U.S. government sues to block vouchers in some Louisiana school systems

[hadit]

You might have a point if the parent could really determine the quality of the education at the private school before using tax payer money to pay tuition. You are also disregarding the fact that one of the primary reasons parents choose a private school is to give their kids an education founded on their religious faith. I don't think I'm alone in not wanting to see my tax dollars go to pay for religious education.

I'm looking in vain for the corresponding concern as to whether or not the parents know anything about the quality of the education in the PUBLIC schools before using taxpayer money on them. Well, anything other than that their state is near dead-last in the national rankings.

What's it to you whether or not the kids get a religious education, as long as they also get an academic one? I'd rather have my tax dollars go to any school that turns out kids who can read, write, and do math over one that doesn't. Of course, I'm not a religiophobic bigot like you are, so I don't put my desire to control people's beliefs ahead of the childrens' need for an education.

Parents know quite a bit about the quality of the education their kids are getting in public schools. Since the state requires that all public school students take standardized tests, it's very easy to compare schools. Parents have the right to pull their kids out of failing public schools and send them to better public schools in the district. You not only can she how the students are performing but you have a wealth of additional information on the quality of the school and staff. Private schools only release the information the school chooses to release.

I have no problem with kids getting a religious education as long as my tax dollars aren't used to pay for it.

Parents who care about the quality of their kids' education will find out. They talk to other parents who send their kids to a school. They read reviews online. They talk to school administrators, etc, etc. Schools are not black boxes free of information. And as for religious education, what's the big deal if the school actually educates the kids? A lot, if not most, of religious schools provide a better education than a lot, if not all, government schools.

The big deal is it's unconstitutional to use of tax dollars to support religious schools. A long line of Supreme Court cases has repeatedly found that the First Amendment bars the expenditure of tax money to support religion or religious schools.

IF that's the case then we better abolish welfare and Social Security since recipients might put some of the money in the collection basket.

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

 

[Roadrunner]

.

So a school's "racial balance" is more important than allowing poor black kids to go to a better school.

What a fucked up thing to do to a kid.

This just doesn't stop, does it? If the PC Police actually gave a shit, they're put higher emphasis on the child's education than on what happens to be the color of their freakin' skin.

Madness. Blacks continue to be victimized by those who claim to "care".

.

Racial balance causes kids to be shipped up to 45 miles here in this parish, passing schools they could ride a bike to, in order achieve "balance".

We are one of the largest parishes in LA, and have TWO public high schools, instead of the dozen we once had, just to achieve "balance".

Our highest rated school gets a "C", but, we are "balanced'.

In Winter, some kids get on the bus in the dark, and get off in the dark.

"Balance" is just fuckin' wonderful, unless you are the kid suffering the two hour bus ride each way.

 

[Mac1958]

.

So a school's "racial balance" is more important than allowing poor black kids to go to a better school.

What a fucked up thing to do to a kid.

This just doesn't stop, does it? If the PC Police actually gave a shit, they're put higher emphasis on the child's education than on what happens to be the color of their freakin' skin.

Madness. Blacks continue to be victimized by those who claim to "care".

.

Racial balance causes kids to be shipped up to 45 miles here in this parish, passing schools they could ride a bike to, in order achieve "balance".

We are one of the largest parishes in LA, and have TWO public high schools, instead of the dozen we once had, just to achieve "balance".

Our highest rated school gets a "C", but, we are "balanced'.

In Winter, some kids get on the bus in the dark, and get off in the dark.

"Balance" is just fuckin' wonderful, unless you are the kid suffering the two hour bus ride each way.

Grades and achievement are no longer the highest priority.

Making sure that all the colors are okay and that feelings aren't hurt is the main thing.

That's how America rolls now.

.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm looking in vain for the corresponding concern as to whether or not the parents know anything about the quality of the education in the PUBLIC schools before using taxpayer money on them. Well, anything other than that their state is near dead-last in the national rankings.

What's it to you whether or not the kids get a religious education, as long as they also get an academic one? I'd rather have my tax dollars go to any school that turns out kids who can read, write, and do math over one that doesn't. Of course, I'm not a religiophobic bigot like you are, so I don't put my desire to control people's beliefs ahead of the childrens' need for an education.

