• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:#2026]School's out forever: Arizona moves "to kill public education" with new universal voucher law

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,811
Reaction score
10,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I am under the impression that the remaining money continues to go the public schools. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Yes. It is in the law that the money scheduled to go to the public school does not, but instead goes to some fund overseen by...the state treasurer? I don't recall of the top of my head. But, no, the money does not go to the public school.

Nevermind, I went ahead and found it:

"In exchange for the parent's agreement pursuant to subsection B of this section, the department shall transfer from the monies that would otherwise be allocated to a recipient's prior school district, or if the child is currently eligible to attend A PRESCHOOL PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES, A kindergarten PROGRAM OR ANY OF GRADES ONE THROUGH TWELVE, the monies that the department determines would otherwise be allocated to a recipient's expected school district of attendance, to the treasurer for deposit into an Arizona empowerment scholarship account an amount that is equivalent to ninety percent of the sum of the base support level"

Source: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2853P.pdf

In other words, none of the money goes to the public school. And, to be quite honest with you, I didn't need to cite that for you because of how school funding works in general, but it is spelled out specifically in the bill.
Less students requires less funding.
But not at a 1:1 proportion.
What about the students who are being held back because of those students who require special assistance? Don't those students deserve the opportunity to reach their full potential and doesn't them reaching that pinnacle better society as a whole?

Not challenging these kids creates boredom and that also creates problems.
This has LONG been a debate in the educational world and is one of the pushbacks to IDEA.

With that said, do you think students who require special assistance should be deprived of a quality education? That's the back and forth argument.
I see what your saying but im skeptical of it being exactly as you describe it. I have not seen evidence to support that remaining $1800 does not stay in the public schools.
I've already provided you a link to the bill above, and cited you the relevant text. Now I'll provide you with the funding formula for Arizona schools.


Calculating school funding is usually a very complicated system, but it can be described in basic terms as, "The school only gets money for students who attend their school, based on how many days they attend".
Also let's please acknowledge that with less students the operating costs also go down with it. They need less books, less AC, less teachers, less classroom space, etc...
But not really. First of all, you can't artificially remove classrooms. Classrooms are physical locations. Secondly, you are often locked into agreements with vendors based on student population. In my experience, those contracts tend to be year to year, but some are multi-year agreements (for example, our Internet content filtering is a 3 year agreement). You definitely are not going to spend less on air conditioning because there are 18 students in a classroom, rather than 20. And the list goes on and on.

As I said, it is not a 1:1 direct cost reduction per student withdrawn.
Also it allows the class to move at a pace more appropriate for the remaining students. Teachers can spend the extra time on the lessons giving students trouble instead of just pushing students through the grade. This allows for the students at the bottom to receive better educations too.
No, it really doesn't. For many many reasons. I understand your logic here, but that's just not how it works in practice.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,811
Reaction score
10,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Here is some general info about the types of programs and scholarships I'm discussing. *snip*
I can appreciate the research you did here, but you seemed to have misunderstood what I was asking. I was asking for evidence that there is busing on a wide scale in private schools. I believe you have since agreed that it is not very common.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,811
Reaction score
10,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm sure that scenario exists in certain situations but on the flip side what about the scenarios where the school has 76 students to bus but can only carry 75. Those schools need an extra bus for 1 student.
No, you just run the same bus multiple times. For example, our district runs our buses twice in the morning and twice in the afternoon (the first route is for elementary, the second is for secondary).
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,811
Reaction score
10,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I would be super happy to make our public schools better. Unfortunately have you seen the push back that comes from public schools anytime a possible fix other the simply paying teachers more is suggested.
Have you offered a solution to improve public schools based on peer reviewed research? I haven't seen you do anything of the sort, but I'd be more than happy to discuss those with you.

What sort of solutions do you have that are not nakedly political in nature?
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,811
Reaction score
10,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The difference being that the parents choose what sort of 'indoctrination' they want their children to have. It is wonderful that parents can choose a school whether their children's faith will not be made unwelcome, where there is reinforcement of the faith and the values the parents and teachers mutually share.
Why should my tax dollars pay for you to indoctrinate your child with religion? That is the entire point of this thread, right?
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,811
Reaction score
10,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I was blessed to go to public school in a small town where school board members, teachers, administrators, and parents shared common values, where the class president led the student body in an inclusive generic prayer at assemblies, where we said the Pledge of Allegiance every morning and would not think of disrespecting the flag, where we were allowed a moment of silence to start the school day or when some bad news was announced.
What if one of your classmates was a homosexual atheist and did not share your political and religious beliefs? How would that student feel "blessed"?
To this day I cannot tell you what the religious beliefs of any of my teachers were or what their political leanings were.
And that's true of the vast percentage of students today as well.
But we got an education in all basic subjects and a few electives that allowed us to compete with anybody anywhere.
The same happens today.
And had any board member, teacher or administrator pushed CRT or suggested gender pronouns are inappropriate or and of this transgender or other PC stuff, he/she would have been gone very quickly I am sure.
So, indoctrination into your religious values at the public school, as well as teaching subservience to the government, was fine, but teaching things like inclusion and tolerance were not?

