Neither can anyone else who doesn't have school age children. You seem to not understand the idea of a public resource. The parents aren't paying taxes so their children have a school to go to, they are paying taxes, like everyone else, so that children in general have a school to go to.Originally Posted by Lewkowski
. . .
Post #2 asked why they can't just take the money the mom paid in property taxes to the school district she lives in.
But anyway here is the issue. If the child is going to go to a school it costs money for that school to educate them, right? So if the child doesn't go to that school that is a net benefit for that school district. However the purpose of that child is not so the school gets money it is so that the child gets an education. Why would the government be opposed to having more children get a quality education? The answer is the unions hate the idea.
Some liberals also dislike the concept of letting children not be forced into the curriculum that they approve. But the majority of it is, the interests of the teachers union competing with those of the child.
The voucher system is funded by taking the money the student would have cost the district away from the district, no?* So the the district isn't benefiting at all. At best they are breaking even, at worse they reach a point of not being able to reach that plateau of expensives that any business would have. Schools spread the per cost expense of educating children across their entire population. Some kids simply cost more than others. The more children you remove from the system, the less room you leave the district to work with.
No one is opposed to what they consider a quality education, but that was a bullshit line on your part anyway. Hell, I'm willing to bet that there are numerous members on this board that would accuse you of keeping your children from receiving a quality education.
*If its not, then you could just as well dump the voucher funding into the education system, and you're still supporting a better education.
Currently it benefits the school district for having kids taken out and go to another type of school (private / home schooling). My point was that the point of educational costs is to educate the child not provide more money to a school district. Therefore having the parents choose where those educational dollars goes to is only fair.
Of course it will provide a better education for children. Parents have a vested interest to pick the best school for their kids. By allowing vouchers you enable all children not just the rich to enjoy a quality education. Furthermore you introduce competition into what is otherwise an almost ironclad government monopoly.
As a bonus you can snap the backs of the teachers union. The teachers union is one of the most vile legal organizations in America. Their purpose is to protect crappy teachers and extract more then a fair wage from the tax payers. I could post a bazillion links on why they are bad, from "Rubber rooms" to the termination rate in some districts of less then .1%
Its like talking to a brick wall.
A brick wall with a fetish for unionsTo the point that you're actively ignoring the connections you're missing, that you're willing to destroy the education of America's youth, just to see the union destroyed.
You understand its possible show the problems with vouchers without hiding behind union issues right?
Its dangerous to the point of being counter productive. Texas' current text book ordering changes and the attack on evolution teachings are two good examples.Therefore having the parents choose where those educational dollars goes to is only fair.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote