What Would You Do? (Education)

[Spare_change]

They won't change until their existence is threatened.

I disagree. It's not as simple as that - specifically, the reasons for failing in those schools that are failing are diverse. It's why just throwing money at it doesn't solve the problem and likewise, taking money away doesn't solve anything either.

You would be surprised how much that would do.

Or not.

I'm not willing to allow our public education system to be destroyed so people can have tax payer money financing private and religious schools.

Why would taking my child's share of the 'education dollar' destroy the public education system?

How will it be payed for? And, as a correlary - why should I pay for your child's private education?

You aren't paying for my child's private school - you are reimbursing me for NOT using your public school.

All other costs I will cover out of pocket.

 

[Spare_change]

How do you feel about vouchers? School choice? Parochial schools? Home schooling?

I feel that parents have every right to choose what ever accredited school they want. But I do not believe we, the taxpayers should pay for it. I oppose vouchers for a variety of reasons. People should not be forced to subsidize private for-profit or religious schools. Taking money away from the public school system only makes the problem worse and leaves those students stuck in the system worse off. Private schools don't have to take everyone - they can pick and choose from the best if they want. Vouchers also don't help many families - they don't pay for the entire cost, they don't cover transportation, they don't work when there are no private schools in a reasonable distance or for parents that don't have transport options where there might be a private school. It subsidizes a few at the expense of others.

But you can't have it both ways .... you can't say people have the freedom of school choice, but that they must subsidize substandard schools (through taxes) while paying for educational excellence (out of pocket).

If I remove 10 students from your school, why should you get money to teach those 10 students? Shouldn't the money dedicated to the education of the 10 students go with the 10 students?

Yes, you can have it both ways. They can choose to enroll in the public school, or they can choose to enroll in private or to homeschool. That is freedom of choice.

Our nation mandates that a child receives a certain number of years of schooling. It also provides, through our taxes, but at no cost to the families - free schooling that meets (or should meet) the minimum standard. If they want more than that - then it's up to them. They aren't guaranteed a Harvard education. I don't have kids at all. Why should I have to subsidize ANYONE's education? I do because it's in the best interests of our country, but that doesn't mean I should subsidize private for-profit schools or religious schools.

So, why not give me my share and let me educate my child as I see fit - to include paying whatever extra is necessary to meet my standards?

Because, like roads, and the military, education is publically funded.

It's only publicly funded for those who utilize it. Why should you get paid for NOT educating a child?

 

[Coyote]

I disagree. It's not as simple as that - specifically, the reasons for failing in those schools that are failing are diverse. It's why just throwing money at it doesn't solve the problem and likewise, taking money away doesn't solve anything either.

You would be surprised how much that would do.

Or not.

I'm not willing to allow our public education system to be destroyed so people can have tax payer money financing private and religious schools.

Why would taking my child's share of the 'education dollar' destroy the public education system?

How will it be payed for? And, as a correlary - why should I pay for your child's private education?

You aren't paying for my child's private school - you are reimbursing me for NOT using your public school.

All other costs I will cover out of pocket.

No. I'm paying for YOUR child's school through MY taxes. It's not MY public school. I have NO kids. Our taxes pay for our social safety net as well. That doesn't mean we should be paying for mansions out of welfare money simply because folks aren't happy with section 8 apartments. Same applies to schools.

 

[Coyote]

I feel that parents have every right to choose what ever accredited school they want. But I do not believe we, the taxpayers should pay for it. I oppose vouchers for a variety of reasons. People should not be forced to subsidize private for-profit or religious schools. Taking money away from the public school system only makes the problem worse and leaves those students stuck in the system worse off. Private schools don't have to take everyone - they can pick and choose from the best if they want. Vouchers also don't help many families - they don't pay for the entire cost, they don't cover transportation, they don't work when there are no private schools in a reasonable distance or for parents that don't have transport options where there might be a private school. It subsidizes a few at the expense of others.

