Abortion Ban Rejected

[bills_fan]

i wasn't as clear as i could have been there. I meant segregation by Socioeconomic status.

you do may a case for the theory of the voucher system, however, i do not feel that it is as perfect as one would hope. I am in general agreement with the ideology except i feel that it basically have some elitist elements to it, and become de facto rich v. poor segregation

 

You have that system now, especially in public schools. Take a look at the property taxes in the areas with nationally recognized public school systems (see Great Neck, NY, as an example) and home prices in those same areas. Add into that its almost impossible to find a legal rental apartment in the area and what do you have.

 

The voucher system is the way to level the playing field a bit. You can't compare elite private schools, they will always be about who can afford to attend versus who should attend based on aptitude (with some notable exceptions, such as Regis). Anyway, they are private schools for a reason.

 

I was more talking about more efficient and better public schools.

[justnzane]

I was more talking about more efficient and better public schools.

836738[/snapback]

 

I am too, but I don't think that the voucher system will make a difference. Personally, I see it as more of a way to overcrowd the schools and water down the good schools in the process. On top of that, I don't want to see government money going to religiously affiliated schools.

 

What really needs to happen with the education system is maybe, just maybe have a few more weeks of classes (40 is not enough). We need to stop testing every year from grades three to eight. In addition, the publishers need to stop listening to Texas and California for what they want in textbooks and consequently dumbing them down. This makes the texts have limited information about the topic so kids at a lower reading level, it only robs the students of the context and the value of the story. Also, we need to get better teachers in place, by possibly improving the ones we have, and hiring more. Many of our lower achieving students also happen to be in overcrowded classrooms; thus i propose hiring more teachers, and building more classrooms.

 

I agree with the sentiment that throwing money blindly at a problem doesn't solve it. So, we need to use our money wiser than radically changing the school system (which by the way would cost a ton, between personel getting fired and hired, and legislation)

[daquixers_is_back]

You have that system now, especially in public schools.  Take a look at the property taxes in the areas with nationally recognized public school systems (see Great Neck, NY, as an example) and home prices in those same areas.  Add into that its almost impossible to find a legal rental apartment in the area and what do you have. 

 

The voucher system is the way to level the playing field a bit.  You can't compare elite private schools, they will always be about who can afford to attend versus who should attend based on aptitude (with some notable exceptions, such as Regis).  Anyway, they are private schools for a reason. 

 

I was more talking about more efficient and better public schools.

836738[/snapback]

 

Good post.

[Orton's Arm]

I am too, but I don't think that the voucher system will make a difference. Personally, I see it as more of a  way to overcrowd the schools and water down the good schools in the process. On top of that, I don't want to see government money going to religiously affiliated schools.

"Government money?" Ha! Get that concept out of your head. There's no such thing as "government money." There's taxpayer money, which taxpaying parents should be allowed to use to send their children to a private or parochial school of their choice.

 

Currently, if you want to send your children to a private or parochial school, you pay twice: once for your own children's tuition, and a second time for everyone else's kids in the form of school taxes. That's not fair.

 

America's public school system isn't working, because the people with power do not have incentives to provide quality education. Nothing you've suggested would create incentives for politicians, teachers' unions, or education bureaucrats to provide quality education. So they won't. If the Soviet collapse taught us anything, it's that you can't use bureaucratic mandates to make up for a lack of proper incentives. Nothing less than a voucher system can hope to address the incentive problem.

 

Parents, and parents alone, care enough about their children to see that they get properly educated. Give power to the people who care about producing real results. To place the fate of America's children in the hands of indifferent bureaucrats is to consign these children to a second or third rate education.

[bills_fan]

I am too, but I don't think that the voucher system will make a difference. Personally, I see it as more of a way to overcrowd the schools and water down the good schools in the process. On top of that, I don't want to see government money going to religiously affiliated schools.

 

What really needs to happen with the education system is maybe, just maybe have a few more weeks of classes (40 is not enough). We need to stop testing every year from grades three to eight. In addition, the publishers need to stop listening to Texas and California for what they want in textbooks and consequently dumbing them down. This makes the texts have limited information about the topic so kids at a lower reading level, it only robs the students of the context and the value of the story. Also, we need to get better teachers in place, by possibly improving the ones we have, and hiring more. Many of our lower achieving students also happen to be in overcrowded classrooms; thus i propose hiring more teachers, and building more classrooms.

 

I agree with the sentiment that throwing money blindly at a problem doesn't solve it. So, we need to use our money wiser than radically changing the school system (which by the way would cost a ton, between personel getting fired and hired, and legislation)

 

I don't know that the voucher system would overcrowd schools, as much as eliminate the multiple levels of administrators.

 

Lets take Cheektowaga as an example. Typical suburban town of 100k people. They have 7 school districts. Seven! Cheektowaga Central, Cheektowaga Sloan, Maryvale, Depew, Cleveland Hill, JFK and Lancaster. Completely ridiculous.

