100 Million for Religious Schools

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

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 — $100M per year over the next five years — 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?

[Wyvern]

So you are advocating a new welfare program.

What are you talking about now?

Giving people money without an exchange of goods or services sounds like welfare to me.

My party? You are under the mistaken notion that I am a member of any political party. You can suspect all you want but if this is what you suspect you would be wrong.

OK, how about I change 'party' to 'liberal movement'?

you're making yet another assumption that is unfounded. I'm simply against the unjustified redirecting of funds from where it is supposed to go.

How can I consider this a serious comment considering the contortions you had to perform to be able to insert your favorite whipping boy of the moment into the conversation.

You mean like you bringing up Palin?

If you keep bringing up Ayers I see no reason not to do the same with Palin.

That you automatically assume that there are bureaucrats just hanging around doing nothing is a joke and that you seem to think this is a reflection of reality is just sad.

What's sad is the fact you are ignorant this is going on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/2 ... 19336.html

Note in NYC 700 teachers, including those charged with sex offenses, are doing nothing all day at a cost of $65,000,000. Explain how this helps to educate kids? I guess at least they aren't doing any damage to the kids.

Who said I'm unaware of this situation? 60 minutes did a piece on it years ago. NYC is by far the largest school district in the country with over 1.1 million students and more than 80,000 teachers. In any other district 700 idle teachers would sound like a huge number but here it is less than one percent of the total. Would you rather have sex offenders teaching children? It should also be noted that teachers are not bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are the people that support the teachers.

Except under your proposed program they would be given 3k per child that goes to a private school

while the public school doesn't have to spend $6K educating that kid. They just made $3K.

while not paying anything into the public education coffers which you want to fund this whole thing.

Will you quite making stuff up? For the umpteenth time, I never said that.

People that live in apartments pay no property taxes but under your system would still be allowed into this proposed system of yours. As previously stated just because a student leaves the system doesn't mean the money isn't still being spent due to fixed expenses such as wages and maintenance so your argument that one less student means the district is saving money is not true.

I remember you saying not to long ago that your proposed program would actually be a positive to the schools. Unless you are also proposing to drastically change how property taxes work this can only end up destroying public education.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Take enough money out of the public education funds and pretty soon it will not have enough money left to function.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12782972 I guess you haven't been paying attention to the news.

Thank you, but there was no Congressional approval as Bush obtained.

You asked for proof of my claim that the action was UN approved. You claimed Obama unilaterally began this action, I simply pointed out that was not the case. Gonna keep moving those goal posts?

Be careful what you ask for, if unions are not allowed to support campaigns then neither would corporations.

You're making stuff up again, I never said unions shouldn't be able to support campaigns, I said union members should be able to opt out of having their dues support candidates they disagree with. Who could oppose that?

Hey why not let everyone that doesn't agree with any of the nations policies to opt out. Wow first you propose expanding welfare and now you want to increase the size of government, you're sounding more like a liberal every day.

American citizens today are being forced through their taxes to support policies they disagree with.

Like Obamacare?

Exactly, and to carry out your proposal to have the taxes people pay to be selectively directed towards only the programs they like will require a massive increase in the governments bureaucracy, same things with your proposal for teachers union dues.

Ayers never killed anyone, could you provide evidence that he did. While you're at it also provide proof that the Weathermen declared war on the US. The last time that secessionists got any political traction it turned into the bloodiest comflict in US history. I guess it's true if you don't know history its easy to make the same mistakes.

If he didn't kill anyone, it was sheer luck.

Not luck at all, his group went to lengths to minimize injuries. Just because you want to make him look as bad as possible in order to smear Obama can't hide the facts.

"Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days.

Did anyone die?

Some media reports and political critics have suggested that Ayers, Dohrn or the Weathermen were connected to the fatal 1970 San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing but neither Ayers nor anyone else has been charged or convicted of this crime.[19] Wikipedia

I guess you missed the part that said he was not charged or convicted. And why is it you accept what the MSM says in this matter but demigrate it at every turn in any matter that does not agree with you.

