100 Million for Religious Schools

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:25 am

Caviar - the article doesn't say exactly how much of this 100 M goes to purely religious schools, but judging by the uproar, it may be quite high.

From the article here.

Secular News Daily wrote: In a 225 to 195 vote, the House approved H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act. This legislation reauthorizes and expands the Washington, D.C. Federal private school voucher pilot program, under which millions of Federal taxpayer dollars â€” $100M per year over the next five years â€” are funneled into a voucher system which favors private religious schools over public and charter schools.

...religious schools, which, under this program, are allowed to discriminate in hiring and enrollment on the basis of religion.

...many schools that accepted voucher students did not meet accreditation and other quality education standards, and student achievement did not show statistically significant improvement.

For debate:

Is this a violation of church / state separation?

Could this money be better spent in improving the schools this program is designed to replace?

In a time when so many politicians, including the Speaker of the House, declare we must tighten the budget, is this a wise expenditure?

Is this just pandering to religious voters?

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 5:23 pm

JoeyKnothead wrote:Until we can get a moderator ruling on this study the claimant refuses to present - or retract - I can only conclude that any further conversation on my part is useless.

Until folks are actually expected to support or retract their claims, or the moderators step in to say that unevidenced claims are null and void, I contend this is no longer a debate.

I've already posted a study that supports the claim made in the FOX clip. The FOX clip didn't reference a study, so what are you complaining about?

Now, where's that support for your claim that more school spending improves education results?

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:10 pm

East of Eden wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote:Until we can get a moderator ruling on this study the claimant refuses to present - or retract - I can only conclude that any further conversation on my part is useless.

Until folks are actually expected to support or retract their claims, or the moderators step in to say that unevidenced claims are null and void, I contend this is no longer a debate.
I've already posted a study that supports the claim made in the FOX clip. The FOX clip didn't reference a study, so what are you complaining about?

Now, where's that support for your claim that more school spending improves education results?

According to the study you cited you are correct the amount of money a school has does not correlate strongly towards student performance. What does correlate strongly is student/teacher ratios, how much money the students family has, parental expectations and whether the student has taken a calculus course by twelfth grade. If you take calc and are in the top economic class you are virtually guarranteed(91%) to go on to earn a degree while on the other hand if you are in the lowest economic class and have not taken calc you are virtually guarranteed(7%) to not earn a degree.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:49 pm

East of Eden wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote:Until we can get a moderator ruling on this study the claimant refuses to present - or retract - I can only conclude that any further conversation on my part is useless.

Until folks are actually expected to support or retract their claims, or the moderators step in to say that unevidenced claims are null and void, I contend this is no longer a debate.
I've already posted a study that supports the claim made in the FOX clip. The FOX clip didn't reference a study, so what are you complaining about?

Now, where's that support for your claim that more school spending improves education results?

It's in the "Fox study".

Since you've not been held in any way responsible for citing a study you REFUSE TO PRESENT (or disavow), and since the mods have yet to act on your failure to present this study or retract it, I feel perfectly within the rights of fair play to do me some claiming based on this invisible study.

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:45 pm

JoeyKnothead wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote:Until we can get a moderator ruling on this study the claimant refuses to present - or retract - I can only conclude that any further conversation on my part is useless.

Until folks are actually expected to support or retract their claims, or the moderators step in to say that unevidenced claims are null and void, I contend this is no longer a debate.
I've already posted a study that supports the claim made in the FOX clip. The FOX clip didn't reference a study, so what are you complaining about?

Now, where's that support for your claim that more school spending improves education results?
It's in the "Fox study".

Since you've not been held in any way responsible for citing a study you REFUSE TO PRESENT (or disavow), and since the mods have yet to act on your failure to present this study or retract it, I feel perfectly within the rights of fair play to do me some claiming based on this invisible study.

OK, I retract the words 'FOX study', but not the point they were making, which is supported by my later study post. Happy now?

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:09 pm

East of Eden wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote:Until we can get a moderator ruling on this study the claimant refuses to present - or retract - I can only conclude that any further conversation on my part is useless.

Until folks are actually expected to support or retract their claims, or the moderators step in to say that unevidenced claims are null and void, I contend this is no longer a debate.
I've already posted a study that supports the claim made in the FOX clip. The FOX clip didn't reference a study, so what are you complaining about?

