The nations only statewide school voucher program faces legal showdown

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
"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?

The assumption isn't mine. The word "gap" makes no representation as to the size of the difference between the amount of a voucher and the actual cost of tuition to a private school. As I stated above, each private school is responsible for setting its own tuition fee.

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?

Subjecting something to market pressure doesn't make it a commodity. Can you trade, process and/or resell public education vouchers, or use them to commercial advantage? No.

A school voucher system simply shifts the choice of education away from bureaucrats and puts it into the hands of families. It's important to remember that demand is only one of many forces which affect price: While it's true that market forces suggest that higher quality and demand drives a higher price, competitive forces suggest that private schools will compete on price for a finite amount of vouchers in a given area. Schools will desire to maximize absorption of these vouchers in their local area, which will increase their revenue - this will not happen if they price themselves out of the market. As you can see, there exist pressures on price coming from both directions.

Over time, the hope is that competition between schools will drive an overall improvement in quality, while forcing those with severe management problems to either improve or close. This process of continuous improvement is simply nonexistent in the current system of public schooling, where year-to-year funding is guaranteed regardless of the school's quality and performance.

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.

I predict that on a case-by-case basis, private schools will choose to waive a portion, or all of the "gap", rather than lose the revenue from that family's voucher. This often happens in subsidized healthcare, where a care provider can choose to waive the gap between what an insurance company is willing to pay for a service, and the actual price of that service. Additionally, financial aid programs, grants, scholarships, etc. are in place which will further increase private school accessibility to those who are unable to afford it.

Ultimately, though, it's true that some families will not be able to afford the gap between the state voucher and the cost of a private school. However, as a group, a greater number of families will be able to afford private school than were able to without a voucher system in-place.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Harvey
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.

Yes, at first glance it might seem that way. However, I watched the Florida Supreme Court hearings yesterday and the justices spent over an hour grilling attorneys on both sides, working to clarify exactly where the law draws the line.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: 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.

Bush LIED! Thousands DIED!

Given your signature it is clear that you have a differing viewpoint on the definitions of words. Perhaps a dictionary of what you mean for every word you use would help.

For example. One way to look at the voucher issue is that the money was taken from the individual and is being given back to the individual in the form of a voucher so that their child can get a better education. As long as the voucher is used for eductation which is why the funds were taken in the first place... what is the problem? Other than it is harder to indoctrinate the children if the NEA doesn't have control.

Another way to look at the voucher issue is that the Government is not aiding the church, sect, or religious demoniation because the money is not being given to them. It is being given to the parents who have a child who wish to get a better eductation. Indeed, most Catholic schools spend much less, per child, than the failed government run schools and most result in a better education for the child. Thus, they are not sponsering the religion they are sponsering the child. Which, by the way, helps you.

I would ask:

• why you want to throw even more money at a failed institution

• want to raise taxes more to pay for failure

• why democrat politicians are outraged at the additional 50% increase in school budgeting that President Bush signed and Senator Kennedy wrote (yes, i know it was a committe that he chaired and not him personally) and at the same time think the 50% increase is not enough.

• what will be enough? 100% taxation of everyone in the world?

• why is slavery so important to elites. You know exactly what I mean.

• finally, why are you on the side of the elites instead of what is best for you? Do you REALLY think they will take care of you when full control has been achieved?

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: gsaldivarI predict that on a case-by-case basis, private schools will choose to waive a portion, or all of the "gap", rather than lose the revenue from that family's voucher.

<note, these $ amounts are from what I have read by a quick google. They have not been confirmed by myself nor have I checked the accuracy of the source. Still, since others can quote the NYT and NewsMax I assume the sources pulled are at least as "accurate" as those two "fine" institutions.>

The voucher does not cover the full cost of the private schools tuition. Since the private school spends about $3,500 per student and the government run schools are paying $7,500 per student there should be no shortages of funds at the schools.

Some will say, "but the school will not get the $7,500 if that student doesn't go there." However, that money was still money that was not donated back to the DNC and misappropriated by the school boards and administrators.

