For the record, I'm not sure why Ted Cruz kept bringing me up during the CNN debate with Bernie either.
Our school system is mostly funded by state and local taxes (the numbers I found stated between 8-10% federal contribution for my local schools). So the quality of schools can vary greatly from state to state, and even within a state. While generally our schools are funded well there are many that are not, and privatizing the school system will only exasperate that for the reason I previously posted. Schools in affluent suburbs will not see an exodus of students and maintain there funding, while poorer rural and inner city schools will lose funding due to vouchers. I agree that throwing money around isn't going to solve all our educational woes, but I don't see how charter schools and vouchers solve the issues for many school systems that need it the most. I'm also interested to see how different states stack up in the global rankings for education. I have a feeling that many states would actually rank quite high and the US as a whole is held back by states that have invested less in education. Just a hunch that I haven't had time to research yet, but I'll post anything I find here. Can I also say that I'm so happy to be having a reasonable discussion about policy here instead the usual yelling match.
To which voucher system are you referring? The effect of your statement is that if a student from a poor family is not able to have the exact education as a student from a wealthy family, then that student should be forced to stay in the same failing school he's stuck in because of where he lives. Why wouldn't we want to at least give him an opportunity to attend a better private school, even if it's not the top one in his city? Any voucher system would be set up to cover the entire cost of some private schools for the students who need it most. People are not equal and society can never make them equal. We have to give up trying to do that. However, we are at a point in our society that we are able to make everyone better. In a privatized school system, if you were unhappy with your school you would change to a different one, and things would shake up much more quickly at a failing private school than under the current system. The idea is not that a private corporation would take over running an entire school district. The system would add private schools from which you could choose or have a company take over specific failing schools in a system. You cannot make a comparison between prisons and schools. The only similarity is that they are both currently public systems that we are discussing privatizing. There is no competition to be the best prison or attract the brightest prisoners. There is no incentive to be a better prison. For the bolded parts, see Penn State, the Atlanta Public School system, and these links, in that order. We already have all the things you're afraid of in the current publicly-funded school systems.
I'm curious about how many of you that are against vouchers and similar proposals actually have children in public schools, specifically because of what zzr points out and similar challenges. I'm not sure how to get the accurate statistical data for this, but anecdotally, some of what I hear is this: There is a constant battle about funding and cuts at public schools. So, programming suffers and extras are added to get funding. The kids do more fund raisers for band or school trips. The parents are expected to pay more and more for uniforms and instruments and basic supplies that the school is paying. So, either the poorer kids don't get to participate, or the other parents are subsidizing that. The similarity in opportunity is actually more equal at the private schools. And, at private schools, each student is billed the same tuition. But at public schools, the parents are actually paying different rates, because of the taxes as the source. A public education that should be offering equal opportunity is actually very much not doing that.
In my state the average private high school tuition is $8,800 and the voucher program can provide up to $5,000 a year. There are many families that are in under performing school districts that cannot afford to cover the $3,000 difference. These kids are left in the under performing schools that now have less funds to make improvements with (i.e. buying new text books, hiring better teachers, providing after school programs, sports & music programs). I agree that we can't make everyone equal, but I don't agree that the voucher program will make everyone better. I think it will make the situation worse for many kids who probably need more support to succeed.
Perhaps not relevant, but won't those families still be paying the same in property tax? If so do the schools really lose anything? I only ask that because I'm a single guy with no kids who saw his property tax increase by roughly $800 last year for the school system I live in. If that money is going to the schools wouldn't it still go to the school? I truly don't know and am curious.
In a perfect world, parents would be able to switch schools based on performance. However, there are only so many schools built and most of them are overcrowded already. Not only that, other factors need to be taken into account as well, like the distance from the school to the child's home or parents's work. How about the bare minimum then? When you have private prisons failing to even reach the minimum for safety for inmates and guards and not even bothering with rehabilitation, then you have failed. You can't fix issues that affect public well-being with what amounts to greed. The goal of business is to make money. To make money on the back of something as societally important as primary education is almost as morally offensive as doing it with health care.
