Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You want me to pay school taxes AND pay you a voucher to put your kids in private school?
It would only be the start. When it becomes more popular, you can take public money out of the public schools and apply it to vouchers. I have a better idea though: I think home school parents should be able to teach other children in the neighborhood as well. Last I looked, the average cost per capita is something like 12K per year per student. Why not give home school parents 8K a year for each student they decide to teach? It would replace that lost second income while at the same time, save the taxpayers 4K per student every year.
That 12k a year figure is bogus because of the exorbitant amounts spent on special education. In the 1960s, if your child was disabled, they simply did not go to school. Now we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate ONE child with serious medical issues. The actual dollar figure that a school sees is probably closer to half that amount. In 2006, we received 4K per student in my high school. That was it.
Here is a breakdown of costs that are included in total price of public education. I don't see special education as a separate category:
Fast Facts
And to be honest, private school is not that much cheaper if at all compared to public school.
That just shows that your stats are suspect.
I posted the link, you can debate it if you like. But the point is that private school has the same costs as public schools. It's just that (for whatever reason) people will elect private schools to teach their children over public if given the option.
I think you probably know the rebuttal to your post but I'll repeat it. The entire community benefits from an educated population. Businesses have better educated employees. Voters are more literate and likely to understand issues better if they are educated. New businesses prefer communities with better trained and educated employees. Crime is lower in better educated communities. Thus, since everyone benefits, everyone pays. In most states public schools is financed by both property taxes and sales taxes which tends to spread the burden of paying for education.Because tax money only goes to public schools. At the very least, parents that send their kids to private school should not be funding the public school since their kids don't attend. Then they can use that money to help pay for their own children's education.
I don't have any children attending school. I pay taxes for everyone's kids to attend school.
Me too unfortunately. Here you are assessed tax by how much your property is worth and not by how much you use the school. Me nor any of my tenants have children in the school system. But I probably pay more tax to the school than the guy down the street with five kids in the school. I do have a problem with that.
Does everybody benefit when yards are mowed nicely and hedges are trim? Why doesn't the public pay for that? Does everybody benefit by me going to work in the morning? I can feed myself, pay for the roof over my head, and create tax money for the city I work in and the city I live in. Should taxpayers buy me a new car every three years so I can get to work? The internet is a source for getting unlimited information. You can use that information to see weather patterns, to learn things you've never studied before, to help your children with homework. So why am I paying for my own internet when informed people benefits society so much?
You can use that "benefit society" for just about anything. Sure, educated children can benefit society, but it should not be their liability either. What's wrong with the parents educating (or paying for) their children? Society doesn't benefit anymore with me paying for their education than the parents.
Now you have just gone stone-cold stupid with that response.
Where is that? I'll check the teacher pay scale and cross reference it with other professionals living in that area.
Teaching in Maple Heights City School District | Salary | Jobs | Employment (Ohio) | Teacher.org
That ENTIRE school district has fewer teachers than ONE high school where I taught.
I think if you check anywhere in this area it's around the same if not more depending on where you go.
In that case, your school districts are grossly inefficient.
How so?
I think you probably know the rebuttal to your post but I'll repeat it. The entire community benefits from an educated population. Businesses have better educated employees. Voters are more literate and likely to understand issues better if they are educated. New businesses prefer communities with better trained and educated employees. Crime is lower in better educated communities. Thus, since everyone benefits, everyone pays. In most states public schools is financed by both property taxes and sales taxes which tends to spread the burden of paying for education.I don't have any children attending school. I pay taxes for everyone's kids to attend school.
Me too unfortunately. Here you are assessed tax by how much your property is worth and not by how much you use the school. Me nor any of my tenants have children in the school system. But I probably pay more tax to the school than the guy down the street with five kids in the school. I do have a problem with that.
Does everybody benefit when yards are mowed nicely and hedges are trim? Why doesn't the public pay for that? Does everybody benefit by me going to work in the morning? I can feed myself, pay for the roof over my head, and create tax money for the city I work in and the city I live in. Should taxpayers buy me a new car every three years so I can get to work? The internet is a source for getting unlimited information. You can use that information to see weather patterns, to learn things you've never studied before, to help your children with homework. So why am I paying for my own internet when informed people benefits society so much?
You can use that "benefit society" for just about anything. Sure, educated children can benefit society, but it should not be their liability either. What's wrong with the parents educating (or paying for) their children? Society doesn't benefit anymore with me paying for their education than the parents.
