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

[pamak]

But at least its their parent's CHOICE. Do you see the difference?

Going to a public school does not eliminate the parents' choice of providing religious teaching in churches and at home..Every time I hear arguments based on the idea that "parents' choice" provide the final answer which justifies every parental choice, I remind people the issue of individual (kids') right. I assume, even you will be willing to set restrictions on parental choices regarding the education of their children and you would accept in principle a secular law of a minimum. mandatory, education even if parents are willing to have uneducated children. In short, it is simplistic to assume without justification that such decisions should be just a matter of parental choices

 

[Paradoxical]

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

But you’re not the first right wing extremist here who invoked Kennedy’s name as if he was your hero.

He did not stand for bigotry, fearmongering and celebration of ignorance.

That’s your fuhrer and your fellow minions.

You would have voted for Nixon in ‘60 and Barry Goldwater in ‘64.

Your Bircher rhetoric makes that very clear.

John Kennedy would have to run as a Republican today. You would call him an extremist. Today's MSM would crucify him for this line"

"Ask NOT what your country can do for YOU, Ask what YOU can do for your country!"

He would have been called <gasp> A WHITE nationalist!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Umm...isn't that exactly what I've been saying?

Nope, the underlying message in your posts has been "Well, teachers aren't 100% to blame for the situation, so that means that they are 0.00% blame for the situation."

Many years ago, I was enrolled in the Faculty of Education of a "Class 1" university. One of the courses that every prospective teacher HAD to complete successfully was (as best as memory works at this late date" something called "Educational Methodology". When the final exam was given in that course, the results were such that (and I kid you not) any student who spelled their name correctly on the exam paper received marks worth 40% of the total for the test. Had that not happened, the pass rate on the final exam would have been UNDER 10% (rather than the usual 90+%).

Neither the course content nor the people who were teaching it were changed as a result of the debacle, the Faculty of Education simply made sure that the test was so easy that it was almost impossible to fail it.

As with BOTH versions of BLM, both versions of "Why the School System Sucks" have sufficient data to validate their claims and, also as with BOTH versions of BLM the two versions are locked in a negative feedback spiral. That spiral is NOT going to be broken until EACH side admits that it has some fault to bear and that the other has some validity to its position.

I leave it to you to figure out how likely it is for any "entrenched position" in the US to say something like "You know, you are right. We ARE contributing to the problem and WE have to change before the problem can be attacked with any chance of success. Not only that but YOU have some valid points and those valid points should be incorporated in the solution.".

Personally I wouldn't want to bet -the ranch- -the rent- -my lunch money- -my coffee money- a dime on it happening.

 

[Slyfox696]

Nope, the underlying message in your posts has been "Well, teachers aren't 100% to blame for the situation, so that means that they are 0.00% blame for the situation."

That's never been my point, nor is it really close to it. In fact, I've said on multiple occasions there are bad teachers and bad schools. I've said there are things that I think need to change in public school (and have even stated some of them).

However, for most of the time, I've been speaking broadly, about public education in general. And, broadly speaking, in general, the public school system is doing a better job than they can be reasonably expected to do.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Asinine projection,, To be honest, I care about both the public and private schools. I support the voucher system mostly for the sake of the parents an the children, however also for the sake of both the public and private schools. The public school system with taxpayer funding up the wazoo for decades is still a dumpster fire. I see the public school system vastly improving if it's forced to compete with private schools.

And exactly how do you see that happening?

Let's take a hypothetical school district which spends $10,000 per student annually. That school district continues school taxes at its present rate and issues $10,000 vouchers for each student, and charges $10,000 per student for education in the public schools. There is (for simplicity's sake) only one public school (that already takes 5% of the kids in the school district) and one private school in that school district. The private school had previously charged $10,000 per year tuition ($1,000 being profit), but increases that tuition to $20,000 and doubles its capacity while increasing its per student expenditure to $12,000. The parents who had been sending their children to the private school have no difficulty in raising the $20,000 tuition. A portion of the parents (let's say 10%) dig in and cut their other expenses so that they can afford the NET $10,000 tuition at the private school. The odds are that those are the parents of the kids who have the capacity to do the best in school. The kids who have the capacity to do the best in school have a tendency to actually cost the school district less than the annual average. However, only half of the kids whose families were able to afford the new tuition can actually attend the expanded private school.