The $4,000 left over is still in the coffers. Thus, for every student pulled out there is an additional $4,000 that can be spent on the rest of the students around the state. Only the worst schools will truly suffer.

Those schools have two options. Start teaching or close down.

If you really want such schools staying in operation then send your children there to support those schools.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Since the private school spends about $3,500 per student and the government run schools are paying $7,500 per student there should be no shortages of funds at the schools.

I don't believe that school vouchers are intended to be a dollar-for-dollar match of the actual government cost per student. I discussed fixed vs. variable costs earlier in this thread, and why I believe school vouchers should ideally only refund the variable costs of a child's fair share of public education funds.

However, the comment that you quoted, refers to MonkeyK's concern regarding the possible displacement of students whose families are unable to afford funding the gap between the voucher amount and the cost of private school.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Given your signature it is clear that you have a differing viewpoint on the definitions of words. Perhaps a dictionary of what you mean for every word you use would help.

Huh? My sig file is only four words long. Are you literacy challenged? Allow me to assist you:

Bush -- George W. Bush, the current President of the United States of America.

LIED -- Deliberately spoke falsehoods.

Thousands -- An order of magnitude greater than hundreds, but less than millions.

DIED -- Ceased living.

If you're still having problems understanding the meaning of these four words, maybe this will help:

Casualties in Iraq
The Human Cost of Occupation
Edited by Michael Ewens

American Military Casualties in Iraq

American Deaths In Combat:

Since war began (3/19/03):
Total: 1677
In Combat: 1314

Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list)
Total: 1540
In Combat: 1205

Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03):
Total: 1210
In Combat: 1009

Since Handover (6/29/04):
Total: 811
In Combat: 681

Since Election (1/31/05):
Total: 245
In Combat: 208

Total American Wounded:
Official: 12762
Estimated: 15000 - 38000

Latest Fatality June 6th, 2005
Page last updated 06/7/05 11:23 am EDT

Obviously does not include those reported killed so far, today, 6-8-05. It also does not include the multiples of the above deaths to innocent Iraqi citizens.

The implicaton the statement in my sig file is that these deaths are the direct and immediate result of Bush's lies. Is that specific enough? :roll:

 

[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 didn't respond very well to your question the first time. So I'll take another shot at it.

You seem to be implying that kids do better in parochial schools than public schools because of parental involvement. That may be part of it, but it's certainly not the entire reason.

Consider this:

In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation analyzed big-city high schools to determine how education for low income minority youth could be improved. It looked at 13 public, private, and Catholic high schools in New York City that attracted minority and disadvantaged youth. Of the Catholic school students in these schools, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic. The study found that:

The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more 50 percent of their senior class;

Over 66 percent of the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;

85 percent of the Catholic high school students took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), compared with just 33 percent of the public high school students;

The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642; and

60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.

Why Catholic Schools Spell Success For America's Inner-City Children

I think that some of the reasons parochial schools out perform public schools are that they:

Focus on the 3R's

Provide a disciplined, yet caring and nurturing environment

Have high expectations for their students

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more 50 percent of their senior class;

Over 66 percent of the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;

85 percent of the Catholic high school students took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), compared with just 33 percent of the public high school students;

The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642; and

60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.

Wow.................. :shocked:

:thumbsup:😀

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I think that some of the reasons parochial schools out perform public schools are that they:

Focus on the 3R's

Provide a disciplined, yet caring and nurturing environment

Have high expectations for their students

All that says is, there are a lot of problems the public schools need to address and a lot of ways to go about it. In NO way does it justify redirecting much needed funds to implement the needed changes away from legally mandated public schools and ILLEGALLY funneling them into schools run by religious institutions.

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Wow.................. :shocked:

:thumbsup:😀

Bullsh8! :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I didn't respond very well to your question the first time. So I'll take another shot at it.

You seem to be implying that kids do better in parochial schools than public schools because of parental involvement. That may be part of it, but it's certainly not the entire reason.

