The nations only statewide school voucher program faces legal showdown

[episodic]

The easy solution would be to keep vouchers for private schools - just not private 'religious schools'.

That'd be a compromise.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: episodic
The easy solution would be to keep vouchers for private schools - just not private 'religious schools'.

That'd be a compromise.

Not by the religious right!

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Since 1999 when the voucher system was instituted, the number of African-American fourth-grade students reading at grade level has gone up from 23% to 56%.

That doesn't mean it's okay all of a sudden to have government pay for religion.

So you advocate going back to the way things were, per the NEA, regardless of the tremendous improvement in school performance?

Are you so consumed by hatred of religion that you would deny a poor minority child a decent education?

 

[zendari]

Riprorin, what about people without children? They have to pay property taxes also.

The best solution, if you are sending your children to private schools, is to move to a crappy district, which I suspect you've already done.

The better public schools in this country are usually in wealthier areas with higher property/other local taxes, in fact, the school is a primary reason to draw people to the area.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Are you so consumed by hatred of religion that you would deny a poor minority child a decent education?

That is a loaded question. I don't hate religion. In any case suggesting that's my reason for opposing this is an appeal to motives, a logical fallacy.

I think government not paying for religion is important enough to not allow vouchers to be used in religious schools.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Again, it sounds like you're advocating a libertarian / fiscal conservative viewpoint. I don't feel the need to take issue with that right now. I just don't want "government money that comes from tax dollars" to go towards religion.

I'm not as versed as others here on which "political category" my opinion falls into, so if you are wary of me pushing a particular political position - don't be. I honestly don't even know if this is libertarian or whatever. 🙂

Think of it this way...

What would you think if the government DESIGNATED the use of state & federal income tax return money. This is money that is deducted from our wages, and returned to us at the end of the year in the form of a refund. It's OUR MONEY, but since the government has been in possession of it, we now entitle them to dictate exactly where we should spend it....

Don't you see that this is the same thing?

Everybody contributes to state/federal taxes in support of public education. This money is deducted from our wages, and at the beginning of each school year, is forwarded to our childrens' schools to defray the cost of education. It's OUR MONEY, but since the government has been in possession of it, we are entitling them to dictate exactly where we should spend it.

The school voucher system is nothing more than CHOICE. CHOICE in where your FAIR SHARE of public education tax dollars should be spent. If you don't like the idea of religion, then feel free NOT to send your children's fair share of dollars to a religious school.

What gives you the right to decide how I should spend my own fair share of that money??

 

[Riprorin]

I'd send my kids to private school regardless of where I lived. The schools in my town aren't the best and they aren't the worst.

Like I said, education and environment are important to me. I don't think that schools in affluent areas necessarily offer the best environment.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Are you so consumed by hatred of religion that you would deny a poor minority child a decent education?

That is a loaded question. I don't hate religion. In any case suggesting that's my reason for opposing this is an appeal to motives, a logical fallacy.

I think government not paying for religion is important enough to not allow vouchers to be used in religious schools.

What do you mean by "paying for religion"? The vouchers pay for education.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Like I tried to say before, I'm not that interested in discussing that aspect right now. I will say that almost any public expenditure is unethical with your reasoning, since it takes a person's right to choose what they do with their money.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Again, it sounds like you're advocating a libertarian / fiscal conservative viewpoint. I don't feel the need to take issue with that right now. I just don't want "government money that comes from tax dollars" to go towards religion.

I'm not as versed as others here on which "political category" my opinion falls into, so if you are wary of me pushing a particular political position - don't be. I honestly don't even know if this is libertarian or whatever. 🙂

Think of it this way...

What would you think if the government DESIGNATED the use of state & federal income tax return money. This is money that is deducted from our wages, and returned to us at the end of the year in the form of a refund. It's OUR MONEY, but since the government has been in possession of it, we now entitle them to dictate exactly where we should spend it....

Don't you see that this is the same thing?

Everybody contributes to state/federal taxes in support of public education. This money is deducted from our wages, and at the beginning of each school year, is forwarded to our childrens' schools to defray the cost of education. It's OUR MONEY, but since the government has been in possession of it, we are entitling them to dictate exactly where we should spend it.

The school voucher system is nothing more than CHOICE. CHOICE in where your FAIR SHARE of public education tax dollars should be spent. If you don't like the idea of religion, then feel free NOT to send your children's fair share of dollars to a religious school.

What gives you the right to decide how I should spend my own fair share of that money??

Exactly, shouldn't a parent decide what school is best for his child rather than a bureaucrat?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What do you mean by "paying for religion"? The vouchers pay for education.

Who gives out the vouchers that go towards religion Rip? The government does, using taxpayer money. I don't want the government and religion in the same financial equation.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What do you mean by "paying for religion"? The vouchers pay for education.

Who gives out the vouchers that go towards religion Rip? The government does, using taxpayer money. I don't want the government and religion in the same financial equation.

The vouchers go towards education.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'd send my kids to private school regardless of where I lived. The schools in my town aren't the best and they aren't the worst.

Like I said, education and environment are important to me. I don't think that schools in affluent areas necessarily offer the best environment.

Which is fine, and its great you do what's best for your kids. But I don't like the idea of vouchers; its everyones responsibility to help fund education, even if you don't have anyone in your family who can/chooses to use it.

It becomes my business because the beaurocracy needs your money to maintain a school; withdraw it and the burden gets shifted onto everyone else.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What do you mean by "paying for religion"? The vouchers pay for education.

Who gives out the vouchers that go towards religion Rip? The government does, using taxpayer money. I don't want the government and religion in the same financial equation.

