Voucher fight is about money and power not religion
Raff
22edi.ART.b85e9.html
Voucher fight is about money and power
Public school proponents are protecting their power base
02/22/2002
By RUBEN NAVARRETTE / The Dallas Morning News
Take it from a former kindergarten teacher: If the nine justices on the
Supreme Court want to understand what is at the heart of the controversy
over school vouchers, they should close the lawbooks and have a long talk
with Steve Ulibarri of Albuquerque.
The 31-year-old Mexican-American father of two may not have the answer to
the legal question that confronts the justices - whether an experimental
private school voucher program in Cleveland violates the Constitution by
breaching the separation between church and state. Mr. Ulibarri isn't a
lawyer, though he has two master's degrees and once served as an aide to New
Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.
Yet Mr. Ulibarri does know quite a bit about school choice, and he owes that
education to Mr. Johnson, a voucher proponent who sent him across the
country a few years ago looking for school choice programs that worked.
That road took Mr. Ulibarri to Cleveland, where low-income and mostly
minority children are offered a lifeboat off a sinking ship - the inner-city
public school system, considered among the worst in the nation. Cleveland's
lifeboat takes the form of a voucher - up to $2,250 - that can be used by
parents to pay all or part of the tuition at a public, private or religious
school of their choice.
What Mr. Ulibarri learned in Cleveland and elsewhere made him a natural fit
for his current posts. He is president of the New Mexico chapter of Freedom
to Choose, a national organization intent on building grass-roots support
for school choice programs among parents. He also is vice chairman of the
Albuquerque-based Coalition for Latino Educational Opportunity, which
organizes similar efforts aimed directly at parents who happen to be Latino.
Not surprisingly, all of those experiences have left Mr. Ulibarri with sharp
insights into what really is behind the relentless opposition to school
choice. Here is a hint: You won't find it in a legal brief or the
Constitution.
For Mr. Ulibarri, the argument that the Cleveland program violates the
separation of church and state is just the latest concoction of an
educational lobby that resolved long ago that it would defeat vouchers - or
anything that even resembles vouchers - wherever they surface.
"This isn't about religion," Mr. Ulibarri told me from his office in
Albuquerque. "It's about money, and it's about power. It's about an
educational bureaucracy trying to do everything it can to maintain control
over the money that flows into public schools."
Mr. Ulibarri has done his homework, and he is absolutely correct. This is
about nothing grander than money and power and who controls both.
Today, the argument of voucher opponents might be church and state.
Yesterday, the line was that vouchers would drain resources from public
schools. Tomorrow, it will be something new. This bunch not only is
self-righteous, it is flexible.
Some believe the next move already is being contemplated - the race card.
Opponents will suggest that giving Latino and African-American parents
vouchers to move their children to private schools will encourage
resegregation. Presumably, minorities could start their own schools and
educate only their own kind.
But in this debate, the race card has another side to it. Increasingly,
voucher opponents - many of whom would place themselves on the liberal end
of the political spectrum - are at odds with some of the same groups they
have spent years trying to save with one liberal scheme after another.
African-American parents, when asked, typically express their support for
school choice at the rate of 55 percent to 70 percent. Among Latinos -
perhaps the most poorly educated ethnic group in the country, with dropout
rates that still hover at 50 percent - the support is even greater.
A recent poll of 1,000 Latino adults by Opiniones Latinas - a Latino polling
firm operating from New York and California - found that 73 percent
supported giving vouchers to poor parents to send their kids to the public
or private schools of their choice. And no wonder. The poll also found that
58 percent of Latinos have a negative opinion of the public school system.
That public schools are so bankrupt in the eyes of so many explains why
those who count on them for their livelihoods have become positively
Churchillian in their defense. They have no choice but to fight - in
politics, in court, on any battlefield. They never will surrender.
How can they? Giving up hastens the moment when parents with choices decide
to choose something else.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is an editorial writer and columnist for The Dallas
Morning News.
--
"Liberal: A man suffering from an overwhelming conviction to believe what is
not true."
J&S
"Raff" <no...@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:3c799...@news.meganetnews.com...
Snip of bullshit
hmmmmmmm look at that, as hollow as dana's brain.
Eric Gill
> http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/columnists/rnavarrette/stories/navarrette_
> 22edi.ART.b85e9.html
> Voucher fight is about money and power
> Public school proponents are protecting their power base
> 02/22/2002
Thread title updated to reflect reality.
<snip>
Got Brains?
> 22edi.ART.b85e9.html
> Voucher fight is about money and power
The power of the rich to fuck the poor.
Raff
"Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C79B649...@yahoo.com...
Thread title updated to reflect reality. It is funny how eric cannot refute
the article.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
Zino
"Got Brains?" <rightw...@fuckin.nuts> wrote in message
news:Yfje8.82662$8d1.28...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
Your "nic" is quite apt.
>
>
>
>
Dennis Armstrong
He who does not know history is bound to repeat the errors of the past. I'm
neither a teacher nor a history buff, but I do remember the hellish effects
of another well meaning movement designed to improve the educational system
in our country. Choice between public schools and private schools today
will mean no choices tomorrow. Racism has never been unique to the white
population of the southeastern United States. And racism is the major
argument against private education sponsor by the government.
Eric Gill
> "Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3C79B649...@yahoo.com...
>
>>Raff wrote:
>>
>>
> http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/columnists/rnavarrette/stories/navarrette_
>
>>>22edi.ART.b85e9.html
>>>Voucher fight is about money and power
>>>Public school proponents are protecting their power base
>>>02/22/2002
>>>
>>
>>Thread title updated to reflect reality.
>>
>
> Thread title updated to reflect reality.
Yep.
> It is funny how eric cannot refute
> the article.
Ah, isn't that sweet? Dana was so worked up by repeating propoganda he
never gave it the four seconds of thought neccesary to realize it was
the exact opposite of reality, and now wets himself when the propoganda
is so bad two lines refute it utterly.
How special you are, Dana.
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
No to Vouchers
Raff wrote:
First off it's not choice to have government decide the scheme.
Second, it's not choice to spend other peoples money (it's a luxury).
Vouchers enable government to tailer monies gathered from taxpayers
(under the condition that they not be used to establish religion) to
establish religion. It's like a bank robber that in the middle of a
holdup giving out money to the hostages and then the hostages
declaring that they had a right, no a CHOICE, in how to spend
it and that's why they should keep it.
Thirdly, vouchers grow government influence.
Fourthly, vouchers are not the only way to fund educaton,
even religious education, they are the *BIG GOVERNMENT
WAY*.
The best way to run education, give real choice, is to allow
taxpayers to get tax consessions for donations to education
instutitions. If catholic taxpayers then want to give to a
catholic education system, then so be it. If taxpayers want
to give to the state education system, then so be it. That
way the religious zealots can be forced to stop running
down inner city schools so they can push unconstitutional
government expansionist into the education sector. It
has become obvious to both the left and the right that
politicians get a real boner from growing government
and bugger how much it offends the left or right sensibilities,
or their rights, or the values their children learn.
>
> What Mr. Ulibarri learned in Cleveland and elsewhere made him a natural fit
> for his current posts. He is president of the New Mexico chapter of Freedom
> to Choose, a national organization intent on building grass-roots support
> for school choice programs among parents. He also is vice chairman of the
> Albuquerque-based Coalition for Latino Educational Opportunity, which
> organizes similar efforts aimed directly at parents who happen to be Latino.
> Not surprisingly, all of those experiences have left Mr. Ulibarri with sharp
> insights into what really is behind the relentless opposition to school
> choice. Here is a hint: You won't find it in a legal brief or the
> Constitution.
> For Mr. Ulibarri, the argument that the Cleveland program violates the
> separation of church and state is just the latest concoction of an
> educational lobby that resolved long ago that it would defeat vouchers - or
> anything that even resembles vouchers - wherever they surface.
Rubbish, school choice is achieveable without vouchers, i.e. by taking
government out of the equation. But of course the big governmentists
in both parties believe that government solves all their problems.
How hopelessly stupid, I mean big government can 't even run
a state school system, so why would they fairly run a voucher
program (there run it down at the first opportunity, i.e. politicial
need). It is simple not true that government owes citizens
a education and government doesn't owe citizens the right
to freedom of religion. Do the maths, those religions that
will be on the recieving end of vouchers *will* makeup the
majorities of the congressmembers 'beliefs'. If vouchers isn't about
establishing the religions of the political class then nothing is.
All those small religious groups, who don't have the money
and/or enough children (and no congressmembers), will be at a
disadvantage from vouchers.
>
> "This isn't about religion," Mr. Ulibarri told me from his office in
> Albuquerque. "It's about money, and it's about power. It's about an
> educational bureaucracy trying to do everything it can to maintain control
> over the money that flows into public schools."
HAHAHAHA, who decides which institutions will have their
vouchers reimbused.
>
> Mr. Ulibarri has done his homework, and he is absolutely correct. This is
> about nothing grander than money and power and who controls both.
> Today, the argument of voucher opponents might be church and state.
> Yesterday, the line was that vouchers would drain resources from public
> schools. Tomorrow, it will be something new. This bunch not only is
> self-righteous, it is flexible.
> Some believe the next move already is being contemplated - the race card.
> Opponents will suggest that giving Latino and African-American parents
> vouchers to move their children to private schools will encourage
> resegregation. Presumably, minorities could start their own schools and
> educate only their own kind.
Nobody has the right to spend my taxes on religion, not even the poor.
>
> But in this debate, the race card has another side to it. Increasingly,
> voucher opponents - many of whom would place themselves on the liberal end
> of the political spectrum - are at odds with some of the same groups they
> have spent years trying to save with one liberal scheme after another.
> African-American parents, when asked, typically express their support for
> school choice at the rate of 55 percent to 70 percent. Among Latinos -
> perhaps the most poorly educated ethnic group in the country, with dropout
> rates that still hover at 50 percent - the support is even greater.
> A recent poll of 1,000 Latino adults by Opiniones Latinas - a Latino polling
> firm operating from New York and California - found that 73 percent
> supported giving vouchers to poor parents to send their kids to the public
> or private schools of their choice. And no wonder. The poll also found that
> 58 percent of Latinos have a negative opinion of the public school system.
> That public schools are so bankrupt in the eyes of so many explains why
> those who count on them for their livelihoods have become positively
> Churchillian in their defense. They have no choice but to fight - in
> politics, in court, on any battlefield. They never will surrender.
> How can they? Giving up hastens the moment when parents with choices decide
> to choose something else.
> Ruben Navarrette Jr. is an editorial writer and columnist for The Dallas
> Morning News.
>
> --
> "Liberal: A man suffering from an overwhelming conviction to believe what is
> not true."
Stupid people are usually believers in a higher power, greater than
them to understand yet they understand. Duh.
Got Brains?
> 22edi.ART.b85e9.html
> Voucher fight is about money and power
This is absolutely right. It's about the rich keeping their money and power
and screwing the poor. It's not about religion.
So?
Bill Thacker
>http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/columnists/rnavarrette/stories/navarrette_
>"This isn't about religion," Mr. Ulibarri told me from his office in
>Albuquerque. "It's about money, and it's about power. It's about an
>educational bureaucracy trying to do everything it can to maintain control
>over the money that flows into public schools."
And it's about churches building classrooms to try and gain control of
that money and power themselves. And it's especially about parents
taking full control of taxes collected for school funding, and
eliminating the voice of the other taxpayers in how that money is
spent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker Atheist #1363 bi...@woods-car.com
Bill's Rail Buggy Page: http://www.woods-car.com
Director of the EAC Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Fast Cars,
and Pornography.
"Be nice to your neighbor. Be hell to his ideas."
Jim Versluys, editor, The Texas Mercury
No to Vouchers
Got Brains? wrote:
No, it's about the rich either keeping their money and the poor
still getting a poor crappy education or the poor spending the
riches money like they earnt it. The staggering thing is the
republicians are for the poor waving their vouchers in
the faces of the rich and saying 'suckers'.
The proper answer is to let taxpayers choose which
education system to fund and then get a unequal tax concession
for their gift (the more you give the big the rebate).
Taxpayers get a recipit from the say catholic
school system and put it in their tax filing. No problem
with the constitution, no big government education
bureaucracy to veto voucher recipients, no whiny liberal
teachers bemoaning how rundown the schools are when it's
obvious why (nobody likes what there teaching or how they
are). The staggering thing is that republicians are anti-private
education, anti-free market.
The fear, the fear is that most people will opt for
moderate well run schools that will teach children
well, and the children of the rich will have to compete
(no lazy ride to the top for Bush junior) and the hopelessly
religious will have to moderate their teachings to attract
the mainstream. But we all know that we must keep
the american dream from becoming reality, that everyone
cannot have the opportunity to be rich and that we can't
all be free to choose how are children are taught religion
because the farright have to teach us the right way to
<put pious anal diety here>.
Got Brains?
"No to Vouchers" <N...@to.vouchers> wrote in message
news:3C7A5248...@to.vouchers...
>
>
> Got Brains? wrote:
>
> > "Raff" <no...@noplace.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c799...@news.meganetnews.com...
> > >
> >
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/columnists/rnavarrette/stories/navarrette_
> > > 22edi.ART.b85e9.html
> > > Voucher fight is about money and power
> >
> > This is absolutely right. It's about the rich keeping their money and
power
> > and screwing the poor. It's not about religion.
> >
> > So?
>
> No, it's about the rich either keeping their money and the poor
> still getting a poor crappy education or the poor spending the
> riches money like they earnt it. The staggering thing is the
> republicians are for the poor waving their vouchers in
> the faces of the rich and saying 'suckers'.
The poor aren't going to get vouchers. Either that, or they'll find that
their "vouchers" get them basically the same school they got before.
Ironically, when all of that money is taken out of the public school system
to pay the people who already have enough money to send their kids to
private schools, taxes will have to increase significanly to make up the
shortfall. Either that, or schools will get demonstrably worse. Neither
result is appealing.
>
> The proper answer is to let taxpayers choose which
> education system to fund and then get a unequal tax concession
> for their gift (the more you give the big the rebate).
Bullshit.
Most individuals don't pay very much in school taxes; in fact, the smallest
block of school taxes paid most places is by parents of school-age children.
I would be all for a tax exemption for school taxes (not a tax credit) for
children in private schools, but that's about it.
veronica floss
says...
> http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/columnists/rnavarrette/stories/navarrette_
> 22edi.ART.b85e9.html
> Voucher fight is about money and power
> Public school proponents are protecting their power base
> 02/22/2002
> By RUBEN NAVARRETTE / The Dallas Morning News
[ Article planted by Pat Robertson's
Christian Coalition snipped.
Note that Ralph Reed lives in Texas
and worked for Enron on a 'no-show'
job until this last Christmas. ]
More "Americanization" baloney from Conservative Texans who know
how the rest of us should live.
Reasons why vouchers don't work:
1. Not enough money.
Typical vouchers cover about half what a Catholic School charges.
Catholic Schools are about as inexpensive as Private Schools get.
Vouchers don't even cover 20% of what nonCatholic private schools
charge. If you are a middle class parent, you still can't afford
to sent your kids anywhere else but the local public school.
2. Money doesn't go to those who need it.
If rich kids already attend good schools, then it's the middle
class kids who need voucher help. If it isn't enough; then almost
no middle class kids can use vouchers to attend a better school.
The rich parents can use vouchers though -- it's a free three
thousand dollars for them.
3. Not enough private schools.
Texas voters have already learned that there aren't enough
private schools within fifteen miles of public schools in the
State, that could absorb even what little voucher interest there
would be. This is typical of all States.
4. Vouchers aren't financially useful, anyway.
Surveys of private schools show that where vouchers pass, that
private schools hike their tuition rates about equal to the
voucher amount. For vouchers to work, the State would have to
legislate that Private School Tuitions could not be raised.
5. No regulation of Private School standards.
The Voucher concept does not guarantee that Private Schools would
have to meet any minimal academic standards. Parents could be
hoodwinked into sending their kids to "schools" that are
really sweatshops; "schools" that are really Churches or fronts
for religious sects like the Moonies; or "schools" that simply
try to teach as little as possible to maximize their profits.
Private Schools would not be accountable to parents any more than
scandalously bad proprietary technical institutes today are
accountable to their adult students. If a parent sued the school
its child attended, that school could simply go out of business
and reopen the next day as a "new" business, immune from suit.
6. Vouchers create local Bureaucracy.
A Voucher State must either tolerate a new fly-by-night
proprietary school industry where "bad" schools drive out the
"good" schools, or it must inspect all schools, public AND
private. This has two negative outcomes:
a. Bureaucracy. To inspect new private schools, every State
would need to hire even more School inspectors than they already
have, and would have added legal costs required to sue schools to
keep them up to standard. This is currently the costliest
function that most Public School systems need to absorb, next to
liability insurance.
b. Invasion of Privacy. Because private schools could teach
religion, politics, offer specialized work experience,
discriminate against some students in favor of others; teach
creationism in Science Classes (and other odd belief systems as
academically factual). These "Private" freedoms would require
Government decisions concerning beliefs and practices which are
now respected as private and personal. Inspection could even
require that Social workers visit family homes to determine that
families were not neglecting or abusing their children.
There are many more reasons why Vouchers don't work. I haven't
even described how good most of our Public Schools are; how much
our Public School systems would be harmed; how antithetical to
real "American Values" that this Voucher scheme is; or the fact
that the Voucher movement is really designed to remove white
children from public school systems nationwide, and abandon our
public schools to nonWhites.
Vouchers are an ugly business supported by religious bigots,
political demogogues and businessmen who see an opportunity to
make money by hoodwinking parents in order to abuse their
children.
VeeVee
No to Vouchers
Got Brains? wrote:
You misunderstand me. State schools are funded from taxation.
What I'm saying is that tax be seperated out and the taxpayer
pay it directly to the school instutition of choice. So catholics
would pay their money to a catholic school system, etc.
That way the constitutional seperation can be kept and
parents can give their children a illogical religious education
that puts their kids at a disadvantage from the mainstream
who embrace evolution, science and freethought. The idea
that poor people can have choice to spend it on religious
schooling whilst the taxpayers who dutifully paid their taxes
on the understanding that it wasn't to be used for to establishing
religion is a grotesque and unmitigated abuse by the big government
religious lobby (both left AND right). If you want to take
bias out of the system, take politicians out, remove government
legistlistion of education and let people pay for indoctrination
in the true americian way OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET.
Got Brains?
"No to Vouchers" <N...@to.vouchers> wrote in message
Most schools funds come from property and business taxes and fees.
> What I'm saying is that tax be seperated out and the taxpayer
> pay it directly to the school instutition of choice. So catholics
> would pay their money to a catholic school system, etc.
The average individual homeowner pays less than $1000 a year, and the
average renter pays about $100. How much Catholic School do you think that
would buy?
> That way the constitutional seperation can be kept
It's still tax money.
and
> parents can give their children a illogical religious education
> that puts their kids at a disadvantage from the mainstream
> who embrace evolution, science and freethought.
Unfair. Many religious schools do an excellent job. That is not the issue.
> The idea
> that poor people can have choice to spend it on religious
> schooling whilst the taxpayers who dutifully paid their taxes
> on the understanding that it wasn't to be used for to establishing
> religion is a grotesque and unmitigated abuse by the big government
> religious lobby (both left AND right). If you want to take
> bias out of the system, take politicians out, remove government
> legistlistion of education and let people pay for indoctrination
> in the true americian way OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET.
That's exactly what happens now, and it's worked well for quite some time.
The problem right now is that people want a rebate of taxes that they
generally don't pay.
Lisa
"veronica floss" <vero...@hygene.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.16e40236e...@news.sonic.net...
they are exempt from. I find it funny that most people against vouchers
(which I am also against) use catholic schools for examples. The catholic
schools have actually been very quiet through this whold debate. The scary
fact is that more and more baptist churches, especially those in relation to
the christian coalition, are expanding to include schools and I have no
doubt that part of the reason is so that they can get some of this money.
Notice that they have been the ones preaching the loudest FOR vouchers.
Quite frankly, these people scare the dickens out of me and I will not
willingly give them my hard earned money.
--
Lisa
aka adversity
Fear is the main source of superstition,
and one of the main sources of cruelty.
To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom.
~Fear Controls Knowledge...Knowledge Controls Fear~
Blacksheep
"Got Brains?" <rightw...@fuckin.nuts> wrote in message
Fallacy argument!!! Ok kiddies, here's how it works.
For the sake of argument, lets take a district I am very familiar with, Fort
Bend ISD (my wife teaches there). FBISD spends approx. $7000 per anum, per
child. Every single voucher proposal I have seen gives out a voucher of
less than half of that. Hypothetical scenario: FBISD has 1000 students,
and spends $7000 per child, a parent elects to take their child out of FBISD
and use the voucher of $3000 to fund a private school, the district ends up
with a net gain of $4000 for doing NOTHING!!!! Lets say that 1/2 of the
parents elect to take their kids out of public school, which would cost the
district 1.5 Million in revenues, AHHH!!! BUT!!! they still get the same
3.5 million they recieved for educating the remaing half of the student
population along with an additional bonus of....wait for it..... wait for
it......... $2 Million dollars to spend on the remaining 500 students!!
That means that the district can now
spend......................................$11000 for each remaining child.
Since the liberals are hip on telling us that they need more money to fund
schools, and lack of funds is the reason that our chillen' ain't a lernin!!!
Vouchers are a quick painless way to increase that spending!!!
Ok, all you liberals out there, pick this argument apart. The numbers don't
lie. This is a true representation of what would happen in a voucher
situation. Oh, and before you then try to tell me that my facts are skewed
because they don't account for the overhead i.e. facilities that will still
have to be funded, even if unused, every heard of leasing out buildings and
space to companies?????
> > The proper answer is to let taxpayers choose which
> > education system to fund and then get a unequal tax concession
> > for their gift (the more you give the big the rebate).
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Most individuals don't pay very much in school taxes; in fact, the
smallest
> block of school taxes paid most places is by parents of school-age
children.
> I would be all for a tax exemption for school taxes (not a tax credit) for
> children in private schools, but that's about it.
