Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers

malcolmkirkpatrick RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:

>:|jalison-buckeye wrote:...
>> malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:...
>> > Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> >> "Tak" wrote:...
>> >>>"Ron Baker" wrote:...
>>
>> >>>>Even though I am an atheist I think the separation argument
>> >>>>to block vouchers is bogus.
>>
>> >MK. I agree. So do Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law), Benjamin
>> > Dowling-Sandor (American School Board Journal school law > >
>:|writer), and the US Supreme Court. In any case, your Legislature > >
>:|could achieve the same result (State-supported parent choice) > >
>:|through a clearly constitutional policy: mandate that districts -> >
>-must-- hire parents on personal service contracts to provide > > for
>:|their children's education, if the parents apply for the > >
>:|contract. Parents could then homeschool, hire tutors, or send > >
>:|their children to independent schools.
>>
>> Ahhhhh the propganadist is back again spreding his misinforamtion >
>:|once again. Excuse me what court does Laurence Tribe sit on?


Follow the Money: Funding and Support for Voucher Programs
Key Individuals Supporting the National Voucher Movement
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10721
**************************************************************
Follow the Money: Funding and Support for Voucher Programs
Foundations Supporting the National Voucher Movement
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10722
****************************************************************
Follow the Money: Funding and Support for Voucher Programs
Local and National Organizations Supporting Voucher Initiatives
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10723
*****************************************************************
Vouchers: Who's Behind It All?
I. Background Information
http://www.aasa.org/government_relations/other/07_30_01_voucher_suppo...
********************************************************************
Who’s bankrolling vouchers?
http://www.njea.org/Issues/bankroll.asp
**********************************************************************
New report details links between charity
and vested interests in campaign
against public schools
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/brambles/499/Church_and_State/Vouche...
***********************************************************************
Pro-voucher brain trusts vital to NCLB sanction fallout
Friday, April 30, 2004
http://www.educationnews.org/pro-voucher-brain-trusts-vital-to.htm
*************************************************************************
The choice is theirs
Bill Berkowitz - WorkingForChange
http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=12584
************************************************************************
The Voucher Circus
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol4No1/voucher_circus.htm
**************************************************************************
RELIGIOUS GROUPS QUIETLY TARGET OBSCURE STATE CONSTITUTION PROVISION
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vouch13.htm
***************************************************************************
GOVERNMENT-FUNDED VOUCHERS FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sch_vou.htm
[Excerpt]
Overview:

Some Christians, mainly Roman Catholics and conservative Protestants, have
strongly supported the transfer of government revenue to religious schools.
However, direct financial support has been unconstitutional, because of the
principle of separation of church and state which is part of the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A
recent technique has been to promote "school voucher" programs at the state
or municipal level. The government gives a voucher to parents that they may
use to pay for part of the fee for enrolling a child in a private school.
In effect, the state would be returning money collected from parents in the
form of taxes for the public school system, so that they could help finance
their child's education in a private school, either religious or secular.
***************************************************************
Religious Right, GOP Allies Should Stop Pushing Voucher Plans That
Undermine Public Schools
http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt051701b.html
******************************************************************
GROUPS THAT ARE PRO VOUCHERS SELDOM IF EVER MENTIONED
PRO VOUCHER PEOPLE.
From: jali... RemoveThis @cox.net
Newsgroups:
misc.education,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.usa.const
itution,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Why the Pledge shouldn't be said in our
schoolsoranywherepublic
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:28:52 GMT

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1b198vo85uo308s06sdqjsfm6jfesgh1...

***********************************************************************
[Colorado to take school vouchers step
State to be first with program since Supreme Court ruling
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/04/08/school.vouchers.ap/index.html ]

[Who really represents the will of the people?]

A goal of conservatives for years, vouchers were twice rejected by Colorado
voters.

But the bill was pushed through the Legislature after Republicans won
control in November's elections,

with supporters saying it will give poor students a better education and
force public schools to
improve.

Democratic lawmakers say the voucher program could cost public schools as
much as $200 million in state aid based on the number of students.

The Colorado Education Association, representing 36,000 teachers, is
considering a legal challenge. It says the bill may violate guarantees
against giving tax dollars to religious institutions or any school not
under control of the state.

"The Legislature is blatantly ignoring both the Constitution of the state
of Colorado and the express wishes of the voters," CEA President Ron Brady
said.

