Why should we have to pay for public schools still , the OP has to pay even though he doesn't have kids, how's that fair
Well public schools are in the constitution. It is an investment in the future. The founding fathers thought that it was a good idea and they were right.
For most private schools parents never see the money from vouchers. So the argument that it goes to Disney tickets, paddle boards etc.. is mute. ( homeschool may be different- I don’t know about that). Now we are just arguing public vs private schools. No one is arguing that all private schools are better. Many of us are arguing that having the option to attend those that are is beneficial to parents and students. Most of the pushback on this board seems to becoming from public school teachers or retired teachers. Most of the those championing the vouchers is coming from parents fed up with public schools.
14th amendment mentions public education but I was thinking about the move west ward and setting aside land for schools. That is early but not in the constitution.
I don't disagree with that. But there are some schools in every county of each state that are just plain dangerous or lack of good quality teachers which forces parents to seek a safer and better learning environment with higher quality teachers. A lot on this board falsely claim only the rich send their kids to private or Christian schools, more like loving and caring parents willing to make personal and financial sacrifices for their kids. I would say more parents who home school are lower to middle class. But they make it work it. Thank goodness for Governors like DeSantis who recognize this. I like how the constitution is now a good thing
Snarkiness aside from some here... I support vouchers and think misusing them should be criminal. But arent y'all the ones who get salty when someone complains about people on welfare having iPhones and 55in TV's? It's all wrong.
True, but that article (IX) gives no guidance or hindrance to the state allocating vouchers for school choice. It clearly says that free schools must be equally available. As long as the state is abiding by Article IX, then additional education funded by the state is completely in play.
Glad you asked that question. If you live in a community, that community will determine the value of your home. If you invest in the schools, families with children will want to live there thus increasing the value of your home. I ask the question; do you always use the fire department? The police? You pay for those too.
Wait for the residual budgetary impacts. Schools will have 50k/100k cuts here and there, forcing them to cut teachers, programs, materials. Meanwhile, the "opportunity scholarships" will not be enough to make the popup schools subsist, resulting in failing schools in multiple sectors. Too many people who wish to tuck their children away in some utopian school will have the rug pulled out.
As long as these voucher schools have no rules and regulations not one cent of public money should go there.
Everyone benefits from the fire and police departments, not everyone will benefit from public schools no matter how much we invest or as were forced to Pay taxes. That's why certain families make sacrifices and invest in private schooling or home schooling
Nonsense of course. I have no issue with a person on welfare or food stamps owning a 55” TV or a iphone. Not really eyebrow raising. I do have an issue if the govt directly paid for that TV or if “food stamps” were deemed eligible to use in Best Buy towards a TV or brand new iPhone. Using school vouchers for such a purchase is kind of like allowing food stamps to purchase those items. The hypocrisy here only goes in one direction. As I recall the premise of the previous thread (or at least of our fake fiscal hawks) was that if some poor on food stamps was caught buying beer or candy with their own money, they’d lose their food assistance. Not sure how that lines up with the government giving the OK on TV purchases with $8000 school vouchers. Is there even a limit? So with this voucher windfall someone can hypothetically get a top of the line OLED for $3,500 on the govt dime and that’s justified because…”schools have TV’s in classroom”? As i said earlier, even if we allow vouchers to be used on something other than tuition, it should be limited to what public school kids get to take home with them. Sounds like this is turning out exactly as I predicted. A bunch of rich folks are going to turn around and use vouchers to buy themselves $10,000 or $20,000 in toys while homeschooling their kids. It’s completely absurd.
Your position is specious. The poor person in your hypo has finite resources. That person could use their own money to buy food and other necessities. How does your logic not apply equally to Elon Musk? He has to eat too.
Yes, money is fungible, but the purpose of food stamps is to assist poor (single) women or disabled people - and it’s based on income. So unless they are lying about their income, who cares if they scrap together enough cash on the side for an iPhone? That doesn’t mean the government should buy everyone an iPhone. You are practically arguing for universal income here, disguised as school vouchers. Seems to me it’s far more inconsistent to be upset about how poor people spend their own money, but then try to justify big spending while directly using govt vouchers as in this case. As I said, I’d be curious to know if there are limits. This has potential to create welfare queens on steroids. You made the argument about televisions and sports equipment. How about transportation? Public schools bus kids to school, so I guess by logical extension govt school vouchers should be used to buy people brand new cars too, right? I think you’ve buried fiscal conservatism, comrade.
