The nations only statewide school voucher program faces legal showdown

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I pay about 4K per child for elementary school.

lucky 😉

I just looked at the check book. Actually it's about $3,750 per child (there's a discount for two children).

The tuition at my kids' school is more expensive than other parochial schools in the area because it isn't associated with a church.

High school ramps up to about $7 - $8K/yr.

but still, wouldn't you agree that parents paying a significant amount of cash for their child's education are far more likely to push them to do well in school?

 

[robertcloud]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I pay about 4K per child for elementary school.

My parents pay 28K/year for my sister's.

 

[gsaldivar]

Florida Supreme Court is in-session NOW on C-SPAN. 🙂

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Then by your own logic you'll have to admit to my previous statement that government employess should not be able to send their children to religious schools.

No. I don't. Again, you can go to absurd extremes but it's not useful. We could also say a person who buys a candybar from a grocer, who later uses the cash to buy a stereo from a guy who gives the cash to a terrorist is supporting terrorism. That's stretching the causal chain too far.

Except the chain, in both cases that I described only moves through two hands, the same as the government-->schools in this case.

The government is allowing parents to make a choice of schools. Now you are claiming the government should either invaliate or control their choice.

Aren't you supposedly of the more liberal persuation?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Except the chain, in both cases that I described only moves through two hands, the same as the government-->schools in this case.

Edit: again the causal chain is too attenuated despite the fact that there are two hands. The giving of salary is unrelated to the expenditure by the worker. However, with vouchers, the giving of money is targeted at the expenditure by the citizen.

The government is allowing parents to make a choice of schools. Now you are claiming the government should either invaliate or control their choice.

No, the government gives them a chocie already to pay with their own money.

Aren't you supposedly of the more liberal persuation?

I've asked you this question many times too. 😉

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I pay about 4K per child for elementary school.

lucky 😉

I just looked at the check book. Actually it's about $3,750 per child (there's a discount for two children).

The tuition at my kids' school is more expensive than other parochial schools in the area because it isn't associated with a church.

High school ramps up to about $7 - $8K/yr.

but still, wouldn't you agree that parents paying a significant amount of cash for their child's education are far more likely to push them to do well in school?

I would say that's probably generally true. However, I'd push my kids regardless of where they went to school. They could probably get a decent education at the public schools in my area but that's not the only issue for me. Spiritual and emotional growth are just as important to me as academic growth.

Incidentally, a lot of kids at my children's school have a parent who's a public school teacher.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I pay about 4K per child for elementary school.

lucky 😉

I just looked at the check book. Actually it's about $3,750 per child (there's a discount for two children).

The tuition at my kids' school is more expensive than other parochial schools in the area because it isn't associated with a church.

High school ramps up to about $7 - $8K/yr.

but still, wouldn't you agree that parents paying a significant amount of cash for their child's education are far more likely to push them to do well in school?

I would say that's probably generally true. However, I'd push my kids regardless of where they went to school. They could probably get a decent education at the public schools in my area but that's not the only issue for me. Spiritual and emotional growth are just as important to me as academic growth.

Incidentally, a lot of kids at my children's school have a parent who's a public school teacher.

So what does any of this have to do with anything? You are free to continue to pay your earnings towards private eductions for your kids. Sorry, your tax dollars are never going to go to help fund this endeavor. EVARRRRRRR.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I pay about 4K per child for elementary school.

lucky 😉

I just looked at the check book. Actually it's about $3,750 per child (there's a discount for two children).

The tuition at my kids' school is more expensive than other parochial schools in the area because it isn't associated with a church.

High school ramps up to about $7 - $8K/yr.

but still, wouldn't you agree that parents paying a significant amount of cash for their child's education are far more likely to push them to do well in school?

I would say that's probably generally true. However, I'd push my kids regardless of where they went to school. They could probably get a decent education at the public schools in my area but that's not the only issue for me. Spiritual and emotional growth are just as important to me as academic growth.

Incidentally, a lot of kids at my children's school have a parent who's a public school teacher.

So what does any of this have to do with anything? You are free to continue to pay your earnings towards private eductions for your kids. Sorry, your tax dollars are never going to go to help fund this endeavor. EVARRRRRRR.

What does this have to do with? I merely attepted to answer a question that was directed to me.

What is this "endeavor" that you speak of?

 

[Zebo]

NEA is very powerful..

"the government" gives money all day long to Norte Dame (and about 100 other colleges) and her students in Pell, loans, grants, etc.. Don't here you guys crying about that...