Is that someone the future President of the United States should have been associating with?

Only if you think a person is incapable of changing over a thirty year period, which is when he reportedly said these things.

Last time I checked a child was not a machine nor is education in the manufacturing sector. If this person wanted to make a valid comparison he would have used the service sector. If you can find a way to incorporate automation into education(which is how manufacturing got most of its productivity gains)I'd back it. Children are not machines, there is no education assembly line where you have teachers busily bolting on bits of knowledge.

We should treat kids education at least as seriously as we do manufacturing, instead of coddling an expensive, inefficient monopoly.

Education already isn't a monopoly. Instead of comparing children to machines maybe you should treat them like the immature humans they are.

Back in the nineteenth century they tried privatizing fire fighting, it didn't work the competing fire fighters would fight each other and let the fires burn. There are a number of private prisons already, with little to no savings. In my area garbage collection is entirely private and has been for as long as I've been alive, one of my granduncles was a garbage collector.

Why are you so afraid of competition?

Who said I'm afraid of competition? I just recognize the fact that privatization is not an appropriate solution for all problems.

[East of Eden]

Giving people money without an exchange of goods or services sounds like welfare to me.

You must have welfare on the brain, I never proposed welfare.

you're making yet another assumption that is unfounded.

No I'm not, I've never seen you take a conservative position here.

If you keep bringing up Ayers I see no reason not to do the same with Palin.

In post 48 you brought up Palin first.

Who said I'm unaware of this situation? 60 minutes did a piece on it years ago. NYC is by far the largest school district in the country with over 1.1 million students and more than 80,000 teachers. In any other district 700 idle teachers would sound like a huge number but here it is less than one percent of the total. Would you rather have sex offenders teaching children?

I would rather they be fired, and prosecuted for their offense.

It should also be noted that teachers are not bureaucrats.

Bureaucrat or teacher, it is wasting money that should be going to the kids.

Bureaucrats are the people that support the teachers.

Yes, why are there so many more of them in public schools than private ones?

People that live in apartments pay no property taxes but under your system would still be allowed into this proposed system of yours.

Just as they're now allowed to use the public schools. What's the difference?

As previously stated just because a student leaves the system doesn't mean the money isn't still being spent due to fixed expenses such as wages and maintenance so your argument that one less student means the district is saving money is not true.

If under a voucher system less people chose to use the public schools then redundant employees should be fired (maybe they could go work at the private schools) and unneeded buildings could be sold, perhaps to new private schools.

Take enough money out of the public education funds and pretty soon it will not have enough money left to function.

A voucher program would add, not subtract to public school funds. As has been demonstrated, it's not about money anyway.

You asked for proof of my claim that the action was UN approved. You claimed Obama unilaterally began this action, I simply pointed out that was not the case. Gonna keep moving those goal posts?

No goal post being moved, I also said he didn't get Congressional approval. That's somewhat unilateral. I predict that move will earn him a primary challenge from the left.

Hey why not let everyone that doesn't agree with any of the nations policies to opt out.

Would it be OK if private corporations forced employees to give money for GOP campaigns?

Wow first you propose expanding welfare and now you want to increase the size of government, you're sounding more like a liberal every day.

Never said either of those things, it's just wishful thinking on your part.

Exactly, and to carry out your proposal to have the taxes people pay to be selectively directed towards only the programs they like will require a massive increase in the governments bureaucracy,

No it wouldn't, it would most likely reduce the cost of public schools as more people chose other options. How come the left only wants choice when it comes to killing a baby?

Not luck at all, his group went to lengths to minimize injuries. Just because you want to make him look as bad as possible in order to smear Obama can't hide the facts.

The facts say Obama's acquaintance was a terrorist, unless the 'secessionist' you bring up. Do you deny people who set off bombs for political ends are not terrorists?

Did anyone die?

Many believe Ayers was complicit in the death of the San Francisco cop.