===================================================
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

buckeye-ELO RemoveThis @nospam.net wrote in
news:mk6bt0pdv21b9qrchcidio0p9lsl6anq48@4ax.com:

I guess Google *isn't* your frien if you're Strickland!

--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>For your complaint to be valid, one must completely ignore the actual
>>>voucher mechanism.
>>
>> No. It is YOU who ignores the ACTUAL mechanism, instead "reasoning"
>> based on your idealized abstraction of the mechanism. It is ONLY in
>> the abstract that one can claim that money goes to the parents. You
>> can claim with some basis that the parents get a say in where the
>> money gets spent, but only in the sense that they direct what school
>> gets the money - how and where the school spends that money, they have
>> no say in.
>>
>> But all this is irrelevant, since I was merely correcting your
>> misstatement of where the *money* goes, not where your idealized and
>> abstracted control of funding went. A voucher is not itself "money",
>> any more than the coupons you get in your junk mail are "money".
>
>Your ignorance of what really happens

I know what "really happens". Parents do not see or handle any money.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10tb5pc88lobfe4@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi DeleteThis @comporium.net> wrote in message
> news:cr2b6i$5u67$1@news3.infoave.net...
> >
> > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:10t98afc73m7neb@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > Anecdotal evidence of a few individuals - and unprovable anecdotes at
> >> > that -
> >> > do not change the fact that most people trade up every few years . If
> > they
> >> > didn;t could you explain the market for upscale homes, the used home
> >> > market,
> >> > and how first time buyers can afford all of these luxury homes being
> >> > built?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Unprovable? It's a matter of public record. Having access to the public
> >> record as a matter of my job, I happen to know without doubt that at
> >> least
> >> three of the homes my father has sold still belong to the families he
> >> sold
> >> them to. I know without a doubt that my brother still lives in the
house
> >> that he and I bought from my father, and I still live in the house my
> >> wife
> >> and I bought 15 years ago. Anecdotal, my ass.
> >>
> >> Of course people buy and move up, but many many people buy a home and
> >> live
> >> in it for the rest of their life. Being actively involved in real
estate,
> > I
> >> can say that most people do not move more than twice once they settle
> >> into
> >> home ownership. Yes, there are notable exceptions to that statement.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Your logic making California the national example is flawed, too.
While
> >> > large, CA is still only 1 statem, and none of the other 49 have this
> > rule.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, yes, CA is only one state. It is the most populous state though,
> >> and
> >> it makes a reasonably good example of the point that we are trying to
> >> illustrate.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Seeing that you deleted my links to the US census and a current news
> > report
> > that both proved you to be factually incorrect, I conclude that you
> > acknowledge your failure and chose to try to lie your way out of your
> > defeat.
> >
> > larry
> >
>
> Those links show NOTHING relative to this discussion.
>

So you deleted them because you were afraid I was making a foll of myself in
public, and you wanted to shield me from that humiliation??

Nah, you're just a rightard liar.


> 1. 20-somethings have babies that are not in school yet, or are perhaps in
K
> or 1st grade.

And Kindergarten or first grade isn;t school??

> 2. 30-somethings are buying homes in record numbers.

So what? Less than 2 in 3 own their home. From one of the links that you
cowardly deleted:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr304/q304tab7.html

> 3. 40-somethings in the links YOU provided are precisely the people with
> kids in middle schools and high schools, where the greatest
dissatisfaction
> with public schools exists.

WRONG. By the time parents are in their forties the kids have graduated from
grade school and have either entered college of gone off on their own. NONE
of my freinds and cowrkers in their mid forties or older have kids in grade
school.

> 4. Lots of older people are buying smaller homes that are cheaper to own
and
> easier to maintain.

Wrong. By the time people reach their 60's they are looking to pay off
mortgages as a cost reduction for retirement. And buying down runs the
probabvility of having to pay a large capital gains tax on the profits of
thier home. It is rare that this "buy down" you mention happens before a
homeowner enters the 70's

Since you invoked unprovable anecdotes, I'll toss mine in. EVERY one of my
mother's friends - 60's and up, own the same home they did for years.except
for the two who moved into an assisted living home.

They are effectively buying down, not up. They are
> moving out of homes they owned for 30+ years and taking equity dollars and
> paying cash for homes with no mortgage, and often in retirement
communities
> that have taxation rules that even shield them from school taxes that you
> claim they are paying.

