North Carolina Christian School (receives tax dollars) bars gay students and can kick you out if your sibling is gay.

[cpwill]

the ones fighting for the students in their districts.

the issue isn't the politicians it's the kids.

Cool. So, that doesn't answer the question at all, and, even, in fact, doesn't seem to pretend to address it.

Let's try again: why do you think it is that poor minorities are most in favor of school choice, but affluent whites and teachers unions form the core of the opposition?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Cool. So, that doesn't answer the question at all, and, even, in fact, doesn't seem to pretend to address it.

Let's try again: why do you think it is that poor minorities are most in favor of school choice, but affluent whites and teachers unions form the core of the opposition?

interesting that you seem willing to sacrifice REPUBLICAN kids in REPUBLICAN rural districts in TEXAS.

 

[cpwill]

interesting that you seem willing to sacrifice REPUBLICAN kids in REPUBLICAN rural districts in TEXAS.

I want to make the system better for all children.

However, I do think it's correct to note that the way currently structure education captures and ensures the continuation of structural inequities.

How interesting that so much of the quality of a child's schooling is tied to their parents neighborhood.

Hey, have there ever been any issues regarding who can live in what neighborhood, and might that still impact people today?

AND it's such an interesting coincidence that the people who generally live in the "good" neighborhoods and benefit from this system wish to continue it, privileging the better off at the expense of the more vulnerable and less fortunate.

Who could have foreseen?


So. Again. Why do you think it is that poor minorities are most in favor of school choice, but affluent whites and teachers unions form the core of the opposition?

 

[justabubba]

That depends on whether or not we are wise enough to continue our current path of freedom for students and parents, v trying to reforce them back into government institutions.




<-- 11 year homeschool parent*, that is incorrect. The major restraint in North Carolina is that one of the parents has to have a college degree. However, I've seen highly effective home school parents without degrees, and bad ones with degrees, so, I'm not so sure how efficacious that restriction is proving.


*full disclosure: we do not use the North Carolina voucher program, and do not plan to in the near future.



..... are you from the South?




If that's the case, then you should join us in breaking up the government monopoly, and empowering parents and students over a system that prioritizes top down control of them.



Actually the kids who benefit most are those who are able to escape dangerous and failing government institutions.

Parents/guardians residing in North Carolina and desiring, in lieu of conventional school attendance, to home school their school-age children must:

• Hold at least a high school diploma or its equivalent. ...

https://www.doa.nc.gov/divisions/non-public-education/home-schools/requirements-recommendations

 

[roguenuke]

they just don't know what's good for them or their children, which is why they need affluent white progressives to keep those kids stuck in government schools.



My sister in law is a racial minority (half black half white), and her daughter is three quarters black. She's a single working low income mom. Her local governments school is dangerous, but, while students her age generally can't read anywhere close to their grade level, they do get to learn interesting things about drugs.

Eventually, she pulled her out. She can't afford a private school, so, the girl is being home schooled now by grandma. She fought it at first, and is now doing better.

Please, tell my sister she should put her child back in danger, so the kid can learn less.



This is one of the major ways we do that, @roguenuke. Monopolies don't fix themselves, they require competition to force it.




.....do you really not see the irony in that you end with that after arguing that children shouldn't be enabled to escape a government one-size-fits-all institution if its better for them to do so?

Your sister is obviously, according to you, making homeschooling work. Not all can. Simply because some can doesn't mean all can/could. You keep trying to twist what I'm saying to fit your agenda, personal bias.

Public schools already have "competition", in the form of private schools and homeschooling. That does not require the funding from public schools to go to private schools, especially not ones that discriminate nor homeschooling. Public school funding is for public schools.

You're the one assuming that government schools are all "one size fits all". There are many types of public schools out there. The problem is getting those types out to various places, changing the system in ways that will help change how schools run, how we work with schools, our culture, etc.

