Foss - I am surprised, you are such a capitalist. Do you think that this would be an argument that Ayn Rand would be proud of? Rich people can do this, so to be equal, poor people should be allowed to do it on the government's nickel?
The anxiously awaited Foxpaws' school voucher thread
- Thread starter foxpaws
- Start date
Foss - I am surprised, you are such a capitalist. Do you think that this would be an argument that Ayn Rand would be proud of? Rich people can do this, so to be equal, poor people should be allowed to do it on the government's nickel?
Ayn Rand has nothing to do with this discussion.
The community has decided that we are going to invest our collective money into educating children. It's supposed to be a local investment. Once we are at that point, the issue is what's the most EFFICIENT way to do so. Where do we get the best value for dollar.
I'm more active in this thread than Fossten has been, so I'd ask you to respond to what I've said, rather than trying to hijack this thread in a discussion about Ayn Rand, or more accurately, trying to pull an Alinksy Rule 4 on Fossten.
Ah, Cal, of the nectareous knees...
Check out post #23
I wasn't trying to hijack- I was trying gently see if you had noticed I answered you...
However, I do think it is odd that foss would use the 'well rich people have it, why shouldn't poor people have it argument', I wonder why he doesn't follow that same philosophy with health care.
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
Ah, Cal, of the nectareous knees...
Check out post #23
I wasn't trying to hijack- I was trying gently see if you had noticed I answered you...
However, I do think it is odd that foss would use the 'well rich people have it, why shouldn't poor people have it argument', I wonder why he doesn't follow that same philosophy with health care.
At what point do we stop asking the Government for help? At what point do WE decide that if I want my child to attend a private school, I have to get a second job. Vouchers are a form of welfare, why should I have to pay for a child to attend a "snobbish school" if they fail out in their junior year, do I get my money back? I want a voucher for a Mercedes, because my LS which gets me from point A to point B just isn't doing it for me, besides most rich people have one.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
So all private schools are 'snobbish?' Are you able to construct an argument without being petty and angry?
It's a fact that test scores for low income students increase when they have a choice in schools. Check out this report by William Robson and Claudia Hepburn.
Voucher programs have almost exclusively benefited poor and minority students. Washington, DC, Cleveland, and Milwaukee are good examples of this.
The ultimate purpose of choice is to allow parents the ability to send their children to the best possible schools. With more students in private schools, public taxpayer income is freed up, allowing it to go farther for those still attending public schools.
Dr. Thomas Sowell, a senior Fellow at Stanford University, said this about the cost of vouchers:
As far as this silly argument by foxpaws:
...implies that private schools will be substandard because they have nobody to account to.
If that's true, why do so many liberal politicians that oppose school choice send their children to private schools?
In fact, vouchers have been quite successful in Canada as well as the aforementioned cities. 92 percent of Canadians now live in areas with school choice. Scores are dramatically higher with minorities and poor children as a direct result of this.
Sowell writes in the same column as above:
The fact is that the Democrats are overwhelmingly the party that opposes school choice such as vouchers and charter schools. Wonder why that is? Could it be that they truly want to keep minorities down?
So, fox, what do you have against minority and poor children?
Oh, I forgot. "Me, me, me." Maybe if you had your own children you'd feel differently. But we'll never know.
Foss - once again you are saying I am 'implying'. I never said that I thought the academic standards would be substandard in private schools. Can you please point that out.
I want to make sure that my tax dollars are being used appropriately. That not only certain standards are met, but that other requirements that all institutions that take public funds are required to meet are met.
Foss, vouchers, in the form that most supporters want them, are indeed taxation without representation.
What is so bad about having some 'representation'. It isn't hard to get past this requirement. Colleges that take federal funds do it all the time. Why shouldn't K-12?
And, if you are so certain of the superiority of private schools, they should be quite happy to be tested on simple academic standards as part of getting their funds from the government. The tests are an easy 'proof' of the quality of education available from private schools. A barometer as it were.
So, foss, how many of those Canadians actually use those vouchers, and specifically how many in lower income brackets?
I live in an area that has welfare - that doesn't mean I use it or that anyone in my neighborhood uses it. That number that you quote is useless.
Poor children, minorities should be allowed a great deal of choice.
