Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher.TakeThisOut@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:10t3du5shi1utaf@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message
> news:0XgAd.54783$gd.1874@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >
> > "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher.TakeThisOut@yahoo.net> wrote in message
> > news:10t104dn8ev5r24@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Tak" <notanemail.TakeThisOut@youspambastards.com> wrote in message
> > > news:uvj0t0l73eiarosmreios7u5aej8109dmo@4ax.com...
> > > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:09:58 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
> > > > <oscar.TakeThisOut@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 I would support a tax break equal to the amount withdrawn for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.
> > > >
> > > > Seperation is still maintained that way.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That has been tried, and it doesn't work.
> > >
> > > Most education is funded from property taxes, not income taxes. Yes,
> some
> > > income tax dollars find their way to the public school system, but
most
> > > school dollars come from property taxes. If we give tax breaks to
people
> > > that pull their kids from public schools, two things happen. We shift
> the
> > > tax break from the property tax rolls and onto the income taxes as an
> > > unfunded liability,
> >
> > Why can't it be a property tax break rather than an income tax
> > break?
> >
>
> I suppose it could, but the voucher is for roughly $4500, and most people
> pay less property tax than that. And, you also run into the problem of

Yes, I've changed my mind on that.
I'm in favor of a straight voucher system.
The complete prohibition of transfering funds to sectarian
entities is voided.
The schools system gives the parents vouchers, the parents
give the voucher the to the school, the school trades the voucher
for money from the keeper of the funds.

> giving a prop tax break while your kids are in school, then removing that
> tax break when they graduate. And, you have an issue with two neighbors,
one
> pays his full tax while the other pays none. And, the one paying the tax
> derives no benefit, the one that is escaping the tax also derives a
benefit.
>
>
>
> > > and many people with children in the public schools pay
> > > less in school taxes collected in property tax than it costs to
educate
> a
> > > kid. For example, I think my property taxers that go to schools is
only
> a
> > > few hundred dollars per year, the voucher is on the order of $4500 per
> > kid -
> > > I don't know the exact amount of a voucher, I just wanted to
illustrate
> > that
> > > the voucher is larger than the individual's tax base upon which it is
> > drawn,
> > > and is larger than the tax break that could be passed through the
income
> > tax
> > > system. The reason that property taxes can fund schools is because
there
> > are
> > > so many parcels that are taxed, but have no children residing on them
> that
> > > attend schools. For example, my street once had 37 kids living in 19
> > homes,
> > > for an average of 2 kids per home. Some of the homes had no kids
living
> in
> > > them, others had 4. Today, there are still 19 homes, but only about 8
> kids
> > > in school. The population of school age kids has been cut in half on
my
> > > street. Since everybody pays the same taxes, then there are people now
> > > paying school tax but have no kids in school.
> > >
> > > I think that if people are going to be encouraged to pull kids from
> public
> >
> > I don't view that as the objective.
> >
>
> Sure it is. Admittedly, it is a gross oversimplification of the issue, but
> the goal is to remove kids from the public school system so the kids that
> remain can get a better education.

I see that as a possibility but not necessarily a goal.

