doing any better because there is no objective measurement.
posted by tpsparent at 01:28 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
First, just to clarify:
There is a difference between charter schools and private schools. Charter schools are "public" schools.
Second, I want to address the Wholesaler "cream of the crop" argument.
I read the harvard study he's talking about. It compared students in the voucher program to those in their local district (but not necessarily their 'home school') and found that on average, they are slightly more likely to be below 150% of the poverty line (or a similar multiplier. It might have been 175% or something) and they are also slightly less likely to be white.
So wholesaler read this and uses it as his proof that voucher programs don't just pull the "cream skin." The problem as I see it, however, is that he's drawing an incorrect inference.
The kids at the biggest disadvantage at school, I believe, are those with the most disengaged parents. The addicts. The abusers. The abandoners. My contention is that these parents are the ones that are less likely to pull their kids out of a failing school and use vouchers.
So what you'll be left with is students at public schools who, statistically speaking, may be slightly more affluent and slightly more Caucasian than the voucher schools, but there will be rock bottom levels of parental support and involvement.
This is much harder to prove. Income and race are reported to the government. The quality of a parent is not. But I feel confident that this is based in sound logic: The parents least engaged with their child and his education are the ones that will be least likely to use vouchers.
posted by shaneh at 01:35 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
So wholesaler read this and uses it as his proof that voucher programs don't just pull the "cream skin." The problem as I see it, however, is that he's drawing an incorrect inference.
Here we go with the race card again! Jeez, its getting old. The way i understood it is they were refering to the placement tests when he said "cream of the crop" as in the top test scores not the color of skin.
So what you'll be left with is students at public schools who, statistically speaking, may be slightly more affluent and slightly more Caucasian than the voucher schools, but there will be rock bottom levels of parental support and involvement.
So, for example: Waite high school is not on the list but its because its a more affluent area, and its more white? NOT!!!!!!! Waite high school is very diverse racially, economically etc.. There are no rich white people over here, so whats your excuse for that one?
posted by tm at 01:48 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
shaneh, you and i have been through this before, so i'm not wasting my time again. anyone considering this topic should read the havard study and make their own conclusions. the study is clearly in favor of school choice and, after reading it, most reasonable folks would appreciate their findings.
anyhow, vouchers provide individual families the right to choose. if parents are not happy with their assigned public school, allow them to go elsewhere. the parents' level of satisifaction is the most important indicator of the voucher's success. to the opponents, i would love to see you tell the families they're stuck in the underperforming schools. you can tell them what rights they......or don't have.
the "common good" mentality is what got us in this mess. it's about time we give some rights back to the individual families.
aren't the democrats the party of choice....or do they only apply that to abortion?
posted by wholesaler1972 at 01:58 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
shaneh, while I tend to agree that the majority of parents least engaged are the ones least likely to use vouchers, you may find some who, because they are not as motivated to be involved, will want to move their kids to a school where they may get the attention the parent does not give...just a thought.
Madjack - I agree that competition is good. You tend to pay less attention to quality when you know that your customers have no where else to go. If you find yourself suddenly losing business because someone else is offering a better product at the same price - or an equal product at a lower price, you make changes in your approach. Unfortunately, I think that our TPS hasn't yet realized that signficant changes are needed. They're losing students and the solution they offer appears to be to have the government eliminate their competition. But even if there aren't charter schools, private schools and home schooling as an alternative, people can still move. So they still end up losing students.
(Note - not ALL TPS schools are bad and I don't mean to imply that a good education from TPS is not available if you want it and work at it...)
posted by MaggieThurber at 02:04 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
shane, are you against magnet schools in the public system? as a matter of principle, i would assume you are. they use a competitive entrance process and take the better students away from neighbor schools.
while i don't believe tps has any magnet schools (maybe grove patterson), i know other public school systems in ohio utilize them.
So wholesaler read this and uses it as his proof that voucher programs don't just pull the "cream skin."
...if you're playing the race card, stop. it doesn't work with me. i find it interesting i believe in empowering the less-fortunate families of toledo. while i believe school choice should be applied to all families, the poorest need it most and they need it immediately. it doesn't matter what color of skin the kids have.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 03:49 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
oops....meant to say "neighborhood" in the 1st paragraph. sorry.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 03:50 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
"you may find some who, because they are not as motivated to be involved, will want to move their kids to a school where they may get the attention the parent does not give...just a thought"
That's an interesting take on it. That view never crossed my mind.