As I've pointed out, my own county allows many different options when it comes to public school education, including online, which would be basically homeschooling just using public school curriculum and resources. We also allow for choice among our many schools to a pretty large degree, with the biggest issue being you may have to provide your own transportation (which wouldn't be any different than if they went to a private school). But there are at least base levels of learning criteria every school has to hold to, including not teaching BS like the earth was created in 7 days and Evolution is BS and girls should be at home cooking for their men, keeping them happy.

 

[roguenuke]

I want to make the system better for all children.

However, I do think it's correct to note that the way currently structure education captures and ensures the continuation of structural inequities.

How interesting that so much of the quality of a child's schooling is tied to their parents neighborhood.

Hey, have there ever been any issues regarding who can live in what neighborhood, and might that still impact people today?

AND it's such an interesting coincidence that the people who generally live in the "good" neighborhoods and benefit from this system wish to continue it, privileging the better off at the expense of the more vulnerable and less fortunate.

Who could have foreseen?


So. Again. Why do you think it is that poor minorities are most in favor of school choice, but affluent whites and teachers unions form the core of the opposition?

School voucher programs won't make the system better for all children. It won't even do it for most children. It will make it better for a relatively small number of lucky low income children who happen to be in areas with sufficient public transportation or a parent/guardian with a flexible schedule and then make it progressively worse and worse for the majority of those kids who don't have that.

I'm for changing our system to actually make things better for most, if not all students, even if that means diverting money from affluent neighborhood schools to those with less or who need more for other reasons. I'm actually for researching how other places get their schools to work, rather than giving up on essentially half or more of the students just to benefit a few.

I think they are being sold it like people are a lottery, where they have a chance to "win" a spot for your kid, but if you don't, you are going to be stuck with less money (funding).

And there is plenty of evidence that those in rural counties do not support these vouchers either, and they don't tend to be "affluent whites" or teachers' unions. But you always fail to mention them, as if they magically don't exist, outside of maybe caring for "football", going off of your ridiculous stereotype of all those schools. There are a lot more rural counties than there are urban ones in the US. So do those voices in those counties only matter when they are helping legislatures gerrymander districts and win EC votes?

 

[BrotherFease]

There are pros/cons for virtually anything you can think of.
And school vouchers are not immune to that.
Instead of focusing on only the negative, or only the positive, you need to weigh them both.
The largest pro of vouchers is that it enables parents to be able to afford to get their child out of a lousy underperforming school.
The largest con is that it decreases funds from those same failed schools making them even worse.
Other pros are it enables parents to send their children to schools that support their views and morals when they otherwise couldn't afford to do so.
Other cons is that public funds end up in schools that are not secular.

So it comes down to what is worse - parents forced to send their children to failed systems, or public funds going to non secular schools.
And the ONLY people that should be making the choice is parents with kids in school.

There's no evidence that private schools outperform public schools. The type of private school that outperforms public schools have high tuition, and you need actual money to afford. We're talking about the schools Trump would send his kids to.

What is an "underperforming school" anyway? These schools are "underperforming" because they don't have enough money or located in the poorest counties in the United States. The point being illustrated in the OP, focused on the concept that taxpayer dollars would go to a school that discriminates against parents and students for biological/innate reasons.

 

[roguenuke]

There's no evidence that private schools outperform public schools. The type of private school that outperforms public schools have high tuition, and you need actual money to afford. We're talking about the schools Trump would send his kids to.

What is an "underperforming school" anyway? These schools are "underperforming" because they don't have enough money or located in the poorest counties in the United States. The point being illustrated in the OP, focused on the concept that taxpayer dollars would go to a school that discriminates against parents and students for biological/innate reasons.

And many of those upper private schools also don't accept vouchers. The most expensive and elite private schools in NC have said they won't accept vouchers.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

There's no evidence that private schools outperform public schools. The type of private school that outperforms public schools have high tuition, and you need actual money to afford. We're talking about the schools Trump would send his kids to.

What is an "underperforming school" anyway? These schools are "underperforming" because they don't have enough money or located in the poorest counties in the United States. The point being illustrated in the OP, focused on the concept that taxpayer dollars would go to a school that discriminates against parents and students for biological/innate reasons.