Parents know quite a bit about the quality of the education their kids are getting in public schools. Since the state requires that all public school students take standardized tests, it's very easy to compare schools. Parents have the right to pull their kids out of failing public schools and send them to better public schools in the district. You not only can she how the students are performing but you have a wealth of additional information on the quality of the school and staff. Private schools only release the information the school chooses to release.

I have no problem with kids getting a religious education as long as my tax dollars aren't used to pay for it.

Parents who care about the quality of their kids' education will find out. They talk to other parents who send their kids to a school. They read reviews online. They talk to school administrators, etc, etc. Schools are not black boxes free of information. And as for religious education, what's the big deal if the school actually educates the kids? A lot, if not most, of religious schools provide a better education than a lot, if not all, government schools.

The big deal is it's unconstitutional to use of tax dollars to support religious schools. A long line of Supreme Court cases has repeatedly found that the First Amendment bars the expenditure of tax money to support religion or religious schools.

IF that's the case then we better abolish welfare and Social Security since recipients might put some of the money in the collection basket.

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

Simple: It's just an excuse to shoot down vouchers. The Supreme Court has already ruled that vouchers given to religious schools do not violate the First Amendment. It's a bogus issue. Anyone who uses it simply doesn't like vouchers because he's a tool of the NEA and the ATF.

 

[Flopper]

I'm looking in vain for the corresponding concern as to whether or not the parents know anything about the quality of the education in the PUBLIC schools before using taxpayer money on them. Well, anything other than that their state is near dead-last in the national rankings.

What's it to you whether or not the kids get a religious education, as long as they also get an academic one? I'd rather have my tax dollars go to any school that turns out kids who can read, write, and do math over one that doesn't. Of course, I'm not a religiophobic bigot like you are, so I don't put my desire to control people's beliefs ahead of the childrens' need for an education.

Parents know quite a bit about the quality of the education their kids are getting in public schools. Since the state requires that all public school students take standardized tests, it's very easy to compare schools. Parents have the right to pull their kids out of failing public schools and send them to better public schools in the district. You not only can she how the students are performing but you have a wealth of additional information on the quality of the school and staff. Private schools only release the information the school chooses to release.

I have no problem with kids getting a religious education as long as my tax dollars aren't used to pay for it.

Parents who care about the quality of their kids' education will find out. They talk to other parents who send their kids to a school. They read reviews online. They talk to school administrators, etc, etc. Schools are not black boxes free of information. And as for religious education, what's the big deal if the school actually educates the kids? A lot, if not most, of religious schools provide a better education than a lot, if not all, government schools.

The big deal is it's unconstitutional to use of tax dollars to support religious schools. A long line of Supreme Court cases has repeatedly found that the First Amendment bars the expenditure of tax money to support religion or religious schools.

IF that's the case then we better abolish welfare and Social Security since recipients might put some of the money in the collection basket.

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

The issue of separation of church and state is pretty clear cut in most federal funding. However, in education it's often not that clear.

The courts have ruled that government can fund a religious organization if the funds are used for secular purposes. They use a principal of "excessive entanglement" in rulings involve the issue of separation of church and state. For example, the US Supreme Court ruled that it is ok for public schools to donate used textbooks to private parochial schools since it does not involve excessive entanglement and is used for a secular purpose.

The issue boils down to how the government funds are used. In K-12 schools, a primary motive for parents sending their kids to private schools has been their desire to give their children an education based on religious principals. Even in areas with failing public schools, parents who send their kids to private schools still prefer a religious education rather a secular education. Thus most private schools, which are operated by religious organizations provide what the parents want. These schools should not be receiving government funds because they are being used for religious purposes. Some schools that are operated by religious organization offer a secular education. In these schools, separation of church and state is not an issue.

Almost all colleges offer a secular education. Unlike K-12 parochial school, education in college is not religiously based. That's why there is no problem with federal funding in most colleges and universities even if they are operated by religious organizations.

 

[bripat9643]

Parents know quite a bit about the quality of the education their kids are getting in public schools. Since the state requires that all public school students take standardized tests, it's very easy to compare schools. Parents have the right to pull their kids out of failing public schools and send them to better public schools in the district. You not only can she how the students are performing but you have a wealth of additional information on the quality of the school and staff. Private schools only release the information the school chooses to release.