This must be a California thing. I can find no state that has tax-exempt
locations. Heer, for example.,the tax rate is reduced if you are over 80.


> 5. The 40-somethings that are buying homes today are paying substantially
> more than their parents paid, therefore the younger people are paying more
> property taxes, not less. <caveat, I am discounting the people that live
in
> luxury homes and focussing on the normal tract home owners. People in
luxury
> homes are not having problems with schools that are addressed by voucher
> plans.>
>

Bogus math. Inflation accounts for the increased costs. And we are not
comparting todays tax paymetns with those of twenty years ago. You are
dverting the attention in a futile attempt to lie your way out of your
problem.

And tell me whhy you are ignoring luxury home sales if not for the fact that
these sales put the lie to your assertion? ALL homes are taxed.

And lastly, look at the census reports again. There are far more americans40
and over than there are between 20 and 39. And they own homes at a much
greater rate than those 20-39.

Larry

> Personally, I would pay school taxes well into my 80s, even after my own
> grand kids are long out of school because I know that educating children
is
> very important. I don't care that my neighbors might want their kids to
> attend religious schools with my tax dollars. Somebody's religion is their
> own business, and educating their children is more important than any
> religion that may come from the choice of schools.
>
> I prefer public schools, of that there is no question. But I have to
conceed
> the point that public schools in many places fall short of the goals
placed
> on them. Given the concession, if vouchers are selected as a relief
> mechanism, then I can't tell a voucher recipient that they can only select
> from non-religious education options.
>
>
>
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi DeleteThis @comporium.net> wrote in message
>news:cr2b6i$5u67$1@news3.infoave.net...
>> Seeing that you deleted my links to the US census and a current news
>> report
>> that both proved you to be factually incorrect, I conclude that you
>> acknowledge your failure and chose to try to lie your way out of your
>> defeat.
>>
>
>Those links show NOTHING relative to this discussion.
>
>1. 20-somethings have babies that are not in school yet, or are perhaps in K
>or 1st grade.

Someone is a 20-something until age 29. People have kids sometimes
while still teenagers. Therefore many 20-somethings have kids as old
as 10-12 years, which are not K or 1st grade.

K and 1st graders are "in school".

Furthermore, you seem to be forgetting that a high percentage of kids
are being raised by single parents, who cannot possibly afford to buy
houses at modern prices.

But here are census numbers: number of kids under 18 in households
where the head of household is
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2001/tabavg3.pdf
To which I've added the homeownership rate per the other URL and the
mean property taxes paid from the statistical abstract, Table 660
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/income.pdf

kids under 18 homeownership rate Property taxes pd
under 20 .28 million
20-24 2.85 million 22.8% ___ $281
25-29 6.89 million 39.8%
30-34 12.42 million 56.5% ___ $823
35-39 16.30 million 65.1%
40-44 14.39 million 71.3% ___ $1473
45-49 8.24 million 75.4%
50-54 3.22 million 77.9% ___ $1557
55-59 .94 million 80.9%
60-64 .34 million 81.9% ___ $1540
65-74 .19 million 82.3% $1199

from which is can be seen that the peak in property taxes is people
from 45-64, who have less than 20% of all kids under 18.

And never even at the peak does the average person pay more than a
quarter of the average expenditure of the public schools on their kid
in one year.


>2. 30-somethings are buying homes in record numbers.

You fail to provide data.

The URL you deleted says that 57.7% of those age 30-34 own homes, and
65.4% of those age 35-39. That means that between a third and a half
of those in their thirties do NOT own their own homes.

Incidentally, in the West, the numbers are lower: 50.0% of those age
30-34, and 58.1% of those 35-39. Overall, it is 36.9% for those under
age 35, which can take some kids all the way through high school. It
is the South and Midwest where housing is cheaper that raise the
homeownership rates of younger people up to the levels for the nation
as a whole. LA has one of the lowest homeownership rates in the
country, only 50.0% in 2003 (a drop from 2002, BTW) when the national
average for metro areas is 66.5%

>3. 40-somethings in the links YOU provided are precisely the people with
>kids in middle schools and high schools, where the greatest dissatisfaction
>with public schools exists.

Wrong.

The use of vouchers where they exist, the practice of homeschooling,
and enrollment in private schools all are concentrated in the primary
grades. Furthermore, vouchers are less helpful for high schools since
private high schools have tuitions double or triple that of the
typical voucher plan.