But you can't have it both ways .... you can't say people have the freedom of school choice, but that they must subsidize substandard schools (through taxes) while paying for educational excellence (out of pocket).

If I remove 10 students from your school, why should you get money to teach those 10 students? Shouldn't the money dedicated to the education of the 10 students go with the 10 students?

Yes, you can have it both ways. They can choose to enroll in the public school, or they can choose to enroll in private or to homeschool. That is freedom of choice.

Our nation mandates that a child receives a certain number of years of schooling. It also provides, through our taxes, but at no cost to the families - free schooling that meets (or should meet) the minimum standard. If they want more than that - then it's up to them. They aren't guaranteed a Harvard education. I don't have kids at all. Why should I have to subsidize ANYONE's education? I do because it's in the best interests of our country, but that doesn't mean I should subsidize private for-profit schools or religious schools.

So, why not give me my share and let me educate my child as I see fit - to include paying whatever extra is necessary to meet my standards?

Because, like roads, and the military, education is publically funded.

It's only publicly funded for those who utilize it. Why should you get paid for NOT educating a child?

Then become an active parent and agent of change for local schools. Don't expect me to pay for your cadillac schools or special religious schools.

 

[Spare_change]

You would be surprised how much that would do.

Or not.

I'm not willing to allow our public education system to be destroyed so people can have tax payer money financing private and religious schools.

Why would taking my child's share of the 'education dollar' destroy the public education system?

How will it be payed for? And, as a correlary - why should I pay for your child's private education?

You aren't paying for my child's private school - you are reimbursing me for NOT using your public school.

All other costs I will cover out of pocket.

No. I'm paying for YOUR child's school through MY taxes. It's not MY public school. I have NO kids. Our taxes pay for our social safety net as well. That doesn't mean we should be paying for mansions out of welfare money simply because folks aren't happy with section 8 apartments. Same applies to schools.

Got it .... let's make sure everybody gets the same education, especially when it's no education at all. Equality is more important than quality, right?

The public school system is broken --- busted --- bad.

 

[Spare_change]

But you can't have it both ways .... you can't say people have the freedom of school choice, but that they must subsidize substandard schools (through taxes) while paying for educational excellence (out of pocket).

If I remove 10 students from your school, why should you get money to teach those 10 students? Shouldn't the money dedicated to the education of the 10 students go with the 10 students?

Yes, you can have it both ways. They can choose to enroll in the public school, or they can choose to enroll in private or to homeschool. That is freedom of choice.

Our nation mandates that a child receives a certain number of years of schooling. It also provides, through our taxes, but at no cost to the families - free schooling that meets (or should meet) the minimum standard. If they want more than that - then it's up to them. They aren't guaranteed a Harvard education. I don't have kids at all. Why should I have to subsidize ANYONE's education? I do because it's in the best interests of our country, but that doesn't mean I should subsidize private for-profit schools or religious schools.

So, why not give me my share and let me educate my child as I see fit - to include paying whatever extra is necessary to meet my standards?

Because, like roads, and the military, education is publically funded.

It's only publicly funded for those who utilize it. Why should you get paid for NOT educating a child?

Then become an active parent and agent of change for local schools. Don't expect me to pay for your cadillac schools or special religious schools.

You just don't get it, do you? None are so blind as those who cannot see.

I don't want to support your broken school system --- I want to use MY money to improve my child's education. You took it from me --- under the assumption that I was going to benefit from your misuse. I want it back!

 

[ding]

They won't change until their existence is threatened.

I disagree. It's not as simple as that - specifically, the reasons for failing in those schools that are failing are diverse. It's why just throwing money at it doesn't solve the problem and likewise, taking money away doesn't solve anything either.

You would be surprised how much that would do.

How would you know?

Because it is Darwinian.