I have no problem with kids getting a religious education as long as my tax dollars aren't used to pay for it.

Parents who care about the quality of their kids' education will find out. They talk to other parents who send their kids to a school. They read reviews online. They talk to school administrators, etc, etc. Schools are not black boxes free of information. And as for religious education, what's the big deal if the school actually educates the kids? A lot, if not most, of religious schools provide a better education than a lot, if not all, government schools.

The big deal is it's unconstitutional to use of tax dollars to support religious schools. A long line of Supreme Court cases has repeatedly found that the First Amendment bars the expenditure of tax money to support religion or religious schools.

IF that's the case then we better abolish welfare and Social Security since recipients might put some of the money in the collection basket.

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

The issue of separation of church and state is pretty clear cut in most federal funding. However, in education it's often not that clear.

The courts have ruled that government can fund a religious organization if the funds are used for secular purposes. They use a principal of "excessive entanglement" in rulings involve the issue of separation of church and state. For example, the US Supreme Court ruled that it is ok for public schools to donate used textbooks to private parochial schools since it does not involve excessive entanglement and is used for a secular purpose.

The issue boils down to how the government funds are used. In K-12 schools, a primary motive for parents sending their kids to private schools has been their desire to give their children an education based on religious principals. Even in areas with failing public schools, parents who send their kids to private schools still prefer a religious education rather a secular education. Thus most private schools, which are operated by religious organizations provide what the parents want. These schools should not be receiving government funds because they are being used for religious purposes. Some schools that are operated by religious organization offer a secular education. In these schools, separation of church and state is not an issue.

Almost all colleges offer a secular education. Unlike K-12 parochial school, education in college is not religiously based. That's why there is no problem with federal funding in most colleges and universities even if they are operated by religious organizations.

The USSC has already ruled that school vouchers can be redeemed at religious schools without violating the First Amendment.

Case closed.

 

[Flopper]

Parents know quite a bit about the quality of the education their kids are getting in public schools. Since the state requires that all public school students take standardized tests, it's very easy to compare schools. Parents have the right to pull their kids out of failing public schools and send them to better public schools in the district. You not only can she how the students are performing but you have a wealth of additional information on the quality of the school and staff. Private schools only release the information the school chooses to release.

I have no problem with kids getting a religious education as long as my tax dollars aren't used to pay for it.

Parents who care about the quality of their kids' education will find out. They talk to other parents who send their kids to a school. They read reviews online. They talk to school administrators, etc, etc. Schools are not black boxes free of information. And as for religious education, what's the big deal if the school actually educates the kids? A lot, if not most, of religious schools provide a better education than a lot, if not all, government schools.

The big deal is it's unconstitutional to use of tax dollars to support religious schools. A long line of Supreme Court cases has repeatedly found that the First Amendment bars the expenditure of tax money to support religion or religious schools.

IF that's the case then we better abolish welfare and Social Security since recipients might put some of the money in the collection basket.

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

Simple: It's just an excuse to shoot down vouchers. The Supreme Court has already ruled that vouchers given to religious schools do not violate the First Amendment. It's a bogus issue. Anyone who uses it simply doesn't like vouchers because he's a tool of the NEA and the ATF.

SCOTUS ruled in 2002 that school vouchers were legal if the school's program is secular.

The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the voucher program violates the Louisiana constitution. The court ruled that state educational funds could not be diverted to private schools. This means that the legislature must fund the voucher program separately from education funds.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm looking in vain for the corresponding concern as to whether or not the parents know anything about the quality of the education in the PUBLIC schools before using taxpayer money on them. Well, anything other than that their state is near dead-last in the national rankings.

What's it to you whether or not the kids get a religious education, as long as they also get an academic one? I'd rather have my tax dollars go to any school that turns out kids who can read, write, and do math over one that doesn't. Of course, I'm not a religiophobic bigot like you are, so I don't put my desire to control people's beliefs ahead of the childrens' need for an education.

Parents know quite a bit about the quality of the education their kids are getting in public schools. Since the state requires that all public school students take standardized tests, it's very easy to compare schools. Parents have the right to pull their kids out of failing public schools and send them to better public schools in the district. You not only can she how the students are performing but you have a wealth of additional information on the quality of the school and staff. Private schools only release the information the school chooses to release.