However, those in middle/upper income brackets have a lot of choice - that remains true whether or not we have vouchers.
Why are you for vouchers? Using a tax/income credit based on above line/below line tax form basis is the really fair way to make sure those in need get the help that they deserve.
You have no idea if I have children Foss - and that shouldn't play into this discussion at all. I pay taxes, I pay a great deal of taxes. I have more than one house - I pay property tax on all of them, which directly goes into the local school systems. I would like to make sure that my tax funds are being fairly used, that my funds come with 'representation'.
Ah, Mr lincolnx2 - if you haven't noticed I am against school vouchers. You may want to address this more to Foss - for some reason he thinks that that vouchers is a good idea...
And Cal - I am sorry that I am answering Foss - really
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
So all private schools are 'snobbish?' Are you able to construct an argument without being petty and angry?
It's a fact that test scores for low income students increase when they have a choice in schools. Check out this report by William Robson and Claudia Hepburn.
Voucher programs have almost exclusively benefited poor and minority students. Washington, DC, Cleveland, and Milwaukee are good examples of this.
The ultimate purpose of choice is to allow parents the ability to send their children to the best possible schools. With more students in private schools, public taxpayer income is freed up, allowing it to go farther for those still attending public schools.
Dr. Thomas Sowell, a senior Fellow at Stanford University, said this about the cost of vouchers:
As far as this silly argument by foxpaws:
...implies that private schools will be substandard because they have nobody to account to.
If that's true, why do so many liberal politicians that oppose school choice send their children to private schools?
In fact, vouchers have been quite successful in Canada as well as the aforementioned cities. 92 percent of Canadians now live in areas with school choice. Scores are dramatically higher with minorities and poor children as a direct result of this.
Sowell writes in the same column as above:
The fact is that the Democrats are overwhelmingly the party that opposes school choice such as vouchers and charter schools. Wonder why that is? Could it be that they truly want to keep minorities down?
So, fox, what do you have against minority and poor children?
Oh, I forgot. "Me, me, me." Maybe if you had your own children you'd feel differently. But we'll never know.
Foss, I grew up one of those poor kids , it wasn't a private school that helped me it was my mom staying in my arse. Why should the government be responsible for sending your child to a "better" school, why can't americans take more responsibility for their own future's.
You mention D.C, Milwaukee, and Cleveland, I would like to see what their grades were before they attended these private schools (I am sure their GPA's were already high.) Truth is you have to interview for most private schools, they look at GPA, and extra activities. If public schools are so bad, then it should be easy to rise above your peers and recieve scholarships
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
What do you have against people who are already paying double school fees getting a discount on their taxes?
You're directly challenging my statement as untrue. What basis do you have for making this claim?
Really? So first grade private schools want to know whether or not you colored within the lines in the Donald Duck coloring book?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
It's the only possible thing you could have meant. No other meaning logically fits. You're not going to wriggle out of it.
Funny that you have such a sudden concern with fiscal responsibility at the same time that you're defending the massive Porkulus bill. Of course, you're totally vague about what 'certain standards' and 'other requirements' includes, in your definition. That allows you to dodge later.
Your tax dollars are still being represented. In fact, the tax dollars are being better used, as there will be fewer students getting the benefit of more tax dollars per student. Furthermore, as the need for the tax dollars decreases, the tax dollars can be put to better use in other areas, instead of just going to more fraud, waste, and abuse - which is already found in the public school system.
And you just confirmed my interpretation of your above statement concerning academic schools.
You really don't understand vouchers, do you? The funds don't come from the government. They go to the student's family. It's a tax rebate. The schools are already getting the money.
There already is a barometer. It's called test scores. And the public schools are a massive FAIL in comparison.
Example:
Washington DC spends $500 million per year on public schools - third highest in the nation. The teachers are the 8th highest paid in the nation. And yet, DC schools rank among the lowest in math and reading. On the other hand, Catholic schools in surrounding counties spend far less and have far superior scores than the DC government schools.
You can read the study at the link I provided.
What's useless is your anecdotal evidence.
Are you saying that you do have children?
There you go again - "me, me me." What do you have against the poor and minorities getting school choice? You're a liberal, I would think you'd be in favor of helping out the little guy. Liberals are the ones famous for taking money from some and giving it to others. I guess I thought wrong . You're all about you.