Sort of....but implying survival of the fittest is the model we should go by means then that there will be a large number of students failed by this. Private schools can not be forced to take all students - they can pick and choose. So that's going to leave a certain number of students - those who the schools won't take, those who can't afford to send their kids to private schools even with vouchers, or have no private schools available - in failing school systems that will then fail even further as money is withdrawn and the higher end pupils siphoned off.

You're going to end up with two distinct classes and a widening gulf...how does that fulfil the goal an educated citizen?

I don't believe we will. I believe that when we raise our standards, they will rise to meet the expectations.

 

[ding]

That's the point. They have no reason to change. Give them a reason to change.

I think they have reason to change, but they are stifled in bureacracy. There have been good innovative ideas that are successful, like magnet schools. Funneling money into private education is not going to make them change, it will make it harder for them to change. I also don't think tax payers should fund religious enterprises.

They won't change until their existence is threatened.

I disagree. It's not as simple as that - specifically, the reasons for failing in those schools that are failing are diverse. It's why just throwing money at it doesn't solve the problem and likewise, taking money away doesn't solve anything either.

You would be surprised how much that would do.

Or not.

I'm not willing to allow our public education system to be destroyed so people can have tax payer money financing private and religious schools.

I don't believe it will be destroyed.

 

[Spare_change]

They won't change until their existence is threatened.

I disagree. It's not as simple as that - specifically, the reasons for failing in those schools that are failing are diverse. It's why just throwing money at it doesn't solve the problem and likewise, taking money away doesn't solve anything either.

You would be surprised how much that would do.

How would you know?

Because it is Darwinian.

Sort of....but implying survival of the fittest is the model we should go by means then that there will be a large number of students failed by this. Private schools can not be forced to take all students - they can pick and choose. So that's going to leave a certain number of students - those who the schools won't take, those who can't afford to send their kids to private schools even with vouchers, or have no private schools available - in failing school systems that will then fail even further as money is withdrawn and the higher end pupils siphoned off.

You're going to end up with two distinct classes and a widening gulf...how does that fulfil the goal an educated citizen?

I would suggest that depends on your definition of "educated citizen" -

Why would this contribute to "failing school systems" - we've heard the "more teachers per student" mantra for the past 50 years. Frankly, your logic is flawed.

 

[ding]

Competition works only if it is allowed to occur. Absent competition there is no impetus for change. An object at rest will remain at rest, an object in motion will remain in motion. The path of least resistance will be followed.

 

[Spare_change]

Competition works only if it is allowed to occur. Absent competition there is no impetus for change. An object at rest will remain at rest, an object in motion will remain in motion. The path of least resistance will be followed.

How do you feel about corporate run schools?

 

[ding]

You would be surprised how much that would do.

Or not.

I'm not willing to allow our public education system to be destroyed so people can have tax payer money financing private and religious schools.

Why would taking my child's share of the 'education dollar' destroy the public education system?

How will it be payed for? And, as a correlary - why should I pay for your child's private education?

You aren't paying for my child's private school - you are reimbursing me for NOT using your public school.

All other costs I will cover out of pocket.

No. I'm paying for YOUR child's school through MY taxes. It's not MY public school. I have NO kids. Our taxes pay for our social safety net as well. That doesn't mean we should be paying for mansions out of welfare money simply because folks aren't happy with section 8 apartments. Same applies to schools.

His point was that if he chooses to send his kids to a private school because the public school is inferior he should be reimbursed for the taxes he paid. I agree.

 

[Coyote]

Or not.

I'm not willing to allow our public education system to be destroyed so people can have tax payer money financing private and religious schools.

Why would taking my child's share of the 'education dollar' destroy the public education system?

How will it be payed for? And, as a correlary - why should I pay for your child's private education?

You aren't paying for my child's private school - you are reimbursing me for NOT using your public school.

All other costs I will cover out of pocket.

No. I'm paying for YOUR child's school through MY taxes. It's not MY public school. I have NO kids. Our taxes pay for our social safety net as well. That doesn't mean we should be paying for mansions out of welfare money simply because folks aren't happy with section 8 apartments. Same applies to schools.