So what's the diff? None.

Admit it you guys hate religion even more so when taught to impressionable children which is why this is a big deal..


OP I favor vouchers, always have. The public schools suck in most of USA, getting worse, charging tax payers more, and students getting less. Really feel sorry for the poor who are trapped in hell-hole public school.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Zebo
NEA is very powerful..

"the government" gives money all day long to Norte Dame (and about 100 other colleges) and her students in Pell, loans, grants, etc.. Don't here you guys crying about that...

So what's the diff? None.

Admit it you guys hate religion even more so when taught to impressionable children which is why this is a big deal..


OP I favor vouchers, always have. The public schools suck in most of USA, getting worse, charging tax payers more, and students getting less. Really feel sorry for the poor who are trapped in hell-hole public school.

LOL. Surely you can see the difference between K-12 and college students being able get grants for continuing education. LMAO. Nice stretch though. I'll ask you since RIP never replied, do you think single people and people with all children over 18 years of age should be able to blow off paying for school taxes? Why should they have to pay for the failing public school system you speak of? If I take my garbage to the dump instead of letting the garbage guys pick it up, can I stop paying my taxes on that as well? Get over yourself. Neither your children nor yourselves are special. You want them to learn in a private school, PAY FOR IT.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: robertcloud

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I pay about 4K per child for elementary school.

My parents pay 28K/year for my sister's. Im six years out and it was only 22K then 🙁

For high school? You guys are nuts.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Riprorin
In Florida, the vouchers can be used at any accredited school in the state. In 2003 - 2004, 25% of the vouchers were used at schools with religious affiliations.

Good. Then, there's another 25% of public funds that can be better spent trying to improve the public schools for the benefit of the public. 😎

Using that money to improve public schools is like throwing money into a bottomless pit.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: tec699
A quality public education comes down to one issue: MONEY! Public schools in money districts do very well. The parents are well educated. They make a great income and they have a vested interest in their child?s education. Over 95% of the student body will attend college. All of the students have laptops.

Go to a poor district and it's an entirely different matter. The parents aren't interested in their child?s academic work, the parents don't attend parent/teacher conferences, they abuse drugs and alcohol, the children live in sh*t holes, etc? Drug dealers are on every street corner. Hell I remember hearing about a 7-year-old kid that was acting as a drug runner for his older brother! 7 years old! The list goes on and on. The private sector is going to fix these deep social issues? Yea, sure.

Riporin if you think you can make a difference then please go teach in the inner district. You'll be greeted with a "f*ck you" and "Teacher I make more money selling dope in one day than you make in a week." Hell I've seen papers in a student's book bag that hadn't been touched in weeks! The parent didn't give a sh*t and you know what the student?s response was when this was brought up? "I can do what I want and if you do anything my mom will sue the school!"

The public schools in the poor districts can only do so much. Where is the blame at when it comes to bad parenting? Why should educators have to be blamed for every god damn academic issue? Are their bad teachers? YES! Are their bad public schools? YES! However, to state that every public school is bad and is under performing academically is ludicrous. Look at the community and you'll find a lot of the academic issues first happen at home. No amount of private intervention is going to change the mindset of these people.


Btw? the charter schools in NJ are an absolute failure. They have under performed time and time again. Their scores are awful and are continuously at the bottom of the list. The public schools in NJ are vastly improving in key areas but math is still a sore spot.

Finally, I had an awful public school experience. I?m not going to get into the details but my public school experience wasn?t pleasant. I had some serious academic issues coming out of high school and college has been very hard for me.

I also like the No Child Left Behind Act as well.

🙂

A quality public education comes down to one issue: MONEY!

That's ridiculous. Given the same demographic, parochial schools outperform public schools at a fraction of the cost.

Richer districts do have better schools than poorer ones. It's not so much due to having more funding (though they probably do), but rather the kids and parental emphasis on education.

It's my belief that a great kid can shine from almost anywhere.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: zendari
Richer districts do have better schools than poorer ones. It's not so much due to having more funding (though they probably do), but rather the kids and parental emphasis on education.

It's important to look at it from the perspective that even if incomes are higher, educational spending needs to be compared on its own.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: screech
the "______ school is better than _____ school" stuff is hilarious.

Kids determine their own education. if they learn that's really their choice. you can get a great education at a "crappy" school, just pay attention. In addition, often the kids make the school as much as the school makes the kids......i'll explain:

Usually, kids with richer parents perform better. Fact, at least in my experience. Richer parents are the ones sending their kids to private schools. this is another FACT for obvious reasons; poor parents won't pay extra $1000's that thye can't afford. So often a person might say "but private school outperform_____school district" but it is really the students, not the school itself. Take a bunch of F students from a public school and stick them in a private one and guess what, you won't find a huge turnaround.

