Low scores don't deter Wis. voucher supporters

Comparisons to food stamps was really 'oblique' but also misleading. People aren't simply given debit cards to buy food, they're limited to certain foods already chosen by the gov't (no chips, soda, etc.) and certain amounts based on family size/number of children.

Dread, using your own previous examples of how tax dollars are used, and when taxpayers might object (Planned Parenthood and abortions)....I wouldn't want vouchers used for kids to attend some fringe fundie private school that teaches man walked with dinosaurs and the planet is only 5,000 years old, no matter how many other standards they meet. Not many would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

So you're aware that parents can make poor decisions which will cripple their children's' futures, but go on to say that "vouchers acknowledge that ever-changing reality by allowing parents to pick winners and losers as they see fit"? I don't want a school system where its possible for parents to fuck up that bad when it comes to choosing something for their children, especially their education, and I don't know why you'd want it either.

---

Making choices is an important part of parenting. Beyond the existence of vouchers, parents already choose to send their kids to private schools. They also choose to buy their kids fast cars, send them on dangerous trips, put them in religious camps where ideology is taught that we may disagree with, etc. I don't think depriving parents of educational choices accomplishes anything positive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Comparisons to food stamps was really 'oblique' but also misleading. People aren't simply given debit cards to buy food, they're limited to certain foods already chosen by the gov't (no chips, soda, etc.) and certain amounts based on family size/number of children.

Dread, using your own previous examples of how tax dollars are used, and when taxpayers might object (Planned Parenthood and abortions)....I wouldn't want vouchers used for kids to attend some fringe fundie private school that teaches man walked with dinosaurs and the planet is only 5,000 years old, no matter how many other standards they meet. Not many would.

---

You are incorrect, at least at the federal level-

Quote:

---

Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items

Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome. Further detailed information about the challenges of restricting the use of SNAP benefits can be found here:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm

---

Some object to government money funding abortions because they don't think abortions should be legal. No one thinks education should be illegal. And the lame ideas taught by such a fundie school would be subject to scrutiny in accreditation, college admissions, etc. But it seems more reasonable to let the fundies send their kids to fundie schools, instead of letting fundies hijack the entire education of Texas and impose their values on everyone.

"Sof drinks" are things like lemon-ade powder mixes. I'm under the impression that (at least the state of PA) doesn't cover soda pops, juices with less than 80% fruit juice, or even "cheese food products" vs processed cheese. Ice cream would count as a dairy food.

You've also complained about Centralization, but then say it's fine for accreditation and college admission standards would apply...:hmm:

As I said before, it's dirty pool politics to try and make legal abortions disappear by defunding PP, since the Hyde Amendment says no federal funds can be used. We supposedly believe in separating church and state, so how would public tax dollars going toward religious school be constitutional?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

"Sof drinks" are things like lemon-ade powder mixes. I'm under the impression that (at least the state of PA) doesn't cover soda pops, juices with less than 80% fruit juice, or even "cheese food products" vs processed cheese. Ice cream would count as a dairy food.

You've also complained about Centralization, but then say it's fine for accreditation and college admission standards would apply...:hmm:

As I said before, it's dirty pool politics to try and make legal abortions disappear by defunding PP, since the Hyde Amendment says no federal funds can be used. We supposedly believe in separating church and state, so how would public tax dollars going toward religious school be constitutional?

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm not seeing how a voucher program violates the first amendment...

That's like saying that you can not have the government fund a hospital named after a Saint. Or deciding that government funds can not be used to pay the salary of a military Chaplin. Both of these examples are legal because they do not violate the first amendment. Neither does a voucher program that is used to go to a religious school.

Public School prayer decisions didn't go that way. Why would direct federal funding of religious schools be any different? You want it both ways---defund PP to abolish legal abortions based on your religious beliefs, but fund private religious schools with tax-payer vouchers? :rolleyes:

I'd be open to some experimenting with vouchers, magnet and charter schools as long as they're truly Public and not religiously affiliated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

So you're aware that parents can make poor decisions which will cripple their children's' futures, but go on to say that "vouchers acknowledge that ever-changing reality by allowing parents to pick winners and losers as they see fit"? I don't want a school system where its possible for parents to fuck up that bad when it comes to choosing something for their children, especially their education, and I don't know why you'd want it either.

---

Because the government can *and does* fuck up just as badly and greater flexibility *which in this sort of behavioral context always entails more decentralized decision-making* will avoid fuck-ups for greater numbers of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Because the government can *and does* fuck up just as badly and greater flexibility *which in this sort of behavioral context always entails more decentralized decision-making* will avoid fuck-ups for greater numbers of people.

