• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support school choice?

Do you support school choice?


  • Total voters
    88
I can see your point somewhat although not all Federal money has the same kinds of strings attached ( Archived: 10 Fact About K-12 Education Funding).
Good info, thanks!

ESEA authorizes grants for elementary and secondary school programs for children of low-income families; school library resources, textbooks and other instructional materials; supplemental education centers and services; strengthening state education agencies; education research; and professional development for teachers.
Some of those are per student outlays and others aren't. I suppose the part that is per student could follow the student but the requirements for the private school would be up to the Fed.



If it is in the interest of the state to have an educated population, which I think it is, and taxes are collected for that purpose, I don't have a problem with some of the money following the student without the strings you want to have attached. As the educator of last resort, I think the public schools should still get a decent chunk of the tax dollars.
I see no reason to allow a private school to skimp on requirements if they get public funding.
 
Perhaps they'd be able to afford private schools if their parents weren't being forced through taxation to pay for the failing public schools.

I think not having to pay taxes for public schools might defray the cost of private education a little bit, but we're talking about something on the order of tuition ranging between $8000 and $20,000 per year (K-12) depending on the private school (Catholic schools being a bit less expensive).

Just split the difference, erring on the conservative side, and call it $12,000 a year for an "average" private school education.

Most Americans aren't paying anywhere near that in total taxes, and as we know, "47%" have an effective income tax rate of $0 so there's no money for them there, unless we're going to talk about credits.

I'd hazard to guess that folks falling into the $0 effective income tax basket aren't paying enough property tax to see a $12,000 a year benefit in reduced taxation.
 
Actually, if there was competition, I believe that the teachers will get better and money will be used more wisely. The teachers that get laid off can get jobs in the schools that are growing due to school choice. That, of course, will mean that they have to be good teachers. I think most teachers are/ want to be good. But the problem with their performance is the bureaucracy that is the teachers unions.

My question is for you is... Are you saying that we have to keep all the kids in the failing school to protect the jobs of those that are causing it to be a failing school?
That's not really what I'm asking ... let me restate it?

If a failing public school loses enrollment, and thus loses federal money & the ability to hire good teachers; what happens to the kids that CAN'T move? I don't care about the teachers or their jobs. I'm asking what's the solution for the kids that CAN'T afford to seek out another "better" school, when they've been left behind by all the kids that CAN afford it?
 
You forgot one important component: the policy of every inner-city public school to keep thugs in the classroom so they can get their per-pupil reimbursement.

forgotten so soon, maggie ... no thug left behind
 
Why would a 16 yo thug stay in school?

I don't presume to know. But if they aren't, please to tell me why Chicago inner-city high schools have two coppers on duty full-time? Dozens of security guard? Surveillance cameras? Metal detectors? Why do 20% of all juvie arrests in the City of Chicago occur on school property? Why are 14% of students in four high schools in CPS likely to be victims on violent crime on school property? By other students?

It isn't because the thugs stay home.
 
I see no reason to allow a private school to skimp on requirements if they get public funding.

I guess it depends on what the requirements are. Why does the entity that provides maybe 2% of the revenue get to decide these standards even for the public schools. Just reduce the federal tax by that much and let the states and school districts decide whether to take up the tax on the local level where I believe the decision belongs.
 
Why would a 16 yo thug stay in school?

in my berg they stay in school until the day they hit 22 years old - an age when their more ambitious peers are graduating from college
until that time, school is a destination for socializing, dealing drugs, and making their mothers eligible for a larger aid check
 
Last edited:
I don't presume to know. But if they aren't, please to tell me why Chicago inner-city high schools have two coppers on duty full-time? Surveillance cameras? Metal detectors? Why do 20% of all juvie arrests in the City of Chicago occur on school property? Why are 14% of students in four high schools in CPS likely to be victims on violent crime on school property? By other students?