I have no problem with kids getting a religious education as long as my tax dollars aren't used to pay for it.

Parents who care about the quality of their kids' education will find out. They talk to other parents who send their kids to a school. They read reviews online. They talk to school administrators, etc, etc. Schools are not black boxes free of information. And as for religious education, what's the big deal if the school actually educates the kids? A lot, if not most, of religious schools provide a better education than a lot, if not all, government schools.

The big deal is it's unconstitutional to use of tax dollars to support religious schools. A long line of Supreme Court cases has repeatedly found that the First Amendment bars the expenditure of tax money to support religion or religious schools.

IF that's the case then we better abolish welfare and Social Security since recipients might put some of the money in the collection basket.

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

Trust me, Floppy thinks religion should be stripped from everything.

 

[Cecilie1200]

.

So a school's "racial balance" is more important than allowing poor black kids to go to a better school.

What a fucked up thing to do to a kid.

This just doesn't stop, does it? If the PC Police actually gave a shit, they're put higher emphasis on the child's education than on what happens to be the color of their freakin' skin.

Madness. Blacks continue to be victimized by those who claim to "care".

.

Racial balance causes kids to be shipped up to 45 miles here in this parish, passing schools they could ride a bike to, in order achieve "balance".

We are one of the largest parishes in LA, and have TWO public high schools, instead of the dozen we once had, just to achieve "balance".

Our highest rated school gets a "C", but, we are "balanced'.

In Winter, some kids get on the bus in the dark, and get off in the dark.

"Balance" is just fuckin' wonderful, unless you are the kid suffering the two hour bus ride each way.

Tucson Unified School District is the largest school district in Arizona, and participates enthusiastically in forced busing. Funny thing is, they've been dragging poor minority students out of their neighborhood schools and off to schools across town where their parents - who often have limited transportation options - struggle to attend meetings and school functions for decades. They've ALSO instituted the Magnet School program to improve schools, and thoughtfully put those programs primarily in economically-depressed neighborhoods. The only catch is, the two programs conflict with each other.

So basically, the best schools in town - which isn't saying much, admittedly - are located in poor Hispanic neighborhoods, and filled with rich white kids, because the poor minority students aren't allowed to attend their own neighborhood schools, because they have to maintain the "racial balance" in the other schools.

I'm thinking someone somewhere missed the point of the exercise.

 

[Flopper]

Parents know quite a bit about the quality of the education their kids are getting in public schools. Since the state requires that all public school students take standardized tests, it's very easy to compare schools. Parents have the right to pull their kids out of failing public schools and send them to better public schools in the district. You not only can she how the students are performing but you have a wealth of additional information on the quality of the school and staff. Private schools only release the information the school chooses to release.

I have no problem with kids getting a religious education as long as my tax dollars aren't used to pay for it.

Parents who care about the quality of their kids' education will find out. They talk to other parents who send their kids to a school. They read reviews online. They talk to school administrators, etc, etc. Schools are not black boxes free of information. And as for religious education, what's the big deal if the school actually educates the kids? A lot, if not most, of religious schools provide a better education than a lot, if not all, government schools.

The big deal is it's unconstitutional to use of tax dollars to support religious schools. A long line of Supreme Court cases has repeatedly found that the First Amendment bars the expenditure of tax money to support religion or religious schools.

IF that's the case then we better abolish welfare and Social Security since recipients might put some of the money in the collection basket.

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

Trust me, Floppy thinks religion should be stripped from everything.

I usually don't respond to posts such as this but I feel compelled to do so. I'm a Christian but that doesn't mean I believe government should have any part in religious education. I have no problem with private schools; I went to one but I believe that public education is better for most student. Yes, there are problems with public schools, but there are problems in private schools. You hear about the problems in public schools but not private schools so you assume they are better.

The perception that public schools are a failure is based on the lack of progress in some public school systems. There are many good public schools which compare well both national and internationally. However, critics of public education prefer to concentrate on failing schools, making the illogical assumption that private schools must be better than public schools with no objective evidence to support their belief.