You are right, it is the property owners who foot the bill. And who owns
the property??? Why the parents do don't they... damn, don't let facts
cloud your argument.
Blacksheep
Got Brains?
"Blacksheep" <black...@nospam-blacksheep.net> wrote in message
news:Ncxe8.208267$d34.15...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
What argument?
You conveniently left out the 200 kids in your district whose parents
already send them to private school. All of them will also get $3000. And
don't forget the 50-60 kids who are home-schooled.
Of course, since all of the private schools in your district are probably
full, as most private schools are, that means your school district will be
down $750,000 before they've even lost a kid.
> The numbers don't
> lie. This is a true representation of what would happen in a voucher
> situation.
Nope.
>Oh, and before you then try to tell me that my facts are skewed
> because they don't account for the overhead i.e. facilities that will
still
> have to be funded, even if unused, every heard of leasing out buildings
and
> space to companies?????
Moronic; how do you feed yourself?
You assume that kids will simply stream out of the public schools into
private schools, despite the fact that most private schools are already
jammed.
Did you know that only one out of five children that used vouchers in a
private school in the Cleveland case before the Supreme Court even went to a
public school the year before. That means, if 500 kids used vouchers to go
to private school, then 400 of them (or $1.2 million worth) took money out
of the system, while only 100 kids actually left the system.
There's another problem with your numbers. While an average cost per child
might be $7000, school districts rarely spend exactly that much on each
kid. Most kids (the kind who would easily get into a private school, for
example) would cost closer to $5000, while the kids who are left, including
special education, special needs and problem children, might cost closer to
$9-10,000. And while you blow off building costs, those costs are very real,
and it is not practical to "lease" school space unless the school is empty,
which will not happen should vouchers be adopted. It's unlikely a districts
insurance carrier would allow it, anyway.
>
> > > The proper answer is to let taxpayers choose which
> > > education system to fund and then get a unequal tax concession
> > > for their gift (the more you give the big the rebate).
> >
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > Most individuals don't pay very much in school taxes; in fact, the
> smallest
> > block of school taxes paid most places is by parents of school-age
> children.
> > I would be all for a tax exemption for school taxes (not a tax credit)
for
> > children in private schools, but that's about it.
>
> You are right, it is the property owners who foot the bill. And who owns
> the property??? Why the parents do don't they... damn, don't let facts
> cloud your argument.
No, actually. Most school taxes are paid by businesses, and people without
children.
What do you know about facts?
Jenn
any academic standards, so you get a bunch of Taliban kids, and the country
get's balkinized..
"Lisa" <adve...@life.net> wrote in message
news:u7l3a2...@corp.supernews.com...
Stan de SD
> says...
> >
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/columnists/rnavarrette/stories/navarrette_
> > 22edi.ART.b85e9.html
>
> > Voucher fight is about money and power
>
> > Public school proponents are protecting their power base
> > 02/22/2002
>
> > By RUBEN NAVARRETTE / The Dallas Morning News
>
>
> [ Article planted by Pat Robertson's
> Christian Coalition snipped.
>
> Note that Ralph Reed lives in Texas
> and worked for Enron on a 'no-show'
> job until this last Christmas. ]
>
>
> More "Americanization" baloney from Conservative Texans who know
> how the rest of us should live.
>
> Reasons why vouchers don't work:
>
> 1. Not enough money.
>
> Typical vouchers cover about half what a Catholic School charges.
And if they charged more, you would bitch about it. At the same time, there
are schools that are cheaper than parochial schools. If the parents are
unhappy with the results, they can keep their kids in public school.
However, that's what you're not afraid of - you're actually afraid that they
will choose the voucher route anyway. Simply, you are afraid of choice.
> Catholic Schools are about as inexpensive as Private Schools get.
> Vouchers don't even cover 20% of what nonCatholic private schools
> charge. If you are a middle class parent, you still can't afford
> to sent your kids anywhere else but the local public school.
>
> 2. Money doesn't go to those who need it.
>
> If rich kids already attend good schools, then it's the middle
> class kids who need voucher help. If it isn't enough; then almost
> no middle class kids can use vouchers to attend a better school.
> The rich parents can use vouchers though -- it's a free three
> thousand dollars for them.
Sort flies in the face that voucher proograms in places such as Milwaukee
are geared toward inner-city kids who definitely are NOT rich. Once again,
you're distorting the issue because you are afraid of choice.
> 3. Not enough private schools.
>
> Texas voters have already learned that there aren't enough
> private schools within fifteen miles of public schools in the
> State, that could absorb even what little voucher interest there
> would be. This is typical of all States.
If the damand is there, the supply will come about. Once again, the parents
can still choose to keep kids in public schools. You simply don't want them
to have the choice.
> 4. Vouchers aren't financially useful, anyway.
>
> Surveys of private schools show that where vouchers pass, that
> private schools hike their tuition rates about equal to the
> voucher amount.
But earlier you said that vouchers don't cover the cost of tuitions. Are you
now saying that private schools will adjust their rate so that it equals the
voucher amount? That would be a decrease, and sounds like a good thing.
> For vouchers to work, the State would have to
> legislate that Private School Tuitions could not be raised.
The state needs to stop screwing up stuff with socialistic economic policies
that limit supply.
> 5. No regulation of Private School standards.
You're assuming that PUBLIC SCHOOLS have standards? LMAO!
> The Voucher concept does not guarantee that Private Schools would
> have to meet any minimal academic standards.
As shitty of a job that the public schools do in educating children, the
best think we could possibly do is get the government out of the educational
business.
> Parents could be
> hoodwinked into sending their kids to "schools" that are
> really sweatshops; "schools" that are really Churches or fronts
> for religious sects like the Moonies; or "schools" that simply
> try to teach as little as possible to maximize their profits.
And parents could be "hoodwinked" into keeping their kids in public schools
that spend $5000-$10,000 per student, fill their heads with propaganda about
saving the whales, Heather having two daddies, putting condoms on cucumbers,
while they fail to learn how to read, write, and learn basic math. At least
parents could pull the plug (on enrollment AND funding) if the voucher
school isn't doing the job - try doing that with public schools, and see how
far you get.
Once again, the Lefty Liberals and the teacher's unions are terrified of the
concept of parental choice.
> Private Schools would not be accountable to parents any more than
> scandalously bad proprietary technical institutes today are
> accountable to their adult students. If a parent sued the school
> its child attended, that school could simply go out of business
> and reopen the next day as a "new" business, immune from suit.
Crock of shit. What's wrong, can't deal with actual issues, so you have to
make this stuff up?
> 6. Vouchers create local Bureaucracy.
>
> A Voucher State must either tolerate a new fly-by-night
> proprietary school industry where "bad" schools drive out the
> "good" schools, or it must inspect all schools, public AND
> private. This has two negative outcomes:
>
> a. Bureaucracy. To inspect new private schools, every State
> would need to hire even more School inspectors than they already
> have, and would have added legal costs required to sue schools to
> keep them up to standard. This is currently the costliest
> function that most Public School systems need to absorb, next to
> liability insurance.
>
> b. Invasion of Privacy. Because private schools could teach
> religion, politics, offer specialized work experience,
> discriminate against some students in favor of others; teach
> creationism in Science Classes (and other odd belief systems as
> academically factual). These "Private" freedoms would require
> Government decisions concerning beliefs and practices which are
> now respected as private and personal. Inspection could even
> require that Social workers visit family homes to determine that
> families were not neglecting or abusing their children.
How do you think other businesses thrive and perform without the Feds
sticking their nose in every aspect? Very simple concept that apparently
isn't intuitively obvious to government employees - if the customers aren't
happy, they will shop elsewhere.
> There are many more reasons why Vouchers don't work. I haven't
> even described how good most of our Public Schools are;
Because most of them aren't.
> how much our Public School systems would be harmed
Who are we worried about - the educrats and the teachers unions, or the
STUDENTS? You're obviously more concerned with covering your own ass than
making sure kids get the education necessary to make it through life...
> how antithetical to real "American Values" that this Voucher scheme is;
Since when is FREEDOM OF CHOICE antithetical to "American Values"???
> or the fact
> that the Voucher movement is really designed to remove white
> children from public school systems nationwide, and abandon our
> public schools to nonWhites.
Nice try. Throw in the race card when all your other arguments fail. :O(
> Vouchers are an ugly business supported by religious bigots,
> political demogogues and businessmen who see an opportunity to
> make money by hoodwinking parents in order to abuse their
> children.
I can just as easily say that vouchers are opposed by incompetent teachers
and bureaucratic control freaks who can't deal with any system where the
parents might have a voice. I can also point to the fact that vouchers are
supported most heavily by black and Hispanic parents who want an alternate
to the failed system that damns their kids to the low end of the economic
spectrum.
Once again, you and the other people hysterically opposed to vouchers can't
deal with the fact that the public is increasingly aware of the arrogance
and incompetence of the public education monopoly, and wants a choice for
their children.
Pea...@peabrain.com
<standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
>Simply, you are afraid of choice.
It isn't "choice"
It's a blatant attempt at using public money to fund religious nuts
whose agenda is to instill religous dogma into children.
>Sort flies in the face that voucher proograms in places such as Milwaukee
>are geared toward inner-city kids who definitely are NOT rich. Once again,
>you're distorting the issue because you are afraid of choice.
It's sorta like allowing one Black man to get lucky and then pointing
at him as :"proof" that discrimination doesn't exist.
>If the damand is there, the supply will come about.
Education isn't a business.
>But earlier you said that vouchers don't cover the cost of tuitions. Are you
>now saying that private schools will adjust their rate so that it equals the
>voucher amount? That would be a decrease, and sounds like a good thing
Private schools don't have to accept everyone. Private education
isn't universal. It can refuse handicapped, learning disabled,
emotionally impaired children.
>The state needs to stop screwing up stuff with socialistic economic policies
>that limit supply.
Education is not a business
>> 5. No regulation of Private School standards.
>
>You're assuming that PUBLIC SCHOOLS have standards? LMAO!
Your entire argument is based on the Fact that public schools DO have
to follow laws enacted by people, namely universal education and you
don't like them.. You don't like the "rules". Private schools offer
you a way around the Law. Specifically, religious, handicapped,
learning disabled, emotionally disabled students.
>As shitty of a job that the public schools do in educating children, the
>best think we could possibly do is get the government out of the educational
>business.
Now YOU'RE resorting to merely spouting emotional bullshit. That may
be your belief, and it certainly is the propaganda of those who don't
like to pay their taxes.
>And parents could be "hoodwinked" into keeping their kids in public schools
>that spend $5000-$10,000 per student, fill their heads with propaganda about
>saving the whales, Heather having two daddies, putting condoms on cucumbers,
>while they fail to learn how to read, write, and learn basic math. At least
>parents could pull the plug (on enrollment AND funding) if the voucher
>school isn't doing the job - try doing that with public schools, and see how
>far you get.
See, there's the litany of RELIGIOUS crap.
Every fucking argument you make goes in the shitter the minute you
start justifying your loony beliefs shrouded in sham religious
garbage.
>Once again, the Lefty Liberals and the teacher's unions are terrified of the
>concept of parental choice.
How so? "Teachers Unions" cannot control local school boards. What
"teachers Unions" are absolutely justified in doing, is fighting for
their right to bargain collectively, fight for wages, fighting in
setting their work load vs pay, working conditions.
"teachers unions" do not set curriculum, Local school boards and STATE
government does. Federal mandates are require to keep racist,
homophobic, assholes from doing what conservatives did in the South.
>How do you think other businesses thrive and perform without the Feds
>sticking their nose in every aspect?
School are not a business.
>Since when is FREEDOM OF CHOICE antithetical to "American Values"???
The "freedom to choose" was part of the signators of the Constitution
which mandated that the new government "do" certain things. They are
enumerated in the declaration and preamble.
>"We the People of the United States"
----were the people at the time. They signed for us. You're the
ones who continually whip yourselves into a orgiastic frenzy everytime
the "founders" are mentioned.
>, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish J
>justice, insure domestic Tranquility
Which included(s) universal education which, until you dumb assholes
began getting your asses kicked, was perfectly okay, -----gave us
practically every American icon imaginable.
>" promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
>of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,"
Which comes from educating children, not just the fucking wealthy, the
religious retards, and loonytarian idiots who think they have the
right to "interpret" what the constituiton means.
>> or the fact
>> that the Voucher movement is really designed to remove white
>> children from public school systems nationwide, and abandon our
>> public schools to nonWhites.
>
>Nice try. Throw in the race card when all your other arguments fail. :O(
Rather disengenuous to disavow it, since Every major battle on the
educational issue stemmed from disbanding Jim Crow and "separate but
equal" and the laws that forces states to comply.
>I can also point to the fact that vouchers are
>supported most heavily by black and Hispanic parents who want an alternate
>to the failed system that damns their kids to the low end of the economic
>spectrum.
You moron. If you were Black, poor, disenfranchised, and someone
offered you "money", that's a no-brainer.
>Once again, you and the other people hysterically opposed to vouchers can't
>deal with the fact that the public is increasingly aware of the arrogance
>and incompetence of the public education monopoly, and wants a choice for
>their children.
Once again, You and your religious nuts, whiners, racists and
homophobic fuckwits can't deal with the fact that you keep getting
your ass kicked over trying to return to the "good ol' days" when
you ran roughshod over minorities.
=====================================================
United with government, religion never rises above the
merest superstition; united with religion, government
never rises about the merest despotism; and all history
shows us the the more widely and completely they are
separated, the better it is for both....."
Stan de SD
<Pea...@PeaBrain.com> wrote in message
news:3c7b094a...@news.enetis.net...
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:03:03 GMT, "Stan de SD"
> <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
>
> >Simply, you are afraid of choice.
>
> It isn't "choice"
>
> It's a blatant attempt at using public money to fund religious nuts
> whose agenda is to instill religous dogma into children.
Who's being forced to attend a religious school? If students were forced to
attend religious indoctrination against the will of their parents, I would
object. However, if the parents choose it, who are you (or anyone else) to
decide it's not acceptable.
In addition, if you're so worried about forcing dogma into children, why are
you railing about theoreticals when in real life public schools indoctrinate
millions of kids in dogma such as Multiculturalism, endorsement of
"alternative lifestyles" such as homosexuality, unproven theories such as
"global warming", and political activity, such as the shit they pull in SF
and Oakland, where they use kids as protest fodder to demand freeing
convicted murderers such as Mumia, and other such nonsense? It's quite clear
that Lefty Liberals aren't opposed to the concept of indoctrination - they
just want to be the ones to choose what the kids are indoctrinated in,
that's all.
> >Sort flies in the face that voucher proograms in places such as Milwaukee
> >are geared toward inner-city kids who definitely are NOT rich. Once
again,
> >you're distorting the issue because you are afraid of choice.
>
> It's sorta like allowing one Black man to get lucky and then pointing
> at him as :"proof" that discrimination doesn't exist.
So you're proving your inaccurate assessment with some piece of fiction you
just concocted? What a loser. :O(
> >If the damand is there, the supply will come about.
>
> Education isn't a business.
Maybe it should be, we would have a better, cheaper product, and those
supplying it would be more responsive to the needs of their customers (read:
students and parents).
> >But earlier you said that vouchers don't cover the cost of tuitions. Are
you
> >now saying that private schools will adjust their rate so that it equals
the
> >voucher amount? That would be a decrease, and sounds like a good thing
>
> Private schools don't have to accept everyone. Private education
> isn't universal. It can refuse handicapped, learning disabled,
> emotionally impaired children.
And if there is a demand, somebody else will fill it. However, the right to
refuse service will have a positive aspect in that they can refuse to accept
DISRUPTIVE and VIOLENT students if it jeapordizes the education of the
others, which is fine by me.
> >The state needs to stop screwing up stuff with socialistic economic
policies
> >that limit supply.
>
> Education is not a business
Which is precisely why it's screwed up.
> >> 5. No regulation of Private School standards.
> >
> >You're assuming that PUBLIC SCHOOLS have standards? LMAO!
>
> Your entire argument is based on the Fact that public schools DO have
> to follow laws enacted by people, namely universal education and you
> don't like them..
Public schools aren't interested in following the rules of the people. Look
how often they ignore the wishes of parents and taxpayers, and try to hide
the fact that they are doing so. As far as your ridiculous claim that
"universal education" is threatened, how are vouchers going to do that? Once
again, hysteria to mask your opposition to parental choice.
> You don't like the "rules". Private schools offer
> you a way around the Law. Specifically, religious, handicapped,
> learning disabled, emotionally disabled students.
Again, you're making this false assumption that they aren't going to handle
handicapped or learning disabled students, which is a crock of shit. If the
demand exists, and parents with such children want an alternative, somebody
will come up with one. The REAL truth of the matter is that special grants
for "special needs" children provide cash windfalls for schools that often
get siphoned off into other areas, and the educrats are scared of losing
this source of funding.
> >As shitty of a job that the public schools do in educating children, the
> >best think we could possibly do is get the government out of the
educational
> >business.
>
> Now YOU'RE resorting to merely spouting emotional bullshit.
We're graduating kids that can barely read, write, and do math, and you
think I'm spouting bullshit? You obviously haven't seen the products the
public education system is turning out these days.
That may
> be your belief, and it certainly is the propaganda of those who don't
> like to pay their taxes.
I don't like to pay taxes when I know they are being used to pay for
INCOMPETENT, CORRUPT TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS who can't manage to teach
kids to read and write within 12 years, yet receive $5-6K/year in CA for
everyone they push through the system. When I enrolled in a local community
college after getting out of the military, I had a part-time job as a math
tutor, and was amazed to find out that the courses with the highest
enrollment in our district were REMEDIAL ENGLISH and REMEDIAL MATH. Even
making a measly $7/hour, I was able to teach some of these students in about
40-50 hours as much math as they picked up in their entire K-12 schooling.
And NO, this was NOT some campus in the inner city - it was a campus in the
So Cal foothills, surrounded by $200K+ homes with swimming pools, tennis
courts, and expensive SUV's. So tell me, what's the excuse given by
California educators for not being able to educate kids? And don't give me
that patent bullshit that "we're not spending enough money" or that the
"classrooms are overcrowded", because that's typical educrat bullshit that
isn't supported by data.
> >And parents could be "hoodwinked" into keeping their kids in public
schools
> >that spend $5000-$10,000 per student, fill their heads with propaganda
about
> >saving the whales, Heather having two daddies, putting condoms on
cucumbers,
> >while they fail to learn how to read, write, and learn basic math. At
least
> >parents could pull the plug (on enrollment AND funding) if the voucher
> >school isn't doing the job - try doing that with public schools, and see
how
> >far you get.
>
> See, there's the litany of RELIGIOUS crap.
What's religious about it? Do you deny the fact that kids don't get the
basic skills they need in life, but that educrats still manage to find time
to propagandize students with whatever PC notion is in vogue these days. Do
you not see that it not only a form of socio-political indoctrination, but a
screwy set of priorities? Or do you happen to support these notions because
they are in concordance with your OWN political views. Be specific, because
I'm not about to let you slide on more mindless ranting...
> Every fucking argument you make goes in the shitter the minute you
> start justifying your loony beliefs shrouded in sham religious
> garbage.
Says you, but I don't see data to back up your position. Funny, however,
that you twist this into a religious issue, when it really isn't one. It's
just a matter of common sense - what is the kid in school for, social
indoctrination or to learn useful skills so he can succeed in life and be a
net contributor to society, instead of a liability? Tell us where YOUR
priorities lie...
> >Once again, the Lefty Liberals and the teacher's unions are terrified of
the
> >concept of parental choice.
>
> How so? "Teachers Unions" cannot control local school boards. What
> "teachers Unions" are absolutely justified in doing, is fighting for
> their right to bargain collectively, fight for wages, fighting in
> setting their work load vs pay, working conditions.
The NEA is the richest, most influential union in the US. It has the
Democratic Party in it's back pocket, and it's extremely intolerant towards
parental choice, educational reform, and teacher accountability.
> "teachers unions" do not set curriculum, Local school boards and STATE
> government does. Federal mandates are require to keep racist,
> homophobic, assholes from doing what conservatives did in the South.
Sorry, but most of the bigots these days are liberals such as yourself, who
must smear others with false accusations because they can't make their
arguments based on logic.
> >How do you think other businesses thrive and perform without the Feds
> >sticking their nose in every aspect?
>
> School are not a business.
Once again, they probably would be better of if they were. However, since
you choose to ignore the obvious, the private sector performs noticeably
better than the public sector because if a for-profit business produces a
product that isn't a value, consumers will go elsewhere. For example, look
at the difference between letter mail delivery and parcel package delivery.
The former is a monopoly of the federal government, so you stand in line for
an hour to get to the post office window, and a first-class letter takes a
week to get across country. However, UPS, FedEx, Airborne, and DHL compete
heavily in the paackage delivery market, and you can get a package delivered
overnight anywhere in the country, even on Saturdays. Why is UPS better than
the Post Office? Not because the people are any brighter, more
compassionate, caring, or educated than post office employees, but because
if they don't provide a service that meets your satisfaction, they know damn
well that you will go to FedEx or DHL next time. Why do the Post Office,
Amtrak, and public schools provide such shitty service? They get paid
(through taxpayer supported subsidies) whether you're happy with their
service or not, and even if you choose NOT to use it, you still pay for it
through taxes (try telling the feds you ain't paying for what you don't use,
and see how far you get).
> >Since when is FREEDOM OF CHOICE antithetical to "American Values"???
>
> The "freedom to choose" was part of the signators of the Constitution
> which mandated that the new government "do" certain things. They are
> enumerated in the declaration and preamble.
>
> >"We the People of the United States"
And interestingly enough, education was not part of that mandate. Therefore,
allowing choice instead of mandating a bureaucracy would have been more
consistent with their intentions.
> ----were the people at the time. They signed for us. You're the
> ones who continually whip yourselves into a orgiastic frenzy everytime
> the "founders" are mentioned.
Since when have I done that? Or are you so incapable of bolstering your own
argument that you need to make shit like this up?