That is because they compare them to public schools overall, and not the poor performing one that a specific charter school represents. Not apples to apples.
And there is no discrimination if the parent CHOOSES to send them there, if they don't like it, then go to the public school

 

[roguenuke]

That is because they compare them to public schools overall, and not the poor performing one that a specific charter school represents. Not apples to apples.
And there is no discrimination if the parent CHOOSES to send them there, if they don't like it, then go to the public school

It's still discrimination because a parent cannot choose to send their kid to that school if they don't meet the criteria set up by a religious doctrine, even if just one person in their household doesn't. That is discrimination. And that isn't something allowed by public schools. It shouldn't be allowed to be done by any entity taking public school funding.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It's still discrimination because a parent cannot choose to send their kid to that school if they don't meet the criteria set up by a religious doctrine, even if just one person in their household doesn't. That is discrimination. And that isn't something allowed by public schools. It shouldn't be allowed to be done by any entity taking public school funding.

Can't have it both ways.
I don't consider Christian schools the plague of America like you do. I don't.
There are sooo many larger problems in the public schools that the fact some Christian schools discriminate means virtually nothing compared to the mountain of problems affecting millions of children.

 

[roguenuke]

Can't have it both ways.
I don't consider Christian schools the plague of America like you do. I don't.
There are sooo many larger problems in the public schools that the fact some Christian schools discriminate means virtually nothing compared to the mountain of problems affecting millions of children.

I'm not calling to outlaw them. I am calling for them not to get to steal public school funding when they discriminate. It means plenty when those that they are able to discriminate against are unable to truly have choices, but then suffer the consequences of others getting favorable treatment (more choices when it comes to their funding) simply because of discrimination. It is wholy unfair and violates the Constitution, since that absolutely is giving favorable treatment to a religion.

 

[cpwill]

My numbers prove that most students cannot get out of public schools but taking funding from those schools, even for a few students, but especially for those who never went to public school to begin with, never counted, is going to harm those in public schools. That is a fact.

No. Accepting your numbers at face value, you show that this year's private school capacity in one county is limited, which would only mean that the funds stay in the government institutions until the market expands in response to demand.

It is beyond the capabilities of most adults, as most adults do not have the resources or knowledge, skills to do it. This is a fact.

That is also incorrect, as I can attest from direct observation and experience.

The purpose is to educate kids well, not to simply have them learn something, even if wrong.

If that is the case, then we need to do everything we can to get as many kids out of the government schools as fast as possible.

Majority of NC K-12 Students Taking State Exams Failed

I can't help but think about all those parents who claimed they couldn't even help their kids with work during the pandemic, when kids were home then, doing work.

And yet they had hours a day to stare at their phones. Funny, that.

Football is not the most important thing to many schools simply because some say it is important (not even the most important) in some schools in Texas. They brought up as part of many things they'd have to cut.

Like football. And, if they had fewer students, they might need fewer teachers.

Odd that the system isn't willing to cut administrators, despite that being where most the bloat is. You'd almost think the system was designed for the benefit of the kind of people who design and manage it, instead of the benefit of the students

The Times article pointed out the big picture, lots of kids harmed for the benefit of a few, but mainly for the benefit of rich families, for profit private schools, and religious schools.

No, as stated.

Firstly, because they did not outline students who benefitted, but parents. The students who benefit are those who are able to escape dangerous and failing schools for better ones.

Secondly, because the analysis is incorrectly bound in time. It's like assessing the Social Security system 5 years after passage, and complaining that it's not creating a more secure retirement for current workers because only current retirees are getting the money.

https://www.doa.nc.gov/divisions/non-public-education/home-schools/requirements-recommendations

Neat they must have changed that since we started, then. Good for them.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I'm not calling to outlaw them. I am calling for them not to get to steal public school funding when they discriminate. It means plenty when those that they are able to discriminate against are unable to truly have choices, but then suffer the consequences of others getting favorable treatment (more choices when it comes to their funding) simply because of discrimination. It is wholy unfair and violates the Constitution, since that absolutely is giving favorable treatment to a religion.