It isn't because the thugs stay home.
Because 20% of all juvie's are in school? 13-15 yo's should make up about half the juvie population (should be slightly more than half, actually), so 20% isn't bad, really. They're pretty easy to catch in school, not many places to run or hide.

If it's 14% in school, what is it outside of school in those same areas?

All 13-15 yo's are required to attend school, including the "thugs". (I did list required attendance as one of the things you can point your finger at.) Should we let them run the streets, instead? That way they can get involved in adult crime at an earlier age.
 
As the educator of last resort, I think the public schools should still get a decent chunk of the tax dollars.

Only if—in a free, competitive market—a “decent chunk” of parents freely choose to send their children there.

There is no reason why an inferior company should be propped up at the expense of a successful competitor. Let failures fail, and make more room for the successes.
 
I guess it depends on what the requirements are. Why does the entity that provides maybe 2% of the revenue get to decide these standards even for the public schools. Just reduce the federal tax by that much and let the states and school districts decide whether to take up the tax on the local level where I believe the decision belongs.
I would assume any State can opt out of Fed funding for K-12 just like they can for the Interstate system. Why aren't more doing so - for either system?
 
in my berg they stay in school until the day they hit 22 years old - an age when their more ambitious peers are graduating from college
until that time, school is a destination for socializing, dealing drugs, and making their mothers eligible for a larger aid check
Interesting you would require attendance until they're that old. Seems like they could do what they want at 18, or at least 21.
 
Only if—in a free, competitive market—a “decent chunk” of parents freely choose to send their children there.

There is no reason why an inferior company should be propped up at the expense of a successful competitor. Let failures fail, and make more room for the successes.

Since I have to live in a society with the results of these failures, I choose to be a bit more realistic in my proposal. The competitive model wouldn't work in every part of the country due to rural populations. Now if you can promise that anyone who fails out of school will get deported or something, I'll stick to my ideas.
 
Yes, within reason. I think there ought to be a minimum national curriculum that every school, public, private and home, is required to teach. They can teach other things but these are things that must be taught in order for a child to be considered educated. There are no exceptions. I think every student ought to be required at least once per year to go to a public school and take national placement tests to ensure they are actually learning this material. Any home schooled student that fails this test by a significant degree will not be permitted to be homeschooled any longer.

My home schooled was required to take CATs (California Achievement Tests) every year. The CATs are approved by most states and required by some. Even with this testing and SAT scores, the local school district still would not recognize the results. There is a political/financial octopus involved that fights change and that is not new, but Online Education is going to put brick and mortar out of business unless brick and mortar wakes up and smells the coffee. Just to give relativity, my home schooler is now 17 and will have an Associates Degree in May (SUNY). She would have had this degree when she was 15 if the local school district had not prevented her from starting college at 13. The Local School District prevented a home schooled child from their District from entering College. Not the kind of thing you would expect to have happen. One expects encouragement.
 
So the parent that work 12 hours a day and still qualifies for food stamps will also have to, what, quite their job to make sure their child gets to school? Tell their employer to **** off if that employer doesn't let them attend school functions like parent-teacher conferences and behavior talks with the principal? That doesn't seem reasonable for many situations unless you also force employers into the scheme so parents don't get fired.

They will have to make some kind of adjustments so that their children get to school on time. Welcome to parenting. If they're not willing to be parents, why the hell did they have a kid in the first place?
 
Interesting you would require attendance until they're that old. Seems like they could do what they want at 18, or at least 21.

no. attendance is not required. they could drop out. if they expended effort - a huge IF - they might even graduate (tho most aged 21 are without enough credits to fulfill graduation requirements even if they aced their final year's classes)
the thugs are at school for three reasons: to socialize. to sell drugs. to be an enrolled student so their mom's assistance check is larger
 
They will have to make some kind of adjustments so that their children get to school on time. Welcome to parenting. If they're not willing to be parents, why the hell did they have a kid in the first place?
This has nothing to do with willingness - it's about economic reality. I know you expect everyone to meet your strict requirements for living and loving but that ain't gonna' happen. Poor people made due as best they can and when they're working we ought to be helping them, not spitting on their efforts.
 
no. attendance is not required. they could drop out. if they expended effort - a huge IF - they might even graduate (tho most aged 21 are without enough credits to fulfill graduation requirements even if they aced their final year's classes)
the thugs are at school for three reasons: to socialize. to sell drugs. to be an enrolled student so their mom's assistance check is larger
The first applies to almost all kids. Socializing is a part of school.