> >, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish J
> >justice, insure domestic Tranquility
>
> Which included(s) universal education
Which certainly isn't threatened by vouchers. What you're trying to tell us
is that education is threatened when students and parents have more than one
choice, which makes no sense whatsoever.
> Which comes from educating children, not just the fucking wealthy, the
> religious retards,
Once again, how does the idea of giving ALL students and parents a CHOICE
threaten education? Or are you so emotionally distraught on this issue that
you will believe any Chicken Little scenario that the NEA lays on you?
> and loonytarian idiots who think they have the
> right to "interpret" what the constituiton means.
You think you have the right to 'interpret' the US Constitution as mandating
a taxpayer supported educational monopoly? Didn't see that anywhere in the
Bill of Rights...
>
> >> or the fact
> >> that the Voucher movement is really designed to remove white
> >> children from public school systems nationwide, and abandon our
> >> public schools to nonWhites.
> >
> >Nice try. Throw in the race card when all your other arguments fail. :O(
>
> Rather disengenuous to disavow it, since Every major battle on the
> educational issue stemmed from disbanding Jim Crow and "separate but
> equal" and the laws that forces states to comply.
Can you point to anywhere that vouchers will promote racial segregation,
especially since discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity is
illegal, and any school that attempted to do so would obviously be
ineligible for funding? Or are you at a complete loss for reason that the
only way you can support your position is to make outrageous smears and LIE
about the intention of those supporting vouchers?
> >I can also point to the fact that vouchers are
> >supported most heavily by black and Hispanic parents who want an
alternate
> >to the failed system that damns their kids to the low end of the economic
> >spectrum.
>
> You moron. If you were Black, poor, disenfranchised, and someone
> offered you "money", that's a no-brainer.
Geez, isn't that sort of racist for a supposed 'liberal'? Sorry, but they
ain't handing out cash.
> >Once again, you and the other people hysterically opposed to vouchers
can't
> >deal with the fact that the public is increasingly aware of the arrogance
> >and incompetence of the public education monopoly, and wants a choice for
> >their children.
>
> Once again, You and your religious nuts, whiners, racists and
> homophobic fuckwits can't deal with the fact that you keep getting
> your ass kicked over trying to return to the "good ol' days" when
> you ran roughshod over minorities.
Proof that you lost any ability to reason on this issue, and feel compelled
to resort to smears to win your argument. Funny how all you Lefty Liberals
claim to be so 'intellectual' and 'open-minded', but turn into ranting,
foaming, frothing fools when you can't get your way... :O|
chibiabos
Blacksheep <black...@nospam-blacksheep.net> wrote:
> Fallacy argument!!! Ok kiddies, here's how it works.
> For the sake of argument, lets take a district I am very familiar with, Fort
> Bend ISD (my wife teaches there). FBISD spends approx. $7000 per anum, per
> child. Every single voucher proposal I have seen gives out a voucher of
> less than half of that. Hypothetical scenario: FBISD has 1000 students,
> and spends $7000 per child, a parent elects to take their child out of FBISD
> and use the voucher of $3000 to fund a private school, the district ends up
> with a net gain of $4000 for doing NOTHING!!!! Lets say that 1/2 of the
> parents elect to take their kids out of public school, which would cost the
> district 1.5 Million in revenues, AHHH!!! BUT!!! they still get the same
> 3.5 million they recieved for educating the remaing half of the student
> population along with an additional bonus of....wait for it..... wait for
> it......... $2 Million dollars to spend on the remaining 500 students!!
> That means that the district can now
> spend......................................$11000 for each remaining child.
> Since the liberals are hip on telling us that they need more money to fund
> schools, and lack of funds is the reason that our chillen' ain't a lernin!!!
> Vouchers are a quick painless way to increase that spending!!!
>
> Ok, all you liberals out there, pick this argument apart. The numbers don't
> lie.
No, but you do. Schools are funded by a formula based on ADA (Average
Daily Attendance). If a child isn't in the classroom, the district
doesn't get ANY money for that child. It loses *ALL $7000*, not just
$3k as you claim.
Why do you think your wife takes attendance?
-chib
--
Member of SMASH:
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
(email: change out to in)
Pea...@peabrain.com
<standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
>
><Pea...@PeaBrain.com> wrote in message
>news:3c7b094a...@news.enetis.net...
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:03:03 GMT, "Stan de SD"
>> <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
>>
>> >Simply, you are afraid of choice.
>>
>> It isn't "choice"
>>
>> It's a blatant attempt at using public money to fund religious nuts
>> whose agenda is to instill religous dogma into children.
>
>Who's being forced to attend a religious school?
No one. The issue is taking away money from a universal public
education, which isn't forced on anyone. Universal public education
isn't forced on anyone either.
> If students were forced to
>attend religious indoctrination against the will of their parents, I would
>object. However, if the parents choose it, who are you (or anyone else) to
>decide it's not acceptable.
Apples and oranges.
No one is forcing attendance at public schools. Your "complaint" is
that you don't get to take money out of the public system to fund your
phoney private schools.
>In addition, if you're so worried about forcing dogma into children, why are
>you railing about theoreticals when in real life public schools indoctrinate
>millions of kids in dogma such as Multiculturalism, endorsement of
>"alternative lifestyles" such as homosexuality, unproven theories such as
>"global warming", and political activity, such as the shit they pull in SF
>and Oakland, blah, blah, blah
Well, there you go. Everything you listed is religious based crap.
"teaching" about those issues, recognizes that people have rights,
sensitivities, "Education" about the reality of life isn't couched in
religious judgmental crap, which is the relevant thread of your
whining.
>> It's sorta like allowing one Black man to get lucky and then pointing
>> at him as :"proof" that discrimination doesn't exist.
>
>So you're proving your inaccurate assessment with some piece of fiction you
>just concocted? What a loser. :O(
No, I'm pointing out that proffering some fuckwitted anecdotal
evidence isn't worth the time and effort to use as emotional
propoganda. It's bogus.
>> Education isn't a business.
>
>Maybe it should be, w
Well, there you go. You just destroyed your own rant by: a)
admitting that it really isn't a business, and b) that "it should be"
is a belief, which isn't an argument.
>> Private schools don't have to accept everyone. Private education
>> isn't universal. It can refuse handicapped, learning disabled,
>> emotionally impaired children.
>
>And if there is a demand, somebody else will fill it. However, the right to
>refuse service will have a positive aspect in that they can refuse to accept
>DISRUPTIVE and VIOLENT students if it jeapordizes the education of the
>others, which is fine by me.
Isn't that along the same lines as Nazi used when they felt justified
in "dealing" with the "disruptive", "violent" people THEY thought
unworthy?
It's a matter of what label you assign to a particular behavior,
isn't it? After all a "disruptive" student can (and has been proven
to be the case many times) those who are gifted.
Even so, you can label someone "undesirable" for a whole range of
characteristics, until (like Germany) you arrive at only a "master
race"who is elgible for consideration.
>Which is precisely why it's screwed up.
You haven't made a case that "for profit" is in any way, desirable.
Considering the historical record of "businesses" that have produced
some of the worst events in America, you're not even credible.
>> Your entire argument is based on the Fact that public schools DO have
>> to follow laws enacted by people, namely universal education and you
>> don't like them..
>
>Public schools aren't interested in following the rules of the people.
Wrong.
YOU aren't interested in following the rules of the people. That's
your ENTIRE argument.
> Look
>how often they ignore the wishes of parents and taxpayers, and try to hide
>the fact that they are doing so.
WRONG again.
Ignoring the "wishes" of a few right wing, religious idiots, is GOOD.
The "wishes" of the majority are represented in members of an ELECTED
school board, State Legislature, and Federal Government.
>As far as your ridiculous claim that
>"universal education" is threatened, how are vouchers going to do that?
By taking money out of the public education system
>> You don't like the "rules". Private schools offer
>> you a way around the Law. Specifically, religious, handicapped,
>> learning disabled, emotionally disabled students.
>
>Again, you're making this false assumption that they aren't going to handle
>handicapped or learning disabled students, which is a crock of shit.
No, it's not
Most private schools limit enrollment based on abilities.
>If the
>demand exists, and parents with such children want an alternative, somebody
>will come up with one.
Education isn't a business.
>The REAL truth of the matter is that special grants
>for "special needs" children provide cash windfalls for schools that often
>get siphoned off into other areas, and the educrats are scared of losing
>this source of funding.
How does funding schools benefit "democrats"?
>> Now YOU'RE resorting to merely spouting emotional bullshit.
>
>We're graduating kids that can barely read, write, and do math, and you
>think I'm spouting bullshit? You obviously haven't seen the products the
>public education system is turning out these days.
SOME kids can't read, write or do math. An entire range of
socio-economic reasons exist to produce those types of children.
Everything from parental apathy, to economic ruin. To simplistically
argue the effect is really the "cause" is absolute stupidity.
>That may
>> be your belief, and it certainly is the propaganda of those who don't
>> like to pay their taxes.
>
>I don't like to pay taxes when I know they are being used to pay for
>INCOMPETENT, CORRUPT TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS .....blah blah
Then elect school boards the way the LAW says.
>> See, there's the litany of RELIGIOUS crap.
>And parents could be "hoodwinked" into keeping their kids in public
>schools that spend $5000-$10,000 per student, fill their heads
>with propaganda about saving the whales, Heather having
> two daddies, putting condoms on cucumbers,
>
>What's religious about it?
Homophobia, sexual morality isn't "religious" to you?
>Or do you happen to support these notions because
>they are in concordance with your OWN political views. Be specific, because
>I'm not about to let you slide on more mindless ranting...
>
"my own political" views?
You just suggested that religious based morality is what's "needed",
(or lacking). That, is probably the single greatest threat to America
this century. Because YOUR religous beliefs aren't mainstream
My "political view" is for you to take your religious beliefs and
shove them up your ass.
>> Every fucking argument you make goes in the shitter the minute you
>> start justifying your loony beliefs shrouded in sham religious
>> garbage.
>
>Says you, but I don't see data to back up your position. Funny, however,
>that you twist this into a religious issue, when it really isn't one.
You made it so by alluding to religious belief as the basis of why
education (among other things) is failing. "condoms", "two daddy's",
etc, are based in religious dogma.
>
>> >Once again, the Lefty Liberals and the teacher's unions are terrified of
>the
>> >concept of parental choice.
>>
>> How so? "Teachers Unions" cannot control local school boards. What
>> "teachers Unions" are absolutely justified in doing, is fighting for
>> their right to bargain collectively, fight for wages, fighting in
>> setting their work load vs pay, working conditions.
>
>The NEA is the richest, most influential union in the US. It has the
>Democratic Party in it's back pocket, and it's extremely intolerant towards
>parental choice, educational reform, and teacher accountability.
Having the Democratic party "in it's back pocket" is stupid propagana
that, apparantly, you slurped up. "Parental choice", "educational
reform" and "teacher accountablity" is transparant right wing crap
that you want defined in YOUR fringe lunatic wording.
>> "teachers unions" do not set curriculum, Local school boards and STATE
>> government does. Federal mandates are require to keep racist,
>> homophobic, assholes from doing what conservatives did in the South.
>
>Sorry, but most of the bigots these days are liberals such as yourself, who
>must smear others with false accusations because they can't make their
>arguments based on logic.
Ignoring, of course, the issue that "teachers unions' DO NOT set
curriculum----which was YOUR claim.
And you still haven't managed to rebut the REASON for the federal
government TAKING AWAY state and local perogatives because of the
racism.
>> >How do you think other businesses thrive and perform without the Feds
>> >sticking their nose in every aspect?
>>
>> School are not a business.
>
>Once again, they probably would be better of if they were.
Once again, you argued AS IF they already were.
>> >Since when is FREEDOM OF CHOICE antithetical to "American Values"???
>>
>> The "freedom to choose" was part of the signators of the Constitution
>> which mandated that the new government "do" certain things. They are
>> enumerated in the declaration and preamble.
>>
>> >"We the People of the United States"
>
>And interestingly enough, education was not part of that mandate. Therefore,
>allowing choice instead of mandating a bureaucracy would have been more
>consistent with their intentions.
Schools were private then. Only the wealthy and "elite" were
educated. Universal education was brought about because of private
schools tendency to only serve those who were wealthy, which was
recognize as not fulfilling the "founders" views.
>> ----were the people at the time. They signed for us. You're the
>> ones who continually whip yourselves into a orgiastic frenzy everytime
>> the "founders" are mentioned.
>
>Since when have I done that? Or are you so incapable of bolstering your own
>argument that you need to make shit like this up?
You are a conservative/loonytarian by your written views. You
promote the conservative/loonytarian mentality of religous, judgmental
crap exactly as it's written in sites like Free Pubic, WorldNetDaily,
and as Moron Harry Browne does.
>> >, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish J
>> >justice, insure domestic Tranquility
>>
>> Which included(s) universal education
>
>Which certainly isn't threatened by vouchers. What you're trying to tell us
>is that education is threatened when students and parents have more than one
>choice, which makes no sense whatsoever.
Vouchers take money out of the Public educational system
The Public education system is NOT a "business", it cannot refuse to
serve segments ALL of the public for any religious or individual
reason. It cannot "maximize" profit, cannot turn out religious or
individual defined standards
>
>> Which comes from educating children, not just the fucking wealthy, the
>> religious retards,
>
>Once again, how does the idea of giving ALL students and parents a CHOICE
>threaten education? Or are you so emotionally distraught on this issue that
>you will believe any Chicken Little scenario that the NEA lays on you?
It "threatens" by:
a) taking money out of the system
b) turns out more idiots who believe that kind of shit
c) is against 2 centuries of "past experience".
>> and loonytarian idiots who think they have the
>> right to "interpret" what the constituiton means.
>
>You think you have the right to 'interpret' the US Constitution as mandating
>a taxpayer supported educational monopoly? Didn't see that anywhere in the
>Bill of Rights...
No, I don't "interpret" the constitution at all
The "system" we use is a representative government. It precludes
fringe nuts from undue influence on public policy, (which is why
you're whining, BTW).
The "system" we use, does (and has for 175 years) allow a legislative
branch to enact law (by representatives) and that law "reviewed" by a
Supreme court. Having done that over 175 years ago, public education
is fact, is law, a "principle", and served us well. Only until
fringe nuts started wanting their loony views put into public policy,
did the contentiousness get bad.
>> Rather disengenuous to disavow it, since Every major battle on the
>> educational issue stemmed from disbanding Jim Crow and "separate but
>> equal" and the laws that forces states to comply.
>
>Can you point to anywhere that vouchers will promote racial segregation,
>especially since discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity is
>illegal,
Fact: The cost of going to private institutions take more than
"vouchers". That leaves only those WITH disposable income the ability
to educate, effectively leaving anyone with low income,
----disproportionately black, out.
>> You moron. If you were Black, poor, disenfranchised, and someone
>> offered you "money", that's a no-brainer.
>
>Geez, isn't that sort of racist for a supposed 'liberal'? Sorry, but they
>ain't handing out cash.
Yes, they would be-----as bait. To "show" that no discrimination was
"intended". In a short period of time, most minorities would drop
out, leaving the law intact for what it was intended---------promoting
segregated schools.
>>
>> Once again, You and your religious nuts, whiners, racists and
>> homophobic fuckwits can't deal with the fact that you keep getting
>> your ass kicked over trying to return to the "good ol' days" when
>> you ran roughshod over minorities.
>
>Proof that you lost any ability to reason on this issue, and feel compelled
>to resort to smears to win your argument. Funny how all you Lefty Liberals
>claim to be so 'intellectual' and 'open-minded', but turn into ranting,
>foaming, frothing fools when you can't get your way... :O|
Oh, you mean like republicans did when they were being abused by
Clinton and unleashed the CPAC/RNC Jones smears?
Now that's some hard-cased conservatism.
>
>
====================================================
Poor, pathetic, DIMWIT DANA, blusterers thusly:
IT PROVES YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.
Hey ASSHOLE no one but you cares about this,
but it does show you are a hypocritical LOON.
Come on Roseasshole tell us what town you live in,
or are you to chicken to fight.
I am in Phoenix, and my number is listed,
come on chicken man, make your hat.
Lisa
"Stan de SD" <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:r1Ce8.16844$ZC3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
This is not about choice. It is about our tax dollars going to help fund
private schools. Period.
>
> > Catholic Schools are about as inexpensive as Private Schools get.
> > Vouchers don't even cover 20% of what nonCatholic private schools
> > charge. If you are a middle class parent, you still can't afford
> > to sent your kids anywhere else but the local public school.
> >
> > 2. Money doesn't go to those who need it.
> >
> > If rich kids already attend good schools, then it's the middle
> > class kids who need voucher help. If it isn't enough; then almost
> > no middle class kids can use vouchers to attend a better school.
> > The rich parents can use vouchers though -- it's a free three
> > thousand dollars for them.
>
> Sort flies in the face that voucher proograms in places such as Milwaukee
> are geared toward inner-city kids who definitely are NOT rich. Once again,
> you're distorting the issue because you are afraid of choice.
>
What good does it do to give a poor kid a voucher to a private school if his
parents cannot cover the difference in the cost? It is kinda like clipping
coupons for products that you will never buy and just as big a waste.
> > 3. Not enough private schools.
> >
> > Texas voters have already learned that there aren't enough
> > private schools within fifteen miles of public schools in the
> > State, that could absorb even what little voucher interest there
> > would be. This is typical of all States.
>
> If the damand is there, the supply will come about. Once again, the
parents
> can still choose to keep kids in public schools. You simply don't want
them
> to have the choice.
You seem to think that it is a matter of choice. It is not. Inner city kids
generally have crappy schools because they get the least funding. They do
not have the nice computer equiptment and such as a lot of schools in more
prosperous suburbs. The whole point of vouchers, which appears honorable in
theory, is to get the more gifted students in the poorer schools into better
schools. Sounds great to me too. And it would be really nice if it was an
all expense paid trip. Unfortunately it is not and the poor kids parents
still have to pick up part of the tab and this is in most cases just not
feasable. So where is the choice? Keeping the child in public school for
lack of funds is not a choice.
>
> > 4. Vouchers aren't financially useful, anyway.
> >
> > Surveys of private schools show that where vouchers pass, that
> > private schools hike their tuition rates about equal to the
> > voucher amount.
>
> But earlier you said that vouchers don't cover the cost of tuitions. Are
you
> now saying that private schools will adjust their rate so that it equals
the
> voucher amount? That would be a decrease, and sounds like a good thing.
>
This means that the tuition is raised to above and beyond the amount of the
voucher. This way the school gets the voucher money plus a bit extra.
> > For vouchers to work, the State would have to
> > legislate that Private School Tuitions could not be raised.
>
> The state needs to stop screwing up stuff with socialistic economic
policies
> that limit supply.
>
The state needs to take the voucher money and put it into some of the poorer
school districts. The whole point in the beginning was to give children in
these poor schools a better education. Also, the state needs to keep tax
dollars away from privately funded schools.
> > 5. No regulation of Private School standards.
>
> You're assuming that PUBLIC SCHOOLS have standards? LMAO!
>
> > The Voucher concept does not guarantee that Private Schools would
> > have to meet any minimal academic standards.
>
> As shitty of a job that the public schools do in educating children, the
> best think we could possibly do is get the government out of the
educational
> business.
>
Exactly. The government can't handle the public schools so why are you so
hot for the government to start mucking about in the business of private
schools?
> > Parents could be
> > hoodwinked into sending their kids to "schools" that are
> > really sweatshops; "schools" that are really Churches or fronts
> > for religious sects like the Moonies; or "schools" that simply
> > try to teach as little as possible to maximize their profits.
>
> And parents could be "hoodwinked" into keeping their kids in public
schools
> that spend $5000-$10,000 per student, fill their heads with propaganda
about
> saving the whales, Heather having two daddies, putting condoms on
cucumbers,
> while they fail to learn how to read, write, and learn basic math. At
least
> parents could pull the plug (on enrollment AND funding) if the voucher
> school isn't doing the job - try doing that with public schools, and see
how
> far you get.
>
In some areas, the inner city for one, life skills are just as important as
the 3 R's. Maybe even more important. Besides, what makes you so sure that
every private school is concerned with teaching the children? Catholic
schools, for the most part, are great. They teach religion as well as the
basics of education. But can you say that for all private schools? There are
many wonderful public schools but you seem to be down on all of them. If
there are good and bad in the public school system, don't you think it is
possible to find the same in the private schools? Private does not
necessarily equal good education. If the government is going to give tax
dollars to private schools then they need to do something to regulate these
schools to assure that the children attending, with or without vouchers,
receive the best possible education. After all, these poor children
attending private school on a voucher can get a crappy education close to
home so why travel in order to receive the same?
> Once again, the Lefty Liberals and the teacher's unions are terrified of
the
> concept of parental choice.
>
I still don't see the choice.
> > Private Schools would not be accountable to parents any more than
> > scandalously bad proprietary technical institutes today are
> > accountable to their adult students. If a parent sued the school
> > its child attended, that school could simply go out of business
> > and reopen the next day as a "new" business, immune from suit.
>
> Crock of shit. What's wrong, can't deal with actual issues, so you have to
> make this stuff up?
>
And how do you know that this is a crock of shit? OH, I'll bet you believe
everything that the government tells you, right?
So bouncing a child from school to school is ok with you? Sounds like even
more unstability in the life of a child which is probably already full of
unstability.
> > There are many more reasons why Vouchers don't work. I haven't
> > even described how good most of our Public Schools are;
>
> Because most of them aren't.
>
> > how much our Public School systems would be harmed
>
> Who are we worried about - the educrats and the teachers unions, or the
> STUDENTS? You're obviously more concerned with covering your own ass than
> making sure kids get the education necessary to make it through life...
>
And you actually believe that Pat Robertson is concerned for the welfare of
the students?! Think it's time for you to pull your head out of the sand and
do a little thinking on your own.
> > how antithetical to real "American Values" that this Voucher scheme is;
>
> Since when is FREEDOM OF CHOICE antithetical to "American Values"???
>
Still waiting for you to explain this choice.
> > or the fact
> > that the Voucher movement is really designed to remove white
> > children from public school systems nationwide, and abandon our
> > public schools to nonWhites.