Here is my question: why are the schools funded by location? Why not number of students, or equally in the district? Tying the funding to a location seems to be the issue. Also a wealthy district can overcome poor funding through the parents and stakeholders in the community. A poor district is fucked, and that wont change if the entire scheme is based on geography. We bitch about education a lot, but treat teachers like shit, have no accountability for parents, fuck over poor areas, and tie funding to test scores....no wonder its fucked up.
In my state the funding for public schools is typically split 48% state, 43% local and 9% federal. The voucher program is paid out of the state's portion of this. Yes, you're local taxes are probably still going to the local school district, but the district could still see a decrease in their overall budget if the state implemented a voucher program.
I have only a basic knowledge of how this would work, but here are the problems with the voucher program as I see them: The theory is that every student's family would have X amount of dollars to spend to send their kid to the school of their choice, correct? (Is that $X even across the board? Are wealthier families able to augment their $X vouchers with their own additional money?) Some schools perform better, have better teachers, better curriculum, equipment, etc. Students flock to these schools for the better education. This leaves the poorer schools with even less funding than before, making them even shittier. This leads some schools to close, and others to barely hang on, as is the case with any franchised business with poor market share. The argument I keep hearing from pro-voucher proponents is, "Well, those schools are shitty anyway, and now those kids have the chance to go somewhere better". No they don't. Ok, 5% do (a number I'm pulling out of my ass to represent the small but non-zero amount of students who will be able to transition to the higher echelon schools due to vouchers). Shitty schools in low income areas aren't populated by students whose families can take the time to drive them across a metro area twice a day for better education. Instead, they get stuck at the shitty schools that now have even less money to provide a quality education. In essence, the fear is that the voucher program leads to a similar situation as our economy. A hugely widening gap between the high end and the low end, with the high end being populated by a relatively small portion of the populace, and the conditions for everybody else being driven downward in order to help enrich the already well off. Is that about the size of the objections?
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...cans-begin-push-to-tax-carbon-cut-regulations As if we need any other proof that the Government will take every opportunity possible to fuck the American people. For all the talk of climate change, for all the talk of shrinking Government, for all of the talk of lowering taxes.....none of them are sincere and this is exactly why I hope Trump is successful in causing a Government implosion. Did you happen to notice Hank Paulson mentioned? Former head of Goldman Sachs, the same Goldman Sachs that was helping Al Gore engineer the carbon credit trading exchange? This plan looks like nothing more than taxing people for emissions (they will likely charge you per mile driven) and causing energy costs to rise, all while doing further damage to the environment. Bravo Republicans, Bravo.
Why would any Republican who wasn't sincere commit the political sin of admitting to the existence of scientific reality? Using taxes to internalize an externality and let the market decide from there has long been the conservative alternative to explicit regulations favored by liberals. This is exactly the tack I would expect a conservative making an honest effort to curb emissions to take.
I can't imagine any scenario in which proposing a new tax and acknowledging the scientific reality of climate change is a political win for someone courting Republican voters.
This is what the current Republican orthodoxy on climate change is: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/637/text It is burying their head in the sand up to their neck. That bill has 119 cosponsors.
http://showingmyworking.net/?p=117 I find this kind of shit fascinating. Also, this is particularly telling: http://digg.com/2017/most-googled-america-pee-punch-protest
Executive at FOX: Guys, our boys in the White House are taking a beating, we need to come up with some ways to defend them. Producer: Well... they're not literally ISIS... Executive: Great stuff, run it
It wasn't a single editor, it was the editorial board, and here is the full editorial: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/02/05/what-bannon-shares-isil-leader-our-view/97350682/ It's clearly critiquing the specific "clash of civilizations" worldview that both Bannon and ISIS have espoused. Neither Hitler nor Nazi Germany is mentioned once.