Consider this:

In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation analyzed big-city high schools to determine how education for low income minority youth could be improved. It looked at 13 public, private, and Catholic high schools in New York City that attracted minority and disadvantaged youth. Of the Catholic school students in these schools, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic. The study found that:

The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more 50 percent of their senior class;

Over 66 percent of the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;

85 percent of the Catholic high school students took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), compared with just 33 percent of the public high school students;

The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642; and

60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.

Why Catholic Schools Spell Success For America's Inner-City Children

I think that some of the reasons parochial schools out perform public schools are that they:

Focus on the 3R's

Provide a disciplined, yet caring and nurturing environment

Have high expectations for their students

What does this study have to say about parental involvement? Nothing

It could be that public schools have something to learn from Catholic schools, but this study does not show that.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Harvey
In NO way does it justify redirecting much needed funds to implement the needed changes away from legally mandated public schools and ILLEGALLY funneling them into schools run by religious institutions.

If you want money for "much needed changes", then you need to start by collecting signatures to put a proposition on your county ballot. While the legality of using school vouchers has yet to be determined, the redirection of education funds to pay for some type of reform action as you've proposed is ABSOLUTELY illegal. :thumbsdown:

The only funds in question here are each child's OWN FAIR SHARE of the funding that would be used to defray the cost of providing him/her an education. Please explain how a public school is entitled to monies intended for a given child's education, if that child is no longer enrolled at that school...

For decades, families have entrusted the education of their children to a system which many feel has failed them. Year after year, we spend more per-student than Germany, Japan, England, France, etc., yet our children's performance remains among the lowest among industrialized countries in the world:

"Fifteen-year-olds in the U.S. rank near the bottom of industrialized countries in math skills, ahead of only Portugal, Mexico and three other nations ... The percentage of top-achieving math students in the nation is about half that of other industrialized countries"
Link Link

"In Cleveland ... only one public-school student in 14 graduates, with all the minimum proficiency scores demanded by the city, at the time they should." (The Economist, Sep 2nd 1999)

Our children can't wait for us to tinker around with curriculum, looking for a way to fix the problem. We already have accredited private schools with a proven track record of success. Nobody is saying that monies should be diverted from public education to churches... Simply allow families who wish to do so, decide for themselves whether or not they want to take a chance with yet another reform experiment, or sign up for a system that works today. 🙂

 

[gsaldivar]

"Vouchers have become popular because parents think they improve educational standards. They may be right. Harvard University ... found that, after two years, pupils at Cleveland?s private schools performed seven percentage points higher than the national average in reading and 15 points higher in maths. Harvard?s study of the Milwaukee schools found that, after four years, pupils in voucher schools had maths scores 11 percentage points higher than their unlucky public contemporaries, and six points higher in reading..." (The Economist, Sep 2nd 1999)

:thumbsup:😀

 

[her209]

Do people with more kids have to pay more taxes? 😉

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Why Catholic Schools Spell Success For America's Inner-City Children

How about an unbiased source?

The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies ...

A "think tank?" Ha. :laugh:

 

[Riprorin]

In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation...

 

[Riprorin]

Private schools appear to be at a disadvantage to public schools in a number of respects.(5)

Public school teachers are 50 percent more likely to be certified than private school teachers.

Public school teachers are 55 percent more likely to have advanced degrees than private school teachers.

Public school principals are 50 percent more likely to have advanced degrees than private school principals.

Public school teachers tend to be more experienced. Public school teachers are one-third more likely to have taught 10 years or more than private school teachers.

Salaries for public school teachers average 64 percent higher than those of all private school teachers, 68 percent above those of Roman Catholic school teachers, 87 percent above those of other religious school teachers, and 32 percent above those of non-sectarian private school teachers. Public school teachers' salaries are 22 percent above those of elite private school teachers.

Average salaries for public school principals are nearly double that of private school principals.

The turnover rate of private school teachers is 50 percent greater than that for public school teachers.(6)

A higher percentage of public schools have full time librarians.