And why do you think we should follow the model your school set?
When the public schools indoctrinate instead of educating the kids
You literally just named NUMEROUS ways your school was indoctrinating kids. Prayers before assemblies? Citing the Pledge every morning? Running out of town anyone who practiced tolerance? That IS indoctrination. The fact you don't seem to understand it shows just how well it worked.
the parents should have every right to pull their kids out of public schools and put them in a school that educates, nurtures, inspires, promotes critical thinking.
I don't see many people arguing this. What is being argued is that my tax dollars shouldn't have to fund it.
And they should not have to pay for public schools that won't.
I can assure you that your tax dollars likely don't pay for even half of any one teacher's salary. Have you ever stopped and truly thought about how little you pay in income tax when compared to how much money is spent? If the average teacher makes around $50,000, for you to be able to pay HALF of that in federal income tax, you'd have to earn over $100,000. And that's just half of ONE teacher's salary.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
23,578
Reaction score
12,378
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Why should my tax dollars pay for you to indoctrinate your child with religion? That is the entire point of this thread, right?
I pay taxes too. Why should my tax dollars pay for a state school that fails to educate but is indoctrinating my child with all manner of social engineering that adds nothing to his/her education?
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,811
Reaction score
10,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
How do we know that most public schools aren't doing the job they should be doing? U.S. ranks 38th in math scores and 24th in science globally. Far below average in reading. And we are at or second from the top in student per capita spending on education.
How do US schools do when you adjust for the difference in socio-economic status of its students when compared to other countries?

 

trouble13

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
45,789
Reaction score
11,783
Yes. It is in the law that the money scheduled to go to the public school does not, but instead goes to some fund overseen by...the state treasurer? I don't recall of the top of my head. But, no, the money does not go to the public school.

Nevermind, I went ahead and found it:

"In exchange for the parent's agreement pursuant to subsection B of this section, the department shall transfer from the monies that would otherwise be allocated to a recipient's prior school district, or if the child is currently eligible to attend A PRESCHOOL PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES, A kindergarten PROGRAM OR ANY OF GRADES ONE THROUGH TWELVE, the monies that the department determines would otherwise be allocated to a recipient's expected school district of attendance, to the treasurer for deposit into an Arizona empowerment scholarship account an amount that is equivalent to ninety percent of the sum of the base support level"

Source: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2853P.pdf

In other words, none of the money goes to the public school. And, to be quite honest with you, I didn't need to cite that for you because of how school funding works in general, but it is spelled out specifically in the bill.

But not at a 1:1 proportion.
I read some of your posts after I write that and I take your word about how the funding works. I think that is something that could maybe be modified to better serve educational needs.
This has LONG been a debate in the educational world and is one of the pushbacks to IDEA.
I did not know that but I think it's a fair argument.
With that said, do you think students who require special assistance should be deprived of a quality education? That's the back and forth argument.
Of course I don't think they should be deprived. I also don't think a kid who reads at college level should be in the same class as a kid who reads at middle school levels. How is a teacher suppose to develop a curriculum that both students will excel with? If you split the difference and give out highschool level materials the slower student gets crushed and the higher level student gets held back. The net result is the lower level kid gets frustrated and stops trying and the higher level kid gets lazy and stops trying. Neither student ends up living up to their potential.
I've already provided you a link to the bill above, and cited you the relevant text. Now I'll provide you with the funding formula for Arizona schools.


Calculating school funding is usually a very complicated system, but it can be described in basic terms as, "The school only gets money for students who attend their school, based on how many days they attend".
Subject is settled, moving on
But not really. First of all, you can't artificially remove classrooms. Classrooms are physical locations. Secondly, you are often locked into agreements with vendors based on student population. In my experience, those contracts tend to be year to year, but some are multi-year agreements (for example, our Internet content filtering is a 3 year agreement). You definitely are not going to spend less on air conditioning because there are 18 students in a classroom, rather than 20. And the list goes on and on.