That means that you have taken about 5.25% of the school districts (and the 5.25% that costs the least to educate) out of the public school system and reduced the funding for the public school system accordingly (in absolute dollar terms) - but reduced it by less than 5.25% in terms of actual per student cost.

At the same time you have increased the per student funding of the private school by $2,000 (that's 20%) for student education and the profit of the private school by $7,000 (that's 600%).

So, exactly how is the public school going to "compete" (when its "per student educational expenses" are going up while its total funding is going down) with the private school? Now, if you consider that it is "beneficial" to force the East Cupcake Middle School football team to "compete" with the Green Bay Packers, I can quite understand why you hold your position - if not, then I can't.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We shall see.

Public school monopoly of tax payer funding days are numbered.

Quite likely.

And when that happens then the class stratification of American society will become so totally obvious that even a blind fool will recognize it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Going to a public school does not eliminate the parents' choice of providing religious teaching in churches and at home..Every time I hear arguments based on the idea that "parents' choice" provide the final answer which justifies every parental choice, I remind people the issue of individual (kids') right. I assume, even you will be willing to set restrictions on parental choices regarding the education of their children and you would accept in principle a secular law of a minimum. mandatory, education even if parents are willing to have uneducated children. In short, it is simplistic to assume without justification that such decisions should be just a matter of parental choices

When I was in public school, we had "Catholic kids" (who went to "Catholic classes" in RCC funded schools outside of normal public school hours and whose parents paid the additional fees to those schools), we had "Jewish kids" (who went to "Jewish classes" in Temple funded schools outside of normal public school hours and whose parents paid the additional fees to those schools), we had "Japanese kids" (who went to "Japanese classes" in Japanese community funded schools outside of normal public school hours and whose parents paid the additional fees to those schools), and we had "Chinese kids" (who went to "Chinese classes" in Chinese community funded schools outside of normal public school hours and whose parents paid the additional fees to those schools).

PS - There is no "minimum, mandatory, education" in either Canada or the United States of America. There is, however, a "mandatory school attendance" requirement (which may vary by state or province). The parents are required to SEND their kids to school from the time the kids are _[fill in the blank]_ years old until the kids are _[fill in the blank]_ years old. The parents ARE NOT required to ensure that their kids actually either get to school or stay there one they have arrived. The schools ARE NOT required to actually teach the kids anything but ARE required to allow the kids entrance if the kids actually show up.

PPS - The possibility that some people oppose "universal standardized testing" simply because that would provide an objective (regardless of accuracy) measure of how well (or poorly) their kids are doing in school and would provide an objective (regardless of accuracy) standard whereby a child could "pass" or "fail" should not be discounted.​

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That's never been my point, nor is it really close to it. In fact, I've said on multiple occasions there are bad teachers and bad schools. I've said there are things that I think need to change in public school (and have even stated some of them).

However, for most of the time, I've been speaking broadly, about public education in general. And, broadly speaking, in general, the public school system is doing a better job than they can be reasonably expected to do.

Given the levels of both funding and societal backing currently prevalent in the US today, I do agree that "the public school system is doing a better job than they -can- _could_ be reasonably expected to do".

I do not agree that "the public school system is doing a better job than they can be reasonably expected to do" (and it isn't just because of the split infinitive). The public school system can, reasonably, be expected to provide each child with as much education as the child is capable of absorbing using educational methods which are appropriate for each individual child. That, of course, would be dependent on an increase in the front end cost of "education + social support" so that the increase in the first term is more than matched by a decrease in the second term. And that, naturally, would mean that the populace would have to adopt the very unAmerican "Short term pain for long term gain" philosophy. The numerical value of the odds on that happening on a society wide basis closely approximates the numerical value of the number of inches of show fall in Hell on an annual basis.​

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

And exactly how do you see that happening?

I am not interested in your hypotheticals. The simple truth is that if the public schools are forced to compete, they will cut enormous waste and rearrange their priorities. It's not just about money. The private schools get much better results with far less funding.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The simple truth is that if the public schools are forced to compete, they will cut enormous waste and rearrange their priorities. It's not just about money. The private schools get much better results with far less funding.

