Of course it does. You seem to think that schools in at-risk populations should be of equal quality to schools in affluent 'hoods. That's never going to be true in the U.S. Educating the American populace is a wildly complex endeavor fraught with challenges and pitfalls. Why do you think real estate listings include school quality ratings?
The most gifted should get all the funding. I mean, how else do you have a caste system. Damn public education trying to level shat, complete BS
I guess you're referencing my post since I posted the "all about me" line. Just for clarity I understand the logic of family and would also say nothing is more important than MY family. However, that is hardly the issue for most. $$ is the real issue. My kid and grandkids will/have always gone to very good schools which were typically the nearby public schools and in one case a private HS. We never bitched about the cost, felt the need to use vouchers or any other means to save $$ or suck $$ out of the public school system. In fact just the opposite, we supported the schools with our time and $$ and campaigned for our preferred school board members. You can get down off your soapbox trying to use the better parent line. Geez.
Doesn’t have to be this way. For some, a job is like their child. And for others who have actual children, we need to make hard decisions for the betterment of our families.
Who asking you to sacrifice your children? You are free to send them to a $100k a year boarding school if you want. Just don’t expect public funds to pay for it.
You don’t even have to move. There’s school choice, charter schools. Parents committed to their kids education will find a way to send their kids to better public schools.
Wow. Literally nothing sounds more liberal than to say the money I earn isnt mine. Who's paycheck was it cut from exactly? Your proximity by profession had made you blind.
I have only ever suggested public funds for such things be available to people below certain income levels. Its the same position I have for supporting school lunches for instance. Rich people should not get vouchers.
Iol. You were the one on the soapbox. I responded to YOU. And for the 1000th time, those who can afford the cost should not get vouchers. Same with school lunches and many other common good, social programs. The right has it wrong wanting vouchers for everyone and the left has it wrong saying lower income people should have no school choice. As usual, the extremes on both sides are missing the boat and operate from their selfish position.
Again, it’s going to the public coffers. Education, along with roads, parks, etc. are PUBLIC GOODS. Vouchers/voucher schools take money from OTHER taxpayers to pay for the voucher recipients. Sounds like “socialism”, amirite? The vast majority of voucher recipients already have children in private schools, so this is just a wealth transfer scheme. Let’s say that Bluke pays 12K in property taxes and let’s say that 50% of that goes the public schools in Lake County (I’m sure it’s not that much) which means that he is being subsidized by other taxpayers in Lake County and if both of his kids go to a private voucher school he pockets even more. In addition, there is no means testing for these programs. If someone pays 12K in property taxes in Lake County it means that their house is worth between 850K to 1.2M depending on where that house is located. These schemes are just welfare for those that are well off and deprives those kids that need a properly funded public school.
But here is the problem: you are starting from language that government funds are essentially your funds because "you earned it" and then switching to vouchers as a form of social assistance for people who aren't paying those taxes. Those are not consistent positions. I don't tend to buy your argument that they are your funds after transfer to the government, but you can't both argue that the funds for vouchers are not taken from public coffers while at the same time arguing that you want to hand them out to people based on economic need, when those people who have economic needs are not paying taxes at the level to warrant that being "their" money.
Almost nobody is paying the taxes sufficient to cover vouchers, even if we counted 100% of their property tax assessment. But of course that would be a ridiculous and very much not apples to apples measure in the first place, given that 100% of property taxes are not allocated to schools. *Maybe* a very wealthy person with just 1 kid. But as far as I know, there is no limit. How can you possibly make this “it’s just their tax dollars” for people getting $32,000 or $40,000 or more in voucher money? It’s a 100% completely absurd argument. In realty, much of this is done by raiding lottery money. Not people “getting back what they put in”. By doing these transfers, it is very much thinning out money that could be going to improve teachers and schools. We also know this is the agenda, to undermine public schools and teachers unions and “show” they don’t work. I think the thinning of resources is going to prove out to be a long term issue, especially as more and more grifters show up to skim money off the top rather than to facilities and teachers.
No ot isnt. Your view is skewed by your profession. Denying low income families a way out is selfish. It sounds .... Wait for it...*Republican*.
I am saying I am fine with MY money helping lower income folks have better options. But its utter brainwashing to ever think that it isnt your money yo start with. It 100% is.
I am saying both things. That all earned money is your, bit some of what the government requires from you in taxes should help lower income folks have more than one school option.