>
> Vouchers are not an effort to displace public schools with another system
of
> education, they are an effort to provide people an alternative to public
> education so that children that remain in public schools will receive a
> greater ratio of dollars per student. Let me see if I can illustrate the
> principle. There are 100 kids, and it costs 7500 per year to educate them.
> (I have no idea that this number is accurate, I am only trying to
illustrate
> the effect that vouchers will have on the remaining students.) Given these
> numbers, there is 750,000 dollars available for all students. Now, let's
say
> that 25 of them leave the public school and they take a voucher for 4500.
> The total number of dollars for the school drops to (750,000 - (25 x
4500)),
> or 637,500. But the student population is now 75, so the dollars per
student
> becomes (637,500 / 75), 8500. This is 1000 per student more that the
public
> school gets to use. This is an increase in funding of 13%. The actual
> increase is dependent upon using the correct numbers, but you should get
the
> idea. Additionally, with 100 kids, there needs to be 3 classrooms with 33
> kids each, with 75 kids, the same three classrooms only need to hold 25
> kids. The attention of the teacher to any given kid will improve, leading
to
> a better learning experience for the kids.
>
> I do not suggest this will actually work, but this is the party line on
the
> argument.
>
>
>
> > > schools in an effort to reduce enrollment and thereby improve
education
> > for
> > > those that remain, then we ought not become annoyed at where those
> people
> > > take their kids. If the cost to educate a kid is 7000, but we only
give
> a
> > > parent a voucher for 4500, then we are keeping 2500 to spread among
the
> > > fewer remaining kids in the public school.
> >
> > Sounds good to me.
> >
> > > The parent that receives the
> > > voucher has to kick in the additional monies between the voucher
amount
> > and
> > > the actual cost of the education. Clearly, the voucher would barely
> cover
> > > the cost of the basic education,
> >
> > I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.
> >
> > > and the parents would be covering any
> > > additional education they felt was important, including but not
limited
> to
> > > religious education. And, schools seldom make money, the vast majority
> of
> > > religious schools draw money from the collection plate to cover the
> costs
> > of
> > > running the school, they do not pull money from the school operations
> and
> > > fill the collection plate. So, vouchers fund education, not religion.
> > >
> > > There are lots of reasons to oppose vouchers, church-state separation
> > isn't
> > > one of them. Of course, the liberal justice system will not agree with
> me,
> > > but that is to be expected. I also think that vouchers should be
> required
> > to
> > > pass in the voting booth, not be sent through as a legislative
exercise.
> > > Yes, I vote for my legislators, and they enact new laws. But sometimes
a
> > law
> > > needs the direct support of the voters themselves. How do we decide
> which
> > > laws need direct support? I do not have an answer to that question.
> >
> > I was talking to a 25 yo single mother who had a 5 year old son.
> > At the time there was general public discussion of a voucher system
> > proposal.
> > It would have given parents $5000 / year / child.
> > She said she opposed vouchers. Some time later in the conversation
> > she said that she had had her son in a private school.
> > She lamented that she could no longer afford to send
> > him to that private school. (She has a clerical job.)
> > I asked her how much the private school cost. She said, $3000.
> > I wonder what kind of logic she was using to oppose vouchers.
> >
> >
>
> To be perfectly clear, I oppose vouchers too. My opposition isn't on
> religious grounds though. My opposition is that vouchers appear today to
be
> awarded to poor people. The trouble I have is that if we accept the notion
> that public schools can cost more than the voucher amount, then we are
> asking poor people to subsidize an education for their kids that they can
> not afford to subsidize. If they get a voucher for $4500, and education
> really costs $6500, where are they going to get $2000 for the subsidy?

In the real-life example I gave the voucher amount was *greater* than
the tuition.

Even if the private school tuition were greater the poor parent could
keep the child in public school.
No problem, right?

--
rb #2187
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar DeleteThis @bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message
news:ZHBAd.41030$Ew6.28975@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher DeleteThis @yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:10t3du5shi1utaf@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar DeleteThis @bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message
> > news:0XgAd.54783$gd.1874@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher DeleteThis @yahoo.net> wrote in message
> > > news:10t104dn8ev5r24@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Tak" <notanemail DeleteThis @youspambastards.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:uvj0t0l73eiarosmreios7u5aej8109dmo@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:09:58 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
> > > > > <oscar DeleteThis @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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Seperation is still maintained that way.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That has been tried, and it doesn't work.
> > > >
> > > > Most education is funded from property taxes, not income taxes. Yes,
> > some
> > > > income tax dollars find their way to the public school system, but
> most
> > > > school dollars come from property taxes. If we give tax breaks to
> people
> > > > that pull their kids from public schools, two things happen. We
shift
> > the
> > > > tax break from the property tax rolls and onto the income taxes as
an
> > > > unfunded liability,
> > >
> > > Why can't it be a property tax break rather than an income tax
> > > break?
> > >
> >
> > I suppose it could, but the voucher is for roughly $4500, and most
people
> > pay less property tax than that. And, you also run into the problem of
>
> Yes, I've changed my mind on that.
> I'm in favor of a straight voucher system.
> The complete prohibition of transfering funds to sectarian
> entities is voided.
> The schools system gives the parents vouchers, the parents
> give the voucher the to the school, the school trades the voucher
> for money from the keeper of the funds.
>