I favor public education on the basis of the teachers needing a set amount of qualifications. Private schools don't have that framework. If you want your kid to learn from a whackjob (not saying all private school teachers are unqualified or whatever, just that the chance is far higher than a public school) rather than a qualified teacher, so be it, but pay for it yourself....

You're so clueless it's almost funny; emphasis on "almost." I have a friend who during his masters in Molecular Biology decided to teach high school kids math for some extra cash. He told me in no uncertain terms that if you are doing badly in these schools the teacher just does not have the time to spend to help you. He told me that all but one kid who were failing ended up passing the state level test in the end just because of the little attention they got from tutors. They weren't dumb kids, they just needed a little help to get through the exam.

He also told me that there was an entire floor in the school that no teacher had the guts to even walk on because of some ethnic group taking over that floor. Consequently no classes are ever held on that floor. Third world countries have better education than that. Public education outside affluent suburbia isn't what you think it is.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If you're opposed to religious schools then don't send your child to one.

That's not the issue. THe issue is the tax dollars being spent on religion.

No, the issue is choice. Parents should have the right to decide what school is best for their child, not the government.

They're perfectly welcome to do that, but on their own money, not the taxpayers'.

Its ironic how the left is pro-choice when it comes to killing babies, but anti-choice when it comes to parents deciding which school is best for their child.

Woo hoo. Kill them babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kind of ironic that the fundie, better than thou righties keep trying to weasel their way out of paying their fair share.

What is next, going to try and stop paying taxes on the roads that you don't drive on since your neighborhood is paved in gold? Why should you have to help foot that bill either? So if you take your trash to the dump every week as opposed to having the garbage men pick it up, you don't want to have to pay for that either, right?

ELITIST

Don't be stupid. Some things are more efficient done as public services, others are not. Education is clearly being shown to be in the second category.

 

[CreativeTom]

Originally posted by: robertcloud
It is in the demoncrats interests to keep the poor uneducated and in poverty so they will continue to vote for liberal candidates. Since they are uneducated, they won't realize that the dems havn't done anything for them.

Oh....interesting opinion very stupid considering the views of the right wing freaks like you.

 

[Red Dawn]

I sent 2 of my 3 Stepsons to a Christian High School on my own dime. One became a Minister (though not a puritanical loon like some of the extremist fundies in this thread) and the other one turned out normal.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Would vouchers increase to account for the higher cost of better performing schools, or would parents have to send their kids to school based on what they can afford?

Each private school is responsible for determining its own tuition fees. Vouchers only refund an individual child's fair share of the public education funding that would have otherwise been used to defray the cost of attending a public school.

Families are responsible for covering any "gap" between the amount of funds provided by a school voucher, and the actual cost of attending a private school.

With or without vouchers, parents must decide the appropriate school for their child based on what they can afford. With a voucher system in-place, many families that were formerly unable to afford the entire cost of a private school, may be able to afford the cost of a private school by only having to pay for the gap in funding. :thumbsup:😀

"any gap" makes it sound like a small amount, which may, or may not be the case.

Isn't it a little shortsighted to assume that the gap will remain the same? When you introduce vouchers into the system, you make education a commodity, subject to market pressures. With more parents looking at private schools (increased demand), wouldn't the market forces suggest that a better performing school charge more?

As a parent, I also want my kids to have the best education that I can afford (and I understand that vouchers would help me afford more). However, my gain may result in someone else's loss. I can afford a school that has a value of $voucher+$5k/year; someone else cannot and will have to send their kids to a school that has a value of $voucher.
OTOH, a similar effect happens when people move to better performing school districts (which I just did).

 

[ExpertNovice]

Private schools should be allowed to receive vouchers. It is the parents that are choosing a specific religion not the Government.

For the many that don't know, the "separation of church and state" clause means that the U.S. Government shall not establish any religion, including atheism, on the population.

To enforce this all true religions (i.e., not satanism, church of the wild hair, navel contemplating, etc.), are not subject to taxes.

It was never intended to keep people with religious beliefs and religious ideals out of politics. On the contrary the founding fathers came here to escape religious persecution but understood that a religious morality was necessary to help prevent corruption.

