Left Cries Foul Over Christian School’s Right To Vouchers

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Plus schools that were not competitive would go away 

Only not beneficial for authoritarian leftists who feel compelled to reward terrible results (they tend to agree Americans are badly educated, but they want private schools forced into the same rules as public), but prevent others from exercising freedom with their own children and taxpayer money. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

8 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Plus schools that were not competitive would go away 

but what about private schools that aren't set up to accomodate special needs kids? for example, my kid has an iep through public school - who is going to enforce those standards on private institutions?

[8bit_Theatre 64]

One aspect that hasn't been discussed is the fact that everyone in a catchment area pays taxes that go to local schools. 80 year old retirees pay taxes for schools....couples that don't want children pay for schools. So why should people with kids be allowed to take their tax dollars to a private school when the general population doesn't have that choice?

 

Public school is a general service for the improvement and quality of the local community. Its not something that should be opted out of.

 

I say this as someone who went to private school until University level.

Edited June 20, 2017 by 8bit_Theatre

[yuna628 9,646]

45 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

That is an interesting conundrum.  The first amendment says a religion will not be established by the government (and by extension public schools), but also that the government will not infringe on free speech.  So hypothetically, if a teacher does talk about religion, does this violate the religion clause, or do we violate the teachers rights to free speech.  Again, not advocating teaching religion in public schools, as I agree they should be secular, I just wish they would also be apolitical.

What is the equivalent cost per pupil for the public school?

Teachers should be able to discuss topics of religion in class, and all religions should be studied as a part of education. I think textbooks and teachers should also be careful about calling aspects of religions 'myths' to avoid offense or confusion. And it should also be a stepping-stone to build knowledge, tolerance, and discussion about differences. But teaching fundamentals or promoting a slant of one religion over another while school is in session would be problematic. There should be clear boundaries. A teacher is not hired to proselytize. It wouldn't be professional and it's not the job, especially when it comes to government run/funds. Their job is to educate and help people, not offer personal opinions. At the same time staff and students should be permitted to have free speech in the form of wearing religious items or reading religious texts in their free/non teaching time. They should be allowed to answer questions or speak about it, but not in a proselytizing way. For the deeper stuff involving religion it should be parents/church responsibility.

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

35 minutes ago, 8bit_Theatre said:

One aspect that hasn't been discussed is the fact that everyone in a catchment area pays taxes that go to local schools. 80 year old retirees pay taxes for schools....couples that don't want children pay for schools. So why should people with kids be allowed to take their tax dollars to a private school when the general population doesn't have that choice?

 

Public school is a general service for the improvement and quality of the local community. Its not something that should be opted out of.

 

I say this as someone who went to private school until University level.

Publicly pooling for people's education is a social plan I agree with, but if people truly don't want their tax dollars going toward it, especially if it involves people having the freedom to use their funds to take their kids to private school, I'm also all for completely nixing all public funding from education and making people pay for it on their own. Seems a reasonable solution that benefits everyone (that matters).

Edited June 20, 2017 by IAMX

[smilesammich 10,727]

i'm having a hard time finding anything reasonable about nixing public education.  like there are empty private schools everywhere just waiting for the mediocre masses..

 

can someone who knows more about the voucher program explain to me who is going to force private schools to lower their tuitions to accept voucher amounts only and regulate special needs requirements? seriously don't understand how this is supposed to work.

[Dashinka 24,109]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

but what about private schools that aren't set up to accomodate special needs kids? for example, my kid has an iep through public school - who is going to enforce those standards on private institutions?

That is interesting and you are right.  A colleague of mine recently came over from Australia on a work visa with his family.  His son is severe autistic and he told me that the public schools down under in the Melbourne area were not very good in dealing with special needs children, but he was very happy with the public schools where he and his wife chose to live and now his son really loves going to school.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

5 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i'm having a hard time finding anything reasonable about nixing public education.  like there are empty private schools everywhere just waiting for the mediocre masses..