And again, it's ironic that you're suddenly concerned about wise usage of tax dollars.
foss, you might not know it, but there are lots of standards that are required in public schools that should be transferred to private schools. Safety standards, security standards, protection for children against sexual abuse, requirements that teachers know how to identify problems when certain behaviors are exhibited by children. There are a lot of requirements that should be met in all schools.
The stimulus plan has nothing to do with this.
The funds do come from the government. And I do understand them quite well... Why are you against an above line/below line tax credit on your income tax - that is the truly fair way to do this. Tell me why the tax method isn't the way to go Foss...
So, why should private schools balk at at testing? They do - if public schools must be tested (which they are required to do) then private schools should also be required to be subjected to the same tests. If, as you say, there is such a huge difference, those test scores will be a draw for people to attend certain schools - it will be market choice - correct?
But, first, tell me why you put such a useless fact into discussion, I would love to hear your answer.
Show me my ancedotal evidence Foss - I haven't stated any. I have only argued this on the basis of representation for my tax dollar. Simple, easy, not hard to do.
I am saying that it doesn't matter in this discussion Foss - it doesn't. Talk about aneddotal evidence.
I am for helping out the little guy- and the fair way to do that is on our tax forms. Vouchers have nothing to do with the 'little' guy. I am for making sure that minorities and the poor really do have an equal chance - that secular schools who want public funds meet the same standards that public schools do regarding safety, academic standards, opportunity, etc.
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
Let me say this first, I meant in no way to challange your statement as untrue, I just would like to see these students grades while they attended public schools to see what improvements were made.
These are the requirements for an elementary private school http://www.ndaes.org/index.php?section=23
School vouchers are asking for trouble, what you do for one, you have to do for all, so if you give a grant to Johnny, whose mom makes $13,000 a year, you have to do for Tommy, whose dad makes $250,000 a year.
Why is that asking for trouble?
A public school spend x number of dollars on both Johnny and Tommy, regardless what there parents make. Why do you object if that dollar amount (or a little less) is just given to the parents to spend rather than directly into the government school?
I have Cal - post #23 -
And I would rather respond to what you are saying than foss - foss is trying to make it personal with the whole badgering about having or nor having children...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
And you might not know it, but public schools fall far behind private schools in academic results. Furthermore, you haven't yet demonstrated that private schools have failed to meet any of the 'other' standards.
Your support of the Porkulus has everything to do with your intellectual dishonesty in suddenly getting religion vis a vis fiscal responsibility. It goes to your credibility, which, sadly, doesn't exist in this topic.
I'm not required to refute a straw man argument that you haven't even bothered to explain or support.
Again, another straw man argument. Who says they balk at testing? You? Citation please. Since you haven't yet demonstrated a deficiency in private schools, even though contrary to your protestations you continue to imply a deficiency, I'm not required to counter a claim that you cannot substantiate.
Your 'evidence' of living in an area that has welfare is anecdotal evidence and doesn't mean anything.
You seem to want to pick and choose your anecdotal evidence - when it suits you.
Vouchers have everything to do with the little guy. They most often assist those who are poor and/or minorities in having school choice. The fact that you twist this around to somehow rip off your property taxes is absurd. We can go around and around all day, but you still haven't been able to move me off my point on this. Your taxes are still represented, and in fact, are better spent when there is more money available per student.
Yes I do know that some private schools are better than some public schools. However some public schools are better than some private schools. Public schools are required to have academic testing (In Colorado they are called CSAPs) and prove to the tax payers that they meet certain standards. If those standards are not met, they are given a certain amount of time to correct the problems. If the sub standard results aren’t turned around the funding is removed from the school and it is closed. It has happened in Colorado.
If my tax money is going to a private school – I want to make sure that the same standards that have to be met by public schools are being met by a private school. If the school doesn’t take my money I could care less if their students can’t spell cat by the 10th grade.
As you keep saying foss if private schools are so much better than public schools they should embrace standardized testing, it will show how superior they are, and will draw students to them.
Why are you not for standardized testing in private schools that are recipients of government funds?