 

Lets say there was a voucher system and all the kids wanted to go to the "better" schools, Maryvale, Lancaster and Depew (I don't really know which are the better ones, just making an example). In order for those three to maintain their "better" status, they will have to hire more teachers to maintain student to teacher ratio. The schools not getting the vouchers would eventually close, leaving many highly paid administrators out of work, but the demand for teachers would remain constant.

 

The only thing is you would have a bigger school.

 

As far as gov't $$ going to religious schools, all religious schools take some level of gov't $$ in order to comply with gov't mandates to keep accreditation. The voucher system would not apply to private schools, only public schools.

[justnzane]

I don't know that the voucher system would overcrowd schools, as much as eliminate the multiple levels of administrators.

 

Lets take Cheektowaga as an example.  Typical suburban town of 100k people.  They have 7 school districts.  Seven!  Cheektowaga Central, Cheektowaga Sloan, Maryvale, Depew, Cleveland Hill, JFK and Lancaster.  Completely ridiculous.

 

Lets say there was a voucher system and all the kids wanted to go to the "better" schools, Maryvale, Lancaster and Depew (I don't really know which are the better ones, just making an example).  In order for those three to maintain their "better" status, they will have to hire more teachers to maintain student to teacher ratio.  The schools not getting the vouchers would eventually close, leaving many highly paid administrators out of work, but the demand for teachers would remain constant.

The only thing is you would have a bigger school. 

 

As far as gov't $$ going to religious schools, all religious schools take some level of gov't $$ in order to comply with gov't mandates to keep accreditation.  The voucher system would not apply to private schools, only public schools.

837674[/snapback]

First i agree that there too many districts for cheektowaga and a consolidation of the 5 schools actually in cheektowaga (central, sloan, JFK, cleve hill, and maryvale) would be sensible at the administrative level. This would mean less administration (less big salary people) and a bit more money there.

 

Second, i don't like bigger schools, because that doesn't mean more teachers as much as overcrowded classrooms, which in turn means less individualized attention and less interest in the class. All of which statistically lead to lower performance scores.

 

Third, i am aware that most private schools and all public schools are under the umbrella of most voucher systems. However, there have been court cases stating that the religious schools that promote only their agenda in some cases violate the seperation of church and state laws in place.

[Orton's Arm]

Third, i am aware that most private schools and all public schools are under the umbrella of most voucher systems. However, there have been court cases stating that the religious schools that promote only their agenda in some cases violate the seperation of church and state laws in place.

The concept of the separation of church and state is based on the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" language was intended to keep any given church from receiving the favorable treatment the Church Of England received in England. You would have to interpret the establishment clause's language very broadly indeed if you were going to stop voucher money from going to Catholic or Muslim or Protestant or Jewish schools. If you interpreted the Second Amendment equally broadly, Bill Gates would have his own private nuclear arsenal.

[daquixers_is_back]

The concept of the separation of church and state is based on the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" language was intended to keep any given church from receiving the favorable treatment the Church Of England received in England. You would have to interpret the establishment clause's language very broadly indeed if you were going to stop voucher money from going to Catholic or Muslim or Protestant or Jewish schools. If you interpreted the Second Amendment equally broadly, Bill Gates would have his own private nuclear arsenal.

838456[/snapback]

 

Another good post. People have exaggerated and strangled the first ammendments original meaning to the extent of its extinction.

[Chilly]

You would have to interpret the establishment clause's language very broadly indeed if you were going to stop voucher money from going to Catholic or Muslim or Protestant or Jewish schools. If you interpreted the Second Amendment equally broadly, Bill Gates would have his own private nuclear arsenal.

838456[/snapback]

 

I'd disagree here. By giving it to say one religion over another, or playing favorites with a religion (or providing it to some religions but not others), that in effect establishes a National Religion (whether or not its "official").

[Orton's Arm]

I'd disagree here.  By giving it to say one religion over another, or playing favorites with a religion (or providing it to some religions but not others), that in effect establishes a National Religion (whether or not its "official").

838955[/snapback]

That's why all religious schools should be eligible to receive voucher payments, regardless of religious affiliation. I mentioned those four religions as examples, but if a Hindu school (for example) wants to receive voucher payments, that's fine with me. I don't care what on earth the religion is, or what they believe, as long as they do a good job with English, science, and math.

[bills_fan]

Second, i don't like bigger schools, because that doesn't mean more teachers as much as overcrowded classrooms, which in turn means less individualized attention and less interest in the class. All of which statistically lead to lower performance scores.

 

I agree with not overcrowding the classroom and having more individualized attention. But, let me ask you something...if you have 300 students to 30 teachers, you have 10 to 1 as a ratio, same as 3000 students and 300 teachers. Limit class sizes to 20 students. You'd need to have several classrooms teaching the same subject, but if you have the faculty, so what.

 

Third, i am aware that most private schools and all public schools are under the umbrella of most voucher systems. However, there have been court cases stating that the religious schools that promote only their agenda in some cases violate the seperation of church and state laws in place.