I guess you missed the part that said he was not charged or convicted.

Neither was OJ Simpson.

Only if you think a person is incapable of changing over a thirty year period, which is when he reportedly said these things.

His attitudes have never changed, in fact he said he wished he could have done more and wouldn't rule out such future actions. An example of someone with changed attitudes would be Robert Byrd (former KKK member) or Strom Thurmond (former segregationist).

Education already isn't a monopoly.

Public education is a practical monopoly when kids aren't allowed choice in schools.

Who said I'm afraid of competition? I just recognize the fact that privatization is not an appropriate solution for all problems.

I never said it was a solution for all problems, but it is one for the education problem. Studies have shown where there are voucher program it even improves the public schools when competition is introduced. School choice is coming, we can't afford the bloated school budges and the unions can't thwart the will of the people forever.

[nursebenjamin]

Take enough money out of the public education funds and pretty soon it will not have enough money left to function.

A voucher program would add, not subtract to public school funds. As has been demonstrated, it's not about money anyway.

No, and no. And yet more unsubstantiated claims from East of Eden. It really sucks debating you because none of your claims are supported by facts/evidence. You seem to feel as if you can say anything, and that we’ll accept your word as gospel. Your style is good for emotional appeals, but lack in substance.

<<<“A voucher program would add, not subtract to public school funds.>>>

There’s only two way to pay for school vouchers – raise taxes, or take funds away from already under funded public schools. Raising taxes is likely to be politically unacceptable, so that leaves the second option. There is simply no way that a voucher program can “add� funds to public schools.

Here’s the example that I gave in an earlier post that you ignored: even if a handful of children leave public school because of a voucher system, that school still has to operate with almost the same obligations as before. Teachers still have to be paid, buses have to run, the heating bill has to be paid, and the cafeteria ladies earn a salary regardless of whether or not a handful of students have been transferred to a private school. If a school district hands out 10 vouchers, they can not simply lay off a cafeteria worker or custodian

Not only this, but a school’s budget is based on the number of students that attend that school. Reduce the number of students, and the school receives less money from the state. If schools pay for vouchers, while receiving less money from the state and having nearly the same expenses as before, how will this add money to a school’s budget? I’m not sure how anyone could make such a statement with a straight face. Your logic sounds a bit like voodoo economics to me.

<<<“As has been demonstrated, it's not about money anyway.�>>>

You haven’t demonstrated this at all. School vouchers are mostly about money. Vouchers are nothing but another attempt to transfer public money to the wealthy and to the religious.

For most students, a school voucher will be a ticket to nowhere. Even if a student had a $3000 school voucher, private schools are not required to admit him/her. And what private school charges tuition of $3000 or less? Even if the student with a voucher finds a private school that admits them, his/her family is unlikely to have the ability to afford the rest of the tuition, plus fees.

Wealthy folks who already send their children to private schools will be the ones who benefit from a school voucher program. As a moral society, we should not support school voucher programs.

Blah, Blah, Blah….

I’ve ignored the rest of your post because it is off topic.

[East of Eden]

No, and no. And yet more unsubstantiated claims from East of Eden. It really sucks debating you because none of your claims are supported by facts/evidence. You seem to feel as if you can say anything, and that we’ll accept your word as gospel. Your style is good for emotional appeals, but lack in substance.

<<<“A voucher program would add, not subtract to public school funds.>>>

There’s only two way to pay for school vouchers – raise taxes, or take funds away from already under funded public schools. Raising taxes is likely to be politically unacceptable, so that leaves the second option. There is simply no way that a voucher program can “add� funds to public schools.

Wow, you must be bad at math. $6K to educate a kid, $3K to a voucher kid, leaves $3K.

Here’s the example that I gave in an earlier post that you ignored: even if a handful of children leave public school because of a voucher system, that school still has to operate with almost the same obligations as before. Teachers still have to be paid, buses have to run, the heating bill has to be paid, and the cafeteria ladies earn a salary regardless of whether or not a handful of students have been transferred to a private school. If a school district hands out 10 vouchers, they can not simply lay off a cafeteria worker or custodian

Ridiculous. Private businesses can downsize, but public schools can't?