I agree

• Public Schools should be able to reject undesirable students (maybe the family doesn't make enough money, single parent, wrong religion, etc.) - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public Schools should be able to reject attendance of special education students (which are very expensive) - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public Schools should not be able to expel students for poor academic performance - you know so they can compete with Private Schools..
• Public Schools should not be able to expel students for poor classroom behavior - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• No more Public Schools having to administer standardized tests - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public Schools should not be subject to have non-discrimination policies for students and staff based on sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, race, nationality, etc. - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public Schools should eliminate expensive transportation for students or at least be able to charge the family thousands of $$$ for the privilege - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public School should not require teachers to be - you know educated and credentials to teach a subject - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public Schools should be able to expel/reject students if the parents are not going to be actively involved with the students education/school - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.

WW

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I am not interested in your hypotheticals.

IOW, you can't deal with it.

The simple truth is that if the public schools are forced to compete, they will cut enormous waste and rearrange their priorities.

And if public schools were allowed to reject students as being "too expensive to deal educate" and who were "too disruptive to allow smooth functioning of the school"" they would also cut enormous waste and would rearrange their priorities.

On the other hand, if public schools were restricted to those who were more expensive to educate and who were too disruptive to allow smooth functioning of the school they would incur more expenses and would also rearrange their priorities.

It's not just about money.

Of course it's just about money.

The private schools get much better results with far less funding.

Indeed, the private schools get better results with far less STATE funding. That's because they get PRIVATE funding and have the right to turf out the kids who are screwing around.

Not counting capital costs and interests, the average public school expenditure per student is around $11,782 (all "state funding"). The average private school tuition is around $11,645 (all "private funding"). The difference in TOTAL funding is around $147. The difference in "state funding" is around $11,782.

In short, the "cost per student" is pretty much identical between the two. Wherein lies the difference? You don't suppose that it has something to do with the differences in motivations between the average students at "public schools" and the averages students at "private schools" do you?

You might also want to consider whether or not public schools should be supporting expensive athletic programs and why US public school students (on average) spend twice as much time "playing sports" than do students in places like Korea and Japan and China.

 

[Slyfox696]

I am not interested in your hypotheticals. The simple truth is that if the public schools are forced to compete

Again, it is private schools that do not want to compete. That's why they actively discriminate against children.

The private schools get much better results with far less funding.

Only because they discriminate against children. They refuse to allow kids in their school that public school is required, by law, to educate. If Johnny, with no family support structure and no desire to learn, attended the private school, the private school would do no better educating him, and would likely do worse.

Are you people really this ignorant to how private schools operate or do you just not care about being honest about it?

 

[Slyfox696]

I agree

• Public Schools should be able to reject undesirable students (maybe the family doesn't make enough money, single parent, wrong religion, etc.) - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public Schools should be able to reject attendance of special education students (which are very expensive) - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public Schools should not be able to expel students for poor academic performance - you know so they can compete with Private Schools..
• Public Schools should not be able to expel students for poor classroom behavior - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• No more Public Schools having to administer standardized tests - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public Schools should not be subject to have non-discrimination policies for students and staff based on sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, race, nationality, etc. - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public Schools should eliminate expensive transportation for students or at least be able to charge the family thousands of $$$ for the privilege - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public School should not require teachers to be - you know educated and credentials to teach a subject - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public Schools should be able to expel/reject students if the parents are not going to be actively involved with the students education/school - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.

WW

I understand your intention here (and agree with the sentiment), but I prefer when your list requires private schools to do these things. In other words, we shouldn't allow public schools to discriminate against students as well, but rather should be forcing private schools to provide the same services, if competition is the goal.

 

[bluesmoke]

John Kennedy would have to run as a Republican today. You would call him an extremist. Today's MSM would crucify him for this line"

"Ask NOT what your country can do for YOU, Ask what YOU can do for your country!"

He would have been called <gasp> A WHITE nationalist!

Trolling with stink-bait.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I understand your intention here (and agree with the sentiment), but I prefer when your list requires private schools to do these things. In other words, we shouldn't allow public schools to discriminate against students as well, but rather should be forcing private schools to provide the same services, if competition is the goal.

Ya, those that bleat "competition" are afraid, very afraid of having real competition under similar rules.

Is it really about "competition" or segregation into protected groups at the exclusion of others. (Be it religious, ethnic, or socio-economic.)

WW

 

[Slyfox696]

Ya, those that bleat "competition" are afraid, very afraid of having real competition under similar rules.

Is it really about "competition" or segregation into protected groups at the exclusion of others. (Be it religious, ethnic, or socio-economic.)