Now you have just gone stone-cold stupid with that response.
Nothing stupid about it. I asked a fair question: why is the public liable for the education of children that are not theirs?
It would only be the start. When it becomes more popular, you can take public money out of the public schools and apply it to vouchers. I have a better idea though: I think home school parents should be able to teach other children in the neighborhood as well. Last I looked, the average cost per capita is something like 12K per year per student. Why not give home school parents 8K a year for each student they decide to teach? It would replace that lost second income while at the same time, save the taxpayers 4K per student every year.
That 12k a year figure is bogus because of the exorbitant amounts spent on special education. In the 1960s, if your child was disabled, they simply did not go to school. Now we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate ONE child with serious medical issues. The actual dollar figure that a school sees is probably closer to half that amount. In 2006, we received 4K per student in my high school. That was it.
Here is a breakdown of costs that are included in total price of public education. I don't see special education as a separate category:
Fast Facts
And to be honest, private school is not that much cheaper if at all compared to public school.
That just shows that your stats are suspect.
I posted the link, you can debate it if you like. But the point is that private school has the same costs as public schools. It's just that (for whatever reason) people will elect private schools to teach their children over public if given the option.
No, they do not!
The vast majority of private schools do NOT transport students, and in some cases, the public school systems transports them! That is a major cost!
Can you please learn the differences instead of blindly claiming there are none?
I think you probably know the rebuttal to your post but I'll repeat it. The entire community benefits from an educated population. Businesses have better educated employees. Voters are more literate and likely to understand issues better if they are educated. New businesses prefer communities with better trained and educated employees. Crime is lower in better educated communities. Thus, since everyone benefits, everyone pays. In most states public schools is financed by both property taxes and sales taxes which tends to spread the burden of paying for education.Me too unfortunately. Here you are assessed tax by how much your property is worth and not by how much you use the school. Me nor any of my tenants have children in the school system. But I probably pay more tax to the school than the guy down the street with five kids in the school. I do have a problem with that.
Does everybody benefit when yards are mowed nicely and hedges are trim? Why doesn't the public pay for that? Does everybody benefit by me going to work in the morning? I can feed myself, pay for the roof over my head, and create tax money for the city I work in and the city I live in. Should taxpayers buy me a new car every three years so I can get to work? The internet is a source for getting unlimited information. You can use that information to see weather patterns, to learn things you've never studied before, to help your children with homework. So why am I paying for my own internet when informed people benefits society so much?
You can use that "benefit society" for just about anything. Sure, educated children can benefit society, but it should not be their liability either. What's wrong with the parents educating (or paying for) their children? Society doesn't benefit anymore with me paying for their education than the parents.
Now you have just gone stone-cold stupid with that response.
Nothing stupid about it. I asked a fair question: why is the public liable for the education of children that are not theirs?
You benefit from not having to pay welfare to the imbecile who can't get a job. Come on! I respected your opinions until you decided on this low-brow tactic.
That 12k a year figure is bogus because of the exorbitant amounts spent on special education. In the 1960s, if your child was disabled, they simply did not go to school. Now we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate ONE child with serious medical issues. The actual dollar figure that a school sees is probably closer to half that amount. In 2006, we received 4K per student in my high school. That was it.
Here is a breakdown of costs that are included in total price of public education. I don't see special education as a separate category:
Fast Facts
And to be honest, private school is not that much cheaper if at all compared to public school.
That just shows that your stats are suspect.
I posted the link, you can debate it if you like. But the point is that private school has the same costs as public schools. It's just that (for whatever reason) people will elect private schools to teach their children over public if given the option.
No, they do not!
The vast majority of private schools do NOT transport students, and in some cases, the public school systems transports them! That is a major cost!
Can you please learn the differences instead of blindly claiming there are none?
So what you're saying is that public schools use their busses and employees to transfer private school children to their destinations? That's the first I've heard of that.
NO, i can understand perfectly well why you are against unions.
Because you're stupid.
No, because in my line of work, I seen the jobs leave. We lost countless customers because of those unions that caused companies to either close down or move out of the country. That's why I'm against unions. If not for them, all those companies and all those jobs would still be here in the Cleveland area.
Again, guy, you are jealous you didn't negotiate such a good deal for yourself, but that's on you.
But I'm sure your boss is happy with that dressage horse he bought on your hard work.
Yes he is, and his limo and yacht too.
