Republicans Unveil School Voucher Plan

Breitbart.com ^ | 18 July 2006 | BEN FELLER

[ChessExpert]

Congressional Republicans on Tuesday proposed a $100 million plan to let poor children leave struggling schools ...

[Clintonfatigued]

It's a step in the right direction.

[PajamaTruthMafia]

What the heck took so long?

[GianniV]

Racist!

[Blackirish]

What the heck took so long?

---

They ran out of pork barrel projects.

[TXBubba]

to let poor children leave struggling schools ...

If taxes keep going up that will eventually apply to all children.

[uptoolate]

"Parents could get $4,000 per year to put toward private-school tuition or a public school outside their local district. They could also seek up to $3,000 per year for extra tutoring."

Supporters say poor parents deserve choices, like rich families have. When schools don't work, said Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, "parents must have other opportunities."

We make 74k a year, homeschool 3 kids, pay appx. 3k per year for materials for all 3 kids, and yet somehow I feel like I've been discriminated against.

Do you think we'll qualify as "poor parents"?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Typical Republicans.

Instead of going to the source (Killing the Dept of Education and giving control back to local communities) they have to come up with another big-government "conservative" program.

Vouchers are nothing but trojan horses.

[LuxMaker]

What the heck took so long?

Well we had to get through 8 years of Klinton first.

[Shermy]

"Vouchers are nothing but trojan horses."

Yjr Scientologists will be at the trough lickety-split.

[Republicanprofessor]

I'm still spaced from our never-ending trip, so I'll let you do the pinging.

[CottonBall]

Under the new legislation, the vouchers would mainly go to students in poor schools that have failed to meet their progress goals for at least five straight years.

At first, I thought this was great - but not if it's only for the 'poor'. Once the definition of that gets established, it will benefit very few. And the reason many schools are failing is that the parents don't care. I'll bet most won't use the vouchers and/or still won't monitor their children's schoolwork.

Vouchers for everyone would be much better.

[FlashBack]

But what's it going to look like after Teddy K and the boys get ahold of it?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Vouchers for everyone would be much better.

Vouchers + tax dollars = Still Federal Control

Cut the taxes and spending, parents will have money to send their kids to any school they wish, competition among schools will drive down prices, and kids will get a better education without government and liberal meddling.

[uptoolate]

Yes!!!! As long as the money goes to the government, where somehow they change the name of it from 'my money' to 'their money', they will always be able to tell you how and on what you can spend what use to be called 'your money'.

[pissant]

Damn, Bush has been calling for this since he got into office. Get a move on it already.

[Element187]

Vouchers are nothing but trojan horses.

sorry your living in a dream world .. government education will always be here and teachers unions are making sure of that... school vouchers is not the end all be all to solving our nations education problem, but its a good start to try and correct the mistakes... the vouchers create competition among schools, thus raising the quality of education.... if free enterprise has taught us anything, competition is the only way to achieve greatness.

[speekinout]

The legislation would cover all students in *poor schools*, not just *poor people*. Although it is too often true that poor schools are in poor neighborhoods.

Getting kids out of poor schools, no matter what their economic class is, should be our first priority.

[Old Landmarks]

But if the Government (public) Schools no longer had a monopoly, they would not be able to kick God out and indoctrinate other people's children into immorality and socialism. The judge created secular humanist monopoly would end and secular humanism and liberalism would suffer.

[CottonBall]

Getting kids out of poor schools, no matter what their economic class is, should be our first priority.

Seems like a Catch-22. The bad schools are bad primarily because of the students - and their parents - not caring. Putting them elsewhere will just drive down whatever other school they're in.

[CottonBall]

Cut the taxes and spending, parents will have money to send their kids to any school they wish, competition among schools will drive down prices, and kids will get a better education without government and liberal meddling.

Sounds good. Unlikely, but good.

[Tired of Taxes]

I'm not a supporter of vouchers. I want government out of education altogether, and education sold on the free market.

Many homeschoolers that I know see it the same way, but maybe some are supportive. I'm not sure. I'll give it a ping.

[Tired of Taxes]

Homeschool Ping!

If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.

Are you a homeschooler looking for advice from other homeschoolers? Visit our Free Republic Homeschoolers' Forum 2006-2007.

[diamond6]

bttt

[beaversmom]

We are lower middle class--I'm sure we wouldn't qualify. So the people in the middle get left out? How is this equal treatment?

[goldstategop]

Don't worry. The Senate Democrats will filibuster school choice to death.

