Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I think the solution is to give ALL kids a private school education with public money.
I would have to study that Huffpo article more to comment on it.
What makes you think private schools are better? They aren't even included in the testing that makes up these ratings. They can cherry-pick students; they don't have to offer special ed, English language education or any bi-lingual education, etc. They can kick out disruptive kids.
And they rank 50th in schools in the country .Ok we settle on 16 400 why not give parents the choice on how to use it since DC is 50th in the country
If you bothered to read the article DC schools have issues like poverty and non English speaking students.
The other district with high spending, Maryland has a #1 ranking.
The reason not to do that is simple. It would bleed the school system dry and astronomically increase the cost of education since you would not only have to give that 16,400 to public school enrollees, but most likely over time to every potential enrollee including those who now opt to send their kids to private schools.
When it becomes prohibitively expensive the GOP will say "aw shucks its prohibitively expensive lets scrap the whole thing all together, or lets cut vouchers so much that no poor person can take advantage of it."
Ahhh.... I see, so if you have the proverbial poor family with four children we are going to cut them a check for 32k. The horror, they didn't pay any taxes as it is. Additionally the family will only have to come up with the other 4k per child to make up the average private tuition. Face it, vouchers are a transfer of our tax dollars to private business or religious institutions for the benefit of wealthier families. The burden of educating everyone else is still there.
So paying $72K to send the same kids to public schools is a better idea?
Since you apparently are from "Earth" I have no idea how much your property taxes are, but in most states, rental property (where poor parents live) is taxed at higher rates than owner-occupied homes. (It's called 'split roll' property taxes.) Poor parents rarely own homes, but they surely bear property taxes since their landlords are in business to make a profit and therefore must recover all their costs (including property taxes) plus make an acceptable profit, otherwise they will sell their property and invest in something else. It is a basic conservative principle that business merely collects and remits taxes - business does not really bear taxes - and thus renters (consumers of rental property) bear property taxes. If you think renters don't bear property taxes, you are free to sell your home and join all those freeloading renters. (Funny how not a single homeowner has appreciated that suggestion.)
For example, Michigan has a "nonhomestead tax" which makes the school property tax rate on rental property four times the school property tax rate on owner-occupied homes. For years I lived in a house which had a $1,000+ nonhomestead tax on top of the other property taxes.
Also, apartment buildings of more than 4 units are usually classified as commercial property and thus are subject to substantially higher property tax rates than single-family homes which are classified as residential. While homeowners often complain about property taxes, they often have a very good deal compared with others.
If the people are genuinely poor as you say, they're probably getting Section 8 support and paying minimal rent, if any at all.
If the rent is too high, they can move.
It's the free market, you know.
Someone owns the property, and it's not the renter.
The renter will not be taxed separately for taxes.
That's for the property owner only.
If it's part of the rent, the renter knew the rent when they moved in.
Please read through the thread before commenting. As was mentioned before.
A. There are security concerns with the President's kids.
B. People always have the option to pay to send their kids to private schools.
C. Why in the world should we defund public education to send a few lotto winners to private schools.
If you bothered to read the article DC schools have issues like poverty and non English speaking students.
The other district with high spending, Maryland has a #1 ranking.
The reason not to do that is simple. It would bleed the school system dry and astronomically increase the cost of education since you would not only have to give that 16,400 to public school enrollees, but most likely over time to every potential enrollee including those who now opt to send their kids to private schools.
When it becomes prohibitively expensive the GOP will say "aw shucks its prohibitively expensive lets scrap the whole thing all together."
So why not give those parents an option to choose the school that is best for their kids. So you think only rich parents should have that option. I thought the left was motto was fairness.
Yet you think its fair that the rich can choose the schools they want for their kids where the poor can not have that choice. Why not give poor parents a choice
So why not give those parents an option to choose the school that is best for their kids. So you think only rich parents should have that option. I thought the left was motto was fairness.
Yet you think its fair that the rich can choose the schools they want for their kids where the poor can not have that choice. Why not give poor parents a choice
Because it is
P-R-O-H-I-B-I-T-I-V-E-L-Y
E-X-P-E-N-S-I-V-E.
you are talking about astronomically increasing per pupil expenditure over time.
I think everyone should have access to a basic education. If you want more you can pay for it. It should not be some people get vouchers and others get next to nothing.
definitely looking to get reelected, teachers are voters and oppose private school.
the current k12 benefits the adults not the kids.
voucher would help alota kids and get rid of the trouble makers, but the public does not realize this.
Please read through the thread before commenting. As was mentioned before.
A. There are security concerns with the President's kids.
B. People always have the option to pay to send their kids to private schools.
C. Why in the world should we defund public education to send a few lotto winners to private schools.
Perhaps you could enlighten us regarding these alleged security concerns, as I've never heard anyone spell them out.
If only a few lotto winners are going to get those vouchers then I seriously doubt public school funding will be hurt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