---

There are ways to create decentralized governmental decision-making (and less fuck ups) without using vouchers, though. The biggest problem I can see with relying on vouchers as the next best thing since sliced bread, is not addressing top-heavy bureaucratic fuck ups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

There are ways to create decentralized governmental decision-making (and less fuck ups) without using vouchers, though. The biggest problem I can see with relying on vouchers as the next best thing since sliced bread, is not addressing top-heavy bureaucratic fuck ups.

---

Sure there are. OG has addressed some of them. Here's the thing. The voucher crowd on here and in general that I've seen? Doesn't regard vouchers as exclusive. Introducing vouchers doesn't prevent anything else from being done. The anti-voucher crowd on here? *less true than anti-voucher people in general* Violently hostile to any vouchers, anywhere, in any context. The pro-voucher crowd isn't relying on them. You guys are.

You guys? :confused: I've already stated, multiple times (and even over the years) that vouchers are a viable option in certain areas. As are magnet and charter schools. But it's important to recognize when vouchers can be a bad idea. The pro-group may not see them as an exclusive answer to our educational ails, but they should also admit their limitations.

Question to Fuzzy: do you think vouchers should apply to religious schools?

Looks like he logged off, so the same question is open to everyone. Would you have reservations about federal dollars going to a Muslim school or madrassas? How about sect-based schools like factions of LDS? (That'd be the off-shoot of Mormons in the west that ended with the children being bussed off the compound until charges of sexual abuse and exploitation could be sorted out.)

I remember lolli talking about her private Anglican school and controversy surrounding same-sex parents. These are the kinds of things private religious schools can "get away with" that public schools cannot. Why should federal or state tax payer dollars go to religious schools that can be pretty damn discriminatory?

Nope no reservations, and I'm deeply anti-religious. Cause 'Ferderal' and 'State' Dollars are our dollars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Nope no reservations, and I'm deeply anti-religious. Cause 'Ferderal' and 'State' Dollars are our dollars.

---

All our dollar r belong to us?

State money also goes to parochial schools, so it's not like this is a revolutionary concept. The parochial schools have to keep up the same standards, can't exclude non-Christians and can't use that funding to advance religion. The court history on this is a bit interesting and conflicted, but it seems very clear that parochial schools with state support are okay.

And, to go back on the SNAP comparison, if I'm given federal food aid but I spend it entirely on Halal food prepared by a religious Muslim ship, that doesn't mean the state is supporting organized religion.

Tax money goes to parochial schools for transportation, ie busing. I vaguely remember when this was an issue. If every resident paid taxes toward public schools, but not private religious education.....parents could at least expect their tax money benefited their own children attending private schools, and could expect a big yellow bus to take them there.

Edit: I was probably thinking of WIC benefits when talking about state or federal benefits, and how foods are defined or qualified. There is some overlap there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

State money also goes to parochial schools, so it's not like this is a revolutionary concept. The parochial schools have to keep up the same standards, can't exclude non-Christians and can't use that funding to advance religion. The court history on this is a bit interesting and conflicted, but it seems very clear that parochial schools with state support are okay.

And, to go back on the SNAP comparison, if I'm given federal food aid but I spend it entirely on Halal food prepared by a religious Muslim ship, that doesn't mean the state is supporting organized religion.

---

Good to know you support feeding and educating those less fortunate with tax dollars?

When have I ever said I don't support subsidized food for the desperate and subsidized primary education?

When have I ever said I don't support vouchers for the desperate needing primary education?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Question to Fuzzy: do you think vouchers should apply to religious schools?

---

Complicated question. It requires a somewhat involved answer. I've come back into the thread three times now since you posted it, and I still don't have the time to go over the issues. I will try to get to it later tonight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

When have I ever said I don't support vouchers for the desperate needing primary education?

---

So the non-desperate shouldn't get primary education? :confused:

Look, I've been consistent on this issue.

Fuzzy understood my question. Parents and students who are not desperate for a better education probably aren't thinking of getting out of their current schools, by any means, Dread.

Also, we have some fundie tax payers. Remember, I am not too far from the Dover school district, plus Amish and Mennonite communities. We all pay school property taxes, that's how our provincial tax system still works. While it's reasonable that everyone pays the same share, it's a recurring question if religious property owners should be contributing to public education they don't agree with.....especially when it comes to sex-ed, family planning, distributing condoms, encouraging sexually active young women to seek birth control.

Fuzzy also understood that vouchers would allow parents happy with their current schools to keep their kids in those schools.

