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

[Cope]

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

Oh the tears and screams that would follow!
But I think you get it! Parent's and a certain subset of students cause the Public school to fail at the job of educating and keeping in front of the students who are there to learn.

Now, just get the Democrats, the NEA, the Administration , and the teachers union on board and you should be good to go!

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

No, they don't spend the vouchers at the school of their choice.

They spend the vouchers ($$$ at tax payer expense) at the school that choose them.

Why would a parent send their voucher to a school if the school said they wouldn't accept the student?

WW

 

[TomFitz]

Oh the tears and screams that would follow!
But I think you get it! Parent's and a certain subset of students cause the Public school to fail at the job of educating and keeping in front of the students who are there to learn.

Now, just get the Democrats, the NEA, the Administration , and the teachers union on board and you should be good to go!

You shouldn’t call yourself a centerist if you’re going to sling right wing bogey men like that.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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

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?

I'll take "Option B" for $500, Alex."

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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 do so love your definition of "competition" which appears to be analogous to

1. The football teams are equal except that
2. "Team A" has to make 10 yards in 8 downs while "Team B" has to do it in 4;
3. "Team A" gets 6 points for a touchdown (plus 1 for the conversion) while "Team B" gets 12 (plus 2 for the conversion)
4. "Team A" can have 11 players on the field while "Team B" can have no more than 22; and
5. At the start of the game "Team A" is credited with 0 points while "Team B" is credited with 28 points.

As you can plainly see, the two teams are "competing" on a "level playing field" since the actual playing field has been graded flat and with no slope.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Your hypotheticals simply do not matter,

Indeed, to those who are incapable of extended and logical thinking, they are.

How many times do I have to repeat it? Public schools are 100% taxpayer funded.

What a blinding flash of the obvious.

Private schools are not, even with vouchers.

Again, I cannot express my astonishment at the insightful nature of your analysis.

Your "Both must live by the same rules" argument is just silly

Not my argument - although, generally speaking, when two organizations "compete" they do "play by the same rules".

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.

NOVEMBER SIERRA SIERRA

Their priorities are well balanced.

Why has no one ever noticed this before?

The public schools just suckle up to the tit of government funding for their entire operating costs.

Tell me, if the public schools were reliant on the "vouchers" for their funding, wouldn't that be "government funding"?

PS - Did you know that the parents of kids who are attending private schools pay "School Taxes" that help support the public school system. Do you think that it is "fair" that they have to pay for services which they are not getting? Did you know that companies pay "School Taxes" even though they don't have any children at all? Do you think that it is "fair" that they have to pay for services which they have no way of using?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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.

So those taxpayers who do not have children in the school system wouldn't get anything back at all - right?

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

WW

Unlike those who advocate that "Their Side" get all the advantages while "The Other Side" pays all the costs.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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

WW

No, NO, NO! You don't understand. They wouldn't be getting "government money", they'd be getting "vouchers".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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.

Right, and no one pays any of their bills with their income because they deposit their paycheques in the bank, at which point it stops being "income" and becomes "their money".

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Right, and no one pays any of their bills with their income because they deposit their paycheques in the bank, at which point it stops being "income" and becomes "their money".

The vast majority of active voucher systems do not pay a child's entire tuition costs...only part of it. What is your point?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Tell me, if the public schools were reliant on the "vouchers" for their funding, wouldn't that be "government funding"?

That is what you are still refusing to learn. The private schools are absolutely not reliant on the vouchers. However many of the parents are. To the private schools, it's just another student and the tuition that comes with those parents sending their kid to that school.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I do so love your definition of "competition" which appears to be analogous to

1. The football teams are equal except that
2. "Team A" has to make 10 yards in 8 downs while "Team B" has to do it in 4;
3. "Team A" gets 6 points for a touchdown (plus 1 for the conversion) while "Team B" gets 12 (plus 2 for the conversion)
4. "Team A" can have 11 players on the field while "Team B" can have no more than 22; and
5. At the start of the game "Team A" is credited with 0 points while "Team B" is credited with 28 points.

As you can plainly see, the two teams are "competing" on a "level playing field" since the actual playing field has been graded flat and with no slope.