Now, where's that support for your claim that more school spending improves education results?
It's in the "Fox study".

Since you've not been held in any way responsible for citing a study you REFUSE TO PRESENT (or disavow), and since the mods have yet to act on your failure to present this study or retract it, I feel perfectly within the rights of fair play to do me some claiming based on this invisible study.
OK, I retract the words 'FOX study', but not the point they were making, which is supported by my later study post. Happy now?

I never asked you to retract the "words" "fox study".

I ask that you present some form of honor and retract the study referenced by your fox news reference.

Or show us that study.

I swear, it's like pulling hen's teeth with you.

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:20 pm

JoeyKnothead wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote:Until we can get a moderator ruling on this study the claimant refuses to present - or retract - I can only conclude that any further conversation on my part is useless.

Until folks are actually expected to support or retract their claims, or the moderators step in to say that unevidenced claims are null and void, I contend this is no longer a debate.
I've already posted a study that supports the claim made in the FOX clip. The FOX clip didn't reference a study, so what are you complaining about?

Now, where's that support for your claim that more school spending improves education results?
It's in the "Fox study".

Since you've not been held in any way responsible for citing a study you REFUSE TO PRESENT (or disavow), and since the mods have yet to act on your failure to present this study or retract it, I feel perfectly within the rights of fair play to do me some claiming based on this invisible study.
OK, I retract the words 'FOX study', but not the point they were making, which is supported by my later study post. Happy now?
I never asked you to retract the "words" "fox study".

I ask that you present some form of honor and retract the study referenced by your fox news reference.

Or show us that study.

I swear, it's like pulling hen's teeth with you.

I get the same feeling trying you to comprehend English. There was no FOX study, it was their opinion, which was backed up by a study I did post. That has to be about the fifth time I've explained it. Now, where's that study showing more $ = better grades?

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:56 pm

From Post 36:

East of Eden wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote: I never asked you to retract the "words" "fox study".

I ask that you present some form of honor and retract the study referenced by your fox news reference.

Or show us that study.

I swear, it's like pulling hen's teeth with you.
I get the same feeling trying you to comprehend English...

Your Fox reference refers to a study.

I ask you for the umpteenth time to either present the study or retract it.

East of Eden wrote: ... Now, where's that study showing more $ = better grades?

It's in that study your source references.

See how it works?

If you get to get away with presenting claims without anything to back them up, I contend what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I don't think I'm being childish about this. If we can't hold a claimant to responsibility for their claims - and here the claim refers to a study that has yet to be presented - or if the claimant refuses to retract, and if the moderators won't rule such unevidenced claims invalid, I contend we are NOT debating, and the very name of this site becomes a bit of a fraud or some sort of false advertising.

I say again...

Do you have the honor to retract references to a study you will not or can not present?

If not, I expect to see this study.

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:36 pm

JoeyKnothead wrote:

Your Fox reference refers to a study.

No it doesn't.

It's in that study your source references.

See how it works?

I already gave you a source study for the FOX claim, where's yours?

If you get to get away with presenting claims without anything to back them up,

I know, you are doing exactly that.

I don't think I'm being childish about this.

Why, whatever gave you that idea?

If we can't hold a claimant to responsibility for their claims - and here the claim refers to a study that has yet to be presented - or if the claimant refuses to retract, and if the moderators won't rule such unevidenced claims invalid, I contend we are NOT debating, and the very name of this site becomes a bit of a fraud or some sort of false advertising.

We aren't debating, just getting sucked down your patented pissing contests. I haven't heard from the mods on my alleged violation, have you? Still waiting for the study supporting your claim.

Do you have the honor to retract references to a study you will not or can not present?

Do you have the sanity to read the study you keep asking for and stop the silliness?

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 12:11 am

Until I can understand why the moderators have not commented on the challenged study, I will have no further comment.

How can I possibly debate the results of a study that has yet to be presented?

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:33 am

JoeyKnothead wrote:Until I can understand why the moderators have not commented on the challenged study, I will have no further comment.

Allow me to hazard a guess: The mods are ignoring you because I retracted the phrase 'FOX study' and posted a study that verified the opinions FOX gave. Why do you keep ignoring the study I did post, and when are you going to support your contention that more spending = better school results?

5th Challenge

How can I possibly debate the results of a study that has yet to be presented?

It has been.