Not only this, but a school’s budget is based on the number of students that attend that school. Reduce the number of students, and the school receives less money from the state. If schools pay for vouchers, while receiving less money from the state and having nearly the same expenses as before, how will this add money to a school’s budget? I’m not sure how anyone could make such a statement with a straight face. Your logic sounds a bit like voodoo economics to me.

So if a school gets $6K less and has one less kid to educate, what's the problem? Are you a member of a teacher's union?

<<<“As has been demonstrated, it's not about money anyway.�>>>

You haven’t demonstrated this at all.

If more money equaled better education private schools wouldn't be producing better results at less cost.

School vouchers are mostly about money. Vouchers are nothing but another attempt to transfer public money to the wealthy

Nice class warfare attempt. Have you not heard poor kids want to escape public schools? See the documentary 'Waiting for Superman'.

and to the religious.

That's the REAL objection here, isn't it? I guess God-hate trumps all, even better education for poor kids.

For most students, a school voucher will be a ticket to nowhere.

And you accuse me of making up nonsensical, emotional stuff.

Even if a student had a $3000 school voucher, private schools are not required to admit him/her.

But they do admit almost all.

And what private school charges tuition of $3000 or less? Even if the student with a voucher finds a private school that admits them, his/her family is unlikely to have the ability to afford the rest of the tuition, plus fees.

Another made up assumption. $3K could make the difference enabling a poor kid to go to private school.

Wealthy folks who already send their children to private schools will be the ones who benefit from a school voucher program.

So have a means test whereby a voucher program is only available to those under a certain income level. Next problem.

As a moral society, we should not support school voucher programs.

No, it's more moral to force them to attend failed public school systems where half the kids don't even graduate, right?

[nursebenjamin]

East of Eden, there is no way that I can respond intelligently to your last post. All that you do is repeat unsubstantiated claims, and make new ones up (“But [private schools] do admit almost all [applicants]�); you failed to explain your voodoo economics; you fail to acknowledge points made; etc… Like how the heck is handing out vouchers going to leave schools with an additional $3000? Do you even know how schools are financed?

Your whole argument basically boils down to “public schools are failing, and teachers are to blame, especially those teachers that belong to unions.� You make a bunch of emotional appeals, but your posts contain little, if any, factual information. You don’t even address systemic poverty, which arguably one of the biggest factors in the noted achievement gap.

Everyone (I hope) wants to improve the quality of public education. Handing out vouchers may help a few students, but what about all the students left behind? Even with a $3000 voucher, children from poor and working class family are not likely going to be able to afford the rest of tuition. “School choice� is a misnomer because poor families aren’t going to have a choice even with a voucher.

Please reread my last post and respond again to the points raised. And for the 100th time, please substantiate your claim that private schools produce better results than public schools. (And no, a Fox News opinion piece doesn’t count.)

FYI, Waiting for Superman is about charter schools, not private schools. (There is a difference!) Perhaps Charter Schools could be the topic of another thread, but if so, let’s start with the fact that even the film admits that most charter schools do not outperform public schools.

P.S. One of the children featured in Waiting for Superman was kicked out of a Catholic school because her mom could not afford the tuition. She enters a lottery in which 767 students are competing for 35 openings… Where’s the choice?

[East of Eden]

East of Eden, there is no way that I can respond intelligently to your last post. All that you do is repeat unsubstantiated claims, and make new ones up (“But [private schools] do admit almost all [applicants]�);

I am very familiar with private schools, and don't see them turning down large numbers of students. You made the allegation that they do, it's up to you to support it. That question can easily be overcome with a voucher program by requiring private schools to take the same kids public ones do.

you failed to explain your voodoo economics; you fail to acknowledge points made; etc… Like how the heck is handing out vouchers going to leave schools with an additional $3000?

It's been explained, the failure is your comprehension.