But the whole goal is for Republicans to get kids into schools where they can discriminate.

 

[cpwill]

Your sister is obviously, according to you, making homeschooling work. Not all can.

Indeed. Not least because we take resources from people like her, and force them to pay for a government schooling infrastructure they don't use. We make her pay for her kid and ours; combined with the fact that the middle and upper class neighborhoods get the nice public schools while the poor ones get the crummy ones, it's one of the many ways in which we take from the poor in this country.

Simply because some can doesn't mean all can/could. You keep trying to twist what I'm saying to fit your agenda, personal bias.

Respectfully, this is a shift in goalposts - I did not say all could. I disagreed with you when you claimed "the vast majority of families cannot handle homeschooling, not effectively".

Public schools already have "competition", in the form of private schools and homeschooling.

....No. Without the ability to actually lose funding, there is no actual competition.

Apply this rule to any other service and see if you would accept it:

If, say, Republicans passed a law tomorrow, saying that, even if you don't eat at Chik Fil A, you have to send them the monetary equivalent of what it would cost you to feed your family for the year.... would you accept the counter that "well, Chik Fil A is still competing with groceries, and other restaurants, so, this is fine". ?​

​

Of course not. In that scenario, Chik Fil A would be "using the coercive power of the State to force revenues from people", not "gaining those revenues by competing for people's business".​

​

Because claiming that a market in which one actor has a guaranteed massive income from the ability to tax the others is "competition" is ridiculous.​

Or, consider how the incentives in that structure are the exact opposite of a competitive market:

If Chik Fil A in a real market starts serving a crappier product, to the point that they lose 10% of their customers, that hurts Chik Fil A because it sharply reduces their income.​

​

In contrast, if a public school system starts serving a crappier product to the point that 10% of students got pulled out of the system and sent elsewhere, but without vouchers following them, that benefits the school administrators, because now they have larger relative budgets. Their incentives are the exact opposite of the incentives provided by market competition.​

That does not require the funding from public schools to go to private schools, especially not ones that discriminate nor homeschooling. Public school funding is for public schools.

Nope. Government funding for children's education is for educating children. The purpose of the funding is not to ensure that we have more government, it's to ensure that kids get educated.

 

[cpwill]

You're the one assuming that government schools are all "one size fits all"

That's what a government system is, @roguenuke. A single, one-size-fits-all system. Yes, it's a monopoly - even one with variations.

There are many types of public schools out there.

Yeah? How many could my sister send her daughter to (hint: the answer is "one").

§115C‑366. Assignment of student to a particular school:​

​

​

​

​

They are "free" to go where they are told

​

​

The problem is getting those types out to various places, changing the system in ways that will help change how schools run, how we work with schools, our culture, etc.

​

Yeah. The way you force a monopolistic system to change is by forcing it to deal with competition. *Actual* competition.​

​

Or, you just flat out end the monopoly, but, as you've outlined, that would create a lot of chaos in this instance.​

​

As I've pointed out, my own county allows many different options when it comes to public school education, including online, which would be basically homeschooling just using public school curriculum and resources.

​

Yeah, we tried the "let's just have public school online" option as a state during the Pandemic, because we were afraid to reopen public schools, and then we went to weird cycle models....​

​

It went poorly - we f'd over an entire generation of government-school kids.​

 

[BrotherFease]

That is because they compare them to public schools overall, and not the poor performing one that a specific charter school represents. Not apples to apples.
And there is no discrimination if the parent CHOOSES to send them there, if they don't like it, then go to the public school

The problem here is that you're using tax dollars to fund a religious school (1st amendment) and one that discriminates against people for biological/innate reasons. Nobody is forcing any parent to send their kid to X school. Don't like the public school in your area? Home school, pay for a private school, vote for board members and policies you support, or better yet move to a different neighborhood.