"most reasonable folks would appreciate their findings"
I think most reasonable folks would read it and draw their own conclusion. That's what I did. That's certainly what you did. The unfortunate thing I see is that the study recognizes and enumerates its shortcomings. You seem to gloss over them for the purpose of having a 'harvard study' to back you up. Or at least that's my perception.
"playing the race card"
Wholesaler, this is very interesting to me. Did you actually read the Harvard study? Really? "Cream Skin" is *their* term. I used it specifically because that's the term that they use. I can understand the other guy thinking I was "pulling the race card" since he's never read the study, but surely you've seen that term before, right? It's used in the section of the report that you talk about the most.
Besides, have you ever heard anyone talk about "pulling the cream skin" as a racial epithet?
posted by shaneh at 04:21 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
"as a matter of principle, i would assume you are."
You shouldn't assume. I have nothing against merit-based admissions per se. Mostly because such a small percentage of kids in the district would actually go to such a school.
The problem with the charter school performance metrics that you (and the Harvard study) use is that you're comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing a monolith school district that's charged with 100% of the students in the public school system with a charter school system that consists of children from the worst schools with, logically speaking, activist parents. Just because charter schools are no more affluent and no more white than a public school does not mean that their parents, by and large, are not activists. They took the initiative of getting their child into a different school. Contrast this with the parent that doesn't know his childs grades, doesn't have a relationship with his teachers, and simply doesn't care.
What I'm trying to explain can be illustrated with the bad-apple analogy.
If you put one bad apple in a bucket of apples, it will spoil the others.
These bad apples are caused not by race or poverty, but by the quality and fitness of their parents. So these otherwise good apples are being taken out of the bucket with the bad apples. They're being placed in a new bucket, surrounded by only good apples that share a somewhat stable home with activist parents.
Which leaves the bad apple left in the old bucket. This in turn increases the concentration of bad apples to good apples. This will further suppress the performance of that batch of apples making the charter-bucket look better and better in comparison.
However, eventually, if all traditional public schools were eliminated, those bad apples would have to go somewhere. And that somewhere would be the shiny new charter schools. And thats when you'd be able to make a true (pun warning) apples to apples comparison between a charter school system and a traditional public school system.
So my ultimate point is that one will be no better than the other. Where my view is drawn is based on the transition period. You'll have more and more kids, with dismal home lives and no stability, left in an environment with fewer and fewer "good apples." The public school system would be abandoning them based on the inactivity of their parents.
And you can wax poetic about how the "common good mentality" has caused all of these problems but your view is tantamount to abandoning this kids in exchange for giving parents choice. I refuse to make such a trade-off.
Just curious, wholesaler: Which TPS schools did you attend?
posted by shaneh at 04:36 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
Just curious, wholesaler: Which TPS schools did you attend?
i spent all but one year in the tps system. i attended longfellow, deveaux, and start hs. additionally, my wife and i currently send our son to a private school. that's only because the school in my neighborhood is not good.
shaneh, you and i obviously won't come to any common ground, but let me ask you something. have you ever looked at san fran's setup? what do you think of the weighted student formula?
posted by wholesaler1972 at 05:57 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
shane, where did you go to school? are you a parent? kids in school? where do they go?
posted by wholesaler1972 at 06:01 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 21, 2006 #
tpsparent said: “Private schools accepting vouchers are not required to participate in the achievement testing on which the public schools are judged [... so why] are my tax dollars now supporting schools where there are no mandated measurements of accountability?”
We are free to send our children to private schools outside most mandates of the public school system. This is a long-standing American tradition. Further, the voucher merely represents the PARENT'S tax slice. So it's really just their own money -- to the first approximation, they are not YOUR tax dollars. The rule of public regulation for a publicly-funded entity just don't apply.