Your whole argument basically boils down to “public schools are failing,

Do you dispute many are, especially in the inner city?

and teachers are to blame, especially those teachers that belong to unions.�

Pretty much.

You make a bunch of emotional appeals, but your posts contain little, if any, factual information. You don’t even address systemic poverty, which arguably one of the biggest factors in the noted achievement gap.

But inner city private schools do better than inner city public ones, making your point moot. That is why so many mid to lower income people sacrifice to send their kids to private schools. Explain to them they are wasting their money.

Everyone (I hope) wants to improve the quality of public education. Handing out vouchers may help a few students, but what about all the students left behind? Even with a $3000 voucher, children from poor and working class family are not likely going to be able to afford the rest of tuition. “School choice� is a misnomer because poor families aren’t going to have a choice even with a voucher.

Cite? Poor families are doing it now, how would an additional $3K not enhance their options?

Please reread my last post and respond again to the points raised. And for the 100th time, please substantiate your claim that private schools produce better results than public schools. (And no, a Fox News opinion piece doesn’t count.)

Please reread this thread before asking me to re-post information I've already substantiated. See post 8.

FYI, Waiting for Superman is about charter schools, not private schools. (There is a difference!) Perhaps Charter Schools could be the topic of another thread, but if so, let’s start with the fact that even the film admits that most charter schools do not outperform public schools.

The parents should be able to decide that. Do you think them incapable of it?

P.S. One of the children featured in Waiting for Superman was kicked out of a Catholic school because her mom could not afford the tuition. She enters a lottery in which 767 students are competing for 35 openings… Where’s the choice?

Blocked by the teacher's unions. There should have been 767 charter school slots.

[Wyvern]

Giving people money without an exchange of goods or services sounds like welfare to me.

You must have welfare on the brain, I never proposed welfare.

You never called it welfare but giving people money without them contributing to the system or otherwise exchanging goods or services in fact is welfare.

you're making yet another assumption that is unfounded.

No I'm not, I've never seen you take a conservative position here.

I'm a fiscal conservative which is why I oppose your proposal which would do nothing but create yet another welfare system. In this case you are being a fiscal liberal where your solution for the perceived problem is to throw yet more money at it instead of doing the hard work and finding out what the problems in these low performing districts are.

If you keep bringing up Ayers I see no reason not to do the same with Palin.

In post 48 you brought up Palin first.

There are a number of threads on these forums in which you have made you attempt to smear Obama by proxy of Ayers.

Who said I'm unaware of this situation? 60 minutes did a piece on it years ago. NYC is by far the largest school district in the country with over 1.1 million students and more than 80,000 teachers. In any other district 700 idle teachers would sound like a huge number but here it is less than one percent of the total. Would you rather have sex offenders teaching children?

I would rather they be fired, and prosecuted for their offense.

So you blame the schools because they have to go to these lengths to protect themselves from lawsuits.

It should also be noted that teachers are not bureaucrats.

Bureaucrat or teacher, it is wasting money that should be going to the kids.

Would you rather they pay lawyers for lawsuits?

Bureaucrats are the people that support the teachers.

Yes, why are there so many more of them in public schools than private ones?

Care to provide some evidence for this claim.

People that live in apartments pay no property taxes but under your system would still be allowed into this proposed system of yours.

Just as they're now allowed to use the public schools. What's the difference?

Three thousand dollars.

As previously stated just because a student leaves the system doesn't mean the money isn't still being spent due to fixed expenses such as wages and maintenance so your argument that one less student means the district is saving money is not true.

If under a voucher system less people chose to use the public schools then redundant employees should be fired (maybe they could go work at the private schools) and unneeded buildings could be sold, perhaps to new private schools.

As long as a school is owned by the district it needs to be maintained. As long as a student is at their desk they need to be taught. You might be able to glean some step wise savings but it would by no means be a cost savings exercise for the public school districts.

Take enough money out of the public education funds and pretty soon it will not have enough money left to function.