>4. Lots of older people are buying smaller homes that are cheaper to own and
>easier to maintain. They are effectively buying down, not up.

There are strong tax reasons not to do so before age 55.

>They are
>moving out of homes they owned for 30+ years and taking equity dollars and
>paying cash for homes with no mortgage, and often in retirement communities
>that have taxation rules that even shield them from school taxes that you
>claim they are paying.

We await your data.

>5. The 40-somethings that are buying homes today are paying substantially
>more than their parents paid, therefore the younger people are paying more
>property taxes, not less.

But the 40-somethings have grown or nearly grown kids.

>Personally, I would pay school taxes well into my 80s, even after my own
>grand kids are long out of school because I know that educating children is
>very important.

You'll pay school taxes as long as "we the people" vote to have you
pay school taxes. You don't have a choice.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Every minute they spend being indoctrinated in religion, they aren't
>> learning something else.
>
>You are so totally clueless. How do you even function?

Better than you do, I suspect.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab RemoveThis @lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>You know, Bob, I just noticed that you have nothing at all to say in the
>thread about PBS being used as a tool to spread Islam.

Cite please?

And more importantly, please show where government funds are going to
programming intended to spread Islam. The vast majority of PBS
programming is privately funded.

>Your objection to religion

I have no objection to religion. I object to government spending
being used to promote religion in any way.

>seems to be centered on the spread of Christian ideals within a
>family where the parents themselves work to bring Christ to their own
>children. Why is that Bob?

Because you are clueless, seeing an objection when there is none, and
failing to understand the objection that I do have.

>Why would you care what parents want to with
>their own children when what the parents want includes Christ, but you
>apparentl do not care what a parent wants when the parent wants Islam?

I don't care what a parent wants in either case. I care that
government not assist them in their religious wants, whatever they may
be.

>Aren't you just a bit hypocritical?

No.

Aren't you again showing your cluelessness? Yes.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:25:24 -0600, Ron Baker,
Pluralitas! wrote
(in article <8GgAd.54781$gd.17905@twister.socal.rr.com>):

>
> "Gray Shockley" <CyberGray DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BDF61AC80004D819163ACD20@news.giganews.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:59:34 -0600, Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote
>> (in message <WI_zd.37961$Ew6.19892@twister.socal.rr.com>):
>>
>>>> THEN the families can give money to the "church schools" if they so
>>>> desire.
>>>>
>>>> Seperation is still maintained that way.
>>>
>>> Yup. That disarms the separation issue.
>>> The separation issue is a red herring.
>>
>>
>> That's very nice for sweet urban youth;
>> what "plan" do you advocate for the
>> hundreds of thousands (millions?) of
>> students who live 45 minutes to an
>> hour away from their schools?
>>
>>
>> Am I correct that the "voucher position" is "Screw rural people"?
>>
>>
>> In this (kinda urban) area, 95% of the school children ride on big yeller
>> buses. How are you going to get your boys and girls to and from your
> "voucher
>> school"? Priced Blue Birds lately?
>>
>> Textbooks are an ongoing expense for all students' education; where are
> your
>> voucher children going to get their textbooks?
>>
>> And there are many other expenses connected with your "voucher school".
>>
>> How much insurance is your "voucher school" going to buy?
>>
>> To whom are the accounting & financial books going to be open? Are your
>> "voucher schools" going to be for profit? Allegedly "non-profit"?
>>
>> Accreditation? Computers? Provisions for medical problems? Music? Sports?
>> Drama? Breakfast & lunch programs? What is a school cafeteria within the
>> precepts of city, county & state sanitary and nutritional regulations? Is
>> your cafeteria going to have a nutritionist?
>>
>> What are you planning to do about children who cut classes?
>>
>> What type of biology, chemistry and physics laboratories classrooms and
> lab
>> equipment will you have? How 'bout "home ec" labs? Drivers education
> (priced
>> auto insurance for a teenaged boy lately with and without it)?
>>
>> How many foreign languages are you going to have?
>>
>> Are seniors (or gifted juniors) going to be able to take DE and pre-calc
> and
>> calc?
>>
>> What's the ration of students to urinals and commodes as well as
> lavatories.
>> What entity is going to inspect them regularly?
>>
>> How large a library is your "voucher school" going to have? Who is going
> to
>> choose what books are going to be in it? Is accreditation partially
> dependent
>> on this library? Are you to have full-time librarian/librarians?
>>
>> What type of building are you going to have? What construction materials?
>> Sprinkler system for fires? Fire alarms in all rooms? Fire insurance?
>>
>> How much administration is going to be necessary and/or desired?
>>
>> PA system?
>>
>> What type of discipline is going to be used.
>>
>>
>> These aren't minor factors to be glossed over; these are real concerns.
>>
>> Not "that'll work itself out" nor "we'll get more 'stuff' every year" nor
>> "That's technical items and I'm a 'concepts' man".
>>
>> Let's deal with some specifics here in "alt.education". And I would
> imagine
>> that experienced education folks have some really important questions.
>>
>>
>> Or are you a dreamy-eyed visionary caught up in the romance of "Utopia"
>> ("utopia" means "no such place").
>>
>> This should be wonderful for those who want to deal in "facts" rather than
>> "opinions".
>>
>> Got facts?
>
> Are there private schools now?
> What percentage of them are the bookless, insuranceless, computerless,
> educationless institutions that you describe?
>
> --
> rb #2187
>
>