>
> Nice try. Throw in the race card when all your other arguments fail. :O(
>
Have you been to a public school lately? And I am not talking about the ones
way out in the suburbs. Try visiting schools sometime. Start out in the
suburbs and gradually move in toward the city. Not only will the number of
whites decrease, but the quality of the teaching materials and equiptment
will decrease also. There are actully some schools which have only a couple
of computers to teach classes of 30+. You do the math.
> > Vouchers are an ugly business supported by religious bigots,
> > political demogogues and businessmen who see an opportunity to
> > make money by hoodwinking parents in order to abuse their
> > children.
>
> I can just as easily say that vouchers are opposed by incompetent teachers
> and bureaucratic control freaks who can't deal with any system where the
> parents might have a voice. I can also point to the fact that vouchers are
> supported most heavily by black and Hispanic parents who want an alternate
> to the failed system that damns their kids to the low end of the economic
> spectrum.
>
And how many of these parents know from the beginning that the voucher may
not cover the entire cost of the school?
> Once again, you and the other people hysterically opposed to vouchers
can't
> deal with the fact that the public is increasingly aware of the arrogance
> and incompetence of the public education monopoly, and wants a choice for
> their children.
>
I can honestly say that I am not hysterical in my opposition to vouchers. My
opposition is actually not to the vouchers themselves. The concept I agree
with whole-heartedly. There just have to be some major changes in the way
the vouchers are used. And above all, I do not want any institution which
does not pay taxes to receive any of my hard earned tax dollars.
I am also not whole-heartedly in support of the public school system. But I
think that before the government starts giving money to private schools they
should do something to fix the problems with the public schools. I believe
that is where their responsibility lies. It is after all in the best
interest of the children. That is what is the most important thing now,
isn't it?
Stan de SD
<Pea...@PeaBrain.com> wrote in message
news:3c7b99a9...@news.enetis.net...
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:32:47 GMT, "Stan de SD"
> <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
> >
> ><Pea...@PeaBrain.com> wrote in message
> >news:3c7b094a...@news.enetis.net...
> >> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:03:03 GMT, "Stan de SD"
> >> <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
> >>
> >> >Simply, you are afraid of choice.
> >>
> >> It isn't "choice"
> >>
> >> It's a blatant attempt at using public money to fund religious nuts
> >> whose agenda is to instill religous dogma into children.
> >
> >Who's being forced to attend a religious school?
>
> No one. The issue is taking away money from a universal public
> education, which isn't forced on anyone.
And note that since the money "taken away" for vouchers is far less than
that allocated per student, actual avaliable funds on a per-student basis
would INCREASE as parents moved some kids into alternative schools (and
isn't that what you lefties have always wanted - more per-student spending
and less crowded classrooms?). Sort contradicts your dire predictions, and
only confirms the fact that you don't really have a grip on the facts.
> > If students were forced to
> >attend religious indoctrination against the will of their parents, I
would
> >object. However, if the parents choose it, who are you (or anyone else)
to
> >decide it's not acceptable.
>
> Apples and oranges.
No it isn't, unless you think you have the right to tell others hwo to run
their lives.
> No one is forcing attendance at public schools. Your "complaint" is
> that you don't get to take money out of the public system to fund your
> phoney private schools.
So if the public schools are so great, why do you have this deathly fear of
parents taking their kids out of school to put them into "phony private
schools"? Or do you ackowledge privately what others are willing to admit
publicly, that the public schools aren't doing the job they are paid to do?
> >In addition, if you're so worried about forcing dogma into children, why
are
> >you railing about theoreticals when in real life public schools
indoctrinate
> >millions of kids in dogma such as Multiculturalism, endorsement of
> >"alternative lifestyles" such as homosexuality, unproven theories such as
> >"global warming", and political activity, such as the shit they pull in
SF
> >and Oakland,
>
> Well, there you go. Everything you listed is religious based crap.
There YOU go. You're incapable of dealing with the specific issues listed
above, which is the tendency to public school educrats to place a higher
priority on social indoctrination than on educating kids, which is quite
apparent when kids know all the current PC buzzwords in vogue, but can't
read and write at their grade level. As for your insinuating that my
objections are "religious based", it's merely an indication of your
intolerance toward other views, as I have not indicated that I have any
particular (or ANY) religious views whatsoever in this (or any other) NG.
Nice try, but it's not working.
> "teaching" about those issues, recognizes that people have rights,
> sensitivities,
There's a BIG difference between acknowledging that all individuals have
rights (which I have never disagreed with) and conducting
mini-indoctrination programs to convince impressionable young minds that
certain lifestyle CHOICES (such as homosexuality, to be blunt) are somehow
healthy and desirable, which they are clearly not. Apparently you come from
the old autocratic framework that states "what is not expressly mandated is
forbidden", while I place a heavier emphasis on individuals choice, and
accepting the responsibilities that come with it.
> "Education" about the reality of life isn't couched in
> religious judgmental crap, which is the relevant thread of your
> whining.
Again, no religious frame of reference or views expressed on my part. You're
simply incapable of reasoning on the points I have brought up, and feel the
need to respond with emotions.
> >> It's sorta like allowing one Black man to get lucky and then pointing
> >> at him as :"proof" that discrimination doesn't exist.
> >
> >So you're proving your inaccurate assessment with some piece of fiction
you
> >just concocted? What a loser. :O(
>
> No, I'm pointing out that proffering some fuckwitted anecdotal
> evidence isn't worth the time and effort to use as emotional
> propoganda. It's bogus.
Go take a look in the mirror before you lecture me about "emotional
propaganda".
> >> Education isn't a business.
> >
> >Maybe it should be, w
>
> Well, there you go. You just destroyed your own rant by: a)
> admitting that it really isn't a business, and b) that "it should be"
> is a belief, which isn't an argument.
So your emotional appeals are "arguments", but my detailed presentation
outlining my support of schhol choice is only a "belief"? Looks like we have
the typical Lefty Liberal double standard in effect.
> >> Private schools don't have to accept everyone. Private education
> >> isn't universal. It can refuse handicapped, learning disabled,
> >> emotionally impaired children.
> >
> >And if there is a demand, somebody else will fill it. However, the right
to
> >refuse service will have a positive aspect in that they can refuse to
accept
> >DISRUPTIVE and VIOLENT students if it jeapordizes the education of the
> >others, which is fine by me.
>
> Isn't that along the same lines as Nazi used when they felt justified
> in "dealing" with the "disruptive", "violent" people THEY thought
> unworthy?
So since you can't win the argument by dealing with the issues, you have to
insinuate that supporters of school choice (or merely providing a safe
educational environment) are somehow Nazis. Thanks for confirming the fact
that you're a loser and an idiot.
> It's a matter of what label you assign to a particular behavior,
> isn't it? After all a "disruptive" student can (and has been proven
> to be the case many times) those who are gifted.
In some cases, yes, and the reason they are goofing off is because they
aren't sufficiently challenged, especially when they are smarter than the
teachers (considering that graduate courses in "education" are typically
staffed by the lowest 10% in academic performance, that's not too uncommon).
However, those aren't the ones I'm referring to, and you damn well know it.
Nice try in avoiding dealing with the issues, as usual.
> Even so, you can label someone "undesirable" for a whole range of
> characteristics, until (like Germany) you arrive at only a "master
> race"who is elgible for consideration.
(rest of discussion with foaming lunatic who categorically accuses all
supporters of school choice plans to be racists, Nazis, or religous fanatics
snipped for the time being.)
Stan de SD
And what would fix the public schools isn't more control or spending, they
have enough of both of those already. What will fix the public schools is
COMPETITION.
> I believe
> that is where their responsibility lies. It is after all in the best
> interest of the children. That is what is the most important thing now,
> isn't it?
The best interest of the children is allowing them to receive an education,
NOT necessarily in shoring up a public education bureaucracy. Don't assume
that what is in the bests interests of public school teachers and
administrators is also in the best interest of the children.
Lisa
"Stan de SD" <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:j_Fe8.17504$ZC3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> <Pea...@PeaBrain.com> wrote in message
> news:3c7b094a...@news.enetis.net...
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:03:03 GMT, "Stan de SD"
> > <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
> > Private schools don't have to accept everyone. Private education
> > isn't universal. It can refuse handicapped, learning disabled,
> > emotionally impaired children.
>
> And if there is a demand, somebody else will fill it. However, the right
to
> refuse service will have a positive aspect in that they can refuse to
accept
> DISRUPTIVE and VIOLENT students if it jeapordizes the education of the
> others, which is fine by me.
>
Vouchers are not even an option for disruptive and violent students. The are
forced to attend school by the law where they can disrupt those who really
want to learn. This is why vouchers are, in theory anyway, offered to
students who show promise and who want to learn. Once again I will say that
the government needs to fix the problems with the public schools so that
shipping children off is not necessary.
> > >The state needs to stop screwing up stuff with socialistic economic
> policies
> > >that limit supply.
> >
> > Education is not a business
>
> Which is precisely why it's screwed up.
>
Actually I believe that part of the reason it is screwed up is because too
many people (school board) treat it like a business. The school systems are
not nearly as interested in the welfare and the education of the children as
they are the money. Why do you think the public schools are throwing fits
about the number of children who are pulled out every year by their parents
to home-school? For every child they lose, they lose money. Again, the
government does not need to pull more children out of the public schools.
That will not fix the problems but only take away much needed funds for the
poorer schools.
And you have?
> That may
> > be your belief, and it certainly is the propaganda of those who don't
> > like to pay their taxes.
>
> I don't like to pay taxes when I know they are being used to pay for
> INCOMPETENT, CORRUPT TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS who can't manage to teach
> kids to read and write within 12 years, yet receive $5-6K/year in CA for
> everyone they push through the system. When I enrolled in a local
community
> college after getting out of the military, I had a part-time job as a math
> tutor, and was amazed to find out that the courses with the highest
> enrollment in our district were REMEDIAL ENGLISH and REMEDIAL MATH. Even
> making a measly $7/hour, I was able to teach some of these students in
about
> 40-50 hours as much math as they picked up in their entire K-12 schooling.
> And NO, this was NOT some campus in the inner city - it was a campus in
the
> So Cal foothills, surrounded by $200K+ homes with swimming pools, tennis
> courts, and expensive SUV's. So tell me, what's the excuse given by
> California educators for not being able to educate kids? And don't give me
> that patent bullshit that "we're not spending enough money" or that the
> "classrooms are overcrowded", because that's typical educrat bullshit that
> isn't supported by data.
>
This is a fine example of the school district being concerned only with the
money (kinda like a business) and not the education of the children. And the
teachers are no better. Too many of them care only to teach the easy
children and not worry about but just pass the more difficult ones and
collect their paycheck. The difference here is that the rich parents of
these children have a choice. If they do not like the way the public school
system is teaching their child, then they have the means to send the child
to the school of their choice. Not so for poor parents with the same
concerns.
So you don't think safe sex and the use of condoms is an important life
issue to teach these days? Oh, and I'll bet you think that aids will go away
if we just ignore it? Right. Same with teen sex/pregnancy, huh?
> > Every fucking argument you make goes in the shitter the minute you
> > start justifying your loony beliefs shrouded in sham religious
> > garbage.
>
> Says you, but I don't see data to back up your position. Funny, however,
> that you twist this into a religious issue, when it really isn't one. It's
> just a matter of common sense - what is the kid in school for, social
> indoctrination or to learn useful skills so he can succeed in life and be
a
> net contributor to society, instead of a liability? Tell us where YOUR
> priorities lie...
>
This whole issue is nothing more than the government admitting that they do
not know how or want to deal with the problems of education in the public
schools. They are essentially passing the buck. Unfortunately, they are only
creating more problems and either are too blind to realize it or just don't
care. I'm sad to say it, but I believe it is the latter.
And the US postal service has lost a lot of business due to the fact that
most of the employees just don't care and therefore service is crappy. So
have a lot of schools lost a lot of business due to the incompetence and
neglect in the area of delivering a quality education. However, education
should not be a business. Our children are our future and our most valuable
resource. They should be treated as such, and not be seen as a dollar sign.
There are a lot of things that are illegal but people still do them. And if
a private school did discriminiate how would you or anyone else be able to
prove it? I'm sure that there would be another reason listed officially.
> > >I can also point to the fact that vouchers are
> > >supported most heavily by black and Hispanic parents who want an
> alternate
> > >to the failed system that damns their kids to the low end of the
economic
> > >spectrum.
> >
> > You moron. If you were Black, poor, disenfranchised, and someone
> > offered you "money", that's a no-brainer.
>
> Geez, isn't that sort of racist for a supposed 'liberal'? Sorry, but they
> ain't handing out cash.
>
Hey, I am white, middle-class and if someone offered me free money I would
take it. Oh my gawd...am I a racist? Doh!
> > >Once again, you and the other people hysterically opposed to vouchers
> can't
> > >deal with the fact that the public is increasingly aware of the
arrogance
> > >and incompetence of the public education monopoly, and wants a choice
for
> > >their children.
> >
> > Once again, You and your religious nuts, whiners, racists and
> > homophobic fuckwits can't deal with the fact that you keep getting
> > your ass kicked over trying to return to the "good ol' days" when
> > you ran roughshod over minorities.
>
> Proof that you lost any ability to reason on this issue, and feel
compelled
> to resort to smears to win your argument. Funny how all you Lefty
Liberals
> claim to be so 'intellectual' and 'open-minded', but turn into ranting,
> foaming, frothing fools when you can't get your way... :O|
>
Not all who oppose vouchers are "lefty liberals". The only thing at stake
here is the education of our children. I have no doubt that for every one
poor child who is able to attend a better school and receive a better
education, there will be many more who do not. I am just afraid that
vouchers do not fix the problem or even help it. The problem is with our
public schools and until that issue is addressed ALL our children will never
receive the best education possible.
Lisa
>
> "Lisa" <adve...@life.net> wrote in message
> news:u7namde...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Stan de SD" <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:r1Ce8.16844$ZC3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "veronica floss" <vero...@hygene.org> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.16e40236e...@news.sonic.net...
> > > > In article <3c799...@news.meganetnews.com>, no...@noplace.com
> > > > says...
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/columnists/rnavarrette/stories/navarrette_
> > > > > 22edi.ART.b85e9.html
> > And how many of these parents know from the beginning that the voucher
I have never assumed any such thing.
Blacksheep
"chibiabos" <ch...@outreach.com> wrote in message
news:250220020639368494%ch...@outreach.com...
Depends on how you fund schools, yes the property taxes are sent to the
state for redistribution to the schools (which is stupid in my opinion) But
it doesn't take away from the fact that if the revenues stay the same, there
will be more funds available to spend per child. So now what is your
argument?
Blacksheep
Stan de SD
And I'm not suggesting you are. Others do, and I'm merely suggesting that
you avoid following their lead.
Pea...@peabrain.com
<standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
>> >Who's being forced to attend a religious school?
>>
>> No one. The issue is taking away money from a universal public
>> education, which isn't forced on anyone.
>
>And note that since the money "taken away" for vouchers is far less than
>that allocated per student,
"taking away" is "increasing" to you? You got any idea why you're
laughed at?
>No it isn't, unless you think you have the right to tell others hwo to run
>their lives.
That's what your private religious school are complaining about NOT
being able to do.
>> No one is forcing attendance at public schools. Your "complaint" is
>> that you don't get to take money out of the public system to fund your
>> phoney private schools.
>
>So if the public schools are so great, why do you have this deathly fear of
>parents taking their kids out of school to put them into "phony private
>schools"? Or do you ackowledge privately what others are willing to admit
>publicly, that the public schools aren't doing the job they are paid to do?
They are doing what they're paid to do. Anecdotal "evidence" that
only represents a small portion of the "problem", promoted as "the"
problem is pure bullshit propaganda.
>> >In addition, if you're so worried about forcing dogma into children, why
>are
>> >you railing about theoreticals when in real life public schools
>indoctrinate
>> >millions of kids in dogma such as Multiculturalism, endorsement of
>> >"alternative lifestyles" such as homosexuality, unproven theories such as
>> >"global warming", and political activity, such as the shit they pull in
>SF
>> >and Oakland,
>>
>> Well, there you go. Everything you listed is religious based crap.
>
>There YOU go. You're incapable of dealing with the specific issues listed
>above, which is the tendency to public school educrats to place a higher
>priority on social indoctrination than on educating kids, .....As for your insinuating that my
>objections are "religious based", it's merely an indication of your
>intolerance toward other views, as I have not indicated that I have any
>particular (or ANY) religious views whatsoever in this (or any other) NG.
It is "working"
Your litany of "abuses" by the public schools is rooted in RELIGIOUS
dogma. That forms the basis of justifying wanting public money for
private schools.
>
>> "teaching" about those issues, recognizes that people have rights,
>> sensitivities,
>
>There's a BIG difference between acknowledging that all individuals have
>rights (which I have never disagreed with) and conducting
>mini-indoctrination programs to convince impressionable young minds that
>certain lifestyle CHOICES (such as homosexuality, to be blunt) are somehow
>healthy and desirable, which they are clearly not.
"promoting lifestyles" is propaganda put out by religious fuckwits,
you moron. You can't find a single incident that supports the
conclusions that religious assholes INFER from some of the programs.
They take a "fact" (maybe explaining why it's wrong to bash gays) and
INFER they are "teaching homosexuality". Your entire rant is
predicated on information coming out of the religious reich----almost
verbatim
>Apparently you come from
>the old autocratic framework that states "what is not expressly mandated is
>forbidden", while I place a heavier emphasis on individuals choice, and
>accepting the responsibilities that come with it.
Then pay your fucking taxes and stop whining to everyone.
>> "Education" about the reality of life isn't couched in
>> religious judgmental crap, which is the relevant thread of your
>> whining.
>
>Again, no religious frame of reference or views expressed on my part. You're
>simply incapable of reasoning on the points I have brought up, and feel the
>need to respond with emotions.
EVERY one of your "points' has a religious basis for it.
>> Well, there you go. You just destroyed your own rant by: a)
>> admitting that it really isn't a business, and b) that "it should be"
>> is a belief, which isn't an argument.
>
>So your emotional appeals are "arguments",
It isn't "proof" to merely claim I'm "appealing emotionally".
It isn't "emotional appeal" to say that the federal government
STOPPED state and local government from racist polices, it's FACT and
"TRUTH".
> but my detailed presentation
>outlining my support of schhol choice is only a "belief"? Looks like we have
>the typical Lefty Liberal double standard in effect.
It IS "belief" because you predicate your whining on religious belief.
You speficically underlined your beliefs by appealing "emotionally" to
religous dogma.
>> Isn't that along the same lines as Nazi used when they felt justified
>> in "dealing" with the "disruptive", "violent" people THEY thought
>> unworthy?
>
>So since you can't win the argument by dealing with the issues, you have to
>insinuate that supporters of school choice (or merely providing a safe
>educational environment) are somehow Nazis. Thanks for confirming the fact
>that you're a loser and an idiot.
No, that's not what I "insinuated"
I said that labeling people was akin to how the nazis started. BTW,
they did adopt Southern policies into the Nazi party's platform, Did
you know that?
>> It's a matter of what label you assign to a particular behavior,
>> isn't it? After all a "disruptive" student can (and has been proven
>> to be the case many times) those who are gifted.
>> Even so, you can label someone "undesirable" for a whole range of
>> characteristics, until (like Germany) you arrive at only a "master
>> race"who is elgible for consideration.
>
>(rest of discussion with foaming lunatic who categorically accuses all
>supporters of school choice plans to be racists, Nazis, or religous fanatics
>snipped for the time being.)
Then don't act like one.
Jim Riley
to a dozen groups.]
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:52:52 GMT, veronica floss <vero...@hygene.org>
wrote:
>In article <3c799...@news.meganetnews.com>, no...@noplace.com
>says...
>>http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/columnists/rnavarrette/stories/navarrette_22edi.ART.b85e9.html
>
>> Voucher fight is about money and power
>
>> Public school proponents are protecting their power base
>> 02/22/2002
>
>> By RUBEN NAVARRETTE / The Dallas Morning News
>More "Americanization" baloney from Conservative Texans who know
>how the rest of us should live.
"Veronica Floss" of "hygene.org" is posting from sonic.net an ISP in
Sonoma County, California. So which "rest of us" does she represent?
Ruben Navarette in his column says that "This is about nothing grander
than money and power and who controls both." So exactly what interest
is "Veronica Floss" representing.
>Reasons why vouchers don't work:
>
>1. Not enough money.
>
>Typical vouchers cover about half what a Catholic School charges.
>Catholic Schools are about as inexpensive as Private Schools get.
>Vouchers don't even cover 20% of what nonCatholic private schools
>charge. If you are a middle class parent, you still can't afford
>to sent your kids anywhere else but the local public school.
Do you have a source for this? What assumptions are you making with
regard to voucher size?
>2. Money doesn't go to those who need it.
>
>If rich kids already attend good schools, then it's the middle
>class kids who need voucher help. If it isn't enough; then almost
>no middle class kids can use vouchers to attend a better school.
>The rich parents can use vouchers though -- it's a free three
>thousand dollars for them.
So it is $3000? Tuition at the two Lutheran High Schools in Houston
is about $6500, not including family discounts, or possible
congregational aid. 3000/6500 = 46% > 20%.
>3. Not enough private schools.
>
>Texas voters have already learned that there aren't enough
>private schools within fifteen miles of public schools in the
>State, that could absorb even what little voucher interest there
>would be. This is typical of all States.
So which is it? Little voucher interest? Or not enough capacity?
What are you worried about? And could "you" please drop this passive
voice "Texas voters have learned"? Put some real numbers out and let
me and other Texas voters evaluate them.
>4. Vouchers aren't financially useful, anyway.
>
>Surveys of private schools show that where vouchers pass, that
>private schools hike their tuition rates about equal to the
>voucher amount. For vouchers to work, the State would have to
>legislate that Private School Tuitions could not be raised.
Source please. And why is legislation necessary?
>5. No regulation of Private School standards.