A voucher program would add, not subtract to public school funds. As has been demonstrated, it's not about money anyway.

If it's not about the money why are you proposing to give parents 3k for each student that goes to a private school. You have made the claim that it saves money but by no means have you demonstrated that.

You asked for proof of my claim that the action was UN approved. You claimed Obama unilaterally began this action, I simply pointed out that was not the case. Gonna keep moving those goal posts?

No goal post being moved, I also said he didn't get Congressional approval. That's somewhat unilateral. I predict that move will earn him a primary challenge from the left.

There's no such thing as being somewhat unilateral, you either are or you aren't and this wasn't. Being somewhat unilateral is like saying someone is somewhat pregnant.

Hey why not let everyone that doesn't agree with any of the nations policies to opt out.

Would it be OK if private corporations forced employees to give money for GOP campaigns?

What does this statement have to do with what we are discussing? You are the one that thinks that noone should have to pay for anything they do not agree with. If is true for teachers unions as you posit then it should be equally true in regards to the nation as a whole.

Wow first you propose expanding welfare and now you want to increase the size of government, you're sounding more like a liberal every day.

Never said either of those things, it's just wishful thinking on your part.

You are the one proposing giving people money for free andmaking the government separate everyones taxes so they don't pay for anything they don't agree with.

Exactly, and to carry out your proposal to have the taxes people pay to be selectively directed towards only the programs they like will require a massive increase in the governments bureaucracy,

No it wouldn't, it would most likely reduce the cost of public schools as more people chose other options. How come the left only wants choice when it comes to killing a baby?

This section was in response to your idea to not make anyone in teachers unions to pay for things they may not agree with. If you want to talk about abortion there are plenty of threads on the subject already, please stop trying to derail the thread further.

Not luck at all, his group went to lengths to minimize injuries. Just because you want to make him look as bad as possible in order to smear Obama can't hide the facts.

The facts say Obama's acquaintance was a terrorist, unless the 'secessionist' you bring up. Do you deny people who set off bombs for political ends are not terrorists?

I deny that Ayers is a terrorist at present and hasn't been for over thirty years, do you deny that he is currently a college professor?

Did anyone die?

Many believe Ayers was complicit in the death of the San Francisco cop.

I'll ask again in the hopes you will give a straight answer, did anyone die? You like to make a lot of allegations but are short on proof.

I guess you missed the part that said he was not charged or convicted.

Neither was OJ Simpson.

OJ was charged, tried and found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Ayers on the other hand wasn't even charged even though he turned himself in.

Only if you think a person is incapable of changing over a thirty year period, which is when he reportedly said these things.

His attitudes have never changed, in fact he said he wished he could have done more and wouldn't rule out such future actions. An example of someone with changed attitudes would be Robert Byrd (former KKK member) or Strom Thurmond (former segregationist).

If his attitudes haven't changed then he would still be doing it or in jail neither of which is true. I think you are having problems differentiating between present and past tense. If his attitude has not changed why is it that he is now a college professor who appears to like helping charitable foundations?

quote]Education already isn't a monopoly.

Public education is a practical monopoly when kids aren't allowed choice in schools.[/quote]
Parents already do have a choice in schools, I just don't see why you want to supplement the incomes of parents who choose to send their children to private schools.

Who said I'm afraid of competition? I just recognize the fact that privatization is not an appropriate solution for all problems.

I never said it was a solution for all problems, but it is one for the education problem. Studies have shown where there are voucher program it even improves the public schools when competition is introduced. School choice is coming, we can't afford the bloated school budges and the unions can't thwart the will of the people forever.

Care to show some of these studies you refer to? As I said before school choice already exists. In my area a student can go to any public school, private schools, magnet schools, charter schools, language immersion schools and can even opt for home schooling. How much more choice do you want? Maybe instead of trying to make the entire nation fit into your one size fits all solution how about you spend some of your energy trying to improve your own admittedly under performing but highly funded school district. Remember you and your fellow voters in your school district are the ones that have allowed the situation to get to the point it has.

