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 ...

[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.

[cbkaty]

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".

Agreed...that once money is sent to the government it becomes public money...

My position is to never send it as long as I can prove I spent it on my child's education...there is no need to turn $100 into $50...by paying a bureaucracy to mismanage it. We all know the gubmint is well versed in creating waste....

[mcvey]

Education ping list
Let Republicanprofessor, JamesP81, eleni121 or McVey know if you wish to be placed on this ping list or taken off of it.

[mcvey]

EEE:

The first step to returning our schools is to create a mindset that says that local communities and individual families CAN school their own children.

I get your point, but I think this a way to get people more accustomed to (and more interested in) localization and privitization.


McVey
Just my two cents . . . .

[mcvey]

CottonBall:

I live right in the heart of an inner city. The parents here do not have the slightest, teenyist, tinyest view of what it takes to succed. No (and I mean NO) grasp of the world beyond their own neighborhoods. I put on post on FR the other day because I went ballistic in a faculty meeting over affirmative action and actually carried the day. Affirmative action in this neighborhood would be a joke. No one here has the background or the skills learned in the family to reach the bottom of the affirmative action ladder.

No Freeper will be surprised to learn that government aid simply deepens the problems because it reinforces the dysfunctional behaviors.

The poor will be, as you indicate, shorted in this program. But we have to get the kids out of here. I know that while some will make, most will not--and some of our local leaders will paint the whole thing as a conservative conspiracy to break up the educational system and undermine the cultures that exist in this area.

Ok, end of rant.

McVey

[Amelia]

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.:)

One problem with that is that district funding per child is an average. Some children cost much more than others.

According to law (based on court decisions) even very severely handicapped are entitled to be educated in the public schools. I have seen students who are legally adults (ages 18-22), but are wheelchair bound and who basically are mentally toddlers - they can't speak, must be fed, have diapers changed, etc. - who are students in the public school system. Those students are very expensive for the system. They are in very small classes with lots of equipment, and some of them have teachers' aides whose only job is to care for one student.

I am not trying to sound coldhearted toward disabled children, but they do change the average "per pupil expenditures", sometimes drastically.

I wonder which private schools would take these children, and what the cost for the district would be then?

Someone will probably mention the schools wanting to diagnose children as ADHD to get additional funds, which may happen in some districts, but that's not what I am talking about.

[blitzgig]

The more choices in schools people have, the more likely their children will get a decent education, and the more likely underperforming schools will have to scramble to improve themselves to catch up with the competition.

[Amelia]

The Bush administration requested the school-choice plan, but Tuesday's media event caused some awkwardness for the Education Department. The agency just released a study that raises questions about whether private schools offer any advantage over public ones.

Interesting quote from the article.

[Always Right]

What the heck took so long?

There is now an actual threat of them losing power.

[WhiteGuy]

This could not possibly be another

election-year distraction or pandering could it?

[M0sby]

"According to law (based on court decisions) even very severely handicapped are entitled to be educated in the public schools. I have seen students who are legally adults (ages 18-22), but are wheelchair bound and who basically are mentally toddlers - they can't speak, must be fed, have diapers changed, etc. - who are students in the public school system. Those students are very expensive for the system. They are in very small classes with lots of equipment, and some of them have teachers' aides whose only job is to care for one student.

I am not trying to sound coldhearted toward disabled children, but they do change the average "per pupil expenditures", sometimes drastically."

You are NOT KIDDING on that assessment.
I have worked in special ed. for almost 17 years.
At our school we have the program for the severely/profoundly disabled.
As you say, these are students who do not communicate (even with the most amazing of adaptive equipment)do not walk, or really have any capacity to learn. And, these students basically going to be in this same condition for the rest of their lives. (baring any not-yet-available medical intervention).
IQ's in the 20-50 range and not EVEN approaching the abilities of toddlers.
It is a very "hard to deal with" lot.
Do they deserve and education? Well, the soft hearted part of me says, "Of course they do. Every child deserves at least a chance". But are they getting a chance? When they they do not have the capacity to "learn"..even just a tiny bit?
We have between 7-9 students in our program (14-21 year olds).
There are usually 6-8 staff people working in the program at any given time. One is a teacher. The others are speech and language pathologists, occupational and physical therapists, behavior technicians, special education paraprofessionals and one-on-one aides.
The cost is STAGGERING.
We have other very expensive programs in the district as well. But, the difference is, that in the other REALLY expensive programs (the programs for severely autistic children for example) the students are making PROGRESS. Measurable progress.
And, some of the programs, (those for the mildly to moderately retarded for example) I believe SAVE tax payers money in the long run. For every lunch or dinner a student with Downs learns to make...that is one less dinner or lunch that will have to be made FOR THEM by an attendant. And that is a lifelong savings.
Also, our mild-moderate students spend massive amounts of time learning to WORK.
Those parts of special ed are worth every penny (in my opinion). And, it is the "right thing to do" with and for these students.
But the severe/profound students...
I just don't know.