Private schools have nearly 1.5 times as much of their enrollment in large cities compared to public schools.

Public schools have twice their enrollment in rural or non-metropolitan areas compared to private schools.

Private schools also appear to be advantaged compared to public schools:

The student-teacher ratios are slightly lower (3 percent) for private schools than for public schools.
Private school teachers express a higher degree of satisfaction.

Private school teachers rate their ability to control teaching practices higher than that of public school teachers in nine of ten measures (in the tenth there is no difference).

Both private school teachers and principals rate the school climate better than that of their public school counterparts in all 10 separate measures.

Private schools cost less per student on average, yet, performance on standardized tests is higher in private schools than in public schools, although average differences may be in part related to socioeconomic and home factors.(7)

Private school students scored Proficient in the 1994 NAEP reading test at 1.5 times the rate of public schools students (Table #1).(8) Roman Catholic schools, which can be used as a surrogate for non-elite private schools, produced Proficient scores at 1.4 times or more the rate of public schools.

Roman Catholic school students scored at Proficient in the 1992 NAEP mathematics test at 1.2 to 1.5 times the rate of public schools students (Table #3).(10) Other private schools produced Proficient scores at 1.2 to 2.5 times the rate of public schools.

Private school students have a five percent higher graduation rate than public schools students and are 1.5 times as likely to apply for entrance to post-secondary education.(11) Private school students are more likely to graduate from college. Roman Catholic school students are twice as likely to graduate from college as public school students, while students of other private schools are 2.5 times as likely to graduate from college. Hispanic and African-American private school students are three times as likely to graduate from college (both Roman Catholic and other private school students).

Link

 

[gsaldivar]

If private enterprise has taught us anything, it's that it excels at doing more with less. :thumbsup:😀

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
If private enterprise has taught us anything, it's that it excels at doing more with less. :thumbsup:😀

If private enterprise has taught us anything, it's that, without sufficient independent oversight, too many greedy execs will screw the public and bribe public officials to line their pockets. Can you say Enron, Global Crossing, Haliburton, Tyco or Arthur Anderson Accounting, boys and girls? :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Can you say Enron, Global Crossing, Haliburton, Tyco or Arthur Anderson Accounting, boys and girls?

Any private schools in that list? 🙂

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Any private schools in that list? 🙂

I didn't see any limitation to schools in your statement, but since you mention it, in NPR's report about on Merck Pharmaceuticals' attempts to silence doctors who tried to inform the public about the danger of heart attack and stroke from Vioxx, they document Merck's attempts to blackmail major medical schools by threatening to cut off research funding.

In NPR's story about Merck's influence over independent doctors and medical schools, reporter Snigdha Prakash details how one drug company applied pressure to censor a critic of a popular painkiller.

A former Merck employee at the center of the story, Dr. Louis Sherwood, made phone calls to the department heads at several medical schools, complaining about faculty members who were critical of Vioxx. Sherwood told NPR in an interview that no threats were ever made to cut off funds or influence a person's academic position.

But whether threats are made in these situations, academics do feel pressure.

"The problem is that faculty, particularly the kind of faculty we're talking about here, don't have tenure," says Lisa Bero, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, told NPR's Snigdha Prakash. "They don't have security of employment. They're in a more junior position, which is very vulnerable to influence from their department chair. It's very tenuous.

"So they could potentially lose their job, lose their employment," she told Prakash. "Or if they don't, their life can be made quite miserable in terms of receiving adequate research space, not receiving administrative support or something like that."

How many of those schools caved in and actively tried to silence those critics would address your question, and "big pharma" is also a major source of funding and lobbying in Washington.

 

[gsaldivar]

Any private K-12 schools? (obviously the focus of this thread) 🙂

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Since the private school spends about $3,500 per student and the government run schools are paying $7,500 per student there should be no shortages of funds at the schools.

I don't believe that school vouchers are intended to be a dollar-for-dollar match of the actual government cost per student. I discussed fixed vs. variable costs earlier in this thread, and why I believe school vouchers should ideally only refund the variable costs of a child's fair share of public education funds.

