Posted on 07/05/2002 6:49:32 AM PDT by capecodder
I don't have any quarrel with the GI bill, but I recognize that it is an entitlement that is extended to veterans. And I don't care if people want to call it welfare. It is what it is.
And it helped a lot of people.
What makes you think someone is more likely to feel "entitled" to a voucher just because that voucher come from the feds as opposed to it coming from the state or the school district? If they don't want the voucher now (and our district's program isn't even at its maximum yet), what makes you think they'll want it then?
Also, right or wrong, vouchers aren't spun like they are a welfare program. That's because voucher opponents (more often Dummycrats) would have a lot of nerve going there considering how they've allowed some of these same families to get welfare under AFDC.
That will change the minute a private school cashes a federal voucher. That's what this is going to become before you know it; a federal welfare program.You're assuming that the Feds will demand those changes. Considering that programs are already in place in Cleveland and Milwaukee without those demands/changes, I would have to figure otherwise.
And as for not breaking my bank account, I only propose that the monies that I would otherwise spend on public schools (i.e, those tax dollars that I'm already spending) be spent on private schools.
What I'm proposing is using it based on a collegiate model. In other words, this opens the playing field. It won't eliminate the haves/have nots situation; on the contrary - those schools that do not choose to participate will price themselves up and out of that arena. The schools like Choate or Sidwell Friends will price themselves completely out of the general marketplace.
The public schools will be forced to compete by cutting costs. Among the costs that will end up going away are those extortion fees paid to the unions. The NEA will try to strike, but in a painful process, the schools (who want to compete and survive) will have to eliminate those costs. Using the same model, those that want to exceed will have to pay for quality teachers. Those who are just passing time for a check will end up by the wayside.
The rising tide will raise all the boats. This is what the GOP is interested in. It is a far cry from a welfare program. What I'm interested in isn't a hand-out. I don't care if it's a tax rebate-based voucher or credit. I don't want to have to be forced to pay money into the failing public schools, as I am forced to now.
The NEA will wail and cry and insist that they are working in the best interest of the children, but we all know otherwise. I'm sorry you can't see that.
You're automatically insisting that the "current waste" will continue under a more competitive program. The public schools will be forced to compete. They will be forced to cut wasteful spending and budgeting. They will be forced to get rid of excess overhead. It'll either be that or die.
The NEA, NAACP and all kinds of others will wail and gnash their teeth and fuss and have a veritable fit. I think the Feds could administer this just as well as the states. I think there would be plenty of overhead in the beginning, but the larger problem (and the primary reason that the Feds would have to get involved) is that there are states (like Georgia's Democratic administration) where the governor and the state administration have vowed not to make vouchers available to the citizenry.
I would prefer the vouchers to be administered on a state level, in any event. State collegiate level programs (like Georgia's HOPE Scholarship program) have a much better track record than Federal programs; I am sure that would remain the case on the grade school level. You get no arguement from me on that. I insist, however, that once the schools are forced into a competitive situation, that as a direct result of decreased costs, that the NEA will lose much (if not all) of their power. The schools will (in many cases) dump union teachers and hire from outside their ranks; once this happens, the better teachers will find positions in schools where they desire results - the ones who are only there for a check (and today find themselves protected by the Unions) will fall by the wayside.
I have to reiterate - I have no desire to pay for substandard public schools where wasting money is the norm. All I am asking is for me to have a say in where my dollars go. Of course, by asking that, the Dems turn me (and everyone else here who wants that) into some kind of heartless pariah. Now if asking for the opportunity to direct my own school dollars is a form of welfare, then maybe I don't understand what welfare is.
"I think the Feds could administer this just as well as the states." - mhking, post number 230.
Their eyes are wide open, Twodees. A lot of people who support vouchers want the entitlement to education and they want to be able to spend that entitlement at private schools. Whether they are in the majority or not remains to be seen, but I think that they understand exactly what it is they want.
You don't understand what and where these will benefit. That's fine. But you're as bad as the guy last week who got on this RINO kick with J.C. Watts.
You've got no clue as to what belt tightening is - otherwise, you wouldn't make such a statement. I'm not going to go on a rant about how hard my life is; that's immaterial here.
What is material is that you and I are on the same page about public schools being inferior to private schools. Given that, what is the problem with demanding not to have to pay into such a system?
Not only that, what's wrong with getting my money back out of that system?
Here's the other side of the coin here - the vouchers cannot and will not be able to pay the entire freight for most private schools. This alone will keep quite a few in the public schools right where they are.
I'm done with your circular logic. When you come back from throwing up, let this one alone. We obviously aren't on the same page overall, and won't be.
The liberal voters of the teachers unions? Or Black parents in central Cleveland? We willhave school choice -- and that means vouchers. The public school system must adapt and change -- or become warehouses for the dysfunctional (teachers and students). Those public schools that survive and thrive will meet the competition by emulating it -- educating youngsters.
The liberal voters of every color and background who have awakened to the fact that the schools suck, but still want nanny government to fix it for them.
We willhave school choice -- and that means vouchers.
Why does that mean vouchers? We can have school choice right now without vouchers by closing down the DoEd and returning control of the schools to the county school boards. Without federal help, the NEA is busted and has no control. The choice issue belongs to the counties first. We have a much better chance of changing things at the county level concerning school taxes than we do at the state or federal level.
The public school system must adapt and change -- or become warehouses for the dysfunctional (teachers and students).
You seem to be in need of a remedial course in current events. Public schools in many areas of the country have been warehouses for children and asylums for incompetent bureaucrats for decades. Functional children become dysfunctional in those warehouses.
Those public schools that survive and thrive will meet the competition by emulating it -- educating youngsters.
Yes, that's the goal, but that goal can be met more quickly by throwing off government and union influence rather than by feeding it an adjusted diet.
Thanks for reposting this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.