The current concept is being perpetrated by forces that wish to remove freedom from everyone on the face of this planet. (then beyond! 😉 Anyone is capable, if they choose, to see how religion is squashed by communist and totalitarian controlled countries.

Religious beliefs means that man ultimately doesn't answer to other men thus man should not be able to enslave another.

Thus, I agree that having the Government decree any specific religion is wrong. Of course, there is nothing logical about ensuring that the Government enforces atheism as a religion either.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What do you think is better, having a voucher system or condemning students to an inferior education?

BTW, the question you ask is that of a radical. If you really are a conservative, please raise your standards and not embarrass the rest of us. Pleas.

Specifically, not all private schools are better than all public schools.

Vouchers allow the poorer familes the same opportunites as our elite politicians have. It also gives competition in an area that is currently monopolized by the NEA. Of course, most people understand that honest competition is good.

A friend of my son (who liberals would classify as a minority) came from a broken and poor home. His Mom worked 3 jobs, only one was full time of course, to provide what she could. I ended up paying for her divorce because she couldn't afford to and the step dad was quite abusive, although not physically.

He was becoming very agressive in school and started getting into fights. Then he started getting involved with a group of kids who, shall we say, had no morals. Because of his own ethics, partially because he had been raised as a Catholic, he recognized his situation needed to be changed. He found a private high school and asked his Mom if he could attend it instead of the government run school. She couldn't afford it.

So, he turned to the various liberal support groups who basically laughed in his face. Again on his own he went to the school and discussed his situation and they pointed him to an organization that would help him. With a bit of grant money he went to work after schools. His Mom then chipped in some money. He went back to the school and gave him a scholarship.

It would have been nice had the money she was forced to give to the government to support a government run school, that even her son recognized was neither giving him the education he needed nor provided a safe haven while being "educated," could have been used to help with the school of his choice.

Unfortunately, free choice is not allowed in a liberal governemtn. In this case the free choice of a young man to attend a private school funded by the Catholic church. Instead they want to keep our children in their schools to be indoctrinated into accepting what is virtually a share cropping attitude. That is, the government will supply everything you need as long as you work and give your money to the government.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Zebo
NEA is very powerful..

"the government" gives money all day long to Norte Dame (and about 100 other colleges) and her students in Pell, loans, grants, etc.. Don't here you guys crying about that...

So what's the diff? None.

Admit it you guys hate religion even more so when taught to impressionable children which is why this is a big deal..


OP I favor vouchers, always have. The public schools suck in most of USA, getting worse, charging tax payers more, and students getting less. Really feel sorry for the poor who are trapped in hell-hole public school.

LOL. Surely you can see the difference between K-12 and college students being able get grants for continuing education. LMAO. Nice stretch though. I'll ask you since RIP never replied, do you think single people and people with all children over 18 years of age should be able to blow off paying for school taxes? Why should they have to pay for the failing public school system you speak of? .

No I don't understand the difference. It's public funds, taxmoney, funding Catholic universities. You know Notre Dame gets hundreds of millions in Federal grant money. I'm not talking about students alone either but research grants from NOAA, NAS, DOD, DOE etc etc etc. That whole argument about public funds not going into religious institutions is BS and only used at the primarly level. Why? Because the NEA does'nt want thier power and craptastic performance eroded. And the Liberal elite HATE religion with a passion and will not have young minds exposed if they can stop it.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: sxr7171
Using that money to improve public schools is like throwing money into a bottomless pit.

Assuming that's true, it's a separate problem. It means the state is failing to meet its obligations and do compent job with it's legally mandated use of the funds.

Since it's Florida and Jeb Bush, that doesn't suprise me, but Florida law specifically forbids use of the funds to support any religious institution so the vouchers are not a legal solution to the problem.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Florida law specifically forbids use of the funds to support any religious institution so the vouchers are not a legal solution to the problem.

It's already been established by precedent in Florida that, in fact, vouchers are legal. That's why a voucher system is currently being tested in Florida as we speak..

Up for debate is whether a lawful voucher program should be shut down solely because some parents are choosing to send their children to sectarian private schools. There is not yet a clear legal answer as to whether this violates existing Florida statutes governing public education funds.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
It's already been established by precedent in Florida that, in fact, vouchers are legal. That's why a voucher system is currently being tested in Florida as we speak..

I'm not an expert on Florida Constitutional law, but quoting from this article in the Palm Beach Post

.
.
.
But Florida's constitution, with the Blaine Amendment, goes further than the U.S. Constitution. It reads: "No revenue of the state shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."

That sounds pretty explicit to me.