You forgot to answer the questions.


Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Calvin: These are interesting times.
We don't trust the government,
We don't trust the legal system,
We don't trust the media,
and we don't trust each other!
We've undermined all authority,
and with it, the basis for replacing it!

Hobbes: "Interesting" is a mild way of putting it.

Calvin: It's like a six-year-old's dream come true.
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 11:33:38 -0600, Ron Baker,
Pluralitas! wrote
(in article <STBAd.41033$Ew6.9868@twister.socal.rr.com>):

>
> "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote in message
> news:e8o3t0dfpg8cebcj54pa743lm3qjerc10a@4ax.com...
>> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar DeleteThis @bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
>>> "Gray Shockley" <CyberGray DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0001HW.BDF61AC80004D819163ACD20@news.giganews.com...
>>>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:59:34 -0600, Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote
>>>> (in message <WI_zd.37961$Ew6.19892@twister.socal.rr.com>):
>>>>
>>>>>> THEN the families can give money to the "church schools" if they so
>>>>>> desire.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seperation is still maintained that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup. That disarms the separation issue.
>>>>> The separation issue is a red herring.
>>>>
>>>> That's very nice for sweet urban youth;
>>>> what "plan" do you advocate for the
>>>> hundreds of thousands (millions?) of
>>>> students who live 45 minutes to an
>>>> hour away from their schools?
>>>>
>>>> Am I correct that the "voucher position" is "Screw rural people"?
>>>>
>>>> In this (kinda urban) area, 95% of the school children ride on big
> yeller
>>>> buses. How are you going to get your boys and girls to and from your
>>> "voucher
>>>> school"? Priced Blue Birds lately?
>>>>
>>>> Textbooks are an ongoing expense for all students' education; where are
>>> your
>>>> voucher children going to get their textbooks?
>>>>
>>>> And there are many other expenses connected with your "voucher school".
>>>>
>>>> How much insurance is your "voucher school" going to buy?
>>>>
>>>> To whom are the accounting & financial books going to be open? Are your
>>>> "voucher schools" going to be for profit? Allegedly "non-profit"?
>>>>
>>>> Accreditation? Computers? Provisions for medical problems? Music?
> Sports?
>>>> Drama? Breakfast & lunch programs? What is a school cafeteria within
> the
>>>> precepts of city, county & state sanitary and nutritional regulations?
> Is
>>>> your cafeteria going to have a nutritionist?
>>>>
>>>> What are you planning to do about children who cut classes?
>>>>
>>>> What type of biology, chemistry and physics laboratories classrooms and
> lab
>>>> equipment will you have? How 'bout "home ec" labs? Drivers education
> (priced
>>>> auto insurance for a teenaged boy lately with and without it)?
>>>>
>>>> How many foreign languages are you going to have?
>>>>
>>>> Are seniors (or gifted juniors) going to be able to take DE and
> pre-calc and
>>>> calc?
>>>>
>>>> What's the ration of students to urinals and commodes as well as
> lavatories.
>>>> What entity is going to inspect them regularly?
>>>>
>>>> How large a library is your "voucher school" going to have? Who is
> going to
>>>> choose what books are going to be in it? Is accreditation partially
> dependent
>>>> on this library? Are you to have full-time librarian/librarians?
>>>>
>>>> What type of building are you going to have? What construction
> materials?
>>>> Sprinkler system for fires? Fire alarms in all rooms? Fire insurance?
>>>>
>>>> How much administration is going to be necessary and/or desired?
>>>>
>>>> PA system?
>>>>
>>>> What type of discipline is going to be used.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These aren't minor factors to be glossed over; these are real concerns.
>>>>
>>>> Not "that'll work itself out" nor "we'll get more 'stuff' every year"
> nor
>>>> "That's technical items and I'm a 'concepts' man".