>
>The Voucher concept does not guarantee that Private Schools would
>have to meet any minimal academic standards. Parents could be
>hoodwinked into sending their kids to "schools" that are
>really sweatshops; "schools" that are really Churches or fronts
>for religious sects like the Moonies; or "schools" that simply
>try to teach as little as possible to maximize their profits.
Couldn't we send CPS around to check up on how stupid parents are?
The fact that a parent didn't even investigate the use of vouchers and
alternatives might be a sign of neglect.
>Private Schools would not be accountable to parents any more than
>scandalously bad proprietary technical institutes today are
>accountable to their adult students. If a parent sued the school
>its child attended, that school could simply go out of business
>and reopen the next day as a "new" business, immune from suit.
Can public schools be sued?
>6. Vouchers create local Bureaucracy.
>
>A Voucher State must either tolerate a new fly-by-night
>proprietary school industry where "bad" schools drive out the
>"good" schools, or it must inspect all schools, public AND
>private. This has two negative outcomes:
Why couldn't you inspect the schools that you are sending your
children to?
> a. Bureaucracy. To inspect new private schools, every State
>would need to hire even more School inspectors than they already
>have, and would have added legal costs required to sue schools to
>keep them up to standard. This is currently the costliest
>function that most Public School systems need to absorb, next to
>liability insurance.
Why do public schools have such high liablity insurance? Couldn't
they self fund? And why wouldn't private schools also require
liablity insurance?
> b. Invasion of Privacy. Because private schools could teach
>religion, politics, offer specialized work experience,
>discriminate against some students in favor of others; teach
>creationism in Science Classes (and other odd belief systems as
>academically factual). These "Private" freedoms would require
>Government decisions concerning beliefs and practices which are
>now respected as private and personal. Inspection could even
>require that Social workers visit family homes to determine that
>families were not neglecting or abusing their children.
Because
>There are many more reasons why Vouchers don't work. I haven't
>even described how good most of our Public Schools are;
Then what is your concern? Why would anyone ever leave such a good
Public School, when it going to cost them another $2000 minimum to do
so?
> how much
>our Public School systems would be harmed; how antithetical to
>real "American Values" that this Voucher scheme is;
If it is antithetical to real "American Values" to assist parents in
sending their children to alternative schools, why isn't it
antithetical to real "American Values" to even permit parents to send
their children to alternative schools? And why isn't it antithetical
to assist parents to send their older children to private colleges?
Should children under the age of 21 even have the choice of not going
to college if they are qualified?
> or the fact
>that the Voucher movement is really designed to remove white
>children from public school systems nationwide, and abandon our
>public schools to nonWhites.
So the white parents are going to be hoodwinked into sending their
kids to Moonie-run failed propietary schools, leaving non-white
children at the superior state-run schools? Or is it hardly any
children will transfer because it is too expensive, and there are no
vacancies available, anywhere near, but it is designed to empty the
schools of half their children? Not a very good design it would seem.
>Vouchers are an ugly business supported by religious bigots,
>political demogogues and businessmen who see an opportunity to
>make money by hoodwinking parents in order to abuse their
>children.
Mr. Navarrette must have really punched your button.
--
Jim Riley
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
> "Blacksheep" wrote:...
> >
MK. The discussion: School vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.
>
MK. Discussion deleted (Ooooh, those evil Republicans!).
population is valid, and easily addressed: Vouchers could be phased in
starting with grade 1 (so applies to no one currently in school) or
the voucher ammount could be calibrated according to the number of
people who apply. It's Algebra I to figure the relation between
B=State school budget, E=enrollment in State schools, I=enrollment in
independent/homeschools, n=voucher applicants currently in State
schools, and a/b, the fraction of B/E given as a voucher.
>
> Of course, since all of the private schools in your district are probably
> full, as most private schools are, that means your school district will be
> down $750,000 before they've even lost a kid.
>
closing, where parents cannot afford $4000 tuition (but might, given a
$3000 voucher).
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> You assume that kids will simply stream out of the public schools into
> private schools, despite the fact that most private schools are already
> jammed.
>
> Did you know that only one out of five children that used vouchers in a
> private school in the Cleveland case before the Supreme Court even went to a
> public school the year before. That means, if 500 kids used vouchers to go
> to private school, then 400 of them (or $1.2 million worth) took money out
> of the system, while only 100 kids actually left the system.
>
> There's another problem with your numbers. While an average cost per child
> might be $7000, school districts rarely spend exactly that much on each
> kid. Most kids (the kind who would easily get into a private school, for
> example) would cost closer to $5000, while the kids who are left, including
> special education, special needs and problem children, might cost closer to
> $9-10,000. And while you blow off building costs, those costs are very real,
> and it is not practical to "lease" school space unless the school is empty,
> which will not happen should vouchers be adopted. It's unlikely a districts
> insurance carrier would allow it, anyway.
>
problem is minor. The solution to the (very real) problem of the high
cost of sp-ed is to budget those students individually, and make
voucher offers to those parents, also. The contractor hired by Hawaii
State Auditor Marion Higa recommended sp-ed vouchers as a way to get a
handle on sp-ed costs. Let the State tell all sp-ed parents: "We will
spend $X/year on your child if you leave him in the NEA/AFT/AFSCME
cartel's schools. We will support any other arrangement you might
choose at a level of (0.8)($X/year)." Problem solved. From the State
school's point of view, the results of a voucher look like a decrease
in total enrollment (which they handle all the time) and an increase
in per pupil budget (which they request all the time).
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> > > Most individuals don't pay very much in school taxes; in fact, the
> smallest
> > > block of school taxes paid most places is by parents of school-age
> children.
> > > I would be all for a tax exemption for school taxes (not a tax credit)
> for
> > > children in private schools, but that's about it.
>
students of the time they spend in school, working at $0.00/hour as
window-dressing in the massive employment program for the
NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.
>
> > You are right, it is the property owners who foot the bill. And who owns
> > the property??? Why the parents do don't they... damn, don't let facts
> > cloud your argument.
>
> No, actually. Most school taxes are paid by businesses, and people without
> children.
>
> What do you know about facts?
>
Statistics", local taxes currently contribute less than 50% of
district revenues. 2) Schools are supported by --residential--
property taxes (I guess, here). Otherwise, you'd have enormously
wealthy schools for very poor kids in Louisiana refinery towns, and
Arizona mining towns.
>
MK. Vouchers have not produced the disaster the cartel's defenders
predict, in countries that legislated them.
>
MK. Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez, ["Organization and
Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical findings", pg.
16, "Comparative Education", Vol. 36 #1, Feb 2000]. "Furthermore, the
regression results indicate that countries where private education is
are widespread perform significantly better than countries where it is
more limited. The result showing the private sector to be more
efficient is similar to those found in other contexts with individual
data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987; Jiminez, et. al, 1991).
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that
reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education".
>
>
MK. ["Comparative Education", Vol. 35, #3, 1999.] "The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948, Article 26, paragraph3) states
that 'Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education
that shall be given to their children.' Later, the
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
(1966, Article 13, paragraph 3) commits its signatories to 'respect
for the liberty of parents...to choose for their children schools,
other than those established by public authorities...and to ensure
the religious and moral education of their children in conformity
with their own convictions.' The Council of Europe (1950) has adopted
similar resolutions (Husen and Postlethwaite, 1994)." [Christine
Teelken, "Market Mechanisms in Education: school choice in The
Netherlands, England, and Scotland in a comparative perspective"
Comparative Education].
>
MK. Belgium, Netherlands, Hong Kong, Singapore, Poland, Sweden,
Belize, Bangladesh, Colombia, Chile, and elsewhere, support a parent's
choice of school.
>
MK. [Postlethwaite, "The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and
National Systems of Education"] p.138, Belgium: "Article 17 of the
Belgian Constitution lays down that: 'There shall be freedom of
education; any measure hindering such freedom shall be prohibited;
penalties of infringement shall be governed by law.' In Belgium,
therefore, the organizing power lies with various bodies, and
education
is thus peovided by the state, the province, the communes, and free
institutions--the largest of which by far is the Catholic Church.
The law provides that identical help be given to all authorized
forms of education within set limits and conventions; this 'help
system' includes the guarantee of the possibility of choosing between
religious or non-religious education. State education must remain
neutral."
>
MK. [Postlethwaite, "The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and
National Systems of Education"]p. 333, Hong Kong "While the reliance
upon private education as a profit-making venture has become less
acceptible, the attern of dependence on management by voluntary
agencies as increased and, of the 537,000 children in primary schools
in 1985, just over 37,000 were in government schools. All kindergarten
schools are still operated privately. At the secondary level, the
picture is similar in that, of the enrollment of 401,200 up to form 5
(grade 11), only 31,400 are in government schools."
>
MK. [Postlethwaite, "The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and
National Systems of Education"]. p. 375, Ireland: "The administration
and management of schools in Ireland involves a complex balance
of private and public interests, local and central control. Each
primary school is managed by a local board, made up of representatves
of a church, parents, and teachers. At second level, secondary schools
are private institutions. Most are owned and managed by religious
bodies."
>
MK. [Postlethwaite, "The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and
National Systems of Education"]. p.499, Netherlands: "In the
Netherlands, the principle that parents may choose the education for
their children that reflects their own outlook is upheld. Whereas, in
1900, 59 percent of children were in public education and 31 percent
were in private education, by the 1960s, the figures had become 27 and
73 percent respectively, and in 1980, 32 and 68 percent..."
>
"The conflict in the Netherlands over denominational schooling
gave rise to a unique educational system, in which the democratic
rights of groups and individuals are in principle exceptionally
well-protected. This conflict led not only to separate schools for
different population groups, but also to complete quadripartition
of the entire educational system into public, Catholic, Protestant,
and
secular schooling."
>
MK. [Postlethwaite, "The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and
National Systems of Education"]. p. 596, Singapore: "During the
1970's, about two thirds of the nation's schools were operated and
financed by the government, while most of the remaining third were
aided schools that received government financial subsidies covering
staff salaries and a large portion of development costs."
>
MK. [American Collegiate Service, "Handbook of World Education"
copyright 1991] (Hong Kong)..."By the mode of financing, there are
three main types of schools: government, government-aided, and
private.
Among the primary schools operated in 1988, 81 percent were aided, 12
percent were private and 7 percent were government operated.
Concerning the secondary schools, 71 percent were aided, 20 percent
were private, and 9 percent were government operated."
>
"If the government would make up its mind to require for every child
a good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing
one. It might leave to parents to obtain the education where and
how they pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school
fees of the poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire
school expense of those who have no one else to pay for them."
-- J.S. Mill, On Liberty
>
>
MK. See: West. E.G. "Education vouchers in principle and practice: A
survey", [The World Bank Research Observer, Washington, Feb 1997,
available online.]
> Take care. Homeschool if you can.
> http://www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
> Here's the Frazier institute on school choice:
>
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/critical_issues/1999/schoolch
oice/section_05.html
> MK. Here's a European perspective from the Mackinac Center:
> http://www.mackinac.org/V2000-26
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
> "Stan de SD" wrote:...
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> >So if the public schools are so great, why do you have this deathly fear of
> >parents taking their kids out of school to put them into "phony private
> >schools"? Or do you ackowledge privately what others are willing to admit
> >publicly, that the public schools aren't doing the job they are paid to do?
>
> They are doing what they're paid to do. Anecdotal "evidence" that
> only represents a small portion of the "problem", promoted as "the"
> problem is pure bullshit propaganda.
>
is higher than the US 50th--fiftieth--percentile score.
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
> Your litany of "abuses" by the public schools is rooted in RELIGIOUS
> dogma. That forms the basis of justifying wanting public money for
> private schools.
>
"Several studies of maltreatment by teachers suggest that school
children report traumatic symptoms that are similar whether the
traumatic event was physical or verbal abuse (Hyman, et.al.,1988;
Krugman & Krugman, 1984; Lambert, 1990). Extrapolation from these
studies suggests that psychological maltreatment of school children,
especially those who are poor, is fairly widespread in the United
States...."
"In the early 1980s, while the senior author was involved in
a school violence project, an informal survey of a random group
of inner city high school students was conducted. When asked why
they misbehaved in school, the most common response was that they
wanted to get back at teachers who put them down, did not care about
them, or showed disrespect for them, their families, or their
culture...."
"...schools do not encourage research regarding possible emotional
maltreatment of students by staff or investigatiion into how this
behavior might affect student misbehavior...."
"...Since these studies focused on teacher-induced PTSD and
explored
all types of teacher maltreatment, some of the aggressive feelings
were
also caused by physical or sexual abuse. There was no attempt to
separate actual aggression from feelings of aggression. The results
indicated that at least 1% to 2% of the respondents' symptoms were
sufficient for a diagnosis of PTSD. It is known that when this
disorder
develops as a result of interpersonal violence, externalizing symptoms
are often the result (American Psychiatric Association, 1994)."
"While 1% to 2% might not seem to be a large percentage of a
school-aged population, in a system like New York City, this would
be about 10,000 children so traumatized by educators that they may
suffer serious, and sometimes lifelong emotional problems (Hyman,
1990; Hyman, Zelikoff & Clarke, 1988). A good percentage of these
students develop angry and aggressive responses as a result. Yet,
emotional abuse and its relation to misbehavior in schools receives
little pedagogical, psychological, or legal attention and is rarely
mentioned in textbooks on school discipline (Pokalo & Hyman, 1993,
Sarno, 1992)."
"As with corporal punishment, the frequency of emotional
maltreatment
in schools is too often a function of the socioeconomic status (SES)
of
the student population (Hyman, 1990)."
>
[Roland Meighan, "Home-based Education Effectiveness Research and
Some of its Implications",Educational Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995.]
"The issue of social skills. One edition of Home School Researcher,
Volume 8, Number 3, contains two research reports on the issue of
social skills. The first finding of the study by Larry Shyers (1992)
was that home-schooled students received significantly lower problem
behavior scores than schooled children. His next finding was that
home- schooled children are socially well adjusted, but schooled
children are not so well adjusted. Shyers concludes that we are
asking the wrong question when we ask about the social adjustment
of home-schooled children. The real question is why is the social;
adjustment of schooled children of such poor quality?"
>
"The second study, by Thomas Smedley (1992), used different test
instruments but comes to the same conclusion, that home-educated
children are more mature and better socialized than those attending
school." ...p. 277
>
"12. So-called 'school phobia' is actually more likely to be
a sign of mental health, whereas school dependancy is a largely
unrecognized mental health problem"....p.281[Roland Meighan,
"Home-based
Education Effectiveness Research and Some of its
Implications",Educational Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995.]
>
MK. "...(M)any well-known adolescent difficulties are not intrinsic
to the teenage years but are related to the mismatch between
adolescents' developmental needs and the kinds of experiences most
junior high and high schools provide. When students need close
affiliation, they experience large depersonalized schools; when they
need to develop autonomy, they experience few opportunities for choice
and punitive approaches to discipline..." [Linda Darling-Hammond,
professor of education, Stanford University. American School Board
Journal, September 1999].
>
MK. "When Newsweek quotes a classmate saying that the two [MK. Harris
and Kliebold, the Columbine killers] walked the halls of Columbine
'with their heads down, because if they looked up they'd get thrown
into lockers and get called a 'fag'', who doesn't exactly understand
the anger and frustration such abuse inspires?". [Nick Gillespie.
Reason
Magazine, July 1999].
>
MK. In Hawaii, juvenile arrests for drug possession and promotion
fall in summer. Adult arrests for promotion fall, and adult arrests
for possession rise. -Reported- burglaries fall in summer. Juvenile
hospitalizations for injury (total), motor vehicle-induced trauma,
and attempted suicide fall in summer.
>
"If the government would make up its mind to require for every child
a good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing
one. It might leave to parents to obtain the education where and
how they pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school
fees of the poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire
school expense of those who have no one else to pay for them."
-- J.S. Mill, On Liberty
>
it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same
safe level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and
originality. School days, I believe, are the unhappiest in the whole
span of human existence. They are full of dull, unintelligible tasks,
new and unpleasant ordinances, and brutal violations of common sense
and
common decency."
--H.L. Mencken
J&S
> >
> MK. Well, no. There are many places where parochial schools are
> closing, where parents cannot afford $4000 tuition (but might, given a
> $3000 voucher).
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does
not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its
professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I
apprehend, of its being a bad one. -- Benjamin Franklin
Got Brains?
"Malcolm Kirkpatrick" <malcolmki...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfbfc9b9.02022...@posting.google.com...
So only those with 6 year olds need apply? That'll never sell. Plus,
delaying the inevitable over 12 years won't make the result any more
palatable.
And calibrating the vouchers according to applicants still won't solve the
problem, especially if you phase them in, as you suggest, since vouchers
would necessarily go down in value as each year of phase-in. It won't be a
viable program if a first grader's $3000 voucher becoes a $1500 voucher when
he's in high school, and they cost $10,000 a year.
> It's Algebra I to figure the relation between
> B=State school budget, E=enrollment in State schools, I=enrollment in
> independent/homeschools, n=voucher applicants currently in State
> schools, and a/b, the fraction of B/E given as a voucher.
Except for the problem with your "phase-in" idea changing that number
yearly, and the possibility that, should the voucher program ever actually
take off (it won't, but suppose it does), the vouchers would actually get
smaller.
> >
> > Of course, since all of the private schools in your district are
probably
> > full, as most private schools are, that means your school district will
be
> > down $750,000 before they've even lost a kid.
> >
> MK. Well, no. There are many places where parochial schools are
> closing, where parents cannot afford $4000 tuition (but might, given a
> $3000 voucher).
Parochial school sARE closing; you're right. In an environment where there
are plenty of parents willing and able to pay tuition. The problem is, many
parochial schools are getting old, and the church doesn't have the money to
upgrade, even with schools full of students paying tuition. Vouchers would
not help that problem, even if Catholic schools would agree to take them.
And there is a very real possibility that they won't, if state standards
were imposed on them.
The problem is, they won't fluctuate much. The only thing that will go down
is available cash.
> That
> problem is minor. The solution to the (very real) problem of the high
> cost of sp-ed is to budget those students individually, and make
> voucher offers to those parents, also.
Oh, yeah; we can't even decide who's covered by the ADA. I can see everyone
and their grandmother claiming that their ritalin ingesting child qualifies
for the larger voucher. And like I said; even though there is an average
cost per student, very few students actually cost the average.
<Long-winded bullshit deleted>
You should spend more time working on your proposals. They're not
particularly intelligently derived. They're convoluted and simplistic, and
they exacerbate the problems, rather than solve them.
The problem with vouchers is that they attempt to fix a problem that really
isn't there. Only perhaps 5% of children in public school are in failing
public schools, so throwing out the entire system on some scheme to funnel
money to people already capable of sending their kids to private schools is
plain stupid on its face. I predict that this will be tried in several
places, the schools that try them will fail miserably, (Cleveland's already
is), and in five years, this argument will be moot.
But try a new line of propaganda, because it's not working.
George Grapman
Times today (Tuesday) for a piece by Michael Leo Owens a professor of
political science at Emory University.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete "NOSPAM" from address.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
> "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" wrote:...
>
MK. The discussion (School vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.
Must vouchers reduce expenditures per student?):...
>
MK. Discussion deleted (Blacksheep maintains funds per student
remaining go up)...
>
> > > You conveniently left out the 200 kids in your district whose parents
> > > already send them to private school. All of them will also get $3000.
> And
> > > don't forget the 50-60 kids who are home-schooled.
> > >
> > MK. The point about the overhang of the independent and homeschool
> > population is valid, and easily addressed: Vouchers could be phased in
> > starting with grade 1 (so applies to no one currently in school) or
> > the voucher ammount could be calibrated according to the number of
> > people who apply.
>
> So only those with 6 year olds need apply? That'll never sell. Plus,
> delaying the inevitable over 12 years won't make the result any more
> palatable.
>
sure it will.
>
> And calibrating the vouchers according to applicants still won't solve the
> problem, especially if you phase them in, as you suggest, since vouchers
> would necessarily go down in value as each year of phase-in. It won't be a
> viable program if a first grader's $3000 voucher becoes a $1500 voucher when
> he's in high school, and they cost $10,000 a year.
>
increases, the amount that the district can offer in a voucher
increases (break-even). I'll show how this is done in a later post.
For now, it's an exercise for the reader. The variables are B=total
district K-12 budget, E=district enrollment, I=independent school
enrollment, n=number of students in district schools who take voucher,
a/b= fraction of B/E (i.e., per pupil budget) given as a voucher.
Assume a population neither growing nor shrinking. Find the relation
between a/b and B,E,I,n such that the district's per pupil budget goes
up. 2)Are Europeans and Asians so much smarter that they solved this
problem which Got Brains? considers insoluble? Didn't stop Poland or
Sweden.
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> Except for the problem with your "phase-in" idea changing that number
> yearly, and the possibility that, should the voucher program ever actually
> take off (it won't, but suppose it does), the vouchers would actually get
> smaller.
>
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> > MK. Districts handle fluctuations in enrollment all the time.
>
> The problem is, they won't fluctuate much. The only thing that will go down
> is available cash.
>
>
> > That
> > problem is minor. The solution to the (very real) problem of the high
> > cost of sp-ed is to budget those students individually, and make
> > voucher offers to those parents, also.
>
> Oh, yeah; we can't even decide who's covered by the ADA. I can see everyone
> and their grandmother claiming that their ritalin ingesting child qualifies
> for the larger voucher. And like I said; even though there is an average
> cost per student, very few students actually cost the average.
>
district has sp-ed students or it doesn't. Can't have it both ways
simultaneously. Budhet sp-ed kids individually, annd offer parents a
voucher good for .8 the district's cost. Budget regular-ed as a class.
>
MK. Ad hominem deleted.
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can. Your children's teachers talk like
that.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
>
MK. Discussion deleted (School vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME
cartel)...
>
> When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does
> not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its
> professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I
> apprehend, of its being a bad one. -- Benjamin Franklin
>
giving away free hamburger, and if your customers have been taxed into
poverty to pay for the "free" hamburger, and if the brother-in-law of
the "free" butcher shop owner hires the Health Department inspectors.