That's the way I look at it as well. The government money flows to the
parents, who in turn direct where it is used.



> > giving a prop tax break while your kids are in school, then removing
that
> > tax break when they graduate. And, you have an issue with two neighbors,
> one
> > pays his full tax while the other pays none. And, the one paying the tax
> > derives no benefit, the one that is escaping the tax also derives a
> benefit.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > and many people with children in the public schools pay
> > > > less in school taxes collected in property tax than it costs to
> educate
> > a
> > > > kid. For example, I think my property taxers that go to schools is
> only
> > a
> > > > few hundred dollars per year, the voucher is on the order of $4500
per
> > > kid -
> > > > I don't know the exact amount of a voucher, I just wanted to
> illustrate
> > > that
> > > > the voucher is larger than the individual's tax base upon which it
is
> > > drawn,
> > > > and is larger than the tax break that could be passed through the
> income
> > > tax
> > > > system. The reason that property taxes can fund schools is because
> there
> > > are
> > > > so many parcels that are taxed, but have no children residing on
them
> > that
> > > > attend schools. For example, my street once had 37 kids living in 19
> > > homes,
> > > > for an average of 2 kids per home. Some of the homes had no kids
> living
> > in
> > > > them, others had 4. Today, there are still 19 homes, but only about
8
> > kids
> > > > in school. The population of school age kids has been cut in half on
> my
> > > > street. Since everybody pays the same taxes, then there are people
now
> > > > paying school tax but have no kids in school.
> > > >
> > > > I think that if people are going to be encouraged to pull kids from
> > public
> > >
> > > I don't view that as the objective.
> > >
> >
> > Sure it is. Admittedly, it is a gross oversimplification of the issue,
but
> > the goal is to remove kids from the public school system so the kids
that
> > remain can get a better education.
>
> I see that as a possibility but not necessarily a goal.
>

Actually, it is the STATED GOAL of supporters. The idea is that there are
too many kids in the public school system. The options are to build more
public schools so the ratio of student to teacher can be reduced, or to
siphon some of the students off and plug them into private schools. The
result of the second option is that the ratio of student to teacher is
improved without building more classrooms.

Again, it remains to be seen that this approach will even work, but this is
the explanation that is bantied about as why vouchers will be a good thing.