Much of the belief that private schools are better than public schools is based on the assumption that competition in private schools will produce better results. The fact is 85% of the private schools are non-profit schools and the majority are operated by religious organization, which is not really a competitive environment. Parents have no way of determining the quality of the programs in most private schools because the tests they give students are often not comparable to other private schools or public schools. The data they choose to provide always show their school is superior.

 

[Clementine]

Schools that accept vouchers should be required to give the same tests as public schools.

.........

Typical liberal...

Wait, why not?

We want accountability for tax payer dollars don't we?

Enforced uniformity is not synonymous with accountability.

Lefties bitch about standardized testing but can't shake their programmed insistence on centralized control.

Leftists bitch about standardized testing only when it's designed to hold the government school teachers accountable.

If we're going to require that public schools give a standardize to evaluate student performance, we should certainly require that private schools taking tax payer money do likewise. Parents may or not be able compare but the point is the tax payer has no way of knowing his money is being spent wisely unless there is an objective measure of performance.

In that case we should get a report on how the billions in foreign aid are actually helping people, that the billions in welfare is helping people turn things around and we should be told how all of our tax money is spent and whether it went where it was supposed to go or in the pockets of cronies.

 

[Clementine]

.

So a school's "racial balance" is more important than allowing poor black kids to go to a better school.

What a fucked up thing to do to a kid.

This just doesn't stop, does it? If the PC Police actually gave a shit, they're put higher emphasis on the child's education than on what happens to be the color of their freakin' skin.

Madness. Blacks continue to be victimized by those who claim to "care".

.

Racial balance causes kids to be shipped up to 45 miles here in this parish, passing schools they could ride a bike to, in order achieve "balance".

We are one of the largest parishes in LA, and have TWO public high schools, instead of the dozen we once had, just to achieve "balance".

Our highest rated school gets a "C", but, we are "balanced'.

In Winter, some kids get on the bus in the dark, and get off in the dark.

"Balance" is just fuckin' wonderful, unless you are the kid suffering the two hour bus ride each way.

Tucson Unified School District is the largest school district in Arizona, and participates enthusiastically in forced busing. Funny thing is, they've been dragging poor minority students out of their neighborhood schools and off to schools across town where their parents - who often have limited transportation options - struggle to attend meetings and school functions for decades. They've ALSO instituted the Magnet School program to improve schools, and thoughtfully put those programs primarily in economically-depressed neighborhoods. The only catch is, the two programs conflict with each other.

So basically, the best schools in town - which isn't saying much, admittedly - are located in poor Hispanic neighborhoods, and filled with rich white kids, because the poor minority students aren't allowed to attend their own neighborhood schools, because they have to maintain the "racial balance" in the other schools.

I'm thinking someone somewhere missed the point of the exercise.

Yea, the whole color balance thing made some asshole feel better, but make life difficult for parents and students.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Parents who care about the quality of their kids' education will find out. They talk to other parents who send their kids to a school. They read reviews online. They talk to school administrators, etc, etc. Schools are not black boxes free of information. And as for religious education, what's the big deal if the school actually educates the kids? A lot, if not most, of religious schools provide a better education than a lot, if not all, government schools.

The big deal is it's unconstitutional to use of tax dollars to support religious schools. A long line of Supreme Court cases has repeatedly found that the First Amendment bars the expenditure of tax money to support religion or religious schools.

IF that's the case then we better abolish welfare and Social Security since recipients might put some of the money in the collection basket.

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

Trust me, Floppy thinks religion should be stripped from everything.

I usually don't respond to posts such as this but I feel compelled to do so. I'm a Christian but that doesn't mean I believe government should have any part in religious education. I have no problem with private schools; I went to one but I believe that public education is better for most student. Yes, there are problems with public schools, but there are problems in private schools. You hear about the problems in public schools but not private schools so you assume they are better.

What an amazingly large amount of blather to agree with me.

The perception that public schools are a failure is based on the lack of progress in some public school systems. There are many good public schools which compare well both national and internationally. However, critics of public education prefer to concentrate on failing schools, making the illogical assumption that private schools must be better than public schools with no objective evidence to support their belief.

So your position is, "Parents should have no control over their children's educations because they're wrong that their public schools suck"? Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?