The vouchers go towards education.

The government vouchers go towards religious education.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I don't want the government and religion in the same financial equation.

Again,

If you don't like the idea of religion, then feel free NOT to send your children's fair share of dollars to a religious school.

What gives you the right to decide how I should spend my own fair share of that money??

BTW the government already directly supports religious schools in the form of state/federal financial aid to students seeking admission to private colleges & universities. Some of these are among the best performing schools in the nation.

Why should families of K-12 students be disallowed the opportunity to send their children to the school of their choice?

Should we now pull the millions of taxpayers' dollars going towards these schools because some segment of the population disagrees with how these families choose to spend their fair share of public education dollars?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

I'm not interested in your counfounding of two distinct issues. One is whether people should choose what they do with their money, the other one is whether the government should spend money on religious education. I don't feel like talk about the first point. Hope you can deal with that. Hint: repeating yourself isn't going to make me want to talk about the former.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: Infohawk
School vouchers should not apply to religious institutions. The government shouldn't pay for religion.

If students at a religious school are OUTPERFORMING students at a nearby public school on standardized tests, then as a parent I believe I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT to send both my child, and my child's share of public education dollars to the school of my choice. :thumbsup:😀

Typical.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Engineer
Takes the Republican theme of ownership society here...

GET TWO JOBS AND PAY FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL YOURSELF IF YOU WANT IT!!!

IF NOT, THEN SUFFER!!!

I have one job and am the sole bread winner in my household and my kids go to private school.

It's all a matter of priorities.

What does your comment have to do with vouchers anyway?

To qualify for a voucher, a child must attend a school that has failed state evaluations for two out of four years. 94% of the 700 vouchers given out went to minority students.

What's the advantage of propping up failed schools?

Then shut down the failing schools and let the people fend for themselves. Maybe you can afford private school on your job. Others can't. They can get two jobs. Ownership society at it's best. If you can't afford it, too bad. Send your kids to publicly funded public schools or do it on your own.

Nice and easy.

I have an engineers salary. That hardly puts me in the category of the rich and famous.

Education and the type of environment my kids are in are more important to me than a big house and new cars.

Like I said, it's a matter of priorities.

Too bad? What do have against tax payers having the freedom to decide where to send their children to school?

You can send your kids where you want. YOU can pay for it. I don't like Iraq wars buy my money goes to that shithole.

Maybe a good contractor friend of mine paves highways much better than the state. I think my road tax money should go to him to pave the street instead of the city or state.

Let's take the ownership society theme one step further....teach your own kids yourself at home if you want them to have a better education and don't want to work harder to provide it!

Currently, I'm paying twice, once for my school of choice and once to support inferior schools in my area.

Good. Pony up then shut up. Kthx.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: zendari
It becomes my business because the beaurocracy needs your money to maintain a school; withdraw it and the burden gets shifted onto everyone else.

Finally, a comment that goes to the heart of the issue...

I say, if the parents of a given student choose to pull their child out of a public school in favor of a private one, then the school no longer has the right to receive that child's fair share of public education dollars. The only "burden" that is shifted is the cost of defraying that child's education. But, that child is no longer in attendance - so why should the school continue to receive that child's fair share of public education dollars?

In my opinion, if enough parents pull their children out of a given public school, the school will become too costly to operate for the benefit of a small number of students and will be forced to close.

This is a Good Thing (tm). It's natural selection at work. Only the fittest schools will survive. Over the long run, underperforming schools will be naturally eliminated in favor of superior performing ones.

How is this bad again? Oh yeah, some teachers' unions will lose a few members... :thumbsup:😀

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: zendari
Riprorin, what about people without children? They have to pay property taxes also.

The best solution, if you are sending your children to private schools, is to move to a crappy district, which I suspect you've already done.

The better public schools in this country are usually in wealthier areas with higher property/other local taxes, in fact, the school is a primary reason to draw people to the area.

Also fallacious thinking. Many areas have redistricted so that you may live next door to a top school but have to be bussed many miles to a 'terrible' school.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I'm not interested in your counfounding of two distinct issues. One is whether people should choose what they do with their money, the other one is whether the government should spend money on religious education. I don't feel like talk about the first point. Hope you can deal with that. Hint: repeating yourself isn't going to make me want to talk about the former.

Hint: If you don't feel like discussing an issue, it's easier not to bother replying. 🙂

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'd send my kids to private school regardless of where I lived. The schools in my town aren't the best and they aren't the worst.

Like I said, education and environment are important to me. I don't think that schools in affluent areas necessarily offer the best environment.

Does your kids' private school teach science or religion in science class? My guess would be the latter. That's one reason why I oppose public school vouchers being used for religious schools.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What do you mean by "paying for religion"? The vouchers pay for education.

Who gives out the vouchers that go towards religion Rip? The government does, using taxpayer money. I don't want the government and religion in the same financial equation.

The vouchers go towards education.

Preaching and advocating religion != education.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'd send my kids to private school regardless of where I lived. The schools in my town aren't the best and they aren't the worst.

Like I said, education and environment are important to me. I don't think that schools in affluent areas necessarily offer the best environment.

Does your kids' private school teach science or religion in science class? My guess would be the latter. That's one reason why I oppose public school vouchers being used for religious schools.

If you're opposed to religious schools then don't send your child to one.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Hint: If you don't feel like discussing an issue, it's easier not to bother replying. 🙂

Why? Then the person doesn't know if you just missed the post, are chickening out, or something else. Communicating it is much more efficient.