As I said, it is not a 1:1 direct cost reduction per student withdrawn.
I think it's closer to a 1:1 cost than you realize. It may take a few years of transitioning for public school spending to adapt to having less students but in the end I think we will conclude the costs are relatively the same.
No, it really doesn't. For many many reasons. I understand your logic here, but that's just not how it works in practice.
If you can expand on this I would like hear more about why you feel differently
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,811
Reaction score
10,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
First let me say I meant no offense to teachers. My point is that teachers just like everyone carry their own bias.
Sure...and that's kind of my point. All of us teachers do not carry the same biases. For example, my own mother and I have different ideas politically and she was the superintendent (and my boss) of my school for over a decade.

So the idea there is some kind of coordinated indoctrination of children fails any kind of logic test.
We should not dismiss other opinions just because a pair of teachers hold a different opinion. Being a teacher does not automatically make you right.
No, but it makes us far more qualified to discuss it than media personalities who are making money by telling ignorant people things that are not true.
 

trouble13

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
45,789
Reaction score
11,783
No, you just run the same bus multiple times. For example, our district runs our buses twice in the morning and twice in the afternoon (the first route is for elementary, the second is for secondary).
My point is that in some scenarios you lose money but in other scenarios you would gain.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
23,578
Reaction score
12,378
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
What if one of your classmates was a homosexual atheist and did not share your political and religious beliefs? How would that student feel "blessed"?

And that's true of the vast percentage of students today as well.

The same happens today.

So, indoctrination into your religious values at the public school, as well as teaching subservience to the government, was fine, but teaching things like inclusion and tolerance were not?

And why do you think we should follow the model your school set?

You literally just named NUMEROUS ways your school was indoctrinating kids. Prayers before assemblies? Citing the Pledge every morning? Running out of town anyone who practiced tolerance? That IS indoctrination. The fact you don't seem to understand it shows just how well it worked.

I don't see many people arguing this. What is being argued is that my tax dollars shouldn't have to fund it.

I can assure you that your tax dollars likely don't pay for even half of any one teacher's salary. Have you ever stopped and truly thought about how little you pay in income tax when compared to how much money is spent? If the average teacher makes around $50,000, for you to be able to pay HALF of that in federal income tax, you'd have to earn over $100,000. And that's just half of ONE teacher's salary.
The school did not indoctrinate. It reinforced community values. The Atheist kids, the Jewish kids, one Buddhist kid sang those Christmas carols with the same enthusiasm as the Christian kids as we all sang the Hannukuh songs the teacher included in the repertoire. As I said I could not tell you the religious or political leanings of any of my teachers. The kids led the prayers and nobody objected. They hurt nobody. And I think they helped a lot. We had generic non denominational prayers before sporting events too, and baccalaureate and other ways the community values were demonstrated.

Oh and as for genders, we had two. The closest thing to sex ed was biology class. That was mutually decided by the PTA and School Board when the parents wanted to provide the sex education. And student pregnancy was so rare that it was hardly thought of at all.

So if I want that kind of environment for my school age children and the state wonderfully allows me my share of the education $ to help me provide it for them, sue me.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,811
Reaction score
10,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I pay taxes too.
Sure...but we're talking about taxpayer money to private religious institutions who reserve the right to discriminate against children for any number of reasons.
Why should my tax dollars pay for a state school that fails to educate
Because A) most public schools are not failing to educate, that is a myth B) an educated populace benefits all of society and C) because investing in our children is morally right.
but is indoctrinating my child with all manner of social engineering that adds nothing to his/her education?
The only reason you think your child is being indoctrinated is because they are not being indoctrinated the way you were as a child. That's it. You mentioned CRT, I believe...you do realize that CRT is the OPPOSITE of indoctrination, correct? True CRT (not the boogeyman invented by right wing grifters) teaches students (and this is done primarily at a university level) to question and examine society, not just to accept it. Accepting society is the way it is and should always be IS the indoctrination. Questioning, challenging, critically thinking about society is the opposite of indoctrination.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
23,578
Reaction score
12,378
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Sure...but we're talking about taxpayer money to private religious institutions who reserve the right to discriminate against children for any number of reasons.

Because A) most public schools are not failing to educate, that is a myth B) an educated populace benefits all of society and C) because investing in our children is morally right.