Much of the belief that private schools are better than public schools is based on the assumption that competition in private schools will produce better results. The fact is 85% of the private schools are non-profit schools and the majority are operated by religious organization, which is not really a competitive environment. Parents have no way of determining the quality of the programs in most private schools because the tests they give students are often not comparable to other private schools or public schools. The data they choose to provide always show their school is superior.

See above.

Read this very slowly so that perhaps the words will sink in: THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN. They have parents, and you are not them. It does not matter whether or not you think the public schools are spiffy. It does not matter what you think of the parents' reasons for choosing a school. THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN.

 

[Cecilie1200]

.

So a school's "racial balance" is more important than allowing poor black kids to go to a better school.

What a fucked up thing to do to a kid.

This just doesn't stop, does it? If the PC Police actually gave a shit, they're put higher emphasis on the child's education than on what happens to be the color of their freakin' skin.

Madness. Blacks continue to be victimized by those who claim to "care".

.

Racial balance causes kids to be shipped up to 45 miles here in this parish, passing schools they could ride a bike to, in order achieve "balance".

We are one of the largest parishes in LA, and have TWO public high schools, instead of the dozen we once had, just to achieve "balance".

Our highest rated school gets a "C", but, we are "balanced'.

In Winter, some kids get on the bus in the dark, and get off in the dark.

"Balance" is just fuckin' wonderful, unless you are the kid suffering the two hour bus ride each way.

Tucson Unified School District is the largest school district in Arizona, and participates enthusiastically in forced busing. Funny thing is, they've been dragging poor minority students out of their neighborhood schools and off to schools across town where their parents - who often have limited transportation options - struggle to attend meetings and school functions for decades. They've ALSO instituted the Magnet School program to improve schools, and thoughtfully put those programs primarily in economically-depressed neighborhoods. The only catch is, the two programs conflict with each other.

So basically, the best schools in town - which isn't saying much, admittedly - are located in poor Hispanic neighborhoods, and filled with rich white kids, because the poor minority students aren't allowed to attend their own neighborhood schools, because they have to maintain the "racial balance" in the other schools.

I'm thinking someone somewhere missed the point of the exercise.

Yea, the whole color balance thing made some asshole feel better, but make life difficult for parents and students.

The minority parents, whose children are allegedly the ones hugely benefitted by forced busing, are the ones who hate it the most and are most vocal about needing to abolish it. It's bizarre how they could believe that equal access to expanded and advanced curriculums, less travel time, and increased parental access to schools and school events would be more meaningful for their children than being able to bask in the presence of children with white skin during classes, huh?

 

[bripat9643]

Parents who care about the quality of their kids' education will find out. They talk to other parents who send their kids to a school. They read reviews online. They talk to school administrators, etc, etc. Schools are not black boxes free of information. And as for religious education, what's the big deal if the school actually educates the kids? A lot, if not most, of religious schools provide a better education than a lot, if not all, government schools.

The big deal is it's unconstitutional to use of tax dollars to support religious schools. A long line of Supreme Court cases has repeatedly found that the First Amendment bars the expenditure of tax money to support religion or religious schools.

IF that's the case then we better abolish welfare and Social Security since recipients might put some of the money in the collection basket.

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

Simple: It's just an excuse to shoot down vouchers. The Supreme Court has already ruled that vouchers given to religious schools do not violate the First Amendment. It's a bogus issue. Anyone who uses it simply doesn't like vouchers because he's a tool of the NEA and the ATF.

SCOTUS ruled in 2002 that school vouchers were legal if the school's program is secular.

Their academic programs are secular. The religious components can be separated out into separate classes that voucher students don't have to take.

For the record, I couldn't give a crap if vouchers are used to teach kids religion, so long as they get a good education in the basics. Only liberal get hysterical about vouchers being used in religious schools. Parents have the right to educate their kids the way they want, within reason.

The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the voucher program violates the Louisiana constitution. The court ruled that state educational funds could not be diverted to private schools. This means that the legislature must fund the voucher program separately from education funds.

It's distinction without a difference. If they a create a voucher program and a significant share of students take advantage of it, they they can reduce public school funding by an equivalent amount. The funds are simply entries in a ledger.

 

[Flopper]

.........

Typical liberal...

Wait, why not?

We want accountability for tax payer dollars don't we?

Enforced uniformity is not synonymous with accountability.