>>>>
>>>> Let's deal with some specifics here in "alt.education". And I would
> imagine
>>>> that experienced education folks have some really important questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or are you a dreamy-eyed visionary caught up in the romance of "Utopia"
>>>> ("utopia" means "no such place").
>>>>
>>>> This should be wonderful for those who want to deal in "facts" rather
> than
>>>> "opinions".
>>>>
>>>> Got facts?
>>>
>>> Are there private schools now?
>>
>> Yes. There are a few prep schools that are excellent. There is the
>> Catholic school system, which is competent, but which, given the fact
>> that it can boot out kids who don't fit its mold, is performing only
>> slightly better than the average public schools, and then there are
>> the others, which are a hodgepodge - some good and some bad, and
>> almost none of them accountable to anyone.
>
> How do you figure that?
>
>>
>>> What percentage of them are the bookless, insuranceless, computerless,
>>> educationless institutions that you describe?
>>
>> Relatively few private schools provide buses for transportation.
>> Relatively few provide hot lunches. Many require students to buy
>> their own textbooks, on top of tuition. Most have some sort of
>> library, but it is seldom anything marvelous, and many rely on the
>> public libraries. (The closest private school to here has a library
>> in a room approximately 12' x 12' with all bookshelves starting above
>> knee level - my home library collection is at least twice the size,
>> perhaps three times.)
>>
>> In this area (Washington DC) we have several prep schools that are
>> excellent, but which also charge over $20K per year in tuition. The
>> Catholic schools are OK, and send most of their students to college -
>> but then so do the public schools. But very few of the private
>> schools offer many AP courses, very few can brag of any National Merit
>> scholars.
>>
>>
> http://www.washingtonian.com/schools/private/2004/coedprivate04.html#coedVA
>>
>> Here is one of the few which is reasonably cheap and which offers AP
>> classes - 5 of them:
>> http://www.fairoaksacademy.org/#
>>
>> Of course it only serves 420 students from age 3 to 18 - hardly a
>> panacea in a county with a million residents and 160 thousand in the
>> public schools. And the public schools - well 15 of them offer enough
>> AP courses to enable students to earn a full AP diploma. 8 of the
>> schools offer an International Baccalaureate diploma, and Thomas
>> Jefferson High School, with *average* SAT scores close to 1500 has
>> more National Merit Scholars than any other school in the country.
>> http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/DIS/OHSICS/advepd/advepd.htm
>> http://www.fcps.edu/DEA/schoolprof/high/ThomasJeffersonHS.html
>>
>> The comparison between the public schools and the private schools is
>> clear.
>>
>> Here is one of the better Catholic schools in the county:
>> http://www.paulvi.net/guidance/school_profile.htm
>> tuition for non-Catholics: $9700 - hardly cheap, and students have to
>> buy their own textbooks and do without school buses.
>> average SAT: 1107 only 2 points above the public school average, with
>> 9 public high schools doing better
>> http://www.fcps.edu/mediapub/pressrel/FCPSSAT04.htm#Table1
>> and they get to exclude the special ed kids, the behavior problems,
>> etc.
>>
>> To get something superior, the private school have to charge enormous
>> tuitions:
>> http://www.flinthill.org/flinthill/about_facts.htm
>> 23 AP classes and average SAT of 1238 - quite respectable
>> But they charge $20,800 tuition in high school (that does include
>> lunch), and that is after collecting $831,000 in fund raising, almost
>> $1000 per student. And of course they can be selective about their
>> students.
>
> I suggest you chose not to send your children to
> any private school you find unacceptable.
>
> --
> rb #2187
>
>

The only "private" school for which I know the yearly costs
(cuz they're on the Internet) charges about $6,000.00 for
day students and $22,000.00+ for boarding students.