As an educated person, your sentiment is rather alarming. Either you are submerged with a propaganda system and merely parrot its prevailing rhetoric, or there's something here that I've missed. Which is it, please?
posted by GuestZero at 03:48 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 22, 2006 #
"public schools" and "accountability" should not be in the same sentence. achievement testing does not equate to accountability (not until a voucher program takes hold). how many teachers have been fired because of bad test scores? i imagine it rarely happens.
i firmly believe in school choice for two big reasons. competition needs to be introduced, the public school system has a lock on taxpayer dollars, regardless of the product they provide the consumer. as shown in the well-established voucher program in milwaukee and the san francisco choice program (weighted student formula, decentralized mgmt and operation, no residential lock-in's/ provisons), it improves ALL schools.
also, providing choice is an enabler for the parents and kids. give them some rights. as consumers, they should have the right of refusal. if they are not satisified, they should have the right to look elsewhere to better their child.
lastly, paying teachers more money doesn't make for better education. look at the state of michigan as a prime example. they are the one of the highest paying states in the country for teachers. look what that did for them. compare the math and reading scores....
http://www.schoolmatters.com/app/data/q/stid=36/llid=111/stllid=173/locid=36/catid=814/secid=3166/compid=-1/site=pes
http://www.schoolmatters.com/app/data/q/stid=23/llid=111/stllid=208/locid=23/catid=814/secid=3166/compid=-1/site=pes
http://www.heartheissues.com/educationsalaries.html
while i'm not very familiar with the last site, i am more familiar with pew research and its offshoot, stateline. they were the data sources.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 10:39 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 22, 2006 #
My problem with the voucher sysytem is that it is not fair. Considering that TPS is a district, I think all students of the district should be eligible for the voucher. Just because the school my child attends is not in academic emergency doesn't mean it is equal to a private education. I know I could pay for the private school, but why should I have to if half, at least, of the rest of the district doesn't. It feels as if I am being punished for choosing to live in a stable neighborhood and parenting my child. If as guestzero stated it is just the parent's slice of the tax pie, I want mine please.
posted by marlos at 03:02 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 22, 2006 #
Considering that TPS is a district, I think all students of the district should be eligible for the voucher.
i agree with that, but i think it needs to start somewhere. politically, consider how difficult this is. at the moment, it's tough enough to get vouchers for the students in the worst school.
once it gets traction, it can expand. that's what happened in other cities/ states.
they should also strongly consider tax credits.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 03:36 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 22, 2006 #
the voucher merely represents the PARENT'S tax slice.
Think about that for a second: The majority of public school funding comes from property taxes. The rest comes from income taxes. If the voucher represented the portion of the parents' tax burden that is directed towards schools, then parents with multiple kids living in public housing should receive little to no voucher money. Even families that live in large houses should have their voucher allotment reduced if they have several children by your reasoning. The $4250 and $5900 vouchers given regardless of the income and size of the family destroys your argument that it's the parents' slice of the taxes they pay.
The rule of public regulation for a publicly-funded entity just don't apply.
That's absolutely false. When a private educational organization accepts public money, they become beholden to many of the same regulations that public educational institutions face. To my knowledge, Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, MI is the only school in the country that has complete autonomy from government regulations, because they don't accept any government assistance. No federal grants are accepted at Hillsdale and students are not eligible for student loans.
posted by thenick at 04:10 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 22, 2006 #
thenick said: "If the voucher represented the portion of the parents' tax burden that is directed towards schools, then parents with multiple kids living in public housing should receive little to no voucher money."
Agreed! It isn't a matter of financial arcana to figure out the contribution of each person to a first approximation. We'd find that the poor contribute poorly, and the wealthy contribute hugely. If it turns out that each rich person can take his $20000/kid voucher elsewhere, then OK ... as long as each poor person can take his own $500 voucher elsewhere, too. Does this limit the options of the poor? Unfortunately, YES. Is it still sensible? YES.
Naturally, under the Ohio constitution, some "public share" (i.e. welfare or redistribution scheme under direction of government) will exist. I expect that, and in obedience to that constitution I support it. What we must make sure is that it doesn't result in the $500 contributor getting $3000 more from the $20000 contributor.
We have to realize that the poor are unable to afford the levels of education in place today from pure welfare sentiments. Because welfare or redistribution is driving much of this, we have ended up with the $10000/student price tag in the TPS. The money came waaaaay too easily. It's long since time to shut off the gravy train. Each student must be attached to a lump sum derived from his originator (parents), public share (which must be modest) and other subsidy sources (driven by need- or merit-based charity).
thenick said: "When a private educational organization accepts public money, they become beholden to many of the same regulations that public educational institutions face."