There are no negotiations. The union asks and Democrat politicians give. It's not their money so they don't care what they give away. If it was their money, they would be paid the same as the rest of us with the same kind of benefits.
Was it the unions who caused the jobs to leave, or is it just that other countries can do the job much cheaper? This is capitalism. The right love capitalism when it benefits them, and hate it when it doesn't. What would you have then if you don't like capitalism?
Actually it was both. The unions caused the jobs to leave because the company could produce cheaper either out of state or out of the country. American companies have to compete with these foreign entities. In most cases, it was either pack up and leave or close shop and join their employees in the unemployment line. They were losing customers left and right and had to stop the bleeding.
The one I remember the best was a printing shop. I made a delivery there as they were packing the place up. They were a regular customer of ours but I had no idea WTF they were doing, so I asked the supervisor.
Before they unloaded me they went on their union 15 minute break, and the workers started to talk about the problem. I had nothing better to do so I listened in. After some talk, I asked one of the guys if it was worth losing his job because they didn't want to give concessions? He said "Let them close up. Good for them! They don't want to give us what we want, so F-them." When I questioned what he was going to do for a living, he told me his precious union would find him another job, and the rest of the guys were cheering him on as he spoke.
These union people are so brainwashed that common sense escapes their decision making. Even if you don't care about your job, at the very least, care about forcing an American company out of business or out of the country. These guys were like Zombies that didn't seem to care the least. They were convinced their precious union was going to take care of them.
Okay it was both. The Unions trying to give their members a living wage or a wage they think their members deserve, and the companies seeing that they can get things cheaper. Now, remember that Trump wants these low paid jobs that can be done much cheaper abroad to come back to the US instead of improving education so that higher paid jobs are made in the US. Go figure.
But it's all about competition. You either out perform your rivals or you go bust, or in the case of the US you run to the govt and demand loads of money in order to stay. Capitalism is good because it gets rid of the deadwood. Workers doing a job they're not willing to accept the money for (because it's too low) are deadwood and that deadwood should go to other countries, and the US should then learn from this. But no. They do the opposite, demand that these jobs stay. It never ends well. The UK had this problem with their car industry. What car industry? Oh, yeah, they propped up the car industry so much that it never improved, was never able to compete then when they took the money away it collapsed in an instant.
The Unions aren't doing anything wrong. In fact they're doing the right thing. They're helping in destroy the poor companies, allowing space for up and coming companies to come in and take their place, and forcing the country to analyze how it should work in the future. But no, everyone does the opposite. That's how countries end up going downhill.
In order to stay competitive, companies do look for ways to produce for less. Government is certainly no help there--especially this Obama administration. He increased corporate taxes, inflicted them with Commie Care, created hundreds of new regulations, and is doing what he can to strangle our energy supply.
Union companies don't destroy non-union companies. Union companies destroy themselves. Foreign competition is only part of the problem. The bigger problem is automation. Cities and states that have adopted a higher minimum wage are pressuring companies to make investments in automation; even McDonald's and Wendy's are going computer to replace workers.
Here is a breakdown of costs that are included in total price of public education. I don't see special education as a separate category:
Fast Facts
And to be honest, private school is not that much cheaper if at all compared to public school.
That just shows that your stats are suspect.
I posted the link, you can debate it if you like. But the point is that private school has the same costs as public schools. It's just that (for whatever reason) people will elect private schools to teach their children over public if given the option.
No, they do not!
The vast majority of private schools do NOT transport students, and in some cases, the public school systems transports them! That is a major cost!
Can you please learn the differences instead of blindly claiming there are none?
So what you're saying is that public schools use their busses and employees to transfer private school children to their destinations? That's the first I've heard of that.
Thanks for admitting you don't have the experience and expertise in education.
I think you probably know the rebuttal to your post but I'll repeat it. The entire community benefits from an educated population. Businesses have better educated employees. Voters are more literate and likely to understand issues better if they are educated. New businesses prefer communities with better trained and educated employees. Crime is lower in better educated communities. Thus, since everyone benefits, everyone pays. In most states public schools is financed by both property taxes and sales taxes which tends to spread the burden of paying for education.
Does everybody benefit when yards are mowed nicely and hedges are trim? Why doesn't the public pay for that? Does everybody benefit by me going to work in the morning? I can feed myself, pay for the roof over my head, and create tax money for the city I work in and the city I live in. Should taxpayers buy me a new car every three years so I can get to work? The internet is a source for getting unlimited information. You can use that information to see weather patterns, to learn things you've never studied before, to help your children with homework. So why am I paying for my own internet when informed people benefits society so much?