Lefties bitch about standardized testing but can't shake their programmed insistence on centralized control.

Leftists bitch about standardized testing only when it's designed to hold the government school teachers accountable.

If we're going to require that public schools give a standardize to evaluate student performance, we should certainly require that private schools taking tax payer money do likewise. Parents may or not be able compare but the point is the tax payer has no way of knowing his money is being spent wisely unless there is an objective measure of performance.

In that case we should get a report on how the billions in foreign aid are actually helping people, that the billions in welfare is helping people turn things around and we should be told how all of our tax money is spent and whether it went where it was supposed to go or in the pockets of cronies.

If people are going to make intelligent decisions as to whether to send their children to private schools using a voucher, they need to be able to make an objective comparison of the quality of education.

Foreign aid is not about helping people. That went away years ago. It's about buying what the US government wants in trade agreements, military support, UN votes, and other quid pro quo deals.

 

[Flopper]

The big deal is it's unconstitutional to use of tax dollars to support religious schools. A long line of Supreme Court cases has repeatedly found that the First Amendment bars the expenditure of tax money to support religion or religious schools.

IF that's the case then we better abolish welfare and Social Security since recipients might put some of the money in the collection basket.

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

Simple: It's just an excuse to shoot down vouchers. The Supreme Court has already ruled that vouchers given to religious schools do not violate the First Amendment. It's a bogus issue. Anyone who uses it simply doesn't like vouchers because he's a tool of the NEA and the ATF.

SCOTUS ruled in 2002 that school vouchers were legal if the school's program is secular.

Their academic programs are secular. The religious components can be separated out into separate classes that voucher students don't have to take.

For the record, I couldn't give a crap if vouchers are used to teach kids religion, so long as they get a good education in the basics. Only liberal get hysterical about vouchers being used in religious schools. Parents have the right to educate their kids the way they want, within reason.

The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the voucher program violates the Louisiana constitution. The court ruled that state educational funds could not be diverted to private schools. This means that the legislature must fund the voucher program separately from education funds.

It's distinction without a difference. If they a create a voucher program and a significant share of students take advantage of it, they they can reduce public school funding by an equivalent amount. The funds are simply entries in a ledger.

No there is a difference. Previously, the legislature could allocate X dollars for education. Only by going through the education budget was it clear that they were reducing funding of public school students to support private schools. The Louisiana Supreme Court decision forces the legislation to allocated funds separately between the private schools it supports and public schools so citizens can see clearly how much they are reducing funding of public schools to support private schools.

Here is an example that should explain the problem the public schools face. A school looses 10 students to private schools and $10,000 in funding per student. So now it's lost $100,000 in funding. So how does the school cope with reduced funds. Can if fire teachers? No, because the school is already short teachers. Can it reduce maintenance of the building? Nope. Can it reduce the interest being paid on bonds? Nope. In fact, it can't reduce any expenses. The amount of funding for the school is being reduced and there is no way to cut expenses without damaging the educational program that's already is in trouble. Making the matter even worst the students being lost are usually the better students that require less supervision and are academically superior to other students.

 

[Flopper]

The big deal is it's unconstitutional to use of tax dollars to support religious schools. A long line of Supreme Court cases has repeatedly found that the First Amendment bars the expenditure of tax money to support religion or religious schools.

IF that's the case then we better abolish welfare and Social Security since recipients might put some of the money in the collection basket.

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

Trust me, Floppy thinks religion should be stripped from everything.

I usually don't respond to posts such as this but I feel compelled to do so. I'm a Christian but that doesn't mean I believe government should have any part in religious education. I have no problem with private schools; I went to one but I believe that public education is better for most student. Yes, there are problems with public schools, but there are problems in private schools. You hear about the problems in public schools but not private schools so you assume they are better.

What an amazingly large amount of blather to agree with me.

The perception that public schools are a failure is based on the lack of progress in some public school systems. There are many good public schools which compare well both national and internationally. However, critics of public education prefer to concentrate on failing schools, making the illogical assumption that private schools must be better than public schools with no objective evidence to support their belief.

So your position is, "Parents should have no control over their children's educations because they're wrong that their public schools suck"? Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?