Very humorous attempt at a strawman argument.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The vast majority of active voucher systems do not pay a child's entire tuition costs...only part of it. What is your point?

I see, so what you are proposing is either

[1] the parents get a voucher that doesn't cover the cost of educating the child and, even if the child goes to public school, the parent makes up the difference out of their own pocket

or

[2] the parents get a voucher that doesn't cover the cost of educating the child and, if the child goes to public school, the public school operates at a loss because the parents don't pay anything over and above the amount of the voucher.

Now, to get back to your "What is your point?", the answer to that question is

That you have absolutely no idea of the fiscal realities involved and have latched onto a jargon catchphrase (and one that is being pushed by those who already have the benefit of not putting their kids into the public school system) that you don't understand and are mindlessly jabbering cant that you don't understand on a subject that you are almost totally ignorant on.​

Is that clear enough for you?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That is what you are still refusing to learn. The private schools are absolutely not reliant on the vouchers. However many of the parents are.

You mean to tell me that those people who can afford to send their kids to private schools are ALREADY getting "vouchers" to help pay for that education?

If that is true, then I am absolutely shocked.

If that is not true, then that is about what I would expect from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

To the private schools, it's just another student and the tuition that comes with those parents sending their kid to that school.

NOVEMBER SIERRA SIERRA

How do you propose to deal with the situation where the parents of the kids who are already attending the private school tell the operators of the private school that they will withdraw their kids if the school lets "Those People" in?

PS - Please don't attempt to tell me that it would be a "civil rights violation" for the parents to do that since the parents are NOT the ones who are offering the educational services and that means that they have the freedom to choose which school they are going to pay to educate their children.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Very humorous attempt at a strawman argument.

Obviously the meaning of the word "analogous" and the meaning of the word "strawman" are as unfamiliar to you as is the meaning of the word "argument".

 

[Cope]

You shouldn’t call yourself a centerist if you’re going to sling right wing bogey men like that.

What was false?
Is it not a subset of students that are the drag to the American school system?
Does that same school system not continue to lower standards so that subset can pass grade, even though, they have not mastered it?
I guess my question for you is, what boogey man are you referring to?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

You mean to tell me that those people who can afford to send their kids to private schools are ALREADY getting "vouchers" to help pay for that education?

Not what I said, however since you mention it, they should have the option of directing their share of the taxes as well.

How do you propose to deal with the situation where the parents of the kids who are already attending the private school tell the operators of the private school that they will withdraw their kids if the school lets "Those People" in?

Why would they do that? There is a wide range of private schools, not all of them are for the wealthy. Or did you just assume they were all comparable to Sidwell Friends? Most private schools will accept any child that is not an icorrigible behavior problem as long as the tuition is paid.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

[1] the parents get a voucher that doesn't cover the cost of educating the child and, even if the child goes to public school, the parent makes up the difference out of their own pocket

In most state's voucher programs it's not intended to cover the entire cost of private school tuition. It's merely their shar eof taxes directed at education. It's an assist, not an entire subsidy

[2] the parents get a voucher that doesn't cover the cost of educating the child and, if the child goes to public school, the public school operates at a loss because the parents don't pay anything over and above the amount of the voucher.

Where do you come up with these wild eyed assumptions? Perhaps you meant to say "child goes to private school"?

Now, to get back to your "What is your point?", the answer to that question is

That you have absolutely no idea of the fiscal realities involved and have latched onto a jargon catchphrase (and one that is being pushed by those who already have the benefit of not putting their kids into the public school system) that you don't understand and are mindlessly jabbering cant that you don't understand on a subject that you are almost totally ignorant on.
Is that clear enough for you?

That is just an angry projection laced rant.

 

[Slyfox696]

Not what I said, however since you mention it, they should have the option of directing their share of the taxes as well.

Why is that? I don't get that option for anything else my taxes go to pay. If I don't like the President or my Congressional respresentatives, why can't I not just pay my federal income taxes?

Why would they do that?

I sincerely hope you are truly this naive. But I doubt it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Not what I said,

What you said was "The private schools are absolutely not reliant on the vouchers. However many of the parents are."