You can use that "benefit society" for just about anything. Sure, educated children can benefit society, but it should not be their liability either. What's wrong with the parents educating (or paying for) their children? Society doesn't benefit anymore with me paying for their education than the parents.
Now you have just gone stone-cold stupid with that response.
Nothing stupid about it. I asked a fair question: why is the public liable for the education of children that are not theirs?
You benefit from not having to pay welfare to the imbecile who can't get a job. Come on! I respected your opinions until you decided on this low-brow tactic.
As I stated, you can use that point for any number of things. So should taxpayers fund all of them?
Half of my taxes go to our schools which I (nor my tenants) have children in. They will release countless kids that will end up on welfare, in jail, in prison or on drugs. If you don't educate your child, how is that my problem? Why is it up to me to fund your child's education?
If you decide to have children, you should feed them, you should clothe them, you should protect them, you should educate them. If you can't do these things, then perhaps you should not have children. But having children and laying the burden on me to fund their education is simply irresponsible.
That just shows that your stats are suspect.
I posted the link, you can debate it if you like. But the point is that private school has the same costs as public schools. It's just that (for whatever reason) people will elect private schools to teach their children over public if given the option.
No, they do not!
The vast majority of private schools do NOT transport students, and in some cases, the public school systems transports them! That is a major cost!
Can you please learn the differences instead of blindly claiming there are none?
So what you're saying is that public schools use their busses and employees to transfer private school children to their destinations? That's the first I've heard of that.
Thanks for admitting you don't have the experience and expertise in education.
Never said I did. I'm just going by what I do know.
The society you are describing is one in which children of parents who do not pay, do not get an education. Subsequently, literacy rates would decline, and America would slide down a slippery slope toward low economic growth and stagnation.I think you probably know the rebuttal to your post but I'll repeat it. The entire community benefits from an educated population. Businesses have better educated employees. Voters are more literate and likely to understand issues better if they are educated. New businesses prefer communities with better trained and educated employees. Crime is lower in better educated communities. Thus, since everyone benefits, everyone pays. In most states public schools is financed by both property taxes and sales taxes which tends to spread the burden of paying for education.Well, good for them......if they turned out so wonderful, why are you whining about it?
Because tax money only goes to public schools. At the very least, parents that send their kids to private school should not be funding the public school since their kids don't attend. Then they can use that money to help pay for their own children's education.
I don't have any children attending school. I pay taxes for everyone's kids to attend school.
Me too unfortunately. Here you are assessed tax by how much your property is worth and not by how much you use the school. Me nor any of my tenants have children in the school system. But I probably pay more tax to the school than the guy down the street with five kids in the school. I do have a problem with that.
Does everybody benefit when yards are mowed nicely and hedges are trim? Why doesn't the public pay for that? Does everybody benefit by me going to work in the morning? I can feed myself, pay for the roof over my head, and create tax money for the city I work in and the city I live in. Should taxpayers buy me a new car every three years so I can get to work? The internet is a source for getting unlimited information. You can use that information to see weather patterns, to learn things you've never studied before, to help your children with homework. So why am I paying for my own internet when informed people benefits society so much?
You can use that "benefit society" for just about anything. Sure, educated children can benefit society, but it should not be their liability either. What's wrong with the parents educating (or paying for) their children? Society doesn't benefit anymore with me paying for their education than the parents.
Didn't you say, "we were the largest school district in Florida?" Miami-Dade is the largest school district in Florida and the 5th largest in the nation with a student population of 347,000 students.The Florida Voucher programs is limited to Students with certain disabilitiesThe charters schools aren't doing any better on average.
That may well be the case, but the Stanford University CREDO study in 2015 shows that urban charter schools are greatly outperforming public schools.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowl...charter-schools-making-a-difference-in-cities
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/03/16/why-charter-schools-work-or-dont
But, I feel that with Charter Schools and allowing the money to follow the student, competition in the school system is a good thing. It enables parents to choose any school, public, private, or charter, that best meets their children's needs.
As for your assertion that troubled or special needs children are shuttled off to only public schools is patently incorrect. Whether a child is exceptional, troubled, or special needs, there are many private and charter schools that cater to such children, with outstanding results. Especially in urban areas.
So what about the vast numbers of kids with no opportunity for charter or private schools?