As far as the other standards. It is important that children be protected. If my money is once again going to a private school I want to make sure that children are safeguarded. Background checks of school personnel need to happen, just like they do for public schools. Safety requirements for playground equipment and school facilities (such as fire prevention) need to be the same for both the public and private schools. Once again, if my funds aren’t going to the school, I would hope that minimum standards are met, but the government certainly can’t require it.
Foss, a great example of 'other' standards not being represented is background checking. Certainly you have heard of all the problems that the Catholic Church has had with this. Do you want all the links that deal with the sexual abuse children in the past have had to deal with in Catholic schools?
So, foss it is a straw man argument because you don’t understand something? If you don’t understand it, why don’t you ask for an explanation rather than the knee jerk reaction of having to give it a derogatory label. Oh, I know – it is better to label me as dishonest than taking the honest way out and just say that you don’t understand.
Above line/below line income/tax credits. These are methods of making sure that the people who need the money are getting the money, while those who don’t need the money aren’t getting a handout from the government. It is a way to make sure that children of poor families would have the opportunity to attend a private school, while also ensuring that those in upper income brackets aren’t part of a ‘welfare for the wealthy’ program. We don’t need to pay for Obama’s children to attend private school. He can make that decision and has the income to send them. His choices aren’t affected.
However with a tax program, those in the lowest income brackets, who received earned income, will get all the money back they spend on private school. It will be refunded back to them as earned income. Usually this is handled as a ‘to the max of’ type of refund. So, anything up to and including $4,000 per child would be returned to the poor family if they chose to send their child to private school. However, after a family gets above certain income levels it goes over to an income reduction write off, and is phased out as income levels rise. This way only the people who need the additional funds to send their children to private school will be getting it. Once again, I don’t need to be supporting Bill and Linda Gates’ choice to send their children to private school.
If this issue is about poor and minority children foss, as you keep insisting it is, then the above line/below line income/tax credit is the fair and equitable way of making sure the people who need this type of program are the people who will have access to this program.
And, even those in the private school system know that private education doesn't make a big difference in academic achievement for children from upper class families...
“The irony is that the research shows that private schools don’t make a big difference for high socioeconomic students,” says Patrick Wolf, author of a recent study on voucher impacts in Washington, DC. “But they do make a difference for low-income students. And they’re the ones who can’t afford them.”
I am just leveling the field, what is good for public schools is good for private schools. I don’t want my money to be going to any school that is substandard. I am for testing in public schools, just as I am for testing in private schools. This way, just in case a private school isn’t meeting standards, my money won’t be going to them. Just as if a public school doesn’t meet certain requirements they will be shuttered.
Why are you against standard testing in private schools – once again foss, I would really like to know.
For instance, in Milwaukee, the Archdiocese has refused to release test scores….
Catholic schools comprise the largest group of private schools in the Milwaukee voucher program. The one time the Archdiocese released even partially broken-down test scores, the findings showed that the Archdiocese's gap between white students and African-American and Latino students mirrored that of Milwaukee's public schools.
However, Chicago Catholic Schools are extremely proud of their results... When I don't get a chance to see standardized results - I begin to wonder what is being hidden - don't you foss?
Just as your ‘evidence’ that 92% of people living in Canada live in an area that has a voucher program available means nothing. What does this mean foss? You still haven’t answered that question. Why does it matter that 9 in 10 people in Canada live in an area with vouchers? It tells me nothing about the voucher system, other than its size. It doesn’t say that it is working, that it is helping the people it needs to help, that it is getting poor children out of poorly run public schools and into private schools. What does that number tell us foss?
Nope, I know what anecdotal evidence is – you don’t seem to understand the concept.
And if certain standards aren’t met in public schools, I feel my money is being ripped off – don’t you feel the same way foss? It doesn’t matter whether the school is public or private, if standards aren’t being met, then my money isn’t getting the ‘pay-back’ I want.
Show me foss where my money is being protected in private schools. Where I have accountability like I have available to me in public schools. I can go to a public school, ask for their CSAP scores. I can ask if the school has performed background checks on its personal. I know that certain requirements regarding the safety of the children, such as safe school buses, with drivers that met certain standards are all being kept. However, if I go to a private school and ask for those same items, they can refuse.
Vouchers have everything with getting money into the hands of rich private non-secular schools. Once again foss, if this were about poor people, you wouldn’t hesitate to say that this program shouldn’t be for the middle and upper class. People in those income brackets already have a choice available to them. I am all for giving people in lower income strata the opportunity to attend private school.