 

can someone who knows more about the voucher program explain to me who is going to force private schools to lower their tuitions to accept voucher amounts only and regulate special needs requirements? seriously don't understand how this is supposed to work.

That is how those who are not on "the Left" think.  If you cannot resolve the delicate details interwoven into the first amendment as manifest through experimental school voucher programs, you should dismantle public education.  This is what is known as "Critical Thinking" 

Edited June 20, 2017 by ccneat

[IAMX 3,055]

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

That is interesting and you are right.  A colleague of mine recently came over from Australia on a work visa with his family.  His son is severe autistic and he told me that the public schools down under in the Melbourne area were not very good in dealing with special needs children, but he was very happy with the public schools where he and his wife chose to live and now his son really loves going to school.

Regarding special needs people, that's what special needs schools are for.. a lot of public and private schools can't even afford people with special needs. So it makes sense, both logically and fiscally, for their needs to be pooled and accommodated. The whole concept of adding more staff at every single school to accommodate a couple students (re: social justice policies) is the kind of wasteful garbage that's the premise of why the voucher system is necessary. Also, the left (not you, in this part of the response) trying to tell private schools they must waste money to accommodate a couple students is ridiculous.. it's called "private" for a reason.. it's not for everyone. If PersonA wants to take their child to SchoolA and SchoolA cannot accommodate them, take them elsewhere. Boy that was tough.

Edited June 20, 2017 by IAMX

[smilesammich 10,727]

every kid with an iep does not need a "special needs school".

this is sounding like back in the day when people with learning disabilities were all lumped in as crazies and locked away in mental institutions. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

That is interesting and you are right.  A colleague of mine recently came over from Australia on a work visa with his family.  His son is severe autistic and he told me that the public schools down under in the Melbourne area were not very good in dealing with special needs children, but he was very happy with the public schools where he and his wife chose to live and now his son really loves going to school.

i just can't see private schools bending over backwards to accommodate children they didn't want there in the first place. the main reason people send their kids to private school is better teacher to student ratio and more opportunities/experiences that parents with the financial means can provide and they're willing to pay for so their kids have that edge up.. that's why i don't understand how this is all supposed to work. if there were no public school options, who's going to force private institutions to take on all these vouchers? it just seriously makes no sense to me.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

12 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Regarding special needs people, that's what special needs schools are for.. a lot of public and private schools can't even afford people with special needs. So it makes sense, both logically and fiscally, for their needs to be pooled and accommodated. The whole concept of adding more staff at every single school to accommodate a couple students (re: social justice policies) is the kind of wasteful garbage that's the premise of why the voucher system is necessary. Also, the left (not you, in this part of the response) trying to tell private schools they must waste money to accommodate a couple students is ridiculous.. it's called "private" for a reason.. it's not for everyone. If PersonA wants to take their child to SchoolA and SchoolA cannot accommodate them, take them elsewhere. Boy that was tough.

How many special needs kids in your family? 

[IAMX 3,055]

3 minutes ago, ccneat said:

How many special needs kids in your family? 

I don't know, but I'm one. Severe attention deficit (I'm in the 90th percentile on a scale of normal to "squirrel!"), I was on DRC in university and had an IAP in Canada as well, that gave me extended testing times, quiet distraction-free places for exams, etc.

 

Also, I said my daughter goes to a private school, but I deliberately left out what kind.. because she has my attention deficit, she goes to an arts immersion private school that accommodates her attention deficit issues and caters to her style of learning. They get funds specifically for this purpose, even though there are a good amount of parents who send their children to this school who don't have that learning disability.

 

Out the window goes that argument.

Edited June 20, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, IAMX said:

I don't know, but I'm one. Severe attention deficit (I'm in the 90th percentile on a scale of normal to "squirrel!"), I was on DRC in university and had an IAP in Canada as well, that gave me extended testing times, quiet distraction-free places for exams, etc.

 

Out the window goes that argument.

What argument? I asked a question.

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, ccneat said:

What argument? I asked a question.

It's obvious why you asked it. Don't be dense.