 

The voucher system I'm advocating would be in lieu of the taxes you pay to support the local public school. To attend a religious school, you pay twice, your local taxes and tuition. If you advocate bringing religious schools into the voucher system (I'd love it, personally) then you open an entirely different can of worms.

[Alaska Darin]

I'd disagree here.  By giving it to say one religion over another, or playing favorites with a religion (or providing it to some religions but not others), that in effect establishes a National Religion (whether or not its "official").

838955[/snapback]

I'm in agreement with you on the ending, though not how you arrived there.

 

I don't think it establishes a "National Religion" but I'd prefer the government not reallocating public funds to any religious organization for any reason. I'd rather they'd cut taxes significantly and allow people to freely give to their religion of choice.

 

I'd also like to see the religious "business ventures" being taxed the same way their non-religious competition is. It's BS to give them such a leg up.

[daquixers_is_back]

I'd disagree here.  By giving it to say one religion over another, or playing favorites with a religion (or providing it to some religions but not others), that in effect establishes a National Religion (whether or not its "official").

838955[/snapback]

 

Yet by funding public schools who teach Evolution and Evolution only and dont give the students the chance to even wonder IF there is a GOD, is not restricting their freedom? I think evolution should be grouped in as a religion as most people fight for it in that way. If you dont want to fund other religions ... fine. But dont fund any school that ONLY teaches evolution than either.

[Alaska Darin]

Yet by funding public schools who teach Evolution and Evolution only and dont give the students the chance to even wonder IF there is a GOD, is not restricting their freedom? I think evolution should be grouped in as a religion as most people fight for it in that way. If you dont want to fund other religions ... fine. But dont fund any school that ONLY teaches evolution than either.

839165[/snapback]

Dude, get real. Schools aren't there to teach everything. You want your kid to learn Dungeons and Dragons or whatever belief system you have, teach it to them yourself. They start teaching creationism, that's going to open the door for Palo Mayombe and whatever the fug other retardia other people worship as their "creationism."

 

Though what is seemingly your "everything I ever learned came from public school" makes alot about you make sense.

[Simon]

That's why all religious schools should be eligible to receive voucher payments, regardless of religious affiliation. I mentioned those four religions as examples, but if a Hindu school (for example) wants to receive voucher payments, that's fine with me. I don't care what on earth the religion is, or what they believe, as long as they do a good job with English, science, and math.

839016[/snapback]

 

Cool, then you won't mind paying for my kids to attend the Pennsyltucky Institute for the advancement of Satanic principles.

 

Yet by funding public schools who teach Evolution and Evolution only and dont give the students the chance to even wonder IF there is a GOD, is not restricting their freedom? I think evolution should be grouped in as a religion

Stop talking. Now.

While it will certainly benefit all of us, ultimately it's for your own good.

[Alaska Darin]

Cool, then you won't mind paying for my kids to attend the Pennsyltucky Institute for the advancement of Satanic principles.

That'd be wicked awesome. They could have Halloween and everyone could dress in Dockers and Penny Loafers.

 

At the end of the day we'd be a hell of alot better off if the Fed got completely out of the education business.

[Orton's Arm]

Cool, then you won't mind paying for my kids to attend the Pennsyltucky Institute for the advancement of Satanic principles.

Would I personally like it? No. Do I think the government should be in the business of deciding which religions are legitimate, and which aren't? Again, no. If you're funding the Catholic school, you (unfortunately) have to make funding available to the Satanic school too. Then you hope parents don't choose it. But realistically, any parent who would send their kid to a Satanic school is probably teaching them Satanism at home anyway.

[Simon]

Do I think the government should be in the business of deciding which religions are legitimate, and which aren't? Again, no. If you're funding the Catholic school, you (unfortunately) have to make funding available to the Satanic school too.

839189[/snapback]

Here's a novel idea. How about teh government doesn't fund any religious schools. And this is coming from a guy who married a Catholic and is paying thousands per year to send his kids to Catholic schools.

If you want to indoctrinate your kids into a religion through schooling, don't ask me to pay for it. You can pay for it yourself or teach it at home.

[Simon]

At the end of the day we'd be a hell of alot better off if the Fed got completely out of the education business.

839186[/snapback]

Whoaaaaa....... scary!

 

At the end of the day we'd be a hell of alot better off if the Fed got completely out of the education business.

The other day I read one of the democrats babbling about how the problem with No Child Left Behind was that it was underfunded!

I've brushed my teeth a half dozen times since and can still taste the bile.

[Alaska Darin]

Whoaaaaa....... scary!

The other day I read one of the democrats babbling about how the problem with No Child Left Behind was that it was underfunded!

I've brushed my teeth a half dozen times since and can still taste the bile. 

839212[/snapback]

It's a good thing no Democrats were around in the crafting of the Leftislation or with the ability to create a bill to fix this problem. It's a good thing they won, you know, so they'll fix all these wrongs that have been around for 50 years (40 of which they were already in charge).