Foss, it is you that is skirting this issue. You have yet to show me how my tax dollars are being represented. Until you can answer why private schools shouldn’t be held to the same standards as public schools regarding testing, safety, accessibility, etc, then you can’t show me that my tax dollars are being represented.
Once again – tell me why private schools, that receive federal funds, shouldn’t be required to take standardized testing and publish those tests. It is simple. Tell me why private schools shouldn’t be required to have their buses inspected.
You haven’t answered why to those types of questions foss-I would really like to know your reasoning on this. This should be a good thing for private schools.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
No, when you misrepresent my position and then attempt to refute it, that's a straw man. You clearly did that. Do you want to waste time arguing about this, or do you want to just stick with the topic? Maybe if you were honest in your debate strategy you wouldn't have to get your panties in a bunch when I call you out.
Look who's yelling now...
That's a straw man argument as well, as you're misrepresenting my position and then attempting to refute. I never said I was against standardized testing.
I have no problem with private schools taking standardized tests. Competition would do everybody good. But the standardized testing should not be administered without vouchers. And if a public school fails the tests, it should be shut down. See? I'm compromising.
You seem to be fixated on Catholic schools. Is that because I used them as an example? What about Baptist, Jewish, Mormon, etc.?
I really don't have time to answer every bit of that rambling wall of text. Brevity is not one of your strengths. You are not good at making a tight, concise point. I'm not interested in chasing you down every little emotional rabbit hole you have a whim to run down.
If you'll show me a list of private schools that are receiving federal funds and running buses, I'll answer the straw man question.
As far as your 'representation' argument, I've already answered it. Your tax money is represented. Money for vouchers would not go to the schools, but to the parents who are already paying the school fees. As I've already said, your tax money would actually be better used if vouchers were allowed. You may not like my answer, and you may do a dozen somersaults in objecting to my answer, but you are not convincing. You might want to read this Supreme Court case when you get time. It's a little longer than your rambling post, but much more concise. Although the actual legal question is regarding the Establishment Clause, Chief Justice Rehnquist actually delves into the question of the appearance that tax money is supposedly being channeled directly into private schools. Not surprisingly, he agrees with me:
Your 'feelings' aren't important here, only facts and logic. Maybe you should try applying some logic instead of feelings, and then you'll be better equipped to make a rational judgment on the matter. I know it's difficult for you liberals to separate your emotions from your arguments, but it's not productive for us to get into a yelling, frenzied argument just because you can't control yourself.
Foss, thanks so much for answering my question. You are for requiring standardized testing for all schools that receive government funds. And if you noticed I had no problem with public schools being shuttered because they fail to meet standardized tests. I think it is fine. It has happened in Colorado (a charter school) and I think it was a great thing that it was caught and those children were able to move to a school that had higher academic results.
So, a question - Why would you wait until after your vouchers were already given to the school to require testing? Don’t you think that the school should first show that it meets the standards that need to be upheld in public schools? I would like to wait and make sure that the private school deserves my money before vouchers are given.
But, in any case – testing is an OK thing to do? Schools can advertise it, they can show off their scores, etc. It will put more pressure on both public and private schools to raise standards – ultimately the kids and parents both win.
Yes, used it because you used it as an example. Catholic schools are the most predominate private schools in America – so it is easy to use them, I will intersperse other religions if it will make you feel better Foss.
Once again foss – I was using an example. I am trying to find out why you don’t think that meeting certain standards, especially safety standards for children, shouldn’t be met by both private and public schools. If a public school were found to have unsafe buses, their buses wouldn’t be allowed on the streets. Those buses are inspected. Shouldn’t the buses of a private school, which also carry children, be inspected as well? It is a precautionary measure. Public schools do it so they don’t run the risk of harming children, I believe that private schools need to have that same sort of dedication to their students. Don’t you foss? I am once again using buses as an example – you could interchange bus with playground, equipment, afterschool programs, etc.
So, do you think that minimal safety standards for children should be required at private schools that take government funds?
Oh - as far as adding Zelman. v. Simmons-Harris - I haven’t mentioned the establishment clause foss – we aren’t to the point in the argument where the idea that tax money that is going to private schools might be perceived as establishing a religion.
