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.
Which is why I said the testing would the the hinge point of the whole argument.
If you are homeschooling your child, and they aren't meeting or exceeding national standards, then you are no longer allowed to homeschool your child. Then they will either have to go to a private teacher, school, or the public school in the area.
.
why? so many kids attend public schools and can't pass the tests. why would you only allow govt to fail and not parents?
Ron Paul intorduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act. Homeschoolers and people whose kids are in private school might stand the chance of getting some of their money back if the bill passes. let's see some of those tea partiers put their money where their mouths are
The irony here the people that are complaining about entitlement spending........................Want an entitlement.
Having an educated labor force is a great idea--as long as there is some balance between the size of the workforce and the size of the labor market. But when the population continues to explode (due to large immigrant populations producing large families), and the national job market continues to decrease in size, as well as replacing formerly well-paid jobs with poorly paid ones, this policy is simply creating a "race to the bottom" for wages and compensation.
The overpopulation of the educated labor force resulted in wages stagnating all the way back in the 1970s, benefits dropping precipitously; pensions virtually disappeared from the private market; and the work week exploding while vacation time plummeted. Maybe we should stop having taxpayers subsidize children so heavily through tax policy (even health insurance subsidizes large families by keeping the same premiums and family deductibles for 3 to 15 children).
Massive national unemployment will continue be the norm for many years hence, and newly-minted graduates of both high school and college are at a huge disadvantage as they compete with displaced workers with experience. "The teenage unemployment rate is the highest in nearly half a century coming in at over 24.2 percent...those with college degrees are facing the highest unemployment in two decades since records started being kept... those with college degrees are losing jobs in large numbers as well." Does a College Degree Protect your Career? Unemployment Rate for College Graduates Highest on Record. "They will enter an economy where roughly 17% of people aged 20 through 24 do not have a job, and where two million college graduates are unemployed. They will enter a world where they will compete tooth and nail for jobs as waitresses, pizza delivery men, file clerks, bouncers, trainee busboys, assistant baristas, interns at bodegas." College Students This Is Your Future: High Unemployment And Student Loan Hell
The problem is that while government pushes for 100% high school graduation rates (paid for with taxes), and colleges are subsidized by taxes as well as pushing to maximizing those who can afford the tuition payments, American businesses continue to minimize the number of people they hire. Businesses won't hire a single extra person, even if there are twice as many college graduates next year--they'll just hire the same number but offer even lower pay and less benefits. With 150 people fighting for every job, beggars can't be choosers.
What is truly sad is that we have overpopulated the labor market to the point that employers can consider someone offering 40 to 80 hours per week of educated work a "beggar."
If we want future generations to have a Middle Class, we need to stop flooding the labor markets with educated and over-educated young adults. To do this, having parents bear more of the cost of the children they choose to have is critical. When the $20,000 or more per year cost of public schooling (capital plus operating costs) is sent to someone other than the parents, there is no incentive for parents to stop over-producing children.
In addition, school and teacher unions have become so greedy (after having their budgets rubber-stamped without question for decades) that in many places (like NH)--even before addressing the public pension crises--property taxes have skyrocketed to rates that are forcing seniors, and even working people that have suffered wage stagnation and shifting of benefits costs, to sell their paid-for homes at a loss.
High schools should focus much more on vocational exposure and training, and less on simply preparing everyone for college. By sending everyone to college and having taxpayers subsidize the cost through taxes, all we have done is make the $100,000 college degree equal what a high school diploma used to be--during the same period when pensions disappeared. This does not bode well for America's future, for any of us.
Talk about a ton of misconceptions!
First of all, this proposal, as I understand it, is for education at all levels, K-12. (There already is a tax credit for college tuition.) Anyway, so you're saying people shouldn't be taught to read and write?
Living in one of the least diverse states in the country, with little direct experience with Hispanics (which you reference in a thinly veiled way as "immigrants"), you choose to blame them (Hispanics) for all the labor problems in this country.
The diatribe about huge families is incorrect.
I'm shocked that anyone in this day and age would advocate against high school graduation.
What is more important here, educating students or who gets the money? If the private school can do it better what is the issue?
One issue is unfair advantage.
Private schools can afford to offer a better education than public schools can.
If you want your child of privilege to get a superior education, then pay for it yourself.
Most people cannot pay the difference between what a voucher offers and what the school charges. Therefore, they will not be able to send their kids to that school anyways.
As such, this is nothing more than another giveaway to the rich.
That is something that we should not allow as a matter of public policy.
Vouchers are not about education, they are about greed, power, and advantage.
The irony is that in order for Pauls bill to become law, he has to first acknowledge that its the federal governments responsibility to collect tax revenues to fund schools..
You cant give a tax credit for something that you shouldnt be getting to begin with..
Most educational tax funding is done at the state and local level for grades K-12.
why? so many kids attend public schools and can't pass the tests. why would you only allow govt to fail and not parents?
But they do meet some minimal standards, or the school is threatened with being shut down, or you attend another school.
Lets look at this as a whole.
Lets say 20% of parents remove their children from public schools with a voucher. They choose private education or they choose home schooling.
Then the demand for teachers will drop, so we can finally fire the under performing teachers. Then the best teachers are remaining in public schools or private schools. I'm sure the number of parents opting out would increase.
Perhaps we can allow public schools to be like ER's, where teachers work internships much like doctors do, then move on to private practice or private education facilities.
All while meeting a set standard.
Over time we can increase the standard. Those teachers who aren't making the grade, would be forced to find a different profession.
Not to mention parents that are better educated at home because they are homeschooling their children.
I see this as a win win. But we have to have some sort of recourse against parents gaming the system, and we can't simply allow them to sit in a home with a bad education. Private schools often cost more money than public schools.
I think we'd need less public schools, less teachers in public schools, which would allow us to choose between better teachers, and cut off the dead weight.
Obama wouldn't sign this bill under any circumstances; that's for sure.
I seriously doubt it even gets through the Senate.
This is basically "Dog Whistle" legislation. Something to get segment of the Conservative base fired up. Even if it doesn't get through the House and Senate Ron Paul can point to and say "See What I Tried To Do For You. That Why I Need Your Votes".
The irony here the people that are complaining about entitlement spending........................Want an entitlement.
^^^
This. Exactly.
They just refuse to see it.
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.