(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em, Down Hezbullies.)

[no dems]

This is a great election year ploy. Go for it!!! It'll never pass because the NEA is too powerful of a lobby but it can work to our advantage in November.

Another issue the GOP should find some way to raise right before the midterm elections: Reparations for Black America. That's a win/win situation for the Pubbies.

[beaversmom]

Thanks for the ping TX. I'll never see vouchers--with my luck it will happen after all three kids are out of school. I'm sure you wouldn't mind seeing vouchers either. Did I tell you they've got another charter school opening here in 2007? That will be #2 boy's kindergarten year so we are on the waiting list for that. They are still in the process of getting approval, getting a site, and getting staff. Hopefully it will go through and turn out to be something good. The lady that is starting this school said it will be all boy and all girl classes. She said they would take kids with learning disabilities as well so we will see.

[KantianBurke]

"Typical Republicans. Instead of going to the source (Killing the Dept of Education and giving control back to local communities) they have to come up with another big-government "conservative" program."

Bingo! Or haven't you forgotten this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/975049/posts

"Over the course of an hour-long meeting with Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, we took great care to give him every opportunity to explain himself fully so that nothing could be misunderstood. The result was a surprisingly frank admission that the Republican Party defines “fiscal responsibility” as increasing the federal budget at “a slower rate of growth” than the Democrats (his words).

We asked him three times to explain why President Bush and the Republican Congress have increased discretionary non-defense spending at such an alarming rate, and why the party has embraced the expansion of the federal government’s roles in education, agriculture and Great Society-era entitlement programs.

“Those questions have been decided,” was his response. The public wants an expanded federal role in those areas, and the Republican Party at the highest levels has decided to give the public what it wants."

[wintertime]

Clintonfatigued,

It is not a step in the right direction.

As much as I favor vouchers and tax credits, education is NOT delegated as a responsibility of the federal government. If the federal government starts handing out vouchers then our Constitution is further weakened.

Also, if the federal government takes over the role of voucher dispenser then the experimentation that would have occurred on the state level will have been short circuited and the best system will not have the opportunity to emerge.

[wintertime]

Instead of going to the source (Killing the Dept of Education and giving control back to local communities) they have to come up with another big-government "conservative" program.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Very typically Republican, indeed! They should be killing the Department of Education, exactly!

They make me sick!

[wintertime]

At first, I thought this was great - but not if it's only for the 'poor'. ( Cotton Ball)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The best way to begin privatizing government education is to start handing tuition bills to the well off when they show up at the government school with their little darlings.

Government education is the biggest entitlement to the middle and upper classes after social security.

[wintertime]

the vouchers create competition among schools

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Element, I completely agree with you but it ticks me off how the Republicans go about it.

The Republicans should be working on this on the state level. And the on the federal level they should be abolishing the Department of Education.

[Calpernia]

Kill the NEA.

[Non-Sequitur]

It's a step in the right direction.

It's a government hand out for something that the parents are unable or unwilling to do for themselves. It is also a government subsidy for private schools. If the government is going to subsidize those schools then why shouldn't the government have a say over what is taught and who gets admitted? Is that what you want? Is there any doubt that the next Democrat administration won't do exactly that?

[cbkaty]

Again...the middle class pays the bills and the "poor" get special treatment.. The code word "poor" has a very special meaning in politics...

Why should any child be forced to attend a falled government school?

[Non-Sequitur]

I personally think every family should be given the equivalent funds your district spends per child in public school and that amount be deducted from thier operating bugget - but one step at time.:)

There is no reason whatsoever why you yourself cannot put your children in private schools. There are no laws to prevent it. Lord knows that there are a lot of private schools out there. The only thing that prevents it is that you are unwilling to foot the expense. So your solution is for the government to subsidize you and pay for something you are unwilling to pay for yourself. And you see nothing wrong with that?

[Non-Sequitur]

...school vouchers is not the end all be all to solving our nations education problem, but its a good start to try and correct the mistakes.

When the government gets into the business of providing something that parents are unwilling to pay for themselves then why shouldn't the govenrment have a say over where their money is going? Why shouldn't the government be able to tell the schools what to teach and how to teach it? Who they must let in and who they cannot keep out? And if the government can do all that then how long before all private schools are at the same level as public schools?

[cbkaty]

So your solution is for the government to subsidize you and pay for something you are unwilling to pay for yourself.

Absolutely not.... I pay school taxes to the tune of 2% of the assessed value of my property each year... Why should I not have the right to direct that funding to the school of my choice, beit public or private?