His point was that if he chooses to send his kids to a private school because the public school is inferior he should be reimbursed for the taxes he paid. I agree.

Why?

Where is there any guarantee that he has the right to a tax payer funded Harvard education?

My taxes pay for roads. If I'm unhappy with the quality of the roads should I be reimbursed?

My taxes pay for other people's kids to be educated. Should I be reimbursed since I have no kids?

 

[Coyote]

I disagree. It's not as simple as that - specifically, the reasons for failing in those schools that are failing are diverse. It's why just throwing money at it doesn't solve the problem and likewise, taking money away doesn't solve anything either.

You would be surprised how much that would do.

How would you know?

Because it is Darwinian.

Sort of....but implying survival of the fittest is the model we should go by means then that there will be a large number of students failed by this. Private schools can not be forced to take all students - they can pick and choose. So that's going to leave a certain number of students - those who the schools won't take, those who can't afford to send their kids to private schools even with vouchers, or have no private schools available - in failing school systems that will then fail even further as money is withdrawn and the higher end pupils siphoned off.

You're going to end up with two distinct classes and a widening gulf...how does that fulfil the goal an educated citizen?

I would suggest that depends on your definition of "educated citizen" -

Why would this contribute to "failing school systems" - we've heard the "more teachers per student" mantra for the past 50 years. Frankly, your logic is flawed.

It's not flawed. Overcrowded classrooms are a huge challenge to effective teaching. From personal experience - on a much smaller scale, I can attest to that. I teach dog training classes. We limit it to 12, with a 3-instructor/assitant to 4 student ratio. We've had much larger classes, with far fewer instructors, and they were horrible.

 

[Spare_change]

You would be surprised how much that would do.

How would you know?

Because it is Darwinian.

Sort of....but implying survival of the fittest is the model we should go by means then that there will be a large number of students failed by this. Private schools can not be forced to take all students - they can pick and choose. So that's going to leave a certain number of students - those who the schools won't take, those who can't afford to send their kids to private schools even with vouchers, or have no private schools available - in failing school systems that will then fail even further as money is withdrawn and the higher end pupils siphoned off.

You're going to end up with two distinct classes and a widening gulf...how does that fulfil the goal an educated citizen?

I would suggest that depends on your definition of "educated citizen" -

Why would this contribute to "failing school systems" - we've heard the "more teachers per student" mantra for the past 50 years. Frankly, your logic is flawed.

It's not flawed. Overcrowded classrooms are a huge challenge to effective teaching. From personal experience - on a much smaller scale, I can attest to that. I teach dog training classes. We limit it to 12, with a 3-instructor/assitant to 4 student ratio. We've had much larger classes, with far fewer instructors, and they were horrible.

You deflected and didn't bother to answer the actual question ... go back and try it again. If you need remedial help, just let me know.

 

[Spare_change]

You would be surprised how much that would do.

How would you know?

Because it is Darwinian.

Sort of....but implying survival of the fittest is the model we should go by means then that there will be a large number of students failed by this. Private schools can not be forced to take all students - they can pick and choose. So that's going to leave a certain number of students - those who the schools won't take, those who can't afford to send their kids to private schools even with vouchers, or have no private schools available - in failing school systems that will then fail even further as money is withdrawn and the higher end pupils siphoned off.

You're going to end up with two distinct classes and a widening gulf...how does that fulfil the goal an educated citizen?

I would suggest that depends on your definition of "educated citizen" -

Why would this contribute to "failing school systems" - we've heard the "more teachers per student" mantra for the past 50 years. Frankly, your logic is flawed.

It's not flawed. Overcrowded classrooms are a huge challenge to effective teaching. From personal experience - on a much smaller scale, I can attest to that. I teach dog training classes. We limit it to 12, with a 3-instructor/assitant to 4 student ratio. We've had much larger classes, with far fewer instructors, and they were horrible.

