fail to understand how that is constitutional. can someone explain this to me? why are tax dollars allowed to be used to teach religion?
No, He handled Covid better than any large state Gov, so disagree there. I would think it would be easy to restrict money going to unaccredited schools. Problem solved. Hope they do that.
Yeah, like Baltimore has and look at what that has done... Throwing money at a problem doesn't magically make it go away.
Just don’t think your logic is sound. Every private school kid just got 8k. That is money coming out of a system for kids that weren’t “in” the system. So more money is now needed. And that is before you talk about funds for the other categories. It will need serious monitoring and study to see how the already tight margins unfold. Now if you want to Union bust or collapse public schools, it seems like a workable plan. I personally think this has been a long term strategic plan of the thumpers and brought to life by the world battle against woke. This correlates nicely with US alien encounters vs the world
No, but I think it's missing the forest for the trees with this sort of policy. It's kind of like welfare. The problem with welfare isn't specifically the welfare queens that exploit the system, it's the incentive structure that enables a culture of creating more welfare queens the bigger the welfare state. With this issue, although no doubt some people will send their kids to unaccredited bad schools and that's not inherently a good thing, that's not going to be the predominant outcome of this sort of policy.
an educated public is a public benefit. the public obligation to a free education currently stops at high school but public higher ed institutions are subsidized to help reduce prices so if you go to a public college, your costs are beign subsidized
I said we give out subsidies without price controls, rent control is not an example of that. If you want to nail me, you could have said insurance is subject to price controls everywhere too, but that's another thing you dont get money to buy (other than ACA for health care).
Isnt this throwing money at a problem? The money is just going to different people, that's all. The students and social conditions remain the same. Private schools dont have any secret sauce, but conservatives think they are magic.
It will definitely require more money than the current system, and that'll have to come from somewhere. But considering low Florida taxes, that Florida traditionally has not financially invested much compared to other states in education, and considering the budget surplus we have in Florida, it can be done. If we have to eat some higher taxes to pay for this, so be it. It's worth it in the long run.
Haha, amazing ... we now have tax and spend conservatives saying their social programs just need more money to succeed.
Completely agree with you on funding and Florida’s lack of it. But we have an educational system that they have not wanted to fund. Now, we are going to create a parallel system (with differing rules, standards and testing) and suddenly find money to fund that, despite the available data on said subject. Makes zero sense. I can find lots of things to modify in our education system if I was king for a day. And yet, this would not be on my bingo card.
It's a new program that has to be financed somehow. If you're going to have vouchers, it requires some money. All we're doing is deciding how much. I think "succeed" is a relative term. There will always be public schools and there will always be private schools, and there will always be people forced into public schools. The question is whether the policy genuinely gives the average family the option to choose where they send their kids to school. You'd have a point if there were no logical endgame to this. DeSantis and/or the Florida Legislature could very well just say "it's as good as it's going to get, we've done all we can do." If it doesn't work out and they just keep asking for more money, then I think it's fair for some eyebrows to be raised. But I think it's a little premature for that.
It's really as simple as some people think the public school system is great and it doesn't present a problem even if people are shoehorned in there. And some people think it isn't great, and people need more options. Neither opinion makes you a bad person or an idiot. Just a difference of opinion.
Not only is it allowed, it's compelled (if we have a voucher program). Why? Because the current Republican majority on SCOTUS don't hold the Establishment Clause in high esteem. On whether it should be allowed, I think so. As long as they're not requiring students to attend religious schools, I see no reason why the government should be compelled to tell them they can't. This voucher program is bad policy, but bad policy often isn't unconstitutional.
Some leftists want to interpret the Establishment Clause so broadly, it effectively writes out the Free Exercise Clause.
I thought one of the arguments for vouchers is that private schools are more efficient given the impact of teacher's union and administrators in the public schools. If vouchers means it's going to cost more money to educate the same number of kids in the state, does that mean private schools are actually less efficient? And how would we know the extent to which public schools would have performed better if spending had been increased on them?
No one is shoehorned into attending a public school, it’s a choice. People are free to attend any school they wish to attend that has the room. Everything is a choice. Actually they want more options for themselves and fewer options for those who choose to remain in public schools. You can have a difference of opinion without trying to force your opinion on others.