Thank you for answering my standardized test question – I appreciate it. I would imagine that the answer to providing a safe environment for students, whether you are looking at a public school or a private school really isn’t a hard question either. Everyone wants to make sure that kids are safe on a school bus, or in a playground, or at an afterschool activity, and that their children are also safe from the harm that could befall them via school personnel. It is just common sense. I am sure you wouldn’t question that – would you foss? Or maybe if you don’t concur you could state the reasons why.
And before we move beyond funding, which is what this has been about, my tax dollars – how they are used, and how they are delivered.
Could you please state why you think that a voucher program, which basically creates welfare for the wealthy is the ‘correct’ way to make sure that poor and underprivileged children have the opportunity to go to private schools?
Or maybe you think that there should be restrictions to the voucher program, that there should be income restrictions. Once again Foss, I am not excited about the prospect of my money paying for Ted Kennedy’s offspring to be attending private school.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Are you then satisfied with the status quo? You're content with the current government schooling system we have, lagging behind most First World nations in academic achievement?
Yes, I'm sure you'd love to see the government get total control of private schools. I'm more interested in seeing people given more choice by allowing private schools to compete by offering them vouchers. You are for children having choice, aren't you?
I reject your premise. Private schools wouldn't be taking government funds due to a voucher program.
False premise. It creates opportunity and choice for minorities and the poor. You haven't yet demonstrated that it's 'welfare for the rich.' Your gravitation toward liberal class warfare talking points reveals your true thoughts, which are belied by your phony 'friendliness.'
I can see you didn't read the case, nor did you read the paragraphs I highlighted. If you're not going to argue in good faith, then there's no point in discussing this with you further. You want to expostulate your opinion ad infiinitum, go right ahead. But I'm done with this until you start responding to my points.
Buh-bye now.
So, first Foss - why are you bringing in religion at this point? It really isn't part of the conversation is it? We have been talking funding - it can be for completely secular schools, military academies, or church based education. Funding is the thing that ties all types of private education together. Religion is a very secondary part isn't it, with regards to private schools?
I know a lot regarding the establishment clause, but before we get to that I was really interested in finding out why you like 'blanket' vouchers versus other forms of funding, and if you think that it is OK to demand representation for my funding of private schools.
No I am not - but, if I am going to give money to private schools I would like to make sure that they are at least meeting the same criteria that public schools are. But, we are in agreement on that point - testing is the way to make sure that all schools, public or private, who receive government money are meeting requirements.
I don't want the government in control of private schools. Making sure that sex offenders aren't allowed to teach in a private school is just common sense foss, isn't it? Or maybe you think that would be OK.
I believe parents should have choice. And I believe children should be safe. Don't you agree on both of those points foss?
If your mom gives you money to go to the store to buy bread, that money is always your mom's. You can't buy candy, you can't buy soda, you can only buy bread, you are just the caretaker for the funds for a short amount of time.
Foss, vouchers are welfare for everyone - it should be a program to help the poor in hopes that they will be able to better themselves, have the same opportunity as those in the upper and middle classes, that they will have a choice. It would be a handout to the rich to just be a handout I guess. Middle and upper income families already have opportunity along with choices.
One of the best ways to look at vouchers is to compare them to another welfare program - food stamps, or maybe we should say food vouchers. They are given to poor people so they don't go hungry, so they have the minimum requirements, and are able to function. They help them not to just survive, but to be able to go out, get work, become more productive, a hand up. As their incomes rise, the food stamps are phased out.
I don't need food stamps, the rich don't need food stamps. That would be a hand out... We pay into the program through our taxes because we are concerned for the well being of the poor, and we would like them to have equal opportunities.
Same thing for education stamps... or vouchers. Once again, they should be given to poor people so they have the opportunity to go to a better school, and have the same opportunities that others do. This type of program should also be phased out as income levels rise. It is a type of welfare program. A hand up... For the middle class and the wealthy it would just be a hand out.