The second applies to many kids that aren't thugs. I'd be surprised if there was no drug use at any school except the most lofty of private schools.

The last I've never heard of, so I'll have to think about it. I've not paid much attention to the specifics of public assistance for a few decades. I know many things have changed.
 
I would assume any State can opt out of Fed funding for K-12 just like they can for the Interstate system. Why aren't more doing so - for either system?

Because they can't opt out of the money collected that pays the funding. They want to collect their share, so they hold their nose and take the money.
 
I am old enough to remember when essentially all school districts were local--funded, staffed, and operated by local people. No federal money. Precious little if any state money. The school board was elected from the local citizenry and worked hand in hand with un-unionized teachers who were among the most respected citizens of the community and the parents, most of whom were very hands on in the process. Together, text books were selected and the hat was passed for needs not covered by the budget.

We had school cafeterias and also a lot of the kids brought their lunches. The child who forgot his/her lunch money or sack lunch was fed, but the parent was expected to pony up the cash later. The parents were expected to feed and properly clothe their children. Those who did not received a visit from social services, and if the parent was unwilling or unable to properly take care of their children, the children were removed from the home until the parent was willing and able to do that. Very few children were removed from the home.

The teachers were respected and allowed to exercise complete authority on the school grounds. We prayed before school assemblies and sporting events. The schools were the social centers of many communities, the PTA exercised considerable influence, and the kids did not question what was expected of them. There were no social promotions. Nobody was graduated without completing the requisite number of credits. A few kids were home schooled and there were private and parochial schools too. But most of us went to public schools and if it wasn't working out for us in one, we were allowed to transfer to any other that had room.

In that system we kids received an education that allowed us to compete with anybody. And the USA had one of the best, if not THE best, education in the world.

I vote to get the federal government out of public education entirely and return the education of the children to the parents and local school boards. What we're doing now isn't working.
 
The first applies to almost all kids. Socializing is a part of school.

The second applies to many kids that aren't thugs. I'd be surprised if there was no drug use at any school except the most lofty of private schools.

The last I've never heard of, so I'll have to think about it. I've not paid much attention to the specifics of public assistance for a few decades. I know many things have changed.


probably the most important aspect is these older students attend school to do something other than get an education
 
probably the most important aspect is these older students attend school to do something other than get an education
But that's not an educational issue, it's a social/economic issue and can't be solved by changing the education system. It sure as hell isn't going to be solved by handing private companies a bigger bag of money to do the same thing public schools do now.
 
But that's not an educational issue, it's a social/economic issue and can't be solved by changing the education system. It sure as hell isn't going to be solved by handing private companies a bigger bag of money to do the same thing public schools do now.

here is how it does present an educational issue
not being present to get an education themselves but being present - and often disruptive - impedes the learning of those other, younger students who are trying to receive an education
 
This has nothing to do with willingness - it's about economic reality. I know you expect everyone to meet your strict requirements for living and loving but that ain't gonna' happen. Poor people made due as best they can and when they're working we ought to be helping them, not spitting on their efforts.

No, it has everything to do with REALITY itself. You're arguing that stupid people are stupid and therefore we shouldn't criticize stupid people because stupid people might not like it. Life's a bitch. If our goal is to produce a workable, self-sustaining society where everyone is equal, then we all have to have equal obligations and expectations and one of those expectations is that people must act responsibly and make good decisions. Saying that the poor are too stupid to actually make good decisions is a pretty damning condemnation of the poor, isn't it?
 
Back
Top Bottom