Jim Riley
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:15:00 GMT, Pea...@PeaBrain.com wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:32:47 GMT, "Stan de SD"
><standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
>>
>><Pea...@PeaBrain.com> wrote in message
>>news:3c7b094a...@news.enetis.net...
>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:03:03 GMT, "Stan de SD"
>>> <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
>>>
>>> >Simply, you are afraid of choice.
>>>
>>> It isn't "choice"
>>> It's a blatant attempt at using public money to fund religious nuts
>>> whose agenda is to instill religous dogma into children.
>>
>>Who's being forced to attend a religious school?
>
>No one. The issue is taking away money from a universal public
>education, which isn't forced on anyone. Universal public education
>isn't forced on anyone either.
For what purpose do you apply the adjective "universal"? Is it to
suggest that those who do not participate are somehow dissenters from
the One Way? How can it be a universal education when not everyone
participates in it. It is forced on people in the sense that the
money that they could direct toward non-government operated education
is taken from them. If you were to take the first $30,000 of income
from everyone, and then given them the "choice" to attend
public-operated restaurants and live in publically-operated housing
would they be choosing that option, or would you have forced that on
them?
>> If students were forced to
>>attend religious indoctrination against the will of their parents, I would
>>object. However, if the parents choose it, who are you (or anyone else) to
>>decide it's not acceptable.
>
>Apples and oranges.
>
>No one is forcing attendance at public schools. Your "complaint" is
>that you don't get to take money out of the public system to fund your
>phoney private schools.
If the parent decides that the private school would provide a better
education, then which school is phony?
>>> Private schools don't have to accept everyone. Private education
>>> isn't universal. It can refuse handicapped, learning disabled,
>>> emotionally impaired children.
>>
>>And if there is a demand, somebody else will fill it. However, the right to
>>refuse service will have a positive aspect in that they can refuse to accept
>>DISRUPTIVE and VIOLENT students if it jeapordizes the education of the
>>others, which is fine by me.
>
>Isn't that along the same lines as Nazi used when they felt justified
>in "dealing" with the "disruptive", "violent" people THEY thought
>unworthy?
Is your concern that students who are non-disruptive and non-violent
will leave the government-operated schools because of the disruptive
and violent students? How about paying the parents to send their
children to schools with a large percentage of violent and disruptive
students. Yes, my children will get a poorer education, but the $$$
make it worth it.
> It's a matter of what label you assign to a particular behavior,
>isn't it? After all a "disruptive" student can (and has been proven
>to be the case many times) those who are gifted.
And this gifted child will be harmed if they are forced to attend
public school?
> The "wishes" of the majority are represented in members of an ELECTED
>school board, State Legislature, and Federal Government.
Sophistry. The school board is elected to oversee the
government-operated schools. Someone who was elected on a platform
that children should go to whichever school they wanted and acted on
that platform would be guilty of malfeasance.
So which school board candidates should I support? The ones who are
so incompetent that children will be driven from the public schools,
so that at least taxes will be reduced?
>>As far as your ridiculous claim that
>>"universal education" is threatened, how are vouchers going to do that?
>
>By taking money out of the public education system
Let's say that vouchers are worth $3000, and public education costs
$6000, with $500 of that is fixed costs. Then you have saved the
public education system $5500 in expense, and cost them $3000 in
vouchers for each student who switches.
>>We're graduating kids that can barely read, write, and do math, and you
>>think I'm spouting bullshit? You obviously haven't seen the products the
>>public education system is turning out these days.
>
>SOME kids can't read, write or do math. An entire range of
>socio-economic reasons exist to produce those types of children.
>Everything from parental apathy, to economic ruin. To simplistically
>argue the effect is really the "cause" is absolute stupidity.
Are these children harmed by being in the public schools?
>>Geez, isn't that sort of racist for a supposed 'liberal'? Sorry, but they
>>ain't handing out cash.
>
>Yes, they would be-----as bait. To "show" that no discrimination was
>"intended". In a short period of time, most minorities would drop
>out, leaving the law intact for what it was intended---------promoting
>segregated schools.
Why would the minority children drop out?
--
Jim Riley
Got Brains?
"Malcolm Kirkpatrick" <malcolmki...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfbfc9b9.02022...@posting.google.com...
The problem is, almost all states use property taxes and business taxes as
their main sources of school revenue, and most people with children pay
little or nothing of the cost of their child's education. So the problem
with your little diatribe is that few, if any, people have been "taxed into
poverty" to pay for schools. In fact, school taxes are one of the few
actually progressive taxes out there, because the people who pay the bulk of
school taxes are the people who most benefit from the education of the
masses; businesses.
>
> Take care. Homeschool if you can.
Go for it. Just don't expect everyone else to pay for it.
J&S
"Malcolm Kirkpatrick" <malcolmki...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfbfc9b9.02022...@posting.google.com...
No thanks, I've met people who are homeschooled. Some of them can spell
really well, but they always seem less educated than most products of the
public school system I know. I guess we just paid attention.
Meanwhile, the Various christian churches are doing so poorly at convinving
people to join, and to use their schools, that they have to turn to this.
Oh they don't have enough money to do this out of the cahrity of their
hearts? Maybe they should all gang up on the Pope and tell the vatican to
sell a few statues or such.
That and they should stand up to evangelical hucksters who syphon off
millions with their snake oil shows.
Silas
Got Brains?
"J&S" <NEXUSC...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UJ5f8.19909$0C1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
other student. Plus, they have the social skills of an amoeba. One set of
homeschooled brothers, for example, have been arrested for making obscene
telephone calls to people, and they seem to think it's okay for them to
follow my kid home and come into my house, uninvited, whereby they usually
steal something.
I think the social aspect of school, whether private or public, is one of
the greatest learning experiences kids have. They need it.
Got Brains?
"Malcolm Kirkpatrick" <malcolmki...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfbfc9b9.02022...@posting.google.com...
Oh, please; I'd love to see you do this math. For one thing, you left out
the number of children who are ALREADY in private schools (conveniently).
The fatc is, these children are not factored into school budgets now, and
they will have to be if vouchers are to be implemented. IOW, if a district
has private school enrollment of, say 10,000 students, and those students
are factored out of school budgets (and they are), then factoring them in,
especially during a phase-in period, is going to require either increasing
appropriations or reducing vouchers.
There is another problem here, and that is, as the number of students
decreases in the public schools (assuming that it does -- I doubt that it
will, but voucher proponents count on it), the cost per student increases.
Not substantially, but the fact is, it doesn't cost much less to teach a
classroom full of 25 students than it costs to teach a classroom full of 30
students. There are many fixed costs that will not go down if the reduction
in student numbers is not incredibly significant. Again, you people keep
talking in "averages" and voucher amounts are based on averages, but the
cost of educating one student is rarely "average."
> Assume a population neither growing nor shrinking. Find the relation
> between a/b and B,E,I,n such that the district's per pupil budget goes
> up. 2)Are Europeans and Asians so much smarter that they solved this
> problem which Got Brains? considers insoluble? Didn't stop Poland or
> Sweden.
Solved what problem? What the hell are you talking about?
I would also point out that in the countries above, there is generally
central control of the education system, which is not the case here.
> >
> MK. Discussion deleted...
> >
> > Except for the problem with your "phase-in" idea changing that number
> > yearly, and the possibility that, should the voucher program ever
actually
> > take off (it won't, but suppose it does), the vouchers would actually
get
> > smaller.
> >
> MK. They get bigger. Do the math.
You do the math. If private schools are full, and those students are not
figured into the per-student cost of education (they're not), the number of
students in public school won't necessarily go down. Let's use simple
figures for a second.
1300 kids in public school.
130 in private school. The Private schools are full, as they are in most
cities now.
That's 100 kids per grade in public school, and 10 per grade in private
school.
The district has budgeted $6000 per child in their school, for a budget of
$7.800 million. The voucher program provides a $3000 voucher for each child.
The first year, the 10 children in kindergarten get their vouchers. The
district still has to educate the same 1300 students, only now, it must do
so on $7.770 million. By the fifth year, there are now 50 kids in grades k-4
getting vouchers, and the public school still has 1300 students, and must
get by on $7.65 million. By the end of the 13th year, when all children
have been phased into the program, the district is STILL educating 1300 kids
with $7.410 million.
It is not possible for you to make the claim that voucher sizes will
increase, and more money will be available per pupil, unless you
conveniently ignore the number of children already IN private schools and
also disregard the fixed costs associated with education. But then, voucher
proponents aren't known for being honest.
> MK. Discussion deleted...
> >
> > > MK. Districts handle fluctuations in enrollment all the time.
> >
> > The problem is, they won't fluctuate much. The only thing that will go
down
> > is available cash.
> >
> MK. State school budget per pupil goes up. Do the math.
I've done the math, and without greater appropriations, that's impossible.
State school budgets are only based on students actually in the schools, and
do not include those already in private schools.
> >
> > > That
> > > problem is minor. The solution to the (very real) problem of the high
> > > cost of sp-ed is to budget those students individually, and make
> > > voucher offers to those parents, also.
> >
> > Oh, yeah; we can't even decide who's covered by the ADA. I can see
everyone
> > and their grandmother claiming that their ritalin ingesting child
qualifies
> > for the larger voucher. And like I said; even though there is an average
> > cost per student, very few students actually cost the average.
> >
> MK. Either the sp-ed cost problem is real or it isn't. Either the
> district has sp-ed students or it doesn't. Can't have it both ways
> simultaneously. Budhet sp-ed kids individually, annd offer parents a
> voucher good for .8 the district's cost. Budget regular-ed as a class.
You can't budget them individually, for the same reason a district doesn't
figure costs individually. And it doesn't.
Jim Riley
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:50:02 GMT, Pea...@PeaBrain.com wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:23:50 GMT, "Stan de SD"
><standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
>
>>> >Who's being forced to attend a religious school?
>>>
>>> No one. The issue is taking away money from a universal public
>>> education, which isn't forced on anyone.
>>
>>And note that since the money "taken away" for vouchers is far less than
>>that allocated per student,
>
>"taking away" is "increasing" to you? You got any idea why you're
>laughed at?
Let's imagine that I agree to pay you $6000 per student that attends
your public school. You hire some teachers, buy supplies, hire bus
drivers, rent a building, etc. One of the students decides to attend
private school. I pay you $6000 less. Where did you lose any money?
Your expenses declined as well.
Does it matter if I gave $3000 to the the student who decided to
attend a private school, or keep the whole $6000?
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:32:10 -0600, "Lisa" <adve...@life.net> wrote:
>"Stan de SD" <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:j_Fe8.17504$ZC3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>Vouchers are not even an option for disruptive and violent students. The are
>forced to attend school by the law where they can disrupt those who really
>want to learn. This is why vouchers are, in theory anyway, offered to
>students who show promise and who want to learn. Once again I will say that
>the government needs to fix the problems with the public schools so that
>shipping children off is not necessary.
Fedex or UPS?
>Actually I believe that part of the reason it is screwed up is because too
>many people (school board) treat it like a business. The school systems are
>not nearly as interested in the welfare and the education of the children as
>they are the money. Why do you think the public schools are throwing fits
>about the number of children who are pulled out every year by their parents
>to home-school? For every child they lose, they lose money. Again, the
>government does not need to pull more children out of the public schools.
>That will not fix the problems but only take away much needed funds for the
>poorer schools.
A school district will spend 10's if not 100's of millions of dollars,
much of it on services that are no different than those expended by a
"business". Why shouldn't it be operated in a business-like manner.
Since the costs of public schools are also reduced when a student no
longer attends, it is irrational for the public schools to throw a fit
for that reason, if that is indeed the reason that they throw the fit.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:31:43 -0600, "Lisa" <adve...@life.net> wrote:
>"Stan de SD" <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:r1Ce8.16844$ZC3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>This is not about choice. It is about our tax dollars going to help fund
>private schools. Period.
Let's say that your city provides trash collection as a service. It
collects taxes. It hires some employees, and buys some trucks. What
if instead it gave you a voucher, and lets you hire a private hauler?
Is it tax dollars going to help fund a private hauler - or tax dollars
funding a service?
>The state needs to take the voucher money and put it into some of the poorer
>school districts. The whole point in the beginning was to give children in
>these poor schools a better education. Also, the state needs to keep tax
>dollars away from privately funded schools.
Why?
Let's imagine that you are superintendent of a school district.
You need to build a school. How do you build it? Have the kids do it
as a shop project? Have the teachers do it during their class
preparation period? Hire a private contractor?
You need books. Where do you get them. From a publisher?
You need teachers. Where do you get them. Hire them?
You need a new car. Where do you get it. From a private dealership?
It pay be government-operated, put all the money is funneled to the
private sector.
Let's imagine that you are now headmaster of a private school.
You need to build a school. How do you build it. Have the kids do it
as a shop project? Have the teachers do it during their class
preparation period? Hire a private contractor?
You need books. Where do you get them. From a publisher?
You need teachers. Where do you get them. Hire them?
You need a new car. Where do you get it. From a private dealership?
It is privately-operated, and all the money is funneled to the private
sector.
In either case, the same service is provided.
>In some areas, the inner city for one, life skills are just as important as
>the 3 R's. Maybe even more important.
Are you saying that the parents of inner city children don't
understand this? That they would send their children to schools that
don't place the emphasis on life skills?
>I can honestly say that I am not hysterical in my opposition to vouchers. My
>opposition is actually not to the vouchers themselves. The concept I agree
>with whole-heartedly. There just have to be some major changes in the way
>the vouchers are used. And above all, I do not want any institution which
>does not pay taxes to receive any of my hard earned tax dollars.
Government-operated schools pay taxes? Or they are not an
institution?
--
Jim Riley
Stan de SD
<Pea...@PeaBrain.com> wrote in message
news:3c7bbfbf...@news.enetis.net...
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:23:50 GMT, "Stan de SD"
> <standesd_DI...@earthlink.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
>
> >> >Who's being forced to attend a religious school?
> >>
> >> No one. The issue is taking away money from a universal public
> >> education, which isn't forced on anyone.
> >
> >And note that since the money "taken away" for vouchers is far less than
> >that allocated per student,
>
> "taking away" is "increasing" to you? You got any idea why you're
> laughed at?
If money for school districts is being taken away for voucher students at a
rate less that the per-pupil reimbursement from the state, then the
per-student funding will INCREASE! Still don't understand? Here's an
example:
The Anytown, USA public school district has a consistent enrollment of 5000
students (new students into the system replace those who leave) in any given
year. The schools share of funding is $6000/year per student, for a total
of $6000*5000 = $30,000,000 (30 million dollars). All students attend public
schools in school year 2001-2002, but in the summer of 2002, a school
voucher program is enacted where parents can take a $3000 voucher per pupil
and bring it to the school of their choice, o keep the kids in public school
if they prefer to do so. Three new private schools open up and accept
vouchers: Rev. Billy-Bob's Temple of Learning accepts 500 students,
Evilnasty Conservative Foundation for the Elite takes 500, and Sgt.
Shitkickers Troubled Teen Boot camp takes in 500 students, with the rest
remaining at the local public schools (N. Doctrination Elementary, Lown
Lyinda Middle School, and PC Feelgood High School), which are funded evenly
amongst the remaining funds. How much money is available per student
remaining in the public schools?
Let's do the math:
$30,000,000 for the entire district of 5000 students to start with:
Rev. Billy Bob = 500 students * $3,000/student = $1,500,000
Evilnasty = 500 students * $3,000/student = $1,500,000
Sgt. Shitkicker = 500 students * $3,000/student = $1,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total = 1500 students *$3000/student = $4,5000,000
What remains in the public schools? (5000-1500) = 3500 students.
($30,000,000-$4,500,000)=$25,500,000. Therefore, the public schools have
($25,500,000/3500) students =$7286/student. Since $7,286 > $6,000,
per-student student INCREASES at the public schools, contrary to your
assertion (too bad your parents didn't have access to vouchers; you might
have learned math in a private school).
You know how the educrats ae always crying about how we can't educate kids
because we're not spending enough per student, and how overcrowding affects
our schools? Now, here comes a great opportunity to increase per-student
spending and reduce overcrowding, and they educrats (and their gullible
supporters) are FIGHTING it! Why would that be? 2 possible reasons:
(1) The student spending and classroom overcrowding issues are smokescreen,
and they know it, OR
(2) The educrats are afraid of losing CONTROL.
So, which one is it? :O(
>
> >No it isn't, unless you think you have the right to tell others hwo to
run
> >their lives.
>
> That's what your private religious school are complaining about NOT
> being able to do.
You continually ignore the fact that, unlike you publicly-funded monopoly,
that private religious students can't force their students (or their
parents) to attend their school. Governments CAN and DO mandate school
attendance.
>
> >> No one is forcing attendance at public schools. Your "complaint" is
> >> that you don't get to take money out of the public system to fund your
> >> phoney private schools.
> >
> >So if the public schools are so great, why do you have this deathly fear
of
> >parents taking their kids out of school to put them into "phony private
> >schools"? Or do you ackowledge privately what others are willing to admit
> >publicly, that the public schools aren't doing the job they are paid to
do?
>
> They are doing what they're paid to do.
Which is obviously socially indoctrinating the kids. Unfortunately, most
parenst would prefer that their kids actually LEARN basic skills in school,
which is where the public schools are failing.
> Anecdotal "evidence" that
> only represents a small portion of the "problem", promoted as "the"
> problem is pure bullshit propaganda.
If it's just propaganda, why are many high-school graduates incapable of
doing elementary school math? Why must we test freshman college students
for math and reading skills, and offer remedial courses in colleges? Can you
answer those questions?
>
> >> >In addition, if you're so worried about forcing dogma into children,
why
> >are
> >> >you railing about theoreticals when in real life public schools
> >indoctrinate
> >> >millions of kids in dogma such as Multiculturalism, endorsement of
> >> >"alternative lifestyles" such as homosexuality, unproven theories such
as
> >> >"global warming", and political activity, such as the shit they pull
in
> >SF
> >> >and Oakland,
> >>
> >> Well, there you go. Everything you listed is religious based crap.
> >
> >There YOU go. You're incapable of dealing with the specific issues listed
> >above, which is the tendency to public school educrats to place a higher
> >priority on social indoctrination than on educating kids, .....As for
your insinuating that my
> >objections are "religious based", it's merely an indication of your
> >intolerance toward other views, as I have not indicated that I have any
> >particular (or ANY) religious views whatsoever in this (or any other) NG.
>
> It is "working"
>
> Your litany of "abuses" by the public schools is rooted in RELIGIOUS
> dogma. That forms the basis of justifying wanting public money for
> private schools.
You can find NO PROOF whatsoever in this or any other NG that I practice any
religion, or advocate the teaching of any particular theological point of
view. You're simply pulling this crap because you're incapable of refuting
any of the points I have made in this thread.
> >> "teaching" about those issues, recognizes that people have rights,
> >> sensitivities,
> >
> >There's a BIG difference between acknowledging that all individuals have
> >rights (which I have never disagreed with) and conducting
> >mini-indoctrination programs to convince impressionable young minds that
> >certain lifestyle CHOICES (such as homosexuality, to be blunt) are
somehow
> >healthy and desirable, which they are clearly not.
>
> "promoting lifestyles" is propaganda put out by religious fuckwits,
> you moron.
What do you call it when children are taught about homosexual behavior and
practices in grade school? There is no need from either a biological or
hygeine perspective to teach kids about such topics, as such courses are
used to indoctrinate the students into accepting particular views on the
subject.
> You can't find a single incident that supports the
> conclusions that religious assholes INFER from some of the programs.
Bullshit, Lefty Liberal groups constantly push propaganda programs to
legitimize and endorse homosexuality...
B-8. Sexual Orientation Education. The National Education Association
recognizes the importance of raising the awareness and increasing the
sensitivity of staff, students, parents, and the community to sexual
orientation in our society (in other words, teach kids about homosexuality).
b. The acceptance of diverse sexual orientation and the awareness of sexual
stereotyping whenever sexuality and/or tolerance of diversity is taught (in
other words, teach that homosexuality is normal).
d. Support for the celebration of a Lesbian and Gay History Month as a means
of acknowledging the contributions of lesbians,
gays, and bisexuals throughout history (again, propagandizing homosexuality
in a favorable light).
B-35. Sex Education. The Association recognizes that the public school must
assume an increasingly important role in providing the instruction.
Teachers and health professionals must be qualified to teach in this area
and must be legally protected from censorship and lawsuits. (in other words,
to do what they want, without interference from parents who object)
http://www.nea.org/achievement/gayfacts.pdf
Talking about Homosexuality In a School
Many people can benefit when homosexuality is discussed in a
school, as open discussion of the issue can help
everyone by reducing intolerance and bullying. In the UK it is
now being suggested that all secondary schools (state maintained
schools with pupils aged 12 and over) need to talk about homosexuality
http://www.avert.org/talking.htm
Sexuality education is a lifelong process of acquiring information and
forming attitudes, beliefs, and values about
identity, relationships and intimacy. (notice reference to FORMING
ATTITUDES - aka 'indoctrination')
http://www.siecus.org/school/sex_ed/sex_ed0000.html
Activist teacher assigns gay teenage sex/romance book to 15-year-olds in
English class.
It is difficult to describe the shock and outrage of a
mother when she
discovered that her son was assigned a novel of teenage
gay pornography to
read for English class. Little did she know that her
son's teacher had recently bragged in a Boston
Globe newspaper article (see link below) how he was
quietly introducing "gay,
lesbian, bisexual, and transgender" subjects into his
academic high school
classes.
In this class, the teacher passed out a copy of "The
Perks of Being a
Wallflower" by Stephen Chbosky to each child...
The book contains explicit references and discussion
regarding:
Sexual acts between teenagers.
Male masturbation.
Homosexual acts between men and boys.
Sex between a boy and a dog.
We've discovered that this book is becoming popular in
liberal "progressive"
educational circles, particularly among homosexual
activists in that field.
The teacher who assigned this book to the class was
interviewed less than two
weeks before in the Boston Sunday Globe (7/8/01). In an
article titled "More
schools tackling gay issues" the teacher discussed how he
supports introducing
homosexual issues to children under the radar screen of
parents and others.
http://www.parentsrightscoalition.org/book.htm
http://www.doe.mass.edu/mailings/1996/cm10396gsa.html
Massachusetts first-graders listen as their teacher "comes out", while
perverts discuss gay sex acts at school assemblies.