The only reason you think your child is being indoctrinated is because they are not being indoctrinated the way you were as a child. That's it. You mentioned CRT, I believe...you do realize that CRT is the OPPOSITE of indoctrination, correct? True CRT (not the boogeyman invented by right wing grifters) teaches students (and this is done primarily at a university level) to question and examine society, not just to accept it. Accepting society is the way it is and should always be IS the indoctrination. Questioning, challenging, critically thinking about society is the opposite of indoctrination.
I as a parent will decide what is and is not indoctrinating my children. CRT is one of the most evil indoctrinations the left has come up with yet. That and pushing transgendering and homosexuality on kids at a very young age. None of my classmates transgendered or wanted to once they were old enough to think for themselves. Several were gay and grew up quite well adjusted and are happy adults now.

I want schools to teach reading, writing, math, science, history, geography that kids are old enough to learn and spend the time on helping them learn it. Some time with the arts is also highly beneficial to children as is a sense of community and patriotism. There simply is no justification for including social engineering in that.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
23,578
Reaction score
12,378
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Sure...but we're talking about taxpayer money to private religious institutions who reserve the right to discriminate against children for any number of reasons.

Because A) most public schools are not failing to educate, that is a myth B) an educated populace benefits all of society and C) because investing in our children is morally right.

The only reason you think your child is being indoctrinated is because they are not being indoctrinated the way you were as a child. That's it. You mentioned CRT, I believe...you do realize that CRT is the OPPOSITE of indoctrination, correct? True CRT (not the boogeyman invented by right wing grifters) teaches students (and this is done primarily at a university level) to question and examine society, not just to accept it. Accepting society is the way it is and should always be IS the indoctrination. Questioning, challenging, critically thinking about society is the opposite of indoctrination.

Also the USA is way behind most other developed countries in math, science, reading. It isn't for lack of money because we spend more per capital on students than any other country other than maybe Luxembourg. Don't tell me we're getting our money's worth in education.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,811
Reaction score
10,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I read some of your posts after I write that and I take your word about how the funding works. I think that is something that could maybe be modified to better serve educational needs.
Not really, for so many reasons (at least not in any way that would be realistically possible). But I appreciate you accepting that the public schools are losing out on $8,800 per student in this model for every student who withdraws.
I did not know that but I think it's a fair argument.
It is a fair debate and both sides have a point.
Of course I don't think they should be deprived.
Then you realize why what Arizona has done here is bad for these students and public education as a whole.
I also don't think a kid who reads at college level should be in the same class as a kid who reads at middle school levels.
It depends entirely on how old the kids are. If the kids are 13, then they should be in the same classes because school teaches more than just out of a textbook. If the kids are 18, then it's unlikely they are in the same class in all but the smallest schools.
How is a teacher suppose to develop a curriculum that both students will excel with?
It's difficult. And it got exponentially more difficult when George W. Bush signed No Child Left Behind. There's a reason NCLB was nearly universally reviled in education and why so many states leapt to sign up for Race to the Top and adopt Common Core under Obama.
If you split the difference and give out highschool level materials the slower student gets crushed and the higher level student gets held back. The net result is the lower level kid gets frustrated and stops trying and the higher level kid gets lazy and stops trying. Neither student ends up living up to their potential.
Which is why "Tracking" exists in schools, a practice that is also the subject of many educational debates. If you're not aware, tracking is where students tend to be grouped with other students of roughly the same educational capabilities. For example, a higher performing group of math students may be taking Calculus senior year, while a lower performing group of students in the same grade are taking Algebra 2.
I think it's closer to a 1:1 cost than you realize. It may take a few years of transitioning for public school spending to adapt to having less students but in the end I think we will conclude the costs are relatively the same.
It's not. As an employee of a school district that was hammered first by the 07/08 recession and then again during Covid with students withdrawing, I can tell you unequivocally it is not closer to a 1:1 cost than I realize. Again, please keep in mind my mother was superintendent during the 03 recession and the 08 recession, so I've had many conversations with someone who could be considered an expert on the subject. Our district, K-12, is down roughly 25% of the number of students we had in around 2006. If not for an increase in money from federal programs, our district would not be able to look like it does today.
If you can expand on this I would like hear more about why you feel differently
It's nearly 1 in the morning so I'll be as brief as possible, but teachers simply cannot pace as they'd like. States have standards that school districts must comply with, standards which are assessed with standardized testing. Districts have curricula that teachers must comply with. If the district curriculum which aligns with state standards says that, in a student's 10th grade year, the student will learn A, B, C, D, and E, the teacher simply does not have the flexibility to go so slowly as to only teach A, B, and C.