What? Parents who like their school district wouldn't be pursuing vouchers.

The point of vouchers is that everyone has them. Once again, as Fuzzy mentioned, vouchers don't negate the opportunities of parents who are happy with their schools. But, despite your claim, it seems pretty clear you are hostile to this kind of choice in any context. Why you don't like this kind of direct-distribution of education dollars isn't clear, I haven't seen much of a coherent case like what OG put together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

The point of vouchers is that everyone has them. Once again, as Fuzzy mentioned, vouchers don't negate the opportunities of parents who are happy with their schools. But, despite your claim, it seems pretty clear you are hostile to this kind of choice in any context. Why you don't like this kind of direct-distribution of education dollars isn't clear, I haven't seen much of a coherent case like what OG put together.

---

When did your reading skills decline so badly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Public School prayer decisions didn't go that way. Why would direct federal funding of religious schools be any different? You want it both ways---defund PP to abolish legal abortions based on your religious beliefs, but fund private religious schools with tax-payer vouchers? :rolleyes:

I'd be open to some experimenting with vouchers, magnet and charter schools as long as they're truly Public and not religiously affiliated.

---

Giving money to parents and them choosing to use it via a religious school is not establishment of a state religion. That is no different then giving parents food stamps and letting them buy groceries at a religious grocery store.

Out of curiosity, how do these vouchers work? Does every kid get eg. 10k to spend on any school? Do some kids get more than others? Where does the money come from in a voucher system if it comes from property taxes today? Are property taxes the same everywhere? Will all schools cost the same for students or will this essentially amount to an artificial price floor? Who wins and who loses, in terms of $$$, in such a scheme?

What exactly is the difference between public and charter, anyway? I mean, if they are both paid by the state through vouchers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Out of curiosity, how do these vouchers work? Does every kid get eg. 10k to spend on any school? Do some kids get more than others? Where does the money come from in a voucher system if it comes from property taxes today? Are property taxes the same everywhere? Will all schools cost the same for students or will this essentially amount to an artificial price floor? Who wins and who loses, in terms of $$$, in such a scheme?

---

There are a number of ways one could structure it. In the US, the actual amount and distribution would likely vary in each state. Though there could be other formulas to tie the voucher amount to income. Or the state would simply calculate a flat amount per student each year.

How is the distribution structured in Sweden?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

What exactly is the difference between public and charter, anyway? I mean, if they are both paid by the state through vouchers...

---

Charter schools are basically public schools that receive state funding, but don't have to comply with certain regulations/union agreements in exchange for more accountability and the possibility that they could be shut-down if they don't perform.

Doesn't sound bad, then. Are they requiered to take anyone in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Out of curiosity, how do these vouchers work? Does every kid get eg. 10k to spend on any school? Do some kids get more than others? Where does the money come from in a voucher system if it comes from property taxes today? Are property taxes the same everywhere? Will all schools cost the same for students or will this essentially amount to an artificial price floor? Who wins and who loses, in terms of $$$, in such a scheme?

---

Right now all the pilot programs I'm aware of are at the district level, not even the state level, so there's a fair amount of variability. States *however they collects funds for education* pay them out to school districts in part based on how many students there are in that district and then in each individual school. Districts in turn determine funding for the various schools in part by the number of students. In effect, a certain amount of money per month/year is dedicated to each individual student, as part of the block funding *note that the funds determined by the per student forumulas are only part of the total funding, not all of it*

Some districts have voucher programs which allocate all or a major fraction of that "per student" funding to the school selected by a parent receiving a voucher. Others establish a flat amount to be each student's subsidy. There are other schemes, I'm sure. Personally, I favor a system where a fraction of the "per student" funding goes as a voucher subsidy and the rest stays with the school. The parents still have to pay some out of pocket expenses to afford private school but have the benefit of a public subsidy to help, while more relative funds are stay within the public school. I have absolutely no problem with voucher systems only existing for schools which are failing to meet standards. IMO their purpose is two-fold, to provide some help for alternatives for any families interested in them, and to help the failing school itself. Somehow I don't think Dread would particularly care for the system I favor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Fuzzy also understood that vouchers would allow parents happy with their current schools to keep their kids in those schools.

---

GGT's claim as to my understanding is closer to my position than your claim as to my understanding. When I discuss vouchers, I am not talking about a wholesale reform or restructuring of the educational system, and I am more concerned with local communities than with choices for individual parents. Vouchers aren't about FREEEEEDOOOM! They're about improving the education provided in a local area, in aggregate, with an emphasis on those local areas where the aggregate performance is already low.