[East of Eden]

You never called it welfare but giving people money without them contributing to the system or otherwise exchanging goods or services in fact is welfare.

Lots of people whose kids go to public schools don't pay taxes to support them, what's the difference between that and a voucher system?

I'm a fiscal conservative which is why I oppose your proposal which would do nothing but create yet another welfare system.

Strange how a fiscal conservative could support Obama who has added trillions to our national debt, to no positive effect.

In this case you are being a fiscal liberal where your solution for the perceived problem is to throw yet more money at it

Yet again, I'm not proposing throwing more money at it. The less involved the public school monopoly is involved in education the more it will lower costs.

instead of doing the hard work and finding out what the problems in these low performing districts are.

Here's one problem: Out of control unions more concerned with their own welfare than kids.

There are a number of threads on these forums in which you have made you attempt to smear Obama by proxy of Ayers.

What does that have to do with the OP, or the fact you brought up your favorite whipping girl, Palin, first?

So you blame the schools because they have to go to these lengths to protect themselves from lawsuits.

I'm pretty sure in a private school sexual offenders would be fired, not paid not to work.

Three thousand dollars.

Yes, the $3K the public school saves by giving a voucher.

As long as a school is owned by the district it needs to be maintained. As long as a student is at their desk they need to be taught.

And if a parent chose to use a voucher at a private school that district wouldn't have to spend money teaching that kid, allowing them to downsize.

There's no such thing as being somewhat unilateral, you either are or you aren't and this wasn't. Being somewhat unilateral is like saying someone is somewhat pregnant.

OK, in regards to not getting Congressional approval, it was completely unilateral. Ask Dennis Kucinich.

What does this statement have to do with what we are discussing?

Answer my question: You approve of employees who are union members being forced to pay for political activity that violates their conscience, would it be OK if corporations made their employees pay to elect Republicans?

You are the one proposing giving people money for free andmaking the government separate everyones taxes so they don't pay for anything they don't agree with.

No I'm not.

This section was in response to your idea to not make anyone in teachers unions to pay for things they may not agree with. If you want to talk about abortion there are plenty of threads on the subject already, please stop trying to derail the thread further.

As I would say to your bringing up Palin.

I deny that Ayers is a terrorist at present and hasn't been for over thirty years,

He at present has never repented of his terror activities.

do you deny that he is currently a college professor?

So what, what does that prove other than the leftist tilt of academia? There's a reason RFK's son voted to deny him emeritus status.

I'll ask again in the hopes you will give a straight answer, did anyone die?

Did you miss the part where I said death of the SF cop?

OJ was charged, tried and found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Ayers on the other hand wasn't even charged even though he turned himself in.

Yes, it was a botched prosecution.

If his attitudes haven't changed then he would still be doing it or in jail neither of which is true.

Wrong, they don't send people to jail for wrong attitudes, at least here outside of Communist/Muslim countries.

I think you are having problems differentiating between present and past tense.

So if Bush hung around with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber that would be OK?

If his attitude has not changed why is it that he is now a college professor who appears to like helping charitable foundations?

I would be very wary of any charity he supports, as well as his associates.

Maybe instead of trying to make the entire nation fit into your one size fits all solution

That exactly describes public education.

how about you spend some of your energy trying to improve your own admittedly under performing but highly funded school district.

I'm interested in improving education, not necessarily public school districts.

[otseng]

Blah, Blah, Blah….

I’ve ignored the rest of your post because it is off topic.

Moderator Comment

You are free to ignore material that is off-topic. But, do not use quotes to insert your own rephrasing of other people's words.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[nursebenjamin]

Please reread my last post and respond again to the points raised. And for the 100th time, please substantiate your claim that private schools produce better results than public schools. (And no, a Fox News opinion piece doesn’t count.)

Please reread this thread before asking me to re-post information I've already substantiated. See post 8.