School plays have kids saying lines indicating that homosexuality is normal,
and indoctrination sessions condition kids to believe those opposed to
same-sex marriages are "homophobes"...
http://www.parentsrightscoalition.org/Horror_Stories.htm
An elementary school teacher in Dover, Delaware paired her
second graders up and officiated a mock same-sex
"wedding
of friends." The boys and girls exchanged vows with
one
another in what Ede Outten claims was a ceremony
'about
friendship.' One mother plans to home school her son
as a result of the
incident. Another father worries that the children
"might look
back on it, and it could cause some confusion later".
It is obvious that the teacher was using the mock weddings to push
homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" on
impressionable young children. Many expressed
opposition to
the weddings at a public meeting. However, a local
teachers
group submitted 350 signatures in support of the
teacher
and the ceremony.
http://www.cwfa.org/library/education/1997-12-18_samesex-wed.shtml
> They take a "fact" (maybe explaining why it's wrong to bash gays) and
> INFER they are "teaching homosexuality".
Sorry, your BS has been exposed. It's deliberate endorsement by groups such
as the NEA, and they freely admit it.
> >Apparently you come from
> >the old autocratic framework that states "what is not expressly mandated
is
> >forbidden", while I place a heavier emphasis on individuals choice, and
> >accepting the responsibilities that come with it.
>
> Then pay your fucking taxes and stop whining to everyone.
Thanks for confirming what I just stated, you little fascist.
> >> "Education" about the reality of life isn't couched in
> >> religious judgmental crap, which is the relevant thread of your
> >> whining.
> >
> >Again, no religious frame of reference or views expressed on my part.
You're
> >simply incapable of reasoning on the points I have brought up, and feel
the
> >need to respond with emotions.
>
> EVERY one of your "points' has a religious basis for it.
Every one of my points is based on facts and logic. Given that you are
incapable of refuting them, they stand.
> >> Well, there you go. You just destroyed your own rant by: a)
> >> admitting that it really isn't a business, and b) that "it should be"
> >> is a belief, which isn't an argument.
> >
> >So your emotional appeals are "arguments",
>
> It isn't "proof" to merely claim I'm "appealing emotionally".
Ranting, raving, and calling me racist and a religious fanatic (as well as
almost no discussion of the particular point at hand) indicated that your
argument is totally an emotional one. It's pretty apparent that you
mindlessly adopt whatever political sentiments are in fashion with your
circles, and don't think through your positions on subjects. If you did, you
would at least be prepared to deal with the specific points. Instead, you
make glaring errors, such as your assumption that vouchers would lower the
per-student spending amounts in public schools, when it's quite clear that
they won't.
> It isn't "emotional appeal" to say that the federal government
> STOPPED state and local government from racist polices, it's FACT and
> "TRUTH".
You haven't provided any basis for your assertion that vouchers are
inherently racist, except for your laughable (and hypocritical) assumption
that minorities would deliberately take their children out of good schools
and put them in bas schools, because they don't know any better.
> > but my detailed presentation
> >outlining my support of schhol choice is only a "belief"? Looks like we
have
> >the typical Lefty Liberal double standard in effect.
>
> It IS "belief" because you predicate your whining on religious belief.
> You speficically underlined your beliefs by appealing "emotionally" to
> religous dogma.
I specifically outline my arguments, and present data to back them up.
Nowhere in this thread have I invoked any religious tenet o endorsed any
particular religion or theological belief system. However, feel free to
continue your hysterical cries that I am the one being too emotional -
you're only making a bigger fool of yourself in the process.
> >> Isn't that along the same lines as Nazi used when they felt justified
> >> in "dealing" with the "disruptive", "violent" people THEY thought
> >> unworthy?
> >
> >So since you can't win the argument by dealing with the issues, you have
to
> >insinuate that supporters of school choice (or merely providing a safe
> >educational environment) are somehow Nazis. Thanks for confirming the
fact
> >that you're a loser and an idiot.
>
> No, that's not what I "insinuated"
You insinuated that the idea that disruptive, violent students be removed
from schools where they deleteriously affect the safety and academic
performance of other students as somehow akin to Nazi tactics. If you think
that private schools should be required to keep such kids, please outline
you reasons. Otherwise, you're sounding like a nut-case.
> I said that labeling people was akin to how the nazis started.
You mean, like calling people "right-wing nutcases" and "religious fanatics"
merely because they disagree with you on the issue of school vouchers. You
should talk.... :O|
> BTW,
> they did adopt Southern policies into the Nazi party's platform, Did
> you know that?
BTW, this has nothing to do with the merits or drawbacks of school vouchers.
Did you know that, or are you continuing the same tired smear tactics
because you can't think of any logical arguments to support your
anti-voucher position?
> >> It's a matter of what label you assign to a particular behavior,
> >> isn't it? After all a "disruptive" student can (and has been proven
> >> to be the case many times) those who are gifted.
>
> >> Even so, you can label someone "undesirable" for a whole range of
> >> characteristics, until (like Germany) you arrive at only a "master
> >> race"who is elgible for consideration.
> >
> >(rest of discussion with foaming lunatic who categorically accuses all
> >supporters of school choice plans to be racists, Nazis, or religous
fanatics
> >snipped for the time being.)
>
> Then don't act like one.
Thanks for proving to all of Usenet that you have nothing of intellectual
substance to offer w/r/t the issue of school vouchers.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
> "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" wrote;...
>
MK. The discussion (School vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.
Must vouchers reduce expenditures per student?):...
>
MK. Discussion deleted (Blacksheep maintains funds per student
remaining go up)...
>
> > increases, the amount that the district can offer in a voucher
> > increases (break-even). I'll show how this is done in a later post.
> > For now, it's an exercise for the reader. The variables are B=total
> > district K-12 budget, E=district enrollment, I=independent school
> > enrollment, n=number of students in district schools who take voucher,
> > a/b= fraction of B/E (i.e., per pupil budget) given as a voucher.
>
> Oh, please; I'd love to see you do this math. For one thing, you left out
> the number of children who are ALREADY in private schools (conveniently).
> The fatc is, these children are not factored into school budgets now, and
> they will have to be if vouchers are to be implemented. IOW, if a district
> has private school enrollment of, say 10,000 students, and those students
> are factored out of school budgets (and they are), then factoring them in,
> especially during a phase-in period, is going to require either increasing
> appropriations or reducing vouchers.
>
included. If you phase vouchers in, starting with grade 1, I=0.
>
> There is another problem here, and that is, as the number of students
> decreases in the public schools (assuming that it does -- I doubt that it
> will, but voucher proponents count on it), the cost per student increases.
> Not substantially, but the fact is, it doesn't cost much less to teach a
> classroom full of 25 students than it costs to teach a classroom full of 30
> students. There are many fixed costs that will not go down if the reduction
> in student numbers is not incredibly significant. Again, you people keep
> talking in "averages" and voucher amounts are based on averages, but the
> cost of educating one student is rarely "average."
>
(district enrollment, $/student) is positive in all but two or three
States. Across the US, the correlation (State enrollment, $/student)
is positive. Costs per pupli fall as enrollment drops. 2) No costs are
fixed. Some change more slowly than others. Districts close schools
all the time.
>
> > Assume a population neither growing nor shrinking. Find the relation
> > between a/b and B,E,I,n such that the district's per pupil budget goes
> > up. 2)Are Europeans and Asians so much smarter that they solved this
> > problem which Got Brains? considers insoluble? Didn't stop Poland or
> > Sweden.
>
> Solved what problem? What the hell are you talking about?
>
manage?
>
> I would also point out that in the countries above, there is generally
> central control of the education system, which is not the case here.
>
curriculum, testing, teacher credentials, etc. Countries vary. See
TIMSS, "Mathematics Achievement in the Middle School Years" and OECD,
"Education at a Glance".
enrollment is constant, this is correct. Do you mean schools cannot be
built in 13 years? Do you mean that the numerous organizations
champing at the bit to compete with the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel will
just sit there?
>
> > MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> > > > MK. Districts handle fluctuations in enrollment all the time.
> > >
> > > The problem is, they won't fluctuate much. The only thing that will go
> down
> > > is available cash.
> > >
> > MK. State school budget per pupil goes up. Do the math.
>
> I've done the math, and without greater appropriations, that's impossible.
> State school budgets are only based on students actually in the schools, and
> do not include those already in private schools.
>
fluctuations. Now you argue that enrollments won't fluctuate. Make up
your mind. b) On the assumption that the demand for decent education
is limited to those already in independent school, you are correct. On
the assumption that the supply of education services is elastic, and
demand is --not-- limited to the independent school population, I am
correct. Which is closer to reality?
>
> > MK. Either the sp-ed cost problem is real or it isn't. Either the
> > district has sp-ed students or it doesn't. Can't have it both ways
> > simultaneously. Budhet sp-ed kids individually, annd offer parents a
> > voucher good for .8 the district's cost. Budget regular-ed as a class.
>
> You can't budget them individually, for the same reason a district doesn't
> figure costs individually. And it doesn't.
>
Bob LeChevalier
Unfortunately, however, you've forgotten some stuff.
1. Losing 1500 students would be 30%. The typical elementary school with two
classes at each grade, with 30 kids per class, will drop to 21 kids per
class. They will not be able to let a teacher go because with only 1 class
there would be 42 kids in that class. Only by redefining school boundaries
(which takes a couple of years and is often resisted by parents and voters
since school boundaries affect real estate prices), can kids be reallocated
to allow ANY teachers to be reduced. Thus the cost savings from those 1500
kids leaving in the short term would be negligible.
Thus even if the "per student expenditure" went from $6000 to $7286, the
bottom line is that the schools are making do with $25 million instead of $30
million, and their costs will not have dropped by $5 million merely be losing
students.
2. Since part of the money the district gets is federal and state
reimbursement for enrolled students, there is no reason to believe that the
school district would get that $25 million. More likely, the would continue
to get the budgeted formula of $6000 per student, which is $21 million. The
other $4 million will stay in the state or federal treasury to be used for
some other program. So now the district has to operate with $21 million when
it has no effective way to cut costs much at all from the $30 million that it
had been spending. The result will be some sort of default or bankruptcy
when the school is unable to fulfill its legal obligations. This happened in
Washington DC, and large chunks of the school district are operated under
court supervision.
>You know how the educrats ae always crying about how we can't educate kids
>because we're not spending enough per student, and how overcrowding affects
>our schools? Now, here comes a great opportunity to increase per-student
>spending and reduce overcrowding, and they educrats (and their gullible
>supporters) are FIGHTING it! Why would that be? 2 possible reasons:
>
>(1) The student spending and classroom overcrowding issues are smokescreen,
>and they know it, OR
>(2) The educrats are afraid of losing CONTROL.
>
>So, which one is it? :O(
Neither.
The reason is that they are sure that the public schools would deteriorate,
and that the children left behind would be hurt.
>> >No it isn't, unless you think you have the right to tell others hwo to run
>> >their lives.
>>
>> That's what your private religious school are complaining about NOT
>> being able to do.
>
>You continually ignore the fact that, unlike you publicly-funded monopoly,
>that private religious students can't force their students (or their
>parents) to attend their school. Governments CAN and DO mandate school
>attendance.
Yes. But one the kid is attending the private school, that school is
typically more interfering with the family's prerogatives. Many private
schools, for example, require parents to put in so many hours of volunteer
time as a condition of enrollment.
>> >So if the public schools are so great, why do you have this deathly fear of
>> >parents taking their kids out of school to put them into "phony private
>> >schools"? Or do you ackowledge privately what others are willing to admit
>> >publicly, that the public schools aren't doing the job they are paid to
>do?
>>
>> They are doing what they're paid to do.
>
>Which is obviously socially indoctrinating the kids.
Partially. That is of course what the voters, via their legislators, have
required the public schools to do.
>Unfortunately, most
>parenst would prefer that their kids actually LEARN basic skills in school,
>which is where the public schools are failing.
Most of the time, if the kid is not learning, it is NOT because the teachers
are not teaching, but rather because the student is not applying himself.
The teachers can lead the horses to water, but cannot make them drink.
>> Anecdotal "evidence" that
>> only represents a small portion of the "problem", promoted as "the"
>> problem is pure bullshit propaganda.
>
>If it's just propaganda, why are many high-school graduates incapable of
>doing elementary school math?
Relatively few, actually. And when they can't do it, it is not because they
haven't been taught, but more often because they haven't maintained their
skills during high school and have forgotten what they once knew.
>Why must we test freshman college students
>for math and reading skills, and offer remedial courses in colleges? Can you
>answer those questions?
Because by definition, 50% of the kids have to be below average. Right now,
around 60% of kids go to college, so some chunk of the kids will have to be
below average in skills. They gear college classes of course for the average
or even the above average kids, so some kids will be unable to work at the
needed level.
>> >> "teaching" about those issues, recognizes that people have rights,
>> >> sensitivities,
>> >
>> >There's a BIG difference between acknowledging that all individuals have
>> >rights (which I have never disagreed with) and conducting
>> >mini-indoctrination programs to convince impressionable young minds that
>> >certain lifestyle CHOICES (such as homosexuality, to be blunt) are somehow
>> >healthy and desirable, which they are clearly not.
>>
>> "promoting lifestyles" is propaganda put out by religious fuckwits,
>> you moron.
>
>What do you call it when children are taught about homosexual behavior and
>practices in grade school?
Probably right wing propaganda. At most, kids would be taught that there ARE
such people as homosexuals, and that they have to be accepted just like
everyone else. Since most likely at least a couple kids in the school will
have a homosexual or bisexual parent, such education is the minimum essential
for a safe environment for such children.
>There is no need from either a biological or
>hygeine perspective to teach kids about such topics, as such courses are
>used to indoctrinate the students into accepting particular views on the
>subject.
Yes. Like "all men are created equal" (including homosexuals).
>> You can't find a single incident that supports the
>> conclusions that religious assholes INFER from some of the programs.
>
>Bullshit, Lefty Liberal groups constantly push propaganda programs to
>legitimize and endorse homosexuality...
>
>B-8. Sexual Orientation Education. The National Education Association
>recognizes the importance of raising the awareness and increasing the
>sensitivity of staff, students, parents, and the community to sexual
>orientation in our society (in other words, teach kids about homosexuality).
You clearly do not know what "sensitivity training" is. It is a buzzword
that says that a kid shouldn't go calling another kid a "faggot", or teasing
a kid because his mother is a lesbian.
>b. The acceptance of diverse sexual orientation and the awareness of sexual
>stereotyping whenever sexuality and/or tolerance of diversity is taught (in
>other words, teach that homosexuality is normal).
Homesexuality is TO BE TOLERATED. Whether it is "normal" or not, it exists,
and a student does not have the right to mistreat others based on their
sexual orientation.
>d. Support for the celebration of a Lesbian and Gay History Month as a means
>of acknowledging the contributions of lesbians,
>gays, and bisexuals throughout history (again, propagandizing homosexuality
>in a favorable light).
No. Acknowledging that there are some important people in history whose
roles have been squelched because of the sexual practices.
>B-35. Sex Education. The Association recognizes that the public school must
>assume an increasingly important role in providing the instruction.
>Teachers and health professionals must be qualified to teach in this area
>and must be legally protected from censorship and lawsuits. (in other words,
>to do what they want, without interference from parents who object)
Sex education is mandated by the legislatures, and usually has a parental
opt-out provision, so obviously parents have the ability to object. The
quoted policy is that the people doing the training should know what it is
they are supposed to teach (as defined by the legislature), and should not be
sued because they are fulfilling their job description.
>School plays have kids saying lines indicating that homosexuality is normal,
>and indoctrination sessions condition kids to believe those opposed to
>same-sex marriages are "homophobes"...
Shakespeare's plays have lines where people advocate murder (Macbeth and
Julius Caesar) and commit suicide (Romeo and Juliet). Good literature
generally reflects real life, and there are characters that express all
manner of opinions.
>> They take a "fact" (maybe explaining why it's wrong to bash gays) and
>> INFER they are "teaching homosexuality".
>
>Sorry, your BS has been exposed. It's deliberate endorsement by groups such
>as the NEA, and they freely admit it.
Not according the passages that you've quoted above.
>> >> "Education" about the reality of life isn't couched in
>> >> religious judgmental crap, which is the relevant thread of your
>> >> whining.
>> >
>> >Again, no religious frame of reference or views expressed on my part. You're
>> >simply incapable of reasoning on the points I have brought up, and feel the
>> >need to respond with emotions.
>>
>> EVERY one of your "points' has a religious basis for it.
>
>Every one of my points is based on facts and logic. Given that you are
>incapable of refuting them, they stand.
You're apparent disapproval of homosexuality indicates a religious basis.
There is no "logical" basis for your position.
>> It isn't "proof" to merely claim I'm "appealing emotionally".
>
>Ranting, raving, and calling me racist and a religious fanatic (as well as
>almost no discussion of the particular point at hand) indicated that your
>argument is totally an emotional one. It's pretty apparent that you
>mindlessly adopt whatever political sentiments are in fashion with your
>circles, and don't think through your positions on subjects. If you did, you
>would at least be prepared to deal with the specific points. Instead, you
>make glaring errors, such as your assumption that vouchers would lower the
>per-student spending amounts in public schools, when it's quite clear that
>they won't.
Your mistake is in thinking that "per-student spending" is anything other
than an accounting trick. The actual money available is less, but the costs
do not drop quickly by removing students.
>> It isn't "emotional appeal" to say that the federal government
>> STOPPED state and local government from racist polices, it's FACT and
>> "TRUTH".
>
>You haven't provided any basis for your assertion that vouchers are
>inherently racist, except for your laughable (and hypocritical) assumption
>that minorities would deliberately take their children out of good schools
>and put them in bas schools, because they don't know any better.
That is not the reason most people consider vouchers to be racist. Rather it
is the recognition that the poor are disproportionately minorities, and
vouchers will help the well-off go to private schools much more than they
will help the poor do so. In addition, the private schools that exist
largely reflect the majority culture, and the same school will not be as
"good" for minority kids as it is for white kids.
>> It IS "belief" because you predicate your whining on religious belief.
>> You speficically underlined your beliefs by appealing "emotionally" to
>> religous dogma.
>
>I specifically outline my arguments, and present data to back them up.
>Nowhere in this thread have I invoked any religious tenet o endorsed any
>particular religion or theological belief system.
Statements of morality are religious in nature. You are judging those whose
moral choices are different than yours. Therefore you are writing predicated
on your religious beliefs. It doesn't matter that we cannot put a label on
the particular sect that you associate with; you are presuming that your
moral standards should dictate the way the schools are run, as contrasted
with the mandates of the taxpayer-elected representatives that have mandated
otherwise.
>You insinuated that the idea that disruptive, violent students be removed
>from schools where they deleteriously affect the safety and academic
>performance of other students as somehow akin to Nazi tactics. If you think
>that private schools should be required to keep such kids, please outline
>you reasons. Otherwise, you're sounding like a nut-case.
If they do not keep such kids then they will all be in the public schools,
because the public schools cannot turn away kids. Having a higher
concentration of misbehaving kids means that the standards in the public
schools would necessarily drop, and the non-misbehaving kids will have their
education damaged.
Meanwhile everyone will say that the private schools are "doing a better
job". But of course a varsity team will outperform a team comprised of
whoever shows up.
>> I said that labeling people was akin to how the nazis started.
>
>You mean, like calling people "right-wing nutcases" and "religious fanatics"
>merely because they disagree with you on the issue of school vouchers. You
>should talk.... :O|
You are calling people "educrats" and "Lefty Liberal groups" merely because
they disagree with you.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Neal Atkins
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>1. Losing 1500 students would be 30%. The typical elementary school with two
>classes at each grade, with 30 kids per class, will drop to 21 kids per
>class.
Oh. So the government school will acheive the nirvana of 21 kids per
teacher. I thought that 21 kids per teacher would SOLVE all the
problems about kids not learning?
>2. Since part of the money the district gets is federal and state
>reimbursement for enrolled students, there is no reason to believe that the
>school district would get that $25 million. More likely, the would continue
>to get the budgeted formula of $6000 per student, which is $21 million. The
>other $4 million will stay in the state or federal treasury to be used for
>some other program. So now the district has to operate with $21 million when
>it has no effective way to cut costs much at all from the $30 million that it
>had been spending.
Of course it does. The PAPERWORK LOAD has been reduced. They can lay
off 3 of the office workers that shuffle papers. They aren't part of
the TEACHING STAFF anyway. AND the paperwork load will be summarily
lightened for the entire school district. They can FIRE most of the
papershufflers, their supervisors and half the "administrative" staff
that DOESN'T DO ANY TEACHING ANYWAY!
With the reduced pupil(client) load, the exhorbitant amounts the
EXECUTIVE BRANCH gets can be reduced also. Less money for them to
LOBBY to get more money.
Simple.
Sounds like a good plan.
Jim Riley
On Thu, 07 Mar 2002 21:55:03 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Not necessarily true. School funding is based on actual attendance.
Reduce the number of students, and taxes may reduced. Not a bad
outcome of course.
>Unfortunately, however, you've forgotten some stuff.
>
>1. Losing 1500 students would be 30%. The typical elementary school with two
>classes at each grade, with 30 kids per class, will drop to 21 kids per
>class. They will not be able to let a teacher go because with only 1 class
>there would be 42 kids in that class. Only by redefining school boundaries
>(which takes a couple of years and is often resisted by parents and voters
>since school boundaries affect real estate prices), can kids be reallocated
>to allow ANY teachers to be reduced. Thus the cost savings from those 1500
>kids leaving in the short term would be negligible.
The AISD had a policy of a maximum of 25 kids per classroom. They
either had 3 classes with 20 each, or were busing the excess 10 to
another school with excess capacity. In fact, it was the busing of
those 10 students that led their parents to look into the Temple of
Learning, or the Conservative Foundation for the Elite.