WW

It is 100% about segregation and probably all three of the ones you mentioned.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I agree

• Public Schools should be able to reject undesirable students (maybe the family doesn't make enough money, single parent, wrong religion, etc.) - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public Schools should be able to reject attendance of special education students (which are very expensive) - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public Schools should not be able to expel students for poor academic performance - you know so they can compete with Private Schools..
• Public Schools should not be able to expel students for poor classroom behavior - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• No more Public Schools having to administer standardized tests - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public Schools should not be subject to have non-discrimination policies for students and staff based on sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, race, nationality, etc. - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public Schools should eliminate expensive transportation for students or at least be able to charge the family thousands of $$$ for the privilege - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public School should not require teachers to be - you know educated and credentials to teach a subject - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.
• Public Schools should be able to expel/reject students if the parents are not going to be actively involved with the students education/school - you know so they can compete with Private Schools.

WW

Complete nonsense. With vouchers, private schools are not getting 100% subsidized by the taxpayers. They are only getting a stipend compared to the public schools. Therefore your suggestion that they both should live by the same rules is ludicrous.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

IOW, you can't deal with it.

Your hypotheticals simply do not matter,

And if public schools were allowed to reject students as being "too expensive to deal educate" and who were "too disruptive to allow smooth functioning of the school"" they would also cut enormous waste and would rearrange their priorities.

On the other hand, if public schools were restricted to those who were more expensive to educate and who were too disruptive to allow smooth functioning of the school they would incur more expenses and would also rearrange their priorities.

How many times do I have to repeat it? Public schools are 100% taxpayer funded. Private schools are not, even with vouchers. Your "Both must live by the same rules" argument is just silly

Indeed, the private schools get better results with far less STATE funding. That's because they get PRIVATE funding and have the right to turf out the kids who are screwing around.

No, it's because the private schools are a business and know their long term survival depends on the ability to get the job done while managing on a budget. Their priorities are well balanced. The public schools just suckle up to the tit of government funding for their entire operating costs.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Complete nonsense. With vouchers, private schools are not getting 100% subsidized by the taxpayers. They are only getting a stipend compared to the public schools. Therefore your suggestion that they both should live by the same rules is ludicrous.

I support 100% refund of taxes (attributable to education) to be paid during a school year to parents for the education of their children for that year.

I also support Private and Public Schools having a level playing field for competition.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

How many times do I have to repeat it? Public schools are 100% taxpayer funded. Private schools are not, even with vouchers. Your "Both must live by the same rules" argument is just silly

At the point that Private Schools start taking tax payer $$$ they are funded by tax payers similar to Public Schools.

WW

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I support 100% refund of taxes (attributable to education) to be paid during a school year to parents for the education of their children for that year.

I also support Private and Public Schools having a level playing field for competition.

WW

Unrealistic. That would amount to 100% privatisation of the public school system. I doubt you libruls would go for that. You are just using that is a whine.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

At the point that Private Schools start taking tax payer $$$ they are funded by tax payers similar to Public Schools.

WW

Which part of public schools are 100% taxpayer funded and the private schools are not, do you not understand? It's not similar.

 

[Slyfox696]

Which part of public schools are 100% taxpayer funded and the private schools are not, do you not understand? It's not similar.

The hilarious part is you have no idea how badly you're being worked now.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Which part of public schools are 100% taxpayer funded and the private schools are not, do you not understand? It's not similar.

Not to worry, the DEMs won't fight tax payer funding of Private Schools to much. Oh they will make a show of it.

But then they will realize that once they get Private Schools suckling at the tax payer breast they will get to start to tie strings to the money:

• Non discrimination policies,
• Admission lotteries,
• Not being able to discriminate based on academic performance,
• Mandatory teacher credentialing,
• Requirements to take special needs students at no additional charge,
• etc.

WW

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Not to worry, the DEMs won't fight tax payer funding of Private Schools to much. Oh they will make a show of it.

But then they will realize that once they get Private Schools suckling at the tax payer breast they will get to start to tie strings to the money:

• Non discrimination policies,
• Admission lotteries,
• Not being able to discriminate based on academic performance,
• Mandatory teacher credentialing,
• Requirements to take special needs students at no additional charge,
• etc.

WW

But then the private schools are not and never will be sucking at the taxpayer breast. The voucher funding is for the parents. All the private schools see is another student if a parent takes advatage of vouchers. They spend the vouchers at the school of their choice.