The question that was asked was why aren't you in favor of school vouchers since it lowers the student-to-teacher ratio in schools that need it most. Now you tell me that vouchering contributes to failing school systems. That would seem to be diametrically opposed to what you were originally saying.

 

[Unkotare]

...Overcrowded classrooms are a huge challenge to effective teaching. ......

This is very often overblown.

 

[ding]

Why would taking my child's share of the 'education dollar' destroy the public education system?

How will it be payed for? And, as a correlary - why should I pay for your child's private education?

You aren't paying for my child's private school - you are reimbursing me for NOT using your public school.

All other costs I will cover out of pocket.

No. I'm paying for YOUR child's school through MY taxes. It's not MY public school. I have NO kids. Our taxes pay for our social safety net as well. That doesn't mean we should be paying for mansions out of welfare money simply because folks aren't happy with section 8 apartments. Same applies to schools.

His point was that if he chooses to send his kids to a private school because the public school is inferior he should be reimbursed for the taxes he paid. I agree.

Why?

Where is there any guarantee that he has the right to a tax payer funded Harvard education?

My taxes pay for roads. If I'm unhappy with the quality of the roads should I be reimbursed?

My taxes pay for other people's kids to be educated. Should I be reimbursed since I have no kids?

No guarantees needed. That isn't the issue. The issue is that their performance is not meeting expectations and we need to change that. How? By creating competition.

Is it unreasonable to hold the government accountable for their performance?

 

[Coyote]

How will it be payed for? And, as a correlary - why should I pay for your child's private education?

You aren't paying for my child's private school - you are reimbursing me for NOT using your public school.

All other costs I will cover out of pocket.

No. I'm paying for YOUR child's school through MY taxes. It's not MY public school. I have NO kids. Our taxes pay for our social safety net as well. That doesn't mean we should be paying for mansions out of welfare money simply because folks aren't happy with section 8 apartments. Same applies to schools.

His point was that if he chooses to send his kids to a private school because the public school is inferior he should be reimbursed for the taxes he paid. I agree.

Why?

Where is there any guarantee that he has the right to a tax payer funded Harvard education?

My taxes pay for roads. If I'm unhappy with the quality of the roads should I be reimbursed?

My taxes pay for other people's kids to be educated. Should I be reimbursed since I have no kids?

No guarantees needed. That isn't the issue. The issue is that their performance is not meeting expectations and we need to change that. How? By creating competition.

Is it unreasonable to hold the government accountable for their performance?

There already is competition, no need to create it. Generally, if there is a problem - you fix it. You fill in the potholes. You don't privatize the roads.

 

[ding]

You aren't paying for my child's private school - you are reimbursing me for NOT using your public school.

All other costs I will cover out of pocket.

No. I'm paying for YOUR child's school through MY taxes. It's not MY public school. I have NO kids. Our taxes pay for our social safety net as well. That doesn't mean we should be paying for mansions out of welfare money simply because folks aren't happy with section 8 apartments. Same applies to schools.

His point was that if he chooses to send his kids to a private school because the public school is inferior he should be reimbursed for the taxes he paid. I agree.

Why?

Where is there any guarantee that he has the right to a tax payer funded Harvard education?

My taxes pay for roads. If I'm unhappy with the quality of the roads should I be reimbursed?

My taxes pay for other people's kids to be educated. Should I be reimbursed since I have no kids?

No guarantees needed. That isn't the issue. The issue is that their performance is not meeting expectations and we need to change that. How? By creating competition.

Is it unreasonable to hold the government accountable for their performance?

There already is competition, no need to create it. Generally, if there is a problem - you fix it. You fill in the potholes. You don't privatize the roads.

If there were no need to create it then education would not be in the state that it is. You have seen the statistics, right? We spend more and achieve less.

Is it unreasonable to hold the government accountable for their performance?