So, are those parents of the kids going to private schools handing over their vouchers that they are already getting or are they paying the tuition out of their "assets" and making you the difference in their expenses of daily living by cashing the vouchers that they are already getting and misdirecting the funds which were supposed to be used for their kids' educations for their own personal use?

however since you mention it, they should have the option of directing their share of the taxes as well.

What "taxes"? If the state is not providing a service, then the state has no right to "tax" people to pay for it and the state would no longer be providing that "public school" service.

And, would "AKME Megalithic Global Industries" which pays $1,000,000 per year in "school taxes"

Why would they do that?

You really do NOT understand what "social class" means.

There is a wide range of private schools, not all of them are for the wealthy.

NOVEMBER SIERRA SIERRA

Or did you just assume they were all comparable to Sidwell Friends?

Nope.

Most private schools will accept any child that is not an icorrigible behavior problem as long as the tuition is paid.

Oh REALLY‽‽‽‽‽

And, of course, if that were so, then that would mean that the public schools would have a student body made up of kids that were

[1] incorrigible behaviour problems (which means they cost more to keep under control)​

​

[2] too costly for the private schools to educate at their standard tuition​

​

or​

​

[3] both [1] and [2] above.​

I can see how that is REALLY going to "improve" the quality of education that the public schools are able to deliver when their funding is reduced to what it costs to educate an "average" student.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

In most state's voucher programs it's not intended to cover the entire cost of private school tuition. It's merely their shar eof taxes directed at education. It's an assist, not an entire subsidy

So, why would those people who CHOSE NOT to have any children and those people who do not have any children of school age and those "people" who can never have any children, be required to pay for the education of other people's children?

Isn't the "correct conservative position" that those people who do have children SHOULD NOT have CHOSEN to have children that they cannot afford and that "We" shouldn't have to pay for the bad decisions of "Those People"?

Where do you come up with these wild eyed assumptions? Perhaps you meant to say "child goes to private school"?

Might I suggest that you actually attempt what is known as "reading for content" rather than simply responding to what you want the other person to have said.

I wrote EXACTLY what I meant. It isn't my fault that the level of literacy education in American schools today isn't what it was when I was in public school.

That is just an angry projection laced rant.

Obviously it wasn't clear enough for you.

 

[Grand Mal]

No, they don't spend the vouchers at the school of their choice.

They spend the vouchers ($$$ at tax payer expense) at the school that choose them.

Why would a parent send their voucher to a school if the school said they wouldn't accept the student?

WW

One of the things private schools sell to their clients is exclusivity. Their customers don't want to lose the educational and social advantage the school provides their children. If need be, if the gvernment gave everyone $3,500 vouchers the best private school tuition would go up $3,500 to maintain the social segregation.
If a good private school finds despite its waiting list that it has an open seat or two this season they'll fill them with selected scholarship students, not the first Billy Bob who shows up waving a voucher.
The private school that accepts vouchers first-come, first-serve is not likely to be any better than the public system. Likely to be worse, in fact.
Advocates of privatizing the educational system need to look around the world, see what the best systems look like and copy what they're doing, not try to reinvent the wheel.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

One of the things private schools sell to their clients is exclusivity. Their customers don't want to lose the educational and social advantage the school provides their children. If need be, if the gvernment gave everyone $3,500 vouchers the best private school tuition would go up $3,500 to maintain the social segregation.
If a good private school finds despite its waiting list that it has an open seat or two this season they'll fill them with selected scholarship students, not the first Billy Bob who shows up waving a voucher.
The private school that accepts vouchers first-come, first-serve is not likely to be any better than the public system. Likely to be worse, in fact.
Advocates of privatizing the educational system need to look around the world, see what the best systems look like and copy what they're doing, not try to reinvent the wheel.

Don't forget that it was an American who invented the wheel (and also an American who invented fire [and also an American who invented food]).

 

[bluesmoke]

Yep.

Should there be unions, at all?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Should there be unions, at all?

I believe that the actual (but never stated in public) conservative position is "The workers should never be allowed to combine because for the workers to combine is "socialism/communism", however it is 100% OK for the owners to combine and any interference with their right to combine is "socialism/communism".