Thenick, I just explained that the slice is representative of private contribution. We can argue about the amount, and I welcome that from my abovestated sentiments, but when it gets down to the moment of choice, the parent is free to choose private or public school systems with his "share". The tradition of division between private and public education is simply too strong for me to throw it out for the want of full accounting of a few hundred dollars per person. As a society, we don't have the right to pry open all private educational outlets just because some (note: some, not "a lot of") public money is involved. With that kind of thinking, we can extend public regulation into anything done in private. That's just not going to happen.
Your sentiment is well considered. I wish I could follow it due to its compelling logic. Alas, the traditional education division stops me from doing that. But perhaps your sentiment will win out. After all, it's a strong argument. Perhaps we can capitalize on your use of the phrase "many of the same regulations" and arrive at a compromise that keeps us from aiming weapons at each other. :^)
posted by GuestZero at 04:40 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 22, 2006 #
So, for example: Waite high school is not on the list
Good observation, tm. Is anyone analyzing what they are doing at Waite to keep them off the list?
posted by bobthedad at 05:06 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 22, 2006 #
Thenick, I just explained that the slice is representative of private contribution.
But it isn't. In a perfect world, parents could take their share of taxes and choose which school to send their kids. However, it's not a perfect world, and some of that $4250 and $5900 is my tax money, and I'll be damned if my tax money ends up at a non-secular school. That's my main objection to this voucher plan. If you want to send your kids to Maumee Valley (which is secular, IIRC), fine. But don't ask me to pay for your crotchfruit to learn about your religion.
posted by thenick at 02:37 P.M. EST on Sat Dec 23, 2006 #
I suspected as much. I think we still have room to compromise. Perhaps we could demand a minor re-structuring of religious schools such that they can be segregated into secular and religious instruction, classroom by classroom, or period by period. A public student can walk into such a school and slap down his voucher, so that it applies to the secular side of the schooling. Any school that refuses to perform such a division can't qualify for financing based upon public vouchers.
However, clarity of finances is not the usual behavior of government. Even getting a multiply-sourced voucher system in place will take serious political will. What Democrat will ever let it be widely seen that wealthy income earners pay a lot more in taxes than the poor do?
posted by GuestZero at 10:54 P.M. EST on Sat Dec 23, 2006 #
The problem with demanding that private schools do that is that it won't work. The government is not in the driver's seat in this situation and is in no place to demand anything. A plan such as dividing the curriculum has to be mutually acceptable or it falls through.
Most private schools won't be willing to secularize their curriculum in order to get voucher money from a few more students. The whole purpose of religiously affiliated schools is for religion to be injected to some degree into the curriculum. To take that aspect out would essentially strip them of their unique identity. I just don't see them going along with it.
posted by HeyHey at 01:47 A.M. EST on Sun Dec 24, 2006 #
Just to throw fuel on the fire, I have to ask...
If it's okay to say that vouchers shouldn't be used for religious schools because there are individuals who don't want their tax dollars (via vouchers) to support religious education, is it okay for others to say they don't want their tax dollars going to such (hot topic) issues as abortion, stem cell research, flood relief, tornado relief, etc?
I think the conversation on vouchers is leading to a discussion of basic principles. Either it's okay to take tax dollars and spend them on such things, or it isn't. If the position is that I don't want my tax dollars to go to a specific purpose, then shouldn't everyone have that ability, regardless of what that purpose is?
Wouldn't we all be better off just not letting the government take our money in the first place? (perhaps this is an unreasonable expectation in today's society) It may just as simple as this question: Is the tax money to be spent on the public education system or the education of the child?
IMHO, I think it's the child - and if the money is for the child, then the "public education system" has no expectation of those funds - or the continuation of such funds when the parents decide a different system of education is best for the child.
Just some thoughts as I avoid cleaning for the Christmas eve events.
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:11 A.M. EST on Sun Dec 24, 2006 #
I'll be damned if my tax money ends up at a non-secular school. That's my main objection to this voucher plan.
so you're against pell grants to kids attending a private, nonsecular college? i don't hear people raising a stink over that.
i don't see this conflicting with the establishment clause. a student attends these schools by the families choice. they could attend nonsecular or secular private schools. the govt is "establishing" any preference. the courts have ruled consisently to this effect.
for full disclosure, i'm a non-christian.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 02:46 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 24, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