Florida has vouchers when I was a teacher there. Do you know how many private high schools accepted vouchers? None. We were the largest school district in Florida and had no high school students choose vouchers.
Where I taught last year, the private Catholic school stops at 8th grade. All of the students go to public high school. Where I teach now has no private or parochial schools inside about a 40 mile radius. Where do those kids go?
and students with IEP's. However, in Miami Dade, the largest school district, there are many charter schools. I would estimate at least a hundred. They are tuition free but may have admission requirements.
Miami-Dade County Public Schools - Senior high Schools Directory
http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/voucher-law-comparison.aspx
Thanks for your input but it is off topic from my response.
BTW, Miami is NOT the largest.
Student transportation is a hit miss situation in private schools. Some offer nothing but most do at a fee. In some places private schools contract with the district or other private schools for services. Public schools are required to provide transportation to and from private schools for students in special ed classes.That 12k a year figure is bogus because of the exorbitant amounts spent on special education. In the 1960s, if your child was disabled, they simply did not go to school. Now we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate ONE child with serious medical issues. The actual dollar figure that a school sees is probably closer to half that amount. In 2006, we received 4K per student in my high school. That was it.
Here is a breakdown of costs that are included in total price of public education. I don't see special education as a separate category:
Fast Facts
And to be honest, private school is not that much cheaper if at all compared to public school.
That just shows that your stats are suspect.
I posted the link, you can debate it if you like. But the point is that private school has the same costs as public schools. It's just that (for whatever reason) people will elect private schools to teach their children over public if given the option.
No, they do not!
The vast majority of private schools do NOT transport students, and in some cases, the public school systems transports them! That is a major cost!
Can you please learn the differences instead of blindly claiming there are none?
So what you're saying is that public schools use their busses and employees to transfer private school children to their destinations? That's the first I've heard of that.
Doubling down on stupid? If that is the case, you are not worth continuing the conversation.
Liberal whining, hyperbole, and fabrications aside, there is no way to explain the Trump victory based on experience nor logic.
In fact, they must recognize this as well, and, thus, are ready to accept any fable.
It defied every political science meme.
I see it as a miracle of biblical proportions, and one last chance for America to turn itself around.
Your hate of America is consuming you.....Liberal whining, hyperbole, and fabrications aside, there is no way to explain the Trump victory based on experience nor logic.
In fact, they must recognize this as well, and, thus, are ready to accept any fable.
It defied every political science meme.
I see it as a miracle of biblical proportions, and one last chance for America to turn itself around.
Yeah, you see, it's very simple to explain.
The Russians hacked the election, and a lot of the usual safeguards we have to prevent EXACTLY THIS SORT OF THING FROM HAPPENING didn't engage.
The Media normalized Trump's behavior. Normally, you say things like he said, your career is over and you are putting a newspaper in front of your face when you leave your house in the morning.
Now we are stuck with this guy, and he will be a disaster.
Liberal whining, hyperbole, and fabrications aside, there is no way to explain the Trump victory based on experience nor logic.
In fact, they must recognize this as well, and, thus, are ready to accept any fable.
It defied every political science meme.
I see it as a miracle of biblical proportions, and one last chance for America to turn itself around.
Yeah, you see, it's very simple to explain.
The Russians hacked the election, and a lot of the usual safeguards we have to prevent EXACTLY THIS SORT OF THING FROM HAPPENING didn't engage.
The Media normalized Trump's behavior. Normally, you say things like he said, your career is over and you are putting a newspaper in front of your face when you leave your house in the morning.
Now we are stuck with this guy, and he will be a disaster.
Liberal whining, hyperbole, and fabrications aside, there is no way to explain the Trump victory based on experience nor logic.
In fact, they must recognize this as well, and, thus, are ready to accept any fable.
It defied every political science meme.
I see it as a miracle of biblical proportions, and one last chance for America to turn itself around.
Yeah, you see, it's very simple to explain.
The Russians hacked the election, and a lot of the usual safeguards we have to prevent EXACTLY THIS SORT OF THING FROM HAPPENING didn't engage.
The Media normalized Trump's behavior. Normally, you say things like he said, your career is over and you are putting a newspaper in front of your face when you leave your house in the morning.
Now we are stuck with this guy, and he will be a disaster.
Again, how did they hack the election? I hear all about hacking but I heard they hacked the Democratic Party's emails, then leaked the emails.
Are you saying they hacked the voting machines?