Much of the belief that private schools are better than public schools is based on the assumption that competition in private schools will produce better results. The fact is 85% of the private schools are non-profit schools and the majority are operated by religious organization, which is not really a competitive environment. Parents have no way of determining the quality of the programs in most private schools because the tests they give students are often not comparable to other private schools or public schools. The data they choose to provide always show their school is superior.

See above.

Read this very slowly so that perhaps the words will sink in: THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN. They have parents, and you are not them. It does not matter whether or not you think the public schools are spiffy. It does not matter what you think of the parents' reasons for choosing a school. THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN.

You say, "Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?"

Simple because it is my tax dollars that are supporting those schools. Most of the parents of students in those schools pay practically nothing in taxes to support them. The purpose the schools is not to serve just the students but the community. It is certainly my place to be concerned about how my tax dollars are being used.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The big deal is it's unconstitutional to use of tax dollars to support religious schools. A long line of Supreme Court cases has repeatedly found that the First Amendment bars the expenditure of tax money to support religion or religious schools.

IF that's the case then we better abolish welfare and Social Security since recipients might put some of the money in the collection basket.

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

Simple: It's just an excuse to shoot down vouchers. The Supreme Court has already ruled that vouchers given to religious schools do not violate the First Amendment. It's a bogus issue. Anyone who uses it simply doesn't like vouchers because he's a tool of the NEA and the ATF.

SCOTUS ruled in 2002 that school vouchers were legal if the school's program is secular.

Their academic programs are secular. The religious components can be separated out into separate classes that voucher students don't have to take.

For the record, I couldn't give a crap if vouchers are used to teach kids religion, so long as they get a good education in the basics. Only liberal get hysterical about vouchers being used in religious schools. Parents have the right to educate their kids the way they want, within reason.

The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the voucher program violates the Louisiana constitution. The court ruled that state educational funds could not be diverted to private schools. This means that the legislature must fund the voucher program separately from education funds.

It's distinction without a difference. If they a create a voucher program and a significant share of students take advantage of it, they they can reduce public school funding by an equivalent amount. The funds are simply entries in a ledger.

I'm always amused by liberals who think they're going to stamp out religious education by not allowing it in schools. Do they honestly think the parents who send their kids to school to get a religious education aren't going to teach them that stuff anyway?

 

[Cecilie1200]

IF that's the case then we better abolish welfare and Social Security since recipients might put some of the money in the collection basket.

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

Trust me, Floppy thinks religion should be stripped from everything.

I usually don't respond to posts such as this but I feel compelled to do so. I'm a Christian but that doesn't mean I believe government should have any part in religious education. I have no problem with private schools; I went to one but I believe that public education is better for most student. Yes, there are problems with public schools, but there are problems in private schools. You hear about the problems in public schools but not private schools so you assume they are better.

What an amazingly large amount of blather to agree with me.

The perception that public schools are a failure is based on the lack of progress in some public school systems. There are many good public schools which compare well both national and internationally. However, critics of public education prefer to concentrate on failing schools, making the illogical assumption that private schools must be better than public schools with no objective evidence to support their belief.

So your position is, "Parents should have no control over their children's educations because they're wrong that their public schools suck"? Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?

Much of the belief that private schools are better than public schools is based on the assumption that competition in private schools will produce better results. The fact is 85% of the private schools are non-profit schools and the majority are operated by religious organization, which is not really a competitive environment. Parents have no way of determining the quality of the programs in most private schools because the tests they give students are often not comparable to other private schools or public schools. The data they choose to provide always show their school is superior.

See above.

Read this very slowly so that perhaps the words will sink in: THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN. They have parents, and you are not them. It does not matter whether or not you think the public schools are spiffy. It does not matter what you think of the parents' reasons for choosing a school. THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN.

You say, "Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?"

Simple because it is my tax dollars that are supporting those schools. Most of the parents of students in those schools pay practically nothing in taxes to support them. The purpose the schools is not to serve just the students but the community. It is certainly my place to be concerned about how my tax dollars are being used.

I've always enjoyed how leftists deal themselves into other people lives by insisting that things be run and funded by the government, and then saying, "Well, I get to decide for you, because it's MY tax money."

It may be your place to be concerned about how tax money is used, but there's a large difference between that and deciding how OTHER people children should be educated and raised. Especially since it was the left's idea to take over education and make it public, anyway.