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.
To be fair, the voucher program is still cheaper than public schools. Homeschooling is practically free in comparison.
The taxpayer is already footing the bill for education. The state of Florida averages about $10k per-pupil for K-12. Which means the $8,000 voucher saves the taxpayer about 20%.
The national average for K-12 is about $12.6k a year, and for New York state it is $25k per year. The objection to the voucher program is not about government spending(which would be lower under the voucher program). Leftists are just angry because they can't indoctrinate children in government schools. They know if people were given a choice, no one would choose their indoctrination centers.
How is this a savings? All this does is move the $8000 from a large bucket into a private school's pocket. There is no savings, all it does is reduce the amount the public school has to operate and will lead to things like fewer teachers and larger class room sizes. Private schools are not giving discounts to the voucher students, plus this is only an advantage for parents with some means since it is unlikely that $8000 will cover all of the expenses of a private school education. Not to mention all of the other services like transportation to school or things like free or reduced lunches.
It's likely that for every 4 students that take that voucher, you have eliminated the salary of 1 teacher. That means that class sizes will go up.
Vouchers would solve that since taxpayers are paying anyway.
Let them take that money and get their kids a decent education outside of public school.
Larry Elder has been on the voucher argument for a couple of decades now. I didn't get it at first, but I do know. Let the money follow the kid, seems rather obvious but the teachers unions stomp it out at every opportunity they get.
I don't even have kids and an argument could be made that why should I pay into that system, but I realize the value of an education and accept it. I've got not choice either way, but at least acknowledge that we need schools.
I'm not a fan of the libertarian's in some ways, if they had their way we'd have private everything, you house could burn down if you miss your payments, poor kids wouldn't get an education at all.
Paying taxes sucks, but we need some basic level of government. That said, I think our government is too bloated in many respects.
Larry Elder has been on the voucher argument for a couple of decades now. I didn't get it at first, but I do know. Let the money follow the kid, seems rather obvious but the teachers unions stomp it out at every opportunity they get.
I don't even have kids and an argument could be made that why should I pay into that system, but I realize the value of an education and accept it. I've got not choice either way, but at least acknowledge that we need schools.
I'm not a fan of the libertarian's in some ways, if they had their way we'd have private everything, you house could burn down if you miss your payments, poor kids wouldn't get an education at all.
Paying taxes sucks, but we need some basic level of government. That said, I think our government is too bloated in many respects.
But we're not funding individuals. We're funding education/school systems.
"Rules for thee, but not for me." -- Liberals' mantra
Same with gun laws: they want their body guards to have them but not us.
Same with fences: they wan them around their homes, but not our country.
Same with global warming: they want their SUV motorcade and private jet planes to carry them around, but not us.
Same with abortion: they don't kill their own children, but they want us to.
Etc.
What "rule for thee?" You can send your children to whichever school you choose as well. Who is stopping you? If you can't afford it, well there are lots of things some people can afford that others cannot. If it wasn't that way.......egads, we would have "socialism!"
But we're not funding individuals. We're funding education/school systems.
Well, they have a budge amount based on the head counts for school districts. They know that they spend X amount per kid.
We should be looking at it from another angle, we should attach it to the kid and give the parents an option to have their kids go to another school. It's not fair that parents that take their kids to private have to pay twice so to speak. A little competition would be good for the public school systems. There are some school districts around the country that outperform some of the private schools.
Well, they have a budge amount based on the head counts for school districts. They know that they spend X amount per kid.
If, somehow, 50% of the school aged kids moved out of my district next year would my property taxes drop? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chowhound
We should be looking at it from another angle, we should attach it to the kid and give the parents an option to have their kids go to another school. It's not fair that parents that take their kids to private have to pay twice so to speak. A little competition would be good for the public school systems. There are some school districts around the country that outperform some of the private schools.
"Fair" is a place where they judge livestock. Life isn't "fair". If you look at it that way, it's not "fair" that you and I pay taxes into the public school system even though we don't have kids. "Fair" is a non-starter.
I think of it more like a public defender. The government is saying "For the good of society, we are providing you with this baseline service." If you want Gerry Spence or Clarence Darrow - you gotta pay for them yourself.
Well, they have a budge amount based on the head counts for school districts. They know that they spend X amount per kid.
We should be looking at it from another angle, we should attach it to the kid and give the parents an option to have their kids go to another school. It's not fair that parents that take their kids to private have to pay twice so to speak. A little competition would be good for the public school systems. There are some school districts around the country that outperform some of the private schools.
You are ignoring some basic funding facts. When you take away funding, you don't reduce costs to an equal degree. Most of the costs in a school system are fixed. Take two kids and "their share" of funding out of a classroom to divert to a private school and the costs for that public school teacher and that school facility aren't reduced. You just have less money to pay for them. This further weakens the public school system. Which is just what Republicans want, because their focus on private schools is, for the most part, just one giant money. grab.
Also, the parent is NOT "paying twice" since they do not pay taxes in an amount anywhere near the full cost of educating their children. Not even close. It is not THEIR money. The cost of educating a child in the public school system is borne by all of us. I have no children in school now, but I am still paying. Do the parents want "their money" to use somewhere else? This will amount to a few hundred dollars from their property tax bill. In what private school will that be buying a seat?
They can put a man on the moon, they can figure out a way to have a voucher system for parents choice, we can split the hairs all day, but at the end of the day, parents and the kids deserve more options.
Vouchers would solve that since taxpayers are paying anyway. Let them take that money and get their kids a decent education outside of public school.
Decent education. Isn't that the whole point of schools in the first place? To provide our children with a decent education.
But it seems some posters here on this thread have forgotten that. They talk about the unlikely event that teachers might lose their jobs if parents have school choice. They are defending broken public schools and want to force parents to keep their kids in them by taking away choice - for the sake of the public school teachers.
The teachers have become more important than the children.
I don't blame teachers for being worried about layoffs but I think the danger is overblown and more theory craft then anything. But in the meantime we need to find options for low income and middle class parents to educate their children when the local school is failing.
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.