Again, that's brief and there are actually many other reasons, but that is probably a basic description of the predominant reason.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
23,578
Reaction score
12,378
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
How do US schools do when you adjust for the difference in socio-economic status of its students when compared to other countries?

Apparently it doesn't make much difference. Ranking is ranking. If the public schools aren't educating the poorest of students they are doing a huge disservice to those students. Thomas Sowell, PhD, world renown economist and historian, writes of being a poor kid in a segregated inner city school. The school for more affluent white kids was not far away. He later in life realized that the education he got there was superb--excellent teachers and a good basic curriculum--an education that allowed him to compete with anybody.

He later went back and studied the performance of both of those inner city schools. Some years the black kids school was better in this or that subject and some years the white kids school was on top but over all there was parity. He was able to qualify for admission to college and would eventually earn his PhD I believe from Harvard.

I think we have significantly gone backwards from the days when public schools were a part of the community and teachers, board members, parents worked together to educate children. I would not put my kids in a public school here at this time and fully support school vouchers that help parents find schools that will educate, not indoctrinate, their children.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,811
Reaction score
10,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The school did not indoctrinate. It reinforced community values.
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

Right, it indoctrinated the students with the values it wanted to indoctrinate them with.

Do yourself a favor and just step away from the computer for a couple of minutes and reflect on the two sentences you just wrote there.
The Atheist kids, the Jewish kids, one Buddhist kid sang those Christmas carols with the same enthusiasm as the Christian kids
So you forced non-Christians to sing Christian songs? And you don't see the indoctrination there?
As I said I could not tell you the religious or political leanings of any of my teachers.
And not a single one of my students know mine, not even the ones I'm closest with.
The kids led the prayers and nobody objected.
So the school indoctrinated the students with religious prayers?
They hurt nobody.
Neither does CRT. *shrug*
And I think they helped a lot.
Of course you do. That's what indoctrination does...it makes you believe the things you are being told are good and helpful.

On one hand, I'm laughing a lot at how blinded you are to how you were indoctrinated...on the other hand, I think it is a real shame.
We had generic non denominational prayers before sporting events too, and baccalaureate and other ways the community values were demonstrated.
Right...the community values that were hammered into kids in school...but not indoctrination, that's completely different, right?
Oh and as for genders, we had two.
No, you were just indoctrinated to believe you only had two. I guarantee you that if your school was larger than 20 students per class, you had people in your school who did not agree with there only being two genders.
So if I want that kind of environment for my school age children and the state wonderfully allows me my share of the education $ to help me provide it for them, sue me.
I'm not suing you, I'm just saying my tax dollars shouldn't go to pay for the religious indoctrination of YOUR child by a school that discriminates against children.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,811
Reaction score
10,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I as a parent will decide what is and is not indoctrinating my children.
No, that's not how it works. You can choose which indoctrination you prefer, perhaps, but you don't get to arbitrarily decide what is or is not indoctrination. Prayers before assemblies? That's indoctrination. Saying the Pledge every morning? That's indoctrination.

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant to the fact it is indoctrination.
CRT is one of the most evil indoctrinations the left has come up with yet.
I know I'm going to seriously regret this, but do tell me why you think teaching college age students to think critically about the society in which they live is "evil".
None of my classmates transgendered or wanted to once they were old enough to think for themselves. Several were gay and grew up quite well adjusted and are happy adults now.
I bet you'd be surprised if you really knew what many of them thought. But since you all were actively being indoctrinated, they didn't feel like they could share what they actually thought and felt.
I want schools to teach reading, writing, math, science, history, geography that kids are old enough to learn and spend the time on helping them learn it.
They do.
Some time with the arts is also highly beneficial to children
Agreed.
as is a sense of community and patriotism.
This is blatant indoctrination. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying it is blatant indoctrination.
There simply is no justification for including social engineering in that.
A "sense of community and patriotism" is the very definition of social engineering. What do you think the purpose for "a sense of community" and "patriotism" is? It's to teach children to think about ways to benefit the community and the country. It's 100% indoctrination and social engineering.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
13,811
Reaction score
10,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Apparently it doesn't make much difference. Ranking is ranking.
And when the statistics are unskewed, the US public education system ranks pretty darn well. That's what the link I provided you shows.
If the public schools aren't educating the poorest of students they are doing a huge disservice to those students.
That's not what the article said.