> >
> > Vouchers are not an effort to displace public schools with another
system
> of
> > education, they are an effort to provide people an alternative to public
> > education so that children that remain in public schools will receive a
> > greater ratio of dollars per student. Let me see if I can illustrate the
> > principle. There are 100 kids, and it costs 7500 per year to educate
them.
> > (I have no idea that this number is accurate, I am only trying to
> illustrate
> > the effect that vouchers will have on the remaining students.) Given
these
> > numbers, there is 750,000 dollars available for all students. Now, let's
> say
> > that 25 of them leave the public school and they take a voucher for
4500.
> > The total number of dollars for the school drops to (750,000 - (25 x
> 4500)),
> > or 637,500. But the student population is now 75, so the dollars per
> student
> > becomes (637,500 / 75), 8500. This is 1000 per student more that the
> public
> > school gets to use. This is an increase in funding of 13%. The actual
> > increase is dependent upon using the correct numbers, but you should get
> the
> > idea. Additionally, with 100 kids, there needs to be 3 classrooms with
33
> > kids each, with 75 kids, the same three classrooms only need to hold 25
> > kids. The attention of the teacher to any given kid will improve,
leading
> to
> > a better learning experience for the kids.
> >
> > I do not suggest this will actually work, but this is the party line on
> the
> > argument.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > schools in an effort to reduce enrollment and thereby improve
> education
> > > for
> > > > those that remain, then we ought not become annoyed at where those
> > people
> > > > take their kids. If the cost to educate a kid is 7000, but we only
> give
> > a
> > > > parent a voucher for 4500, then we are keeping 2500 to spread among
> the
> > > > fewer remaining kids in the public school.
> > >
> > > Sounds good to me.
> > >
> > > > The parent that receives the
> > > > voucher has to kick in the additional monies between the voucher
> amount
> > > and
> > > > the actual cost of the education. Clearly, the voucher would barely
> > cover
> > > > the cost of the basic education,
> > >
> > > I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.
> > >
> > > > and the parents would be covering any
> > > > additional education they felt was important, including but not
> limited
> > to
> > > > religious education. And, schools seldom make money, the vast
majority
> > of
> > > > religious schools draw money from the collection plate to cover the
> > costs
> > > of
> > > > running the school, they do not pull money from the school
operations
> > and
> > > > fill the collection plate. So, vouchers fund education, not
religion.
> > > >
> > > > There are lots of reasons to oppose vouchers, church-state
separation
> > > isn't
> > > > one of them. Of course, the liberal justice system will not agree
with
> > me,
> > > > but that is to be expected. I also think that vouchers should be
> > required
> > > to
> > > > pass in the voting booth, not be sent through as a legislative
> exercise.
> > > > Yes, I vote for my legislators, and they enact new laws. But
sometimes
> a
> > > law
> > > > needs the direct support of the voters themselves. How do we decide
> > which
> > > > laws need direct support? I do not have an answer to that question.
> > >
> > > I was talking to a 25 yo single mother who had a 5 year old son.
> > > At the time there was general public discussion of a voucher system
> > > proposal.
> > > It would have given parents $5000 / year / child.
> > > She said she opposed vouchers. Some time later in the conversation
> > > she said that she had had her son in a private school.
> > > She lamented that she could no longer afford to send
> > > him to that private school. (She has a clerical job.)
> > > I asked her how much the private school cost. She said, $3000.
> > > I wonder what kind of logic she was using to oppose vouchers.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > To be perfectly clear, I oppose vouchers too. My opposition isn't on
> > religious grounds though. My opposition is that vouchers appear today to
> be
> > awarded to poor people. The trouble I have is that if we accept the
notion
> > that public schools can cost more than the voucher amount, then we are
> > asking poor people to subsidize an education for their kids that they
can
> > not afford to subsidize. If they get a voucher for $4500, and education
> > really costs $6500, where are they going to get $2000 for the subsidy?
>
> In the real-life example I gave the voucher amount was *greater* than
> the tuition.
>
> Even if the private school tuition were greater the poor parent could
> keep the child in public school.
> No problem, right?
>

That is correct, there is no requirement that voucher recipients take a
child out of the public school system. But, if a parent is not intending to
take his child out, what's the point of applying to get into the program?

And, if the voucher value exceeds the tuition of private school, nobody gets
the extra money. That is, if the voucher is for 4500, and tuition is only
4000, then the voucher issuer simply dispenses the tuition amount and keeps
any left over funds. Presumably, those funds will go back to the public
school that the voucher recipient came from.

The danger I see is further down the road. What I see happening is that over
time, entire student bodies will be shifted over to voucher plans. The
parents then drop Johnny back into the public schools, or into private
school. The cost of education continues to rise, but the voucher value
remains flat. When this happens, parents might be put in a position of
having to pay the shortfall, and this could be painful for some, especially
those that the program is meant to help in the first place.
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher DeleteThis @yahoo.net> wrote:
>> Yes, I've changed my mind on that.
>> I'm in favor of a straight voucher system.
>> The complete prohibition of transfering funds to sectarian
>> entities is voided.
>> The schools system gives the parents vouchers, the parents
>> give the voucher the to the school, the school trades the voucher
>> for money from the keeper of the funds.
>
>That's the way I look at it as well. The government money flows to the
>parents, who in turn direct where it is used.