Where is your evidence that private schools are better than public schools, or that there's a "failing public school" close to a prosperous private school? It doesn't exist. Any prosperous school would be located in the wealthy neighborhoods and they would be charging high tuition, so "those people" cannot attend.

More over, what do you mean by a "failing school" anyway? I

 

[roguenuke]

Indeed. Not least because we take resources from people like her, and force them to pay for a government schooling infrastructure they don't use. We make her pay for her kid and ours; combined with the fact that the middle and upper class neighborhoods get the nice public schools while the poor ones get the crummy ones, it's one of the many ways in which we take from the poor in this country.



Respectfully, this is a shift in goalposts - I did not say all could. I disagreed with you when you claimed "the vast majority of families cannot handle homeschooling, not effectively".




....No. Without the ability to actually lose funding, there is no actual competition.

Apply this rule to any other service and see if you would accept it:

If, say, Republicans passed a law tomorrow, saying that, even if you don't eat at Chik Fil A, you have to send them the monetary equivalent of what it would cost you to feed your family for the year.... would you accept the counter that "well, Chik Fil A is still competing with groceries, and other restaurants, so, this is fine". ?​

​

Of course not. In that scenario, Chik Fil A would be "using the coercive power of the State to force revenues from people", not "gaining those revenues by competing for people's business".​

​

Because claiming that a market in which one actor has a guaranteed massive income from the ability to tax the others is "competition" is ridiculous.​

Or, consider how the incentives in that structure are the exact opposite of a competitive market:

If Chik Fil A in a real market starts serving a crappier product, to the point that they lose 10% of their customers, that hurts Chik Fil A because it sharply reduces their income.​

​

In contrast, if a public school system starts serving a crappier product to the point that 10% of students got pulled out of the system and sent elsewhere, but without vouchers following them, that benefits the school administrators, because now they have larger relative budgets. Their incentives are the exact opposite of the incentives provided by market competition.​

Nope. Government funding for children's education is for educating children. The purpose of the funding is not to ensure that we have more government, it's to ensure that kids get educated.

Public schools are not anything like Chik fil a or other restaurants. That is a completely false equivalence. Chik fil a isn't run by the government, set up by them.

Government funding is not for simply educating children. It is specifically for public schools to be setup so that children can receive a base level of education even if their parents cannot afford private school. There's a reason no other country is doing this crap.

 

[roguenuke]

That's what a government system is, @roguenuke. A single, one-size-fits-all system. Yes, it's a monopoly - even one with variations.



Yeah? How many could my sister send her daughter to (hint: the answer is "one").

§115C‑366. Assignment of student to a particular school:​

​

View attachment 67501547​

​

​

They are "free" to go where they are told

​

​

​

Yeah. The way you force a monopolistic system to change is by forcing it to deal with competition. *Actual* competition.​

​

Or, you just flat out end the monopoly, but, as you've outlined, that would create a lot of chaos in this instance.​

​

​

Yeah, we tried the "let's just have public school online" option as a state during the Pandemic, because we were afraid to reopen public schools, and then we went to weird cycle models....​

​

It went poorly - we f'd over an entire generation of government-school kids.​

There are options available for you, just as if you want to not use the USPS or the public transportation systems, there are other options. That's the same with public schools. But there are even options within many of those public schools, and those are expanding as we recognize more and more needs.

Your posts are getting more and more about what you are wanting to read and less about what I'm pointing out.

 

[cpwill]

Public schools are not anything like Chik fil a or other restaurants. That is a completely false equivalence. Chik fil a isn't run by the government, set up by them.

Exactly. That's why your claim that public schools are still being forced into competition is an error of kind. There is no competitive pressure because the system that public schools are in impose no cost, unless they lose funding by serving crappy product and driving away customers.

If Chik Fil A WAS, however, set up and funded by the government, which forced you to send them your annual grocery bill whether or not you ate there, we would all recognize that it wasn't in a competitive market.

Government funding is not for simply educating children.

That is true. It is also for enforcing rule of law, contract, emergency services, and the like.