However, the comment that you quoted, refers to MonkeyK's concern regarding the possible displacement of students whose families are unable to afford funding the gap between the voucher amount and the cost of private school.

I missed your posting and have book marked this page to ensure I do read it. Thanks.

Would you want every failing organization to be bailed out by us, er, the Government? I don't. If the school is failing the children it should not be bailed out. Without vouchers the areas that need help the most are forced to support their school.

Since schools do not get funding for a student that goes to a private school, even without vouchers, the only difference is that some of the money is returned to the parents of the child.

By the way. I used to be 100% for vouchers. Now, I'm mostly against it. The reason is that some judge or politician will say if you received a voucher and your child attended a private school then that private school has accepted government money and is now subject to all the rules and indoctrination of the NEA.

Only if the private school can remain uncontrolled byt the government am I for vouchers. If not, then it is better to let the children of the poor remain poor and uneducated than to drag down all the children.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: Harvey

LIED -- Deliberately spoke falsehoods.

Quit changing the definitions or add your explaination to your signature. In this case you will need to define both deliberately and falsehoods because one of those is misleading.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

Thus, relying on information from the intelligence communties around the world who still maintain their beliefs only to not be able to prove it is not a lie.

Now, state what falsehoods your President lied. If you come back with WMD's (only a small part of his reasoning) then your definition of falsehood is saying "they said" followed up by "not being able to prove it." Of course, had those supplying nuclear material and taking billions of dollars paid in barrels of oil had not stopped the U.S. from carrying our President Clinton's orders, we may have found WMD's.

If you come back with "no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam" go back and reread the report. It said no direct link. The report acknowleges that links existed, money, visits, and training (including how to take over a commercial airliner).




Edited to add.
BTW, per the typical definition of "you can't prove it even if you believed and others told you" then...

hehe.

Unless you can PROVE to someone who doesn't want to believe it, your signature is a lie. Right? 😉

PS. That is meant to point out the fallacy in a humous manner. If you have no humor, don't read it. Oops, too late. 😀

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Quit changing the definitions or add your explaination to your signature. In this case you will need to define both deliberately and falsehoods because one of those is misleading.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

I repeat, LIED -- Deliberately spoke falsehoods.

Bush is a lying piece of sh8. His adventure in Iraq was an ELECTIVE war, and it was all based on LIES! His lies have cost thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of other lives and trillions of dollars (terra-bucks) that could and should have been used for the needs of American citizens and to fund our real defense needs. Your great great grandchildren will be paying for the trillions of dollars in deficits this war has caused... And he has the balls to cry and lie about funding Social Security. :roll:

The Bushwhackos ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clark, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clark also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.

They didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him. :|

They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.

The Bush administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him. :|

They lied to U.S. citizens and the world about their ever shifting reasons for going to war:

• There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
  
• There were no WMD's in Iraq.
  
• I'll say it again. There were no WMD's in Iraq.
  
• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's!

However, another of his lies has more sinister overtones. Bush sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam was trying to acquire yellow cake uranium for nuclear weapons. Ambassador Wilson returned to report that there was NO nuclear materials or evidence that any Iraqis were anywhere to be seen, but Bush continued to repeat the LIE in public as if he believed it was there.

At that point, Ambassador Wilson went public with his findings, and the Bush administration was so pissed that they outed his wife, Valerie Plame as a top undercover CIA agent.

Anyone who did that should be shot for treason. :|

Unless you can PROVE to someone who doesn't want to believe it, your signature is a lie. Right?

Wrong. A lie is a lie, regardless of how ignorant and blind you may wish to remain.

PS. That is meant to point out the fallacy in a humous manner. If you have no humor, don't read it. Oops, too late.

There is no fallacy, and I see no humor in the lives and national treasure Bush's LIES have cost or in your lame attempt to blow smoke and diffuse the truth. Your petty, failed parsing of words is meaningless and devoid of intellectual content.