That is not what he said. The government money flows from the "keeper
of the funds" (the government agency administering vouchers) and the
school.

>> > Sure it is. Admittedly, it is a gross oversimplification of the issue,
>but
>> > the goal is to remove kids from the public school system so the kids
>that
>> > remain can get a better education.
>>
>> I see that as a possibility but not necessarily a goal.
>
>Actually, it is the STATED GOAL of supporters.

Cite, please.

>The idea is that there are too many kids in the public school system. The options are to build more
>public schools so the ratio of student to teacher can be reduced, or to
>siphon some of the students off and plug them into private schools. The
>result of the second option is that the ratio of student to teacher is
>improved without building more classrooms.

That is an argument that has sometimes been used, but is NOT stated as
the goal, which usually has something to do with "market forces",
"competition", "parental choice" or "allowing some to escape the
horrible public schools".

It is NOT the case in Cleveland, which is the one voucher system that
has been reviewed by the USSC, and which is undercrowded, since the
population of the city has declined in the last several years.

>That is correct, there is no requirement that voucher recipients take a
>child out of the public school system. But, if a parent is not intending to
>take his child out, what's the point of applying to get into the program?

"Parental choice", which is the argument used in the Cleveland case
that was ruled on my the USSC. In that plan, parents could use the
voucher at any school, public or private.

>And, if the voucher value exceeds the tuition of private school, nobody gets
>the extra money. That is, if the voucher is for 4500, and tuition is only
>4000, then the voucher issuer simply dispenses the tuition amount and keeps
>any left over funds. Presumably, those funds will go back to the public
>school that the voucher recipient came from.

There is no plan in place that gives excess voucher money to the
public schools, so that presumption is concocted from your
imagination.

Voucher money does NOT come from the school system, and voucher money
not spent does not go to the school system.

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 

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote in message
news:uur3t0tdap4vcosbfo5nugqbgkgletlr0c@4ax.com...
> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar DeleteThis @bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
> >"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher DeleteThis @yahoo.net> wrote in message
> >news:10t104dn8ev5r24@corp.supernews.com...
> >> Most education is funded from property taxes, not income taxes. Yes,
some
> >> income tax dollars find their way to the public school system, but most
> >> school dollars come from property taxes. If we give tax breaks to
people
> >> that pull their kids from public schools, two things happen. We shift
the
> >> tax break from the property tax rolls and onto the income taxes as an
> >> unfunded liability,
> >
> >Why can't it be a property tax break rather than an income tax
> >break?
>
> The problem is that when people have kids in school (in their 20s, 30s
> and maybe 40s), they seldom own much property (or have large incomes).
> That comes later in life, usually after the kids are grown.

Yes, right. I've changed my mind on that.
I'm in favor of a straight voucher system.
The complete prohibition of transfering funds to sectarian
entities is voided.
The schools system gives the parents vouchers, the parents
give the voucher the to the school, the school trades the voucher
for money from the keeper of the funds.

>
> >I was talking to a 25 yo single mother who had a 5 year old son.
> >At the time there was general public discussion of a voucher system
> >proposal.
> >It would have given parents $5000 / year / child.
> >She said she opposed vouchers. Some time later in the conversation
> >she said that she had had her son in a private school.
> >She lamented that she could no longer afford to send
> >him to that private school. (She has a clerical job.)
> >I asked her how much the private school cost. She said, $3000.
> >I wonder what kind of logic she was using to oppose vouchers.
>
> She isn't selfish, like most voucher supporters.

How is school choice selfish?


--
rb #2187
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar RemoveThis @bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
>How is school choice selfish?

Parents are selfish for their own interests and those of their kids
(as they perceive them). The state is charged with protecting the
interests of the citizenry at large. Those without kids in school
have substantially different priorities for education than those with
kids in school, and those without kids are the ones paying most of the
taxes.