<http://www.allsaintsweb.com/financial-information.asp>


++ Gray //
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:12:00 -0600, wrote
(in article <uvj0t0l73eiarosmreios7u5aej8109dmo RemoveThis @4ax.com>):

> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:09:58 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
> <oscar RemoveThis @bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
>
>
>> Even though I am an atheist I think the separation argument
>> to block vouchers is bogus.
>
> I would support a tax break equal to the amount withdrawn for public
> education for any family able to prove recognised "alternate"
> schooling for their children.
>
> THEN the families can give money to the "church schools" if they so
> desire.
>

It would be kinda amusingto watch the guvmnt pay the
tuition for students at a Wicca School or a Satanism School
(don't play against their team) or a school of the Old
Religion.

Heinlein was right (about religion, anyway).


Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
One man's religion is another man's belly laugh.
- Jubal Harshaw (Channeled through RAH)


> Seperation is still maintained that way.
>
>
> Tak
> a#344
>
>
> "another atheist"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi DeleteThis @comporium.net> wrote in message
news:cr4t08$71vv$1@news3.infoave.net...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:10tb5pc88lobfe4@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi DeleteThis @comporium.net> wrote in message
>> news:cr2b6i$5u67$1@news3.infoave.net...
>> >
>> > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:10t98afc73m7neb@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> > Anecdotal evidence of a few individuals - and unprovable anecdotes
>> >> > at
>> >> > that -
>> >> > do not change the fact that most people trade up every few years .
>> >> > If
>> > they
>> >> > didn;t could you explain the market for upscale homes, the used home
>> >> > market,
>> >> > and how first time buyers can afford all of these luxury homes being
>> >> > built?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Unprovable? It's a matter of public record. Having access to the
>> >> public
>> >> record as a matter of my job, I happen to know without doubt that at
>> >> least
>> >> three of the homes my father has sold still belong to the families he
>> >> sold
>> >> them to. I know without a doubt that my brother still lives in the
> house
>> >> that he and I bought from my father, and I still live in the house my
>> >> wife
>> >> and I bought 15 years ago. Anecdotal, my ass.
>> >>
>> >> Of course people buy and move up, but many many people buy a home and
>> >> live
>> >> in it for the rest of their life. Being actively involved in real
> estate,
>> > I
>> >> can say that most people do not move more than twice once they settle
>> >> into
>> >> home ownership. Yes, there are notable exceptions to that statement.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Your logic making California the national example is flawed, too.
> While
>> >> > large, CA is still only 1 statem, and none of the other 49 have this
>> > rule.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Well, yes, CA is only one state. It is the most populous state though,
>> >> and
>> >> it makes a reasonably good example of the point that we are trying to
>> >> illustrate.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Seeing that you deleted my links to the US census and a current news
>> > report
>> > that both proved you to be factually incorrect, I conclude that you
>> > acknowledge your failure and chose to try to lie your way out of your
>> > defeat.
>> >
>> > larry
>> >
>>
>> Those links show NOTHING relative to this discussion.
>>
>
> So you deleted them because you were afraid I was making a foll of myself
> in
> public, and you wanted to shield me from that humiliation??
>
> Nah, you're just a rightard liar.
>
>
>> 1. 20-somethings have babies that are not in school yet, or are perhaps
>> in
> K
>> or 1st grade.
>
> And Kindergarten or first grade isn;t school??
>

Of course it is school, but 1, it is the first year or two of 12 years of
schooling, and 2. these years represent practically none of the complaint
areas with regards to public education.



>> 2. 30-somethings are buying homes in record numbers.
>
> So what? Less than 2 in 3 own their home. From one of the links that you
> cowardly deleted:
> http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr304/q304tab7.html
>

You know, it doesn't help your argument to call people that have another
view a coward. I deleted nothing. Your links are still available to anybody
that wants to read them, but they have very little to do with the issues we
were discussing when you provided them.

And, the question we were discussing was, why don't we simply give people a
tax break if they send their kids to private schools. The idea was that this
would be better than a voucher. The problem with this idea is precisely as
you are pointing out, many people that will receive a voucher do not
contribute to the tax base that funds schools.


>> 3. 40-somethings in the links YOU provided are precisely the people with
>> kids in middle schools and high schools, where the greatest
> dissatisfaction
>> with public schools exists.
>
> WRONG. By the time parents are in their forties the kids have graduated
> from
> grade school and have either entered college of gone off on their own.
> NONE
> of my freinds and cowrkers in their mid forties or older have kids in
> grade
> school.
>

Most of the families in my area with kids in high school and middle school
are in their 40 and 50s. I am 51, and have a kid in the 8th grade. My older
kid that just graduated high school did so this past June. You clearly live
in a different world than I do.