Do you think that the rich should get vouchers, when you have stated over and over again that it should be an opportunity for poor and minorities? You haven't answered that question Foss -
Last edited by a moderator:
i think foss missed this part in his link
which is what fox is pointing out. the essential idea is that the money follows the student. more students in your school, the more funding for your school.
the main point is, any school must meet federal and provincial standards for education to recieve money, irrelevant of being private or public. the money doesn't just go with the student. the school must qualify.
so, any private school will recieve the same tax funding as any public school provided they meet the same educational standards. and test results must be released to the province for a school to qualify.
as stated here
which is what fox is pointing out. the essential idea is that the money follows the student. more students in your school, the more funding for your school.
the main point is, any school must meet federal and provincial standards for education to recieve money, irrelevant of being private or public. the money doesn't just go with the student. the school must qualify.
so, any private school will recieve the same tax funding as any public school provided they meet the same educational standards. and test results must be released to the province for a school to qualify.
as stated here
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Here's my final answer to your 'taxation and representation' argument fox.
A school voucher "law" would have more representation for me than the current system where the government chooses to confiscate my dollars for an atheistic religion public school I don't use. Which results in my having to use additional dollars to educate my kids.
Your argument is that your tax dollars should be represented and mine should not.
The obvious solution is to get rid of public schools and require parents to educate their children. Some obvious methods are: Private schools, home schooling, and home school consortiums.
A school voucher "law" would have more representation for me than the current system where the government chooses to confiscate my dollars for an atheistic religion public school I don't use. Which results in my having to use additional dollars to educate my kids.
Your argument is that your tax dollars should be represented and mine should not.
The obvious solution is to get rid of public schools and require parents to educate their children. Some obvious methods are: Private schools, home schooling, and home school consortiums.
Ah, so the truth is out - you don't use public schools - that is why you want the voucher program, and why you don't want the vouchers system to just be for the poor or minorities.
Correct Foss? This is your answer on why the middle class and wealthy should be allowed vouchers - because they (or in this case you specifically) don't have representation in public schools. And not only that - you don't even use the public schools - so you shouldn't have to pay for them. Really Foss? You want to go down the road of 'if I don't use it, I don't want to pay for it'?
Oh, and from one of your earlier posts...
I guess we can really see where the "me, me me" really lies in this argument foss - it is with you - I have all along been for minorities and the poor getting an equal opportunity to attend private school... It was you that wanted it expanded for the middle and upper classes - it was about you foss, you getting money - not the poor...
Contrary to your argument your tax dollars are represented in public school - ever go to a school board meeting - ever run for school board? Ever go to a public school when they review the text books? Ever notice that their standardized testing scores are published? Ever take a glance at their budget numbers, which are public record. Foss - just because you might not attend these things or do those things, doesn't mean the opportunity isn't there.
If my money were to go to a private school - I couldn't attend a meeting of their private board, I wouldn't be able to make sure my money was being spent on education and not on missionaries in Africa. I couldn't ask to see their academic standards testing scores. However, I am allowed to do all those things in my local public school. My money would be blindly spent with no accountability in the private school. My money is transparently spent in a public school and I have the opportunity to vote in people who represent how I believe the public schools should spend that money.
And, if you don't like your representatives' vision - you can back candidates that share your vision. You have representation in all levels of government Foss. This is a republic, your representatives are voted in by a majority. If you don't like how they represent you it could be that you aren't a part of the majority, or that your issues aren't important to the majority. Sorry - that is the way it works. If I don't like my school board - I have the opportunity to vote them out of office. Just as foss - you can start to work towards a country where there isn't a public school system.
Oh, just in case, atheism isn't a religion. Hrmwrm would know how to phrase this better - but I think you have your placement of the word 'believe' in the wrong place. Atheism isn't the belief there is no God, atheists don't believe there is a God.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
More straw men. I never argued for the wealthy and middle class. This isn't an argument. It's a rant. And it's not relevant.
Ad hominem. What was your point again? You clearly don't like your arguments used against you. So you now admit to the truth - that you're all about you. You can't argue this position without incriminating yourself.
You're undercutting your own original argument vis a vis the vouchers. It's clear you really don't know what you're talking about. I made the same argument earlier and you poo-poo'd it. Keep shooting yourself in the foot, it's amusing.
Listen to yourself.
Again, this isn't a relevant argument, just a condescending lecture. You still haven't demonstrated how my tax dollars are represented. You've managed to make your entire argument depend on whether or not atheism is a religion.