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 

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:e8o3t0dfpg8cebcj54pa743lm3qjerc10a@4ax.com...
> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
> >"Gray Shockley" <CyberGray.RemoveThis@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
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar RemoveThis @bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
>> >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?

They simply aren't. There is no mechanism for accountability. The
Catholic church has proven unable to discipline childmolesting
priests, and isn't even held accountable for those atrocities without
years of litigation, much less anything lesser pertaining to education
quality.

And the Catholic churches are better than the other religious schools,
which can get away with teaching creationism as science with impunity.
And that truly is a sin.

>I suggest you chose not to send your children to
>any private school you find unacceptable.

Insofar as my vote is concerned, I refuse to have the government send
my tax money to any private school that I find unacceptable, which is
all of them.

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 

buckeye-ELO DeleteThis @nospam.net wrote in
news:f9a2t0lf6mcnc2vebfnkjcqridk3vkqh4e@4ax.com:

> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar DeleteThis @bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
>
>>
>><buckeye0ELO DeleteThis @nospam.net> wrote in message
>>:|news:akm0t056u5pf5mkp7f9vvvq91240iq765b@4ax.com...
>>> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar DeleteThis @bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> ><buckeye0ELO DeleteThis @nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> >:|news:a550t098nnpn5jn1ncudhtut1pm6l8i5i9@4ax.com...
>>> >> CHURCH & STATE DECEMBER 2004 page 3 (243)
>>> >> AU BULLETIN
>>> >> http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2004_12
>>> >> [EXCERPTS]
>>> >>
>>> >> Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers
>>> >>
>>> >> A state appeals court has struck down Florida's voucher
>>> >> program,
>>:|holding
>>> >> that it clearly violates a provision of the Florida
>>> >> Constitution by funneling tax money to religious schools.
>>> >>
>>> >> The 1st District Court of Appeal, sitting as a full panel en
>>> >> bane,
>>:|ruled
>>> >> Nov. 12 that Gov. Jeb Bush's Florida Opportunity Scholarship
>>> >> Program
>>(OSP)
>>> >> fails to pass constitutional muster.
>>> >
>>> >:|Interesting.
>>> >
>>> >I wonder what the consensus is on this here in a.a.
>>> >
>>> >:|Even though I am an atheist I think the separation argument
>>> >:|to block vouchers is bogus. (I have some guesses about
>>> >:|the real reasons behind the opposition.) With some minor
>>> >:|regulations and controls I see no reason that religious schools
>>> >:|should not be allowed to be part of the public education
>>> >:|system.
>>>
>>>
>>> How well do you know American History, history or education in
>>> this country, the function and purpose of religious schools, etc?
>>
>>I know it as well as they taught me in public school.
>>
>>I know George Carlin is a product of Catholic schools.
>>
>>I know people, very non-Catholic people, who sent their
>>:|children to Catholic schools because they were better than
>>:|the public schools.
>>
>>I know that Patrick Moynahan said that a school's proximity
>>:|to the Canadian border is a better predictor of its quality
>>:|that the amount of money spent per pupil.
>>
>>I know that the Chicago school system (an exception to the
>>:|Moynahan observation) had one of the
>>:|highest spendings per student when the federal government
>>:|stepped in an took it over due to corruption and incompetence.
>

Switching to my other news reader because this didn't
show up on my main one.

> In other words you don't know much of anything on the subject.

(I guess I can still handle this level of ad hom.)

>
> Let me give you some info on the topic
>
> First and foremost private schools are not much better if any better
> than comparable public schools.

That is not an argument against private schools.

>
> Historically speaking there are two ways in which to establish a
> religion and maintain that establishment. The school system and oath
> for public office.
>
> The primary function of a private religious school is to produce the
> next generation of believers of the parent religion, its dogma, tenets

In as much as my father's primary function was to produce
the next generation of believers.

> etc. Thus their primary function is to teach religion, the religion of