What the article said is that the poorest students do poorly in ALL educational system in ALL countries around the world. But since the US has a disproportionate amount of those students, it skews our rankings in a negative fashion.
Thomas Sowell, PhD, world renown economist and historian
Never heard of him.
writes of being a poor kid in a segregated inner city school. The school for more affluent white kids was not far away. He later in life realized that the education he got there was superb--excellent teachers and a good basic curriculum--an education that allowed him to compete with anybody.
That's great. No one is saying poor kids cannot get a good education. The point is what I said above, which is the students from a lower socio-economic environment are more likely to struggle in EVERY educational system in EVERY country. The United States just has more of them.
I think we have significantly gone backwards from the days when public schools were a part of the community
That's a societal issue. It's the same reason why a town of 1,800 people used to have four grocery stores and now has none.
and teachers, board members, parents worked together to educate children.
There's nothing preventing this from happening now and most teachers I know would LOVE to see more parental involvement in education. Our school district holds two parent/teacher conferences in a school year. If even 10% of the parents show up, I'd be shocked. In the 10-12 years I was a teacher, I may have had a grand total of 3 parents in the second P/T conference of the year. I don't mean 3 each year, I mean 3 total in 10-12 years.
I would not put my kids in a public school here at this time and fully support school vouchers that help parents find schools that will educate, not indoctrinate, their children.
A religious school is 100% seeking to indoctrinate your child. Claiming otherwise is willful ignorance.
 

WorldWatcher

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
5,415
Reaction score
3,749
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm sure that scenario exists in certain situations but on the flip side what about the scenarios where the school has 76 students to bus but can only carry 75. Those schools need an extra bus for 1 student.

Since Type C School Busses can accommodate more than 75 Students, the school is required to have the infrastructure to support projected student populations, the school has no need to purchase an extra bus or hire another driver.

WW
 

Torus34

DP Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
7,598
Reaction score
3,007
Location
Staten Island, NY USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
As with a number of changes in the laws of specific states that we're seeing these days, how this change plays out in practice will be only known with the passage of time. Our society is complex, as are we, good ol' h. sapiens. There are a number of forces which impinge upon the availability of school vouchers and the money available for government-operated education functions.

This poor old country mouse is content to check back in a year or two. By then, the legislature will have enough information at their disposal to act, if action is needed.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.
 

WorldWatcher

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
5,415
Reaction score
3,749
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What I find interesting in this discussion is some believe - IMHO falsely - that vouchers for secular private or sectarian schools give the parents choice.

When you think about it that's really just an illusion. The fact is that parents have to apply to those schools, and it's up to the school to accept or reject little Johnny or Jane and even after Johnny or Jane is accepted, the school can expel the student at any time, refuse to admit the student the next year.
  • Johnny or Jane has a disability? Application denied.
  • Johnny or Jane's family isn't the "right type"? Application denied.
  • Johnny or Jane's test scores might have a negative impact on the schools overall performance? Application denied.
  • Johnny or Jane gets admitted but is found to be disruptive in terms of behavior? Send them home and told not to return.
I checked the local area well regarded private schools:
  • Secondary school tuition was greater than $20,000
  • One provide no transportation at all. The other had transportation, but not like public school transportation. There are only a couple of pick-up points each in the surrounding counties and it's up to the parent/student to be there and the points could be 5-10 miles away from where someone lives. Then there was an additional cost if you wanted transportation, $2,000 a year for morning and afternoon or $1,100 for a single trip (AM or PM) per day.
If a parent take the voucher to remove Johnny or Jane from Public Schools are public schools expected to maintain capacity for Johnny or Jane if they are then rejected or expelled because of behavior, development of special needs, or just because their academic performance might damage the school's national test scores or college admittance rates?

Parents can apply, but the choice is really the secular or sectarian schools.

WW
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
14,040
Reaction score
3,699
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

School's out forever: Arizona moves "to kill public education" with new universal voucher law.​


No killing intended. The idea is to create competition for U.S. public education which is embarrassingly low on the list of world rankings. It can only help public education improve. You should support it.
 

Lycanthrope

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
7,028
Reaction score
8,198
Location
Arrakis
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The difference being that the parents choose what sort of 'indoctrination' they want their children to have. It is wonderful that parents can choose a school whether their children's faith will not be made unwelcome, where there is reinforcement of the faith and the values the parents and teachers mutually share.
So long as taxpayers are not funding that religious indoctrination I have no issues with it.
 
Top Bottom