That is NOT government funding...it came from my pocket.

[Non-Sequitur]

This is a great election year ploy. Go for it!!!

Yes, taking your tax money and giving it to others willy-nilly is always a great election year ploy. And a great use of federal funds, too. </sarcasm>

[cbkaty]

...and by the way, I also pay $7,000 per year for my child's private school education...plus my school taxes.

Seems that since my child is NOT in the public system, he therefor is of "no cost" to the public school system...yet I still must fund that pathetic criminal organization with it's $100,000,000 palaces...they call schools. Nice buildings but extremely poor instruction...

[Non-Sequitur]

That is NOT government funding...it came from my pocket.

And how much of that tax money went to education, if I may ask? Let's look at my home state for example. Kansas funds schools through the income taxes, local municipalities are strictly limited as to how much local property tax income can go to schools. In Kansas the average family of 4 earns about $50,000 per year. That means that after deductions they pay about $1800 to $2000 per year in state income taxes. About half the budget goes to education, including universities and colleges, so an average families tax burden for schools is probably less than $1000. So anything in vouchers over that $1000 or so is a subsidy, given to the family by the government to pay for something the family is unwilling to pay for. And if you limit the voucher to the equivilent of the income taxes that they pay for education then you're left with trying to educate two kids on less than a thousand dollars. I don't know about private school tuitions where you live, but if I had two kids in the local Catholic high school I'd be paying close to $11,000 per year. I can't afford that, certainly could not on an average family income, even with the $1000 voucher. So voucher programs are a government subsidy, and a way for government contol over private schools.

[Non-Sequitur]

...and by the way, I also pay $7,000 per year for my child's private school education...plus my school taxes.

That is your choice as a parent, and unfortunately your responsibility as a tax payer. My state's constitution says that the state will establish and maintain a public school system. And they do. I may not like it all the time but it's there and I can take advantage of it or not as the case may be. But my state's constitution does not say it will subsidize a private school system. And I'm not willing to see that change.

Seems that since my child is NOT in the public system, he therefor is of "no cost" to the public school system...

Since neither my myself or any member of my family is incarcerated in a state penitentiary then I'm not costing the state criminal justice system a dime. In fact in the 13 years I've lived here I've never had to call the police, never been ticketed, never been the victim of crime. Yet my taxes all support therm.

[cbkaty]

And how much of that tax money went to education, if I may ask?

100%...we have no state income tax... School taxes in Texas are direct. I pay 2% of the assessed value of all my property every year...and that's based on forever escallating property values....

Please keep in mind that I am not suggesting that the state pay my child's private school bill...all I am saying is allow me to direct what I pay in school taxes to the school of my choice. If that school costs more, then I pay that from my pocket too...

[tkathy]

The middle class, who would pay for this, would never see a penny of this.

[cbkaty]

Since neither my myself or any member of my family is incarcerated in a state penitentiary then I'm not costing the state criminal justice system a dime

That logic doesn't play here....

I have no problem paying school taxes...I simply believe that parents should be allowed to direct funding to the school of their choice.... This introduces competition...which is always a good thing.

It's really not that complicated....except maybe for those under-educated in sub-standard and dangerous public scrools....

[William Terrell]

That is NOT government funding...it came from my pocket.

Haven't you noticed that anytime the federal government disburses money to any person, organization or state, the federal government regulates that recipient? There are no end of court, including the Supreme Court, rulings that government financial involvement in anything gives the government the right to interfere.

It may have been originally your money, but once it gets to the government it becomes "public" money, and giving "public" money means regulatory agencies have the "duty" to insure it is spent "responsibly".

Therefore, if a voucher program is started it won't be long before the curriculum in any private school that accepts a student that is government funded must accept changes. You know, teach exactly what you go to a private school to avoid exposing your child to?

[Element187]

When the government gets into the business of providing something that parents are unwilling to pay for themselves then why shouldn't the govenrment have a say over where their money is going? Why shouldn't the government be able to tell the schools what to teach and how to teach it? Who they must let in and who they cannot keep out? And if the government can do all that then how long before all private schools are at the same level as public schools?

the government isn't getting into the business of providing the education any longer... instead of our tax money of 15k per child to attend government education, the money is now diverted in a voucher so a parent can send their children to a higher quality school...if anything that will make all govenrment run education more competitive, and encourage more private companys to start opening schools.

[netmilsmom]

My girls will go to school.