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.
Absolutely not. I'm not paying a penny in taxes for someone to send their kid to a religious school.
Too late, you already are... Your tax dollars already DO go to private/religious schools in the form of taxpayer-funded Pell Grants, scholarships, government-sponsored student loans, research grants, etc... Notre Dame, Georgetown, Boston College, Emory University (which a few years ago successfully treated the two US citizen Ebola victims, AND works VERY closely and frequently in tandem with the CDC), etc., etc.
And how does that not create an overwhelming precedent that tax dollars can indeed go to funding both attending students and faculty, research, expenses, etc., at private/religious schools? There's a very distinct example of Emory University (United Methodist Church) and the CDC working very closely together in several scientific fields, research, etc. The former is a religious institution. The latter is supposed to be a secular government agency. And tax dollars go to both.
I present to you: A century + of government meddling that causes more problems than it solves. Parents should pay for the schools themselves or homeschool their kids.
You will, of course, say it's "biased", but if you need any proof that our public schools are churning out complete idiots, look around right here on City-Data. People don't even know how to use the proper word in simple sentences. Example: It is NOT "would of" or "could of" or "should of" it's fricken HAVE. I can't count how many don't even know the difference between "to" and "too", or "your" and "you're"...this stuff was learned in 2nd or 3rd grade. People have no critical thinking skills, no math skills, and as much as some libs like to bark on about science, many of them don't have any quality science education, either. Vocabulary sucks, grammar sucks, math and science skills are not sought after, and people then go to college, take out huge government loans, spend 4 years studying "white guilt" and then cry that they have to pay their bills when it's all said and done.
The government's role does not include 'educating every child'. If you have kids, you pay for it. Once again, taxpayers have to foot the bill regardless of what school they choose, regardless if they have kids. Just another social program that I am completely against.
That will never happen nor should it ever happen.
The problem is not the institution of public education itself. The problem lies in the funding, pensions and federal overreach. Return schools to the states and you'll see a massive improvement to public education as a whole. This country used to have a public school system we could be proud of. Lets return to that.
That really depends on where you live, doesn't it? Where I am now, the public schools could compete with some of the best private schools out there. With the exception of a few excellent private schools in our area, the private schools here are largely inferior.
The voucher proposal in PA a few years back would of worked for you then. The voucher was initially being targeted at the worst districts in the state. That voucher could of been used at any private or public school.
So if you liked your district nothing changed and it could benefit from this. Suppose your school had some room to absorb students, it could open it's doors to other students from neighboring districts and get additional funding.
Part of the issue here in PA is the school board is locally elected. In my area those people are usually somewhat competent to very competent; business leaders,etc. That's not to say there isn't room for improvement. Some of these districts can have some really bad school boards where you have someone that can't balance a checkbook now in charge of multi-million dollar budget.
I do not think that vouchers should be used for religious schools and I also don't think that charter schools should have any religious affiliation. With that said, IF they are religiously affiliated, they should not be able to deny people who aren't of that religion and children should be able to opt out of the religious classes, services, etc.
I do not think that vouchers should be used for religious schools and I also don't think that charter schools should have any religious affiliation. With that said, IF they are religiously affiliated, they should not be able to deny people who aren't of that religion and children should be able to opt out of the religious classes, services, etc.
So, if a single mom in an area with schools with performance issues wants to send her child to the high performing Catholic school on the next block, you think that shouldn't be allowed and her child should remain in the crappy school?
So, if a single mom in an area with schools with performance issues wants to send her child to the high performing Catholic school on the next block, you think that shouldn't be allowed and her child should remain in the crappy school?
What about sending the student to a high performing Muslim school on the next block? That still sound good to you?
Are you fine with taxpayers' dollars going to to a school run in the basement of the Church of What's Happening Now?
Scientology schools? You down with those?
There are no end of organizations that would love to get paid to educate converts. You think it would be good idea for taxpayers to foot the bill?
What about sending the student to a high performing Muslim school on the next block? That still sound good to you?
Are you fine with taxpayers' dollars going to to a school run in the basement of the Church of What's Happening Now?
Scientology schools? You down with those?
There are no end of organizations that would love to get paid to educate converts. You think it would be good idea for taxpayers to foot the bill?
If I had the choice to send my kid to either a crappy school or a high performing Islamic school, my kid would no longer have the bacon sandwich lunch option.
I grew up in metro Detroit and remembered this article but can't find it on internet anymore. Maybe it got scrubbed.
I too grew up in metro Detroit. East Detroit or as it is called now East Pointe. I graduated from EDHS in '87. At that time we had roughly 800 students in the class of '87, and that school was highly rated, I think in the top 5 out of the state. We had great teachers, we all had our own books, and quite a few after school activities. Sometime around 2008 the school district adopted "school of choice" , and the place has been in decline since.
My daughter graduated several years ago and at that time there was only 200 students in that class. I also remember her telling us that they would have to share books, sometimes there wasn't enough desks, and not all the bathrooms where open etc. The school currently ranks 732nd. There are very few after school programs available now, even the pool has closed up.
What I would like to know is how this happened ? Doesn't a district get additional federal funding when they open up to "school of choice" ? If so , how can the school have declined with more money and less students ? Seems like it should be a great place now that each student has more time with the teacher.
If I had the choice to send my kid to either a crappy school or a high performing Islamic school, my kid would no longer have the bacon sandwich lunch option.
I agree. We've pulled our kids from public schools at times. We've homeschooled and sent them to private schools.
But to say taxpayer money should be going to the Catholic, Muslim, Scientology... schools is another matter entirely.
Did you all somehow miss my post? That train has already left the station. Taxpayer money already goes to religious schools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Too late, you already are... Your tax dollars already DO go to private/religious schools in the form of taxpayer-funded Pell Grants, scholarships, government-sponsored student loans, research grants, etc... Notre Dame, Georgetown, Boston College, Emory University (which a few years ago successfully treated the two US citizen Ebola victims, AND works VERY closely and frequently in tandem with the CDC), etc., etc.
And how does that not create an overwhelming precedent that tax dollars can indeed go to funding both attending students and faculty, research, expenses, etc., at private/religious schools? There's a very distinct example of Emory University (United Methodist Church) and the CDC working very closely together in several scientific fields, research, etc. The former is a religious institution. The latter is supposed to be a secular government agency. And tax dollars go to both.
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.