However, funding for education is absolutely [/I]for educating children.

It is specifically for public schools to be setup so that children can receive a base level of education even if their parents cannot afford private school. There's a reason no other country is doing this crap.

No. Government is not supposed to be an interest in and of itself.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Seriously, why are they not kicking out students whose parents make their employees work on Sundays?

 

[cpwill]

There are options available for you, just as if you want to not use the USPS or the public transportation systems, there are other options. That's the same with public schools. But there are even options within many of those public schools, and those are expanding as we recognize more and more needs.

The U.S. Postal Office charges for it's goods and services. It is subsidized by the government, which does not change the fact that when they lose customers, they lose income. That is why they can be considered to be somewhat in competition with FedEx and the rest.

The government school system, however, takes your money whether or not you use their good or service, and suffers no competitive pressure because it loses nothing when it fails or even harms it's students.

Your posts are getting more and more about what you are wanting to read and less about what I'm pointing out.

....Do you understand why, given that you appear to have given up answering points directly, and instead block-quote and reply with streams of consciousness that address some but not all of what I'm pointing out, this accusation comes off more like projection?

 

[roguenuke]

Exactly. That's why your claim that public schools are still being forced into competition is an error of kind. There is no competitive pressure because the system that public schools are in impose no cost, unless they lose funding by serving crappy product and driving away customers.

If Chik Fil A WAS, however, set up and funded by the government, which forced you to send them your annual grocery bill whether or not you ate there, we would all recognize that it wasn't in a competitive market.



That is true. It is also for enforcing rule of law, contract, emergency services, and the like.

However, funding for education is absolutely[/i ]for educating children.




No. Government is not supposed to be an interest in and of itself.

They are the baseline. That funding is for public schools. Just like funding for public transit is for public transit not for those who choose to drive themselves in their own cars or take taxis.

Chik fil a is not set up or funded by the government as that isn't reasonable. Having a base level of education is reasonable, and people get that in public schools. Education is needed, fast food isn't.

Funding for education is for base, nondiscriminatory education, with standards, which requires it to go to public schools, not private schools that don't have to live up to those standards, aren't required to be nondiscriminatory.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The problem here is that you're using tax dollars to fund a religious school (1st amendment) and one that discriminates against people for biological/innate reasons. Nobody is forcing any parent to send their kid to X school. Don't like the public school in your area? Home school, pay for a private school, vote for board members and policies you support, or better yet move to a different neighborhood.

Where is your evidence that private schools are better than public schools, or that there's a "failing public school" close to a prosperous private school? It doesn't exist. Any prosperous school would be located in the wealthy neighborhoods and they would be charging high tuition, so "those people" cannot attend.

More over, what do you mean by a "failing school" anyway? I

Again - the number one demographic that supports school vouchers is blacks and low income.
Why do you think that is?

 

[cpwill]

They are the baseline.

That is a statement that means nothing and does not even begin to address the point that the government school monopoly is not in competition because it faces no competitive pressure, because it loses nothing when it harms or fails it's students, including when their parents pull them out as a result.

That funding is for public schools.

The money is for education.

Just like funding for public transit is for public transit not for those who choose to drive themselves in their own cars or take taxis.

Actually if we could devise a way to make transit more available to the public in a way that wouldn't require busses, especially if doing so was cheaper, then we should absolutely do that.

The point of the money isn't "own buildings" or "own busses". It's "ensure access to a service".

Chik fil a is not set up or funded by the government as that isn't reasonable. Having a base level of education is reasonable, and people get that in public schools. Education is needed, fast food isn't.

Food is absolutely needed. Call it whatever you like - GovFood, if that makes you feel better - the dynamics are the exact same. If an entity provides a good or service that it can force you to pay for regardless of whether or not you use that good or service, it is not under competitive pressures in a competitive market.

Funding for education is for base, nondiscriminatory education, with standards, which requires it to go to public schools, not private schools that don't have to live up to those standards, aren't required to be nondiscriminatory.

No. Respectfully, you are confusing "Means" with the "End"