Thank you for finally giving me some kind of direction. I’ve been asking you to substantiate your claim for a week. I acknowledge that your source, a 2002 Department of Education report concludes that “achievement tests in reading, mathematics, and science show higher average scores for private school students.� Please note that the report also states that “schools vary in size, level, community type, and student populations.�

I was under the impression that you acknowledged that there were important differences between public and private schools, such as size, community type, student populations, and parent income levels.

We then discussed a 2006 Department of Education report. The 2006 report concludes that when comparing across schools, one must to take into account the differences in student population at those schools. Those average test scores for reading and mathematics, when adjusted for student and characteristics, tend to be very similar among public schools and private schools. If results were left unadjusted for factors such as race, gender, and free or reduced price lunch program eligibility, private schools performed significantly better than public schools.[1]

Do you acknowledge that when test scores are adjusted for student and school characteristics, those average test score tend to be very similar among public and private schools?

East of Eden, there is no way that I can respond intelligently to your last post. All that you do is repeat unsubstantiated claims, and make new ones up (“But [private schools] do admit almost all [applicants]�);

I am very familiar with private schools, and don't see them turning down large numbers of students. You made the allegation that they do, it's up to you to support it. That question can easily be overcome with a voucher program by requiring private schools to take the same kids public ones do.

Urban nonpublic schools reject 17% of the students who apply for admission.[2] Most private schools require a parent’s financial statement, written applications, discipline records, interviews with students, interviews with parents, standardized achievement tests, and the ability to perform at grade level. So that 17% rejection rate doesn’t include those who are dissuaded from applying, or those who don’t, for example, make it to the interview process.

In addition, most religious schools (87%) would not admit voucher students who wished to abstain from religious activities, according to a 1998 Department of Education report. This would be a huge hurdle for non-Christian children in many cities. In Cleveland, for example, 95% of private schools are religious.

you failed to explain your voodoo economics; y… Like how the heck is handing out vouchers going to leave schools with an additional $3000?

It's been explained, the failure is your comprehension.

You keep claiming that a voucher system will turn a profit for public schools, but you never explained how so. Are you assuming that a public school will receive money from the state for students that are enrolled in private school or something like this? How is losing students going to benefit public schools financially?

Your whole argument basically boils down to “public schools are failing,

Do you dispute many are, especially in the inner city?

Most public schools are not failing. Parents typically believe that their local public schools are performing well, according to gallop polls.[3]. In fact 77% of public school parents award their own child’s public school a grade of “A� or “B�, which is the highest level of approval since the question was first asked by gallop in 1985.

Urban areas typically face multiple challenges, and schools are not immune to these challenges. Let me ask you this same question again: if you take the entire student population from a failing inner-city public school in Chicago and transfer all the kids to a Catholic school down the street, would not some of the hurdles that students face simply follow the student body?

and teachers are to blame, especially those teachers that belong to unions.�

Pretty much.

“There was a time—which now seems distant—when most people assumed that students’ performance in school was largely determined by their own efforts and by the circumstances and support of their family, not by their teachers. There were good teachers and mediocre teachers, even bad teachers, but in the end, most public schools offered ample opportunity for education to those willing to pursue it.�[4] The “blame the teacher� attitude is new to the American landscape. Where do such attitudes come from?

Everyone (I hope) wants to improve the quality of public education. Handing out vouchers may help a few students, but what about all the students left behind? Even with a $3000 voucher, children from poor and working class family are not likely going to be able to afford the rest of tuition. “School choice� is a misnomer because poor families aren’t going to have a choice even with a voucher.

Cite? Poor families are doing it now, how would an additional $3K not enhance their options?

I guess that your definition of poor and my definition of poor are different. I don’t know of many families earning $20,000-30,000, or less, that could afford thousands of dollars per child per year for private education.

You stated that Catholic schools cost $5,436 for elementary and $10,808 for secondary. And Catholic schools are the cheap ones, remember? A $3000 voucher isn’t going to get a poor family very far, is it? And then there are fees, and uniforms and transportation costs to consider as well.