>Thus even if the "per student expenditure" went from $6000 to $7286, the
>bottom line is that the schools are making do with $25 million instead of $30
>million, and their costs will not have dropped by $5 million merely be losing
>students.
>
>2. Since part of the money the district gets is federal and state
>reimbursement for enrolled students, there is no reason to believe that the
>school district would get that $25 million. More likely, the would continue
>to get the budgeted formula of $6000 per student, which is $21 million. The
>other $4 million will stay in the state or federal treasury to be used for
>some other program. So now the district has to operate with $21 million when
>it has no effective way to cut costs much at all from the $30 million that it
>had been spending. The result will be some sort of default or bankruptcy
>when the school is unable to fulfill its legal obligations. This happened in
>Washington DC, and large chunks of the school district are operated under
>court supervision.
What if instead of losing 1500 students, they had gained 1500
students? Why would they have to spend any more money? If they had
30 per classroom before, why couldn't they have 39 per classroom
afterwords?
--
Jim Riley
Stan de SD
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:sfts7ukl1v4tnurmr...@4ax.com...
Yet a 30% loss in students would only result in a funding drop of 15% under
this model - hardly catastrophic.
> Only by redefining school boundaries
> (which takes a couple of years and is often resisted by parents and voters
> since school boundaries affect real estate prices), can kids be
reallocated
> to allow ANY teachers to be reduced. Thus the cost savings from those
1500
> kids leaving in the short term would be negligible.
But given that the liberals always claim that the reason for poor academic
performance is insufficient spending on a per-student basis, as well as
classroom overcrowding, wouldn't these same liberals jump at a chance to
prove that they can provide quality education? Or is there the realization
(that the educrats won't publicly admit) that perhaps spending levels and
classroom size are NOT the primary factors affecting the quality of
education?
> Thus even if the "per student expenditure" went from $6000 to $7286, the
> bottom line is that the schools are making do with $25 million instead of
$30
> million, and their costs will not have dropped by $5 million merely be
losing
> students.
But they will be EDUCATING LESS STUDENTS! Certainly all the costs aren't
fixed, especially in districts that are top-heavy with administration and
non-teaching staff. If they are incapable of managing assets and adjusting,
perhaps we have the wrong people running the educational establishment, and
bringing in more people with private-sector experience would be a help.
> 2. Since part of the money the district gets is federal and state
> reimbursement for enrolled students, there is no reason to believe that
the
> school district would get that $25 million. More likely, the would
continue
> to get the budgeted formula of $6000 per student, which is $21 million.
The
> other $4 million will stay in the state or federal treasury to be used for
> some other program. So now the district has to operate with $21 million
when
> it has no effective way to cut costs much at all from the $30 million that
it
> had been spending. The result will be some sort of default or bankruptcy
> when the school is unable to fulfill its legal obligations. This happened
in
> Washington DC, and large chunks of the school district are operated under
> court supervision.
What happened in DC is that you had politcally protected incompetents
running the school system, with no alternatives available to parents and
teachers.
> >You know how the educrats ae always crying about how we can't educate
kids
> >because we're not spending enough per student, and how overcrowding
affects
> >our schools? Now, here comes a great opportunity to increase per-student
> >spending and reduce overcrowding, and they educrats (and their gullible
> >supporters) are FIGHTING it! Why would that be? 2 possible reasons:
> >
> >(1) The student spending and classroom overcrowding issues are
smokescreen,
> >and they know it, OR
> >(2) The educrats are afraid of losing CONTROL.
> >
> >So, which one is it? :O(
>
> Neither.
>
> The reason is that they are sure that the public schools would
deteriorate,
> and that the children left behind would be hurt.
(1) The public schools have ALREADY deteriorated, precisely because there is
no incentive for reform.
(2) If things are that bad, those left behind can always look for
alternatives, the way those who already left did.
Once again, we see the inconsistent arguments pushed by the educrats: public
schools are failing because we're not spending enough for each student, and
there is too much overcrowding in the classroom. Yet, a model is presented
where crowding will be alleviated, and more money will be spent per student,
and they fear that the schools will deteriorate and children will be hurt?
Exactly WHERE is all this money being spent? It's not on building new
schools, since those are funded by bond measures. If a 30% reduction in
students resulting in a 15% loss in funding creates hardship on the
students, then we're spending too much money on things not related to what
goes on in the classroom.
> >> >No it isn't, unless you think you have the right to tell others hwo to
run
> >> >their lives.
> >>
> >> That's what your private religious school are complaining about NOT
> >> being able to do.
> >
> >You continually ignore the fact that, unlike you publicly-funded
monopoly,
> >that private religious students can't force their students (or their
> >parents) to attend their school. Governments CAN and DO mandate school
> >attendance.
>
> Yes. But one the kid is attending the private school, that school is
> typically more interfering with the family's prerogatives.
And if they are, then the family can put their kid in a different school
next year. You think public schools don't interfere now with the parent's
perogatives? How many times have you heard of schools forcing agendas on
their kids (multiculturalism, endorsement of homosexuality as an acceptable
lifestyle choice) over the objections of the parents? The public schools get
away with this type of crap simply because they know they can - the parents
and kids don't have another choice. Under a voucher or similar school choice
plan, both public AND private schools will have to be more responsive to the
wishes of the parents: it they aren't, the parents will take their children
elsewhere.
> Many private
> schools, for example, require parents to put in so many hours of volunteer
> time as a condition of enrollment.
As a way of offsetting expenses, and it's a great idea. Get the parents to
participate, and instill a sense that they have a commitment and an interest
in the education of their kids.
> >> >So if the public schools are so great, why do you have this deathly
fear of
> >> >parents taking their kids out of school to put them into "phony
private
> >> >schools"? Or do you ackowledge privately what others are willing to
admit
> >> >publicly, that the public schools aren't doing the job they are paid
to
> >do?
> >>
> >> They are doing what they're paid to do.
> >
> >Which is obviously socially indoctrinating the kids.
>
> Partially. That is of course what the voters, via their legislators, have
> required the public schools to do.
Sorry, but a lot of it is motiviated from the inside, especially with the
NEA. The educrats unions are particularly strident with initiating and
pushing their own agenda on the schools. Look at how educrats are fighting
the repeal of affirmative action and ESL in California schools, even when
the voters have expressed their will at the ballot box.
> >Unfortunately, most
> >parenst would prefer that their kids actually LEARN basic skills in
school,
> >which is where the public schools are failing.
>
> Most of the time, if the kid is not learning, it is NOT because the
teachers
> are not teaching, but rather because the student is not applying himself.
> The teachers can lead the horses to water, but cannot make them drink.
Sometimes yes, and I don't doubt that irresponsible parenting shares some of
the blame. At the same time, I know of plenty of bright, otherwise motivated
kids who are completely turned off by schools that fail to challenge them,
adjust their educational programs to fit to the lowest common demoninator,
or spend time pushing fluff courses or the socio-political agenda of the
school. I recall my own experience in high-school, where I was completely
bored shitless listening to imcompetent teachers conducting classes at such
a low level that it was insulting to the majority of the class. I would
ditch class, hang out at the public library, and read books - mainly on
science, technology, and military history, which were far more interesting
than the "social studies" crap being pushed by the district. The librarians
didn't hassle me (they figured out I was better off there than out on the
street), but one day one of the substitute teachers spotted me there, and
notified the principal. When I went to the office to explain why I wasn't in
class, I told him that I learned more at the library than I did in class,
which bored the shit out of me: His response?
(1) The purpose of high school was NOT for education, but for "social
conditioning".
(2) It was important that I attended school on a daily basis, so that the
district could receive it's funding.
(3) Unsupervised learning was not healthy, because it could not be explained
in the right "social context".
Further experience confirmed my already reinforced suspicion that education
of the individual was/is not high on the priority list of the educrat
community. Obtaining and receiving funding is more of an priority than
seeing if the funds are used wisely, or ensuring that kids actually learn
anything useful. The idea that public schools (and unfortunately, many
universities) think that social activism is part of their charter isn't
especially reassuring either.
> >> Anecdotal "evidence" that
> >> only represents a small portion of the "problem", promoted as "the"
> >> problem is pure bullshit propaganda.
> >
> >If it's just propaganda, why are many high-school graduates incapable of
> >doing elementary school math?
>
> Relatively few, actually. And when they can't do it, it is not because
they
> haven't been taught, but more often because they haven't maintained their
> skills during high school and have forgotten what they once knew.
We rank dead-last among industrial nations in high-school math skills. Part
of the problem is that math is taught poorly or limited in scope, thanks to
the incompetence of many math teachers. Turns out that many liberal-arts
majors who become adminstrators are offended by the fact that COMPETENT math
and science teachers can command far better salaries in the real world, and
fight any efforts to provide higher pay to those with more useful skills,
leading to the phenomena of PE and sociology majors teaching math.
> >Why must we test freshman college students
> >for math and reading skills, and offer remedial courses in colleges? Can
you
> >answer those questions?
>
> Because by definition, 50% of the kids have to be below average.
Below average doesn't mean that have to be illiterate or incapable of doing
basic arithmetic and simple algebra, skills that should have been tought by
sixth grade.
> Right now,
> around 60% of kids go to college, so some chunk of the kids will have to
be
> below average in skills. They gear college classes of course for the
average
> or even the above average kids, so some kids will be unable to work at the
> needed level.
If they can't perform at that level, why are they getting high school
diplomas in the first place? Or, is it easier for public school educrats to
push "social promotion" in high school, various affirmative action games to
get kids in colleges where they don't belong, then blame society/racism/evil
nasty corporate capitalism/whatever when they can't hack it in the real
world?
> >> >> "teaching" about those issues, recognizes that people have rights,
> >> >> sensitivities,
> >> >
> >> >There's a BIG difference between acknowledging that all individuals
have
> >> >rights (which I have never disagreed with) and conducting
> >> >mini-indoctrination programs to convince impressionable young minds
that
> >> >certain lifestyle CHOICES (such as homosexuality, to be blunt) are
somehow
> >> >healthy and desirable, which they are clearly not.
> >>
> >> "promoting lifestyles" is propaganda put out by religious fuckwits,
> >> you moron.
> >
> >What do you call it when children are taught about homosexual behavior
and
> >practices in grade school?
>
> Probably right wing propaganda.
You mean, "Heather has 2 daddies" is a scheme by the VRWC? Gimme a break.
> At most, kids would be taught that there ARE
> such people as homosexuals, and that they have to be accepted just like
> everyone else.
Bullshit, it goes far beyond that. In California and Massachusetts, they
literally endorse the homsexual lifestyle with role-playing games, and
descriptions of activity that are totally inappropriate for children. Groups
like the NEA and the ACLU are heavily influenced by gay advocates who use
the schools to indoctrinate impressionable children with their own agenda:
BOTH MY MOMS ARE NAMED JUDY - Elementary school kids talk about their gay
and lesbian "mommies" and "daddies".
IT'S ELEMENTARY: TALKING ABOUT GAY ISSUES IN SCHOOL - Advocates addressing
gay and lesbian issues in elementary school. Forget the fact that Johnny
can't read, at least he knows all about "diversity".
http://www.aclunc.org/youth/teachers_videos.html
> Since most likely at least a couple kids in the school will
> have a homosexual or bisexual parent, such education is the minimum
essential
> for a safe environment for such children.
There's a vast difference between making it clear to kids that initiating
violence against others because of their race, ethnicity, religion, or
social/political views, OR sexual preference, is wrong, and providing a
detailed description of the gay lifestyle, and you damn well know it.
> >There is no need from either a biological or
> >hygeine perspective to teach kids about such topics, as such courses are
> >used to indoctrinate the students into accepting particular views on the
> >subject.
>
> Yes. Like "all men are created equal" (including homosexuals).
And nothing I have stated or advocated refutes individual rights. You're
being silly.
> >> You can't find a single incident that supports the
> >> conclusions that religious assholes INFER from some of the programs.
> >
> >Bullshit, Lefty Liberal groups constantly push propaganda programs to
> >legitimize and endorse homosexuality...
> >
> >B-8. Sexual Orientation Education. The National Education Association
> >recognizes the importance of raising the awareness and increasing the
> >sensitivity of staff, students, parents, and the community to sexual
> >orientation in our society (in other words, teach kids about
homosexuality).
>
> You clearly do not know what "sensitivity training" is. It is a buzzword
> that says that a kid shouldn't go calling another kid a "faggot", or
teasing
> a kid because his mother is a lesbian.
I DAMN well know what 'sensitivity training' is, and have gone through it in
the military, as a government employee, in academia, and in the private
sector. It all boild down to "blame the white male" for the issue of the
day.
> >b. The acceptance of diverse sexual orientation and the awareness of
sexual
> >stereotyping whenever sexuality and/or tolerance of diversity is taught
(in
> >other words, teach that homosexuality is normal).
>
> Homesexuality is TO BE TOLERATED.
Sorry, it's endorsement when painted in glowing terms as an 'alternative
lifestyle'...
> Whether it is "normal" or not, it exists,
> and a student does not have the right to mistreat others based on their
> sexual orientation.
Which I never disagreed with. Unfortunately, you can't make a distinction
between acknowledging that others have rights, and 'educating' others in a
manner that implies endorsement.
> >d. Support for the celebration of a Lesbian and Gay History Month as a
means
> >of acknowledging the contributions of lesbians,
> >gays, and bisexuals throughout history (again, propagandizing
homosexuality
> >in a favorable light).
>
> No. Acknowledging that there are some important people in history whose
> roles have been squelched because of the sexual practices.
Why does it need to be an issue in the first place? If it's a "lifestyle
choice", why don't we teach the kiddies about "Big Tit Lovers through
History" or "Great Contributions to Society from Guys who like Blowjobs from
Hot Blondes"? Are we compelled to tell kids the details of what these
adults do in the privacy of their own homes?
> >B-35. Sex Education. The Association recognizes that the public school
must
> >assume an increasingly important role in providing the instruction.
> >Teachers and health professionals must be qualified to teach in this area
> >and must be legally protected from censorship and lawsuits. (in other
words,
> >to do what they want, without interference from parents who object)
>
> Sex education is mandated by the legislatures, and usually has a parental
> opt-out provision, so obviously parents have the ability to object.
The problem is that teachers and administrators work hard at NOT informing
parents what their kids are being taught, and go far beyond discussing
biological or hygeine issues.
> The
> quoted policy is that the people doing the training should know what it is
> they are supposed to teach (as defined by the legislature), and should not
be
> sued because they are fulfilling their job description.
Educrats have a notorious habit of reinterpreting their job descriptions and
assuming an activist role.
> >School plays have kids saying lines indicating that homosexuality is
normal,
> >and indoctrination sessions condition kids to believe those opposed to
> >same-sex marriages are "homophobes"...
>
> Shakespeare's plays have lines where people advocate murder (Macbeth and
> Julius Caesar) and commit suicide (Romeo and Juliet). Good literature
> generally reflects real life, and there are characters that express all
> manner of opinions.
And it's pretty clear from the context that they aren't activities that are
endorses. I haven't heard of any movies where kids beg acceptance for their
murdering parents, but I would suggest that those are inappropriate as well.
> >> They take a "fact" (maybe explaining why it's wrong to bash gays) and
> >> INFER they are "teaching homosexuality".
> >
> >Sorry, your BS has been exposed. It's deliberate endorsement by groups
such
> >as the NEA, and they freely admit it.
>
> Not according the passages that you've quoted above.
Sorry, you know damn well that the NEA kow-tows to the gay lobby.
>
> >> >> "Education" about the reality of life isn't couched in
> >> >> religious judgmental crap, which is the relevant thread of your
> >> >> whining.
> >> >
> >> >Again, no religious frame of reference or views expressed on my part.
You're
> >> >simply incapable of reasoning on the points I have brought up, and
feel the
> >> >need to respond with emotions.
> >>
> >> EVERY one of your "points' has a religious basis for it.
> >
> >Every one of my points is based on facts and logic. Given that you are
> >incapable of refuting them, they stand.
>
> You're apparent disapproval of homosexuality indicates a religious basis.
Then tell me what religion that I am a member of, or endorse, so I can tell
you that you don't know what you are talking about.
> There is no "logical" basis for your position.
Sure is. It's unnatural (has no biological basis, as heterosexual sex does),
and unhealthy, both medically and psychologically. Your refusal to accept
the obvious suggests that you are either a defensive homosexual, or have
been so indoctrinated by the PC party line that you can't discern fact from
fancy. So, which one is it?
> >> It isn't "proof" to merely claim I'm "appealing emotionally".
> >
> >Ranting, raving, and calling me racist and a religious fanatic (as well
as
> >almost no discussion of the particular point at hand) indicated that your
> >argument is totally an emotional one. It's pretty apparent that you
> >mindlessly adopt whatever political sentiments are in fashion with your
> >circles, and don't think through your positions on subjects. If you did,
you
> >would at least be prepared to deal with the specific points. Instead, you
> >make glaring errors, such as your assumption that vouchers would lower
the
> >per-student spending amounts in public schools, when it's quite clear
that
> >they won't.
>
> Your mistake is in thinking that "per-student spending" is anything other
> than an accounting trick.
How can it be an "accounting trick", especially since it is a central part
of the formula used to determine school funding? Believe me, I would rather
see spending based on test scores or some other objective analysis, but the
fact is that such a formula IS used to distribute money makes you sound
pretty silly when you dismiss it as an "accounting trick".
> The actual money available is less, but the costs
> do not drop quickly by removing students.
Again, many fixed costs (such as schools) are covered by bond issues. While
there is certainly economy of scale in teaching more students, it sounds
like there is too much overhead not related to actual classroom expenses.
Perhaps we need to fire some bureaucrats...
> >> It isn't "emotional appeal" to say that the federal government
> >> STOPPED state and local government from racist polices, it's FACT and
> >> "TRUTH".
> >
> >You haven't provided any basis for your assertion that vouchers are
> >inherently racist, except for your laughable (and hypocritical)
assumption
> >that minorities would deliberately take their children out of good
schools
> >and put them in bas schools, because they don't know any better.
>
> That is not the reason most people consider vouchers to be racist. Rather
it
> is the recognition that the poor are disproportionately minorities, and
> vouchers will help the well-off go to private schools much more than they
> will help the poor do so.
The well-off can already attend private schools. Vouchers give an
alternative to the poor and middle-class that they currently don't have.
> In addition, the private schools that exist
> largely reflect the majority culture, and the same school will not be as
> "good" for minority kids as it is for white kids.
Perhaps schools that reflect the "majority culture" will be BETTER, because
minority kids will learn how to function AND SUCCEED in the mainstream,
instead of being marginalized by cultural separatists pushing their own
race-identity politics.
>> It IS "belief" because you predicate your whining on religious belief.
> >> You speficically underlined your beliefs by appealing "emotionally" to
> >> religous dogma.
> >
> >I specifically outline my arguments, and present data to back them up.
> >Nowhere in this thread have I invoked any religious tenet o endorsed any
> >particular religion or theological belief system.
>
> Statements of morality are religious in nature. You are judging those
whose
> moral choices are different than yours.
True, I do judge people who commit murder, steal, or rob as immoral, who
should be punished. However, I don't extrapolate those positions to people
who do drugs or live unhealthy styles - I accept that people have a right to
live their lives as they see fit. However, I don't buy the idea that we
should endorse such behavior in the schools should be endorsed, and
apparently a lot of other people in this country agree with me.
> Therefore you are writing predicated
> on your religious beliefs.
You're clearly a close-minded Lefty Liberal who can't accept that anyone who
disagrees with your position has a legitimate argument.
> It doesn't matter that we cannot put a label on
> the particular sect that you associate with;
Probably because I don't belong to any religous sect to begin with, loser.
> you are presuming that your
> moral standards should dictate the way the schools are run,
No, I'm arguing that parents have a right to know what their children are
being taught in the way of moral instruction, that the public schools aren't
very responsive to the will of the parents, but that the schools will become
much MORE responsive when the parents have a choice. Sorry your reading
comprehesion abilities are so challenged that you don't get it - are you by
chance a public school teacher? :O(
> as contrasted
> with the mandates of the taxpayer-elected representatives that have
mandated
> otherwise.
Funny, but most of the taxpayer base agrees with my position on this issue,
not yours.
> >You insinuated that the idea that disruptive, violent students be removed
> >from schools where they deleteriously affect the safety and academic
> >performance of other students as somehow akin to Nazi tactics. If you
think
> >that private schools should be required to keep such kids, please outline
> >you reasons. Otherwise, you're sounding like a nut-case.
>
> If they do not keep such kids then they will all be in the public schools,
> because the public schools cannot turn away kids.
Maybe when the public school realize that parents won't send their kids to
schools where the bullies and JDs run amok, they will abandon some of their
misgided touchie-feelie treatment, and start disciplining some of these kids
(and holding their parents accountable as well). If the kids are so far
gone that they can't be made to shape up, then perhaps Anytown, USA will be
reduced to Charles Manson Continuation School. At least they won't be
screwing over the kids that are able and willing to learn.
> Having a higher
> concentration of misbehaving kids means that the standards in the public
> schools would necessarily drop, and the non-misbehaving kids will have
their
> education damaged.
The non-misbehaving kids will still have vouchers. You're having a little
trouble with your argument here - one moment you argue that the schools will
be severely impacted because the kids can leave, the the next moment you
argue that the kids will be hurt because they CAN'T leave. You should try
thinking for yourself instead of mindlessly repeating the canned arguments
of the NEA - it makes you look foolish.
>
> Meanwhile everyone will say that the private schools are "doing a better
> job". But of course a varsity team will outperform a team comprised of
> whoever shows up.
Then those who merely show up better start making the effort.
> >> I said that labeling people was akin to how the nazis started.
> >
> >You mean, like calling people "right-wing nutcases" and "religious
fanatics"
> >merely because they disagree with you on the issue of school vouchers.
You
> >should talk.... :O|
>
> You are calling people "educrats" and "Lefty Liberal groups" merely
because
> they disagree with you.
No, I call them "educrats" (educational bureaucrats) and "Lefty Liberal
groups' (left of center groups) precisely because that's what they are.
However, when you try to smear me with the term "religious fanatic", you
merely make it quite clear that you don't know what the hell you are talking
about...