>> 4. Lots of older people are buying smaller homes that are cheaper to own
> and
>> easier to maintain.
>
> Wrong. By the time people reach their 60's they are looking to pay off
> mortgages as a cost reduction for retirement. And buying down runs the
> probabvility of having to pay a large capital gains tax on the profits of
> thier home. It is rare that this "buy down" you mention happens before a
> homeowner enters the 70's
>

Alternatively, older couples live in a home they have owned and raised kids
in for 20 or 30 years. They have built significant equity in the home. They
sell the home, pay any remaining mortgage off, and take the cash proceeds
and buy a smaller home for cash. In my state, they can even take the tax
base of the old home and carry it to the new home, so they pay taxes on a
much lower assessed valuation. So, what happens is the old couple have a new
home they paid cash for that is valued at (say) 200,000, but they get to
carry forward the assessed valuation of the home they sold, so they pay
taxes on a valuation of perhaps 75,000 - or less in some cases. The young
couple that lives nearby in a home of the same price will have property
taxes of 2500 per year, or just over 200 per month.




> Since you invoked unprovable anecdotes, I'll toss mine in. EVERY one of my
> mother's friends - 60's and up, own the same home they did for
> years.except
> for the two who moved into an assisted living home.
>
> They are effectively buying down, not up. They are
>> moving out of homes they owned for 30+ years and taking equity dollars
>> and
>> paying cash for homes with no mortgage, and often in retirement
> communities
>> that have taxation rules that even shield them from school taxes that you
>> claim they are paying.
>
> This must be a California thing. I can find no state that has tax-exempt
> locations. Heer, for example.,the tax rate is reduced if you are over 80.
>
>

Not tax exempt, only school taxes are waived in certain types of
communities. For example, a benefit of buying a home in a senior community
that the school taxes are sometimes waived. I am not certain what the
conditions are for such a waiver, and how the community goes about getting
it. But I know for a fact that the senior communities in my area do not pay
school taxes.

To be sure, if an old couple buys a home outside of the senior community,
the property is assessed school taxes, so the exclusion is limited to
certain properties.



>> 5. The 40-somethings that are buying homes today are paying substantially
>> more than their parents paid, therefore the younger people are paying
>> more
>> property taxes, not less. <caveat, I am discounting the people that live
> in
>> luxury homes and focussing on the normal tract home owners. People in
> luxury
>> homes are not having problems with schools that are addressed by voucher
>> plans.>
>>
>
> Bogus math. Inflation accounts for the increased costs. And we are not
> comparting todays tax paymetns with those of twenty years ago. You are
> dverting the attention in a futile attempt to lie your way out of your
> problem.
>


Not true. It is perfectly appropriate to make the comparison. Here's why. 20
years ago, an home sold for $150,000. Today, that home sells for $450,000.
The guy that bought 20 years ago pays taxes at 1.250% based upon the
purchase price of 150,000 plus a small rise not to exceed 2%. The guy that
bought recently also pays taxes at the rate of 1.250%, but it is based on
the 450,000 value. The old family pays about 1875 in property taxes, the new
family living next door pays about 5625 in property taxes.

I'll grant you that 20-year olds are not living in a 450,000 house, but
there are many many children in my school district that are living in a
450,000 house. My point is that the 20 somethings will be buying the 450,000
homes in a few years. But, the people that are getting vouchers will never
be living in a 450,000 home, and the amount of the property tax that goes to
the school from any given property is in the range of about 600, the
vouchers are in the range of 4500.



> And tell me whhy you are ignoring luxury home sales if not for the fact
> that
> these sales put the lie to your assertion? ALL homes are taxed.
>

Yes, but schools in areas that serve luxury homes are not considering giving
vouchers to families. The schools in these areas are generally doing pretty
well at their mission of educating kids. You need to remember the context in
which this discussion started, and your points are not relevent to that
discussion.

Your points are relevent to the broader discussion of vouchers, but they are
not relevent in the particular discussion that was going on when you joined
in.




> And lastly, look at the census reports again. There are far more
> americans40
> and over than there are between 20 and 39. And they own homes at a much
> greater rate than those 20-39.
>
> Larry
>
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers