Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Owlagdad said:

---

I am a firm believer that more government involvement ruined the schools. Be careful what you wish for.

---

---

I'm going to suggest that parents have ruined public schools. First and foremost by making sure discipline is almost impossible. Second by helping the kids too much with their work.

Quote:

---

I remember having "accelerated" classes growing up, even in elementary school. The smartest kids were in a class together. The average kids were in classes together. The slower kids were in a class together. That allowed teachers to teach to their students at the pace the class could handle. It meant the "dumbest" kid in a class wasn't so far behind the "smartest" kid, so everyone learned better.

But that isn't fair now. Everyone has to be in classes together, which doesn't make the slowest kid smarter, it just means the smarter kids get held back from learning as much as they could otherwise. That is failing students. Yes, there are AP classes and there are still GT/TAG classes, but kids could be better taught to every day.

---

To me, this is where the public schools are failing. Worrying more about hurting kids' feelings than making sure they are educated. But that could be fixed.

And fix public education we must. Despite the breathy talk on this forum, getting rid of public education won't happen until all of our social systems fail. There's too much demand for it, even if it is broken.

Phatbob said:

---

Public schools, as all socialized systems, are mostly okay at doing what they are supposed to do. As all socialized institutions behave, the larger and older they get, the "okay"-er and "okay"-er they get. All they do is remain "okay" in the same state of being that they were created. Very limited innovation, very limited reaction to needs. At some point they all become liabilities that need to be propped up until they have to be overhauled completely. They are not unlike overarching software systems. Even if they work well when they are first implemented, they don't work well forever and eventually they hold you back.

Non-socialized systems don't have that problem.

---

So, who is keeping each school accountable? Shouldn't the parents be involved with their school administration and school boards?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Public schools, as all socialized systems, are mostly okay at doing what they are supposed to do. As all socialized institutions behave, the larger and older they get, the "okay"-er and "okay"-er they get. All they do is remain "okay" in the same state of being that they were created. Very limited innovation, very limited reaction to needs. At some point they all become liabilities that need to be propped up until they have to be overhauled completely. They are not unlike overarching software systems. Even if they work well when they are first implemented, they don't work well forever and eventually they hold you back.

Non-socialized systems don't have that problem.

---

So, who is keeping each school accountable? Shouldn't the parents be involved with their school administration and school boards?

---

Working within the system they are given is a necessity, so yes. That doesn't really have anything to do with the incentives within that system working against the best results long term.

7% voter turnout for school board elections would say that they are not.

The greatest incentive in public ed (system-type) is funding tied to average daily attendance. Hard to pay a district staff if the students don't come to school consistently. Where the incentive is, the resources (time) follow.

oldag941 said:

---

7% voter turnout for school board elections would say that they are not.

---

That's true! And all the ne'er do wells go to the school and raise hell and they get special treatment, while middle and upper middle class folks send their kids off to school and hope for the best.
But in private schools, it is sometimes opposite- those who donate bigly threaten to cut off the school if their kids who got caught with weed is punished. Or kid gets 86 they deserved rather a 94 they want them to have.

The Education Committee's public hearing is tomorrow, but it's not too late to let your voice be heard. I would strongly suggest calling or emailing the committee members and stressing how completely unacceptable subsection c of Sec. 29.368 (PROGRAM PARTICIPANT, PROVIDER, AND VENDOR AUTONOMY) is to those who enjoy their freedom and consider themselves to be a conservative. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, go back to page 1 and see my comment, it's the third from top)

Here's something to start with if you need it (throw in a comment about subsection c if you would like):

"Hello, my name is _______. I am calling regarding the Education Committee hearing for Senate Bill 2 on Tuesday. I value freedom from government strings and regulations in private education, and am against the expansion of government in the name of "parental empowerment." I would like to ask Senator _______ to please join me in opposing "school choice" legislation like SB 2. Thank you!"

Chair: Brandon Creighton
(512) 463-0104
brandon.creighton@senate.texas.gov

Vice-Chair: Donna Campbell
(512) 463-0125
donna.campbell@senate.texas.gov

Paul Bettencourt
(512) 463-0107
paul.bettencourt@senate.texas.gov

Brent Hagenbuch
(512) 463-0130
brent.hagenbuch@senate.texas.gov

Adam Hinojosa
(512) 463-0127
adam.hinojosa@senate.texas.gov

Phil King
(512) 463-0110
phil.king@senate.texas.gov

Jose Menendez
(512) 463-0126
jose.menendez@senate.texas.gov

Mayes Middleton
(512) 463-0111
mayes.middleton@senate.texas.gov

Tan Parker
(512) 463-0112
tan.parker@senate.texas.gov

Angela Paxton
(512) 463-0108
angela.paxton@senate.texas.gov

Royce West
(512) 463-0123
royce.west@senate.texas.gov

Why are you hiding behind some "strings attached" argument when you totally oppose vouchers.

Your proposed script is in opposition to vouchers as a whole instead of one perceived section of concern. There are other statement in the bill that place limits on any compelling government interest such as for religious or institution values.

If you are concerned about one section, address it rather than dishonestly trying to kill the whole bill.

DD88 said:

---

Why are you hiding behind some "strings attached" argument when you totally oppose vouchers.

Your proposed script is in opposition to vouchers as a whole instead of one perceived section of concern. There are other statement in the bill that place limits on any compelling government interest such as for religious or institution values.

If you are concerned about one section, address it rather than dishonestly trying to kill the whole bill.

---

Well *I* personally am against vouchers as a whole but for this specific proposal the biggest concern is subsection c as noted. If they strike that, we can talk. I made it very clear in my emails to senators and representatives where I personally stand while also bringing to light the biggest concern with SB 2.

People can say whatever they want in their personal communications to their representatives, even that they love SB2 if that's the case, I was just providing an option. Don't like it, don't use it.

ETA: Which statements are you referring to that you say place limits?

Because by their very nature, libs are dishonest

DD88 said:

---

Why are you hiding behind some "strings attached" argument when you totally oppose vouchers.

Your proposed script is in opposition to vouchers as a whole instead of one perceived section of concern. There are other statement in the bill that place limits on any compelling government interest such as for religious or institution values.

If you are concerned about one section, address it rather than dishonestly trying to kill the whole bill.

---

I don't think this is true. It says "except as provide in Subsection (c)". Meaning the government can make rules, even contrary to religious values, if the rule is of compelling government interest.

Sec. 29.368. PROGRAM PARTICIPANT, PROVIDER, AND VENDOR AUTONOMY.

(a) An education service provider or vendor of educational products that receives money distributed under the program is not a recipient of federal financial assistance and may not be considered to be a state actor on the basis of receiving that money.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), a state agency or state official may not adopt a rule or take other governmental action related to the program and a certified educational assistance organization may not take action that:
(1) limits or imposes requirements that are contrary to the religious or institutional values or practices of an education service provider, vendor of educational products, or program participant; or
(2) limits an education service provider, vendor of educational products, or program participant from freely:
(A) determining the methods or curriculum to educate students;
(B) determining admissions and enrollment practices, policies, and standards;
(C) modifying or refusing to modify the provider's, vendor's, or participant's religious or institutional values or practices, operations, conduct, policies, standards, assessments, or employment practices based on the provider's,
vendor's, or participant's religious values or practices; or
(D) exercising the provider's, vendor's, or participant's religious or institutional practices as the provider, vendor, or participant determines.

(c) state agency or state official may adopt a rule that imposes limitations or requirements described by Subsection (b) if the agency or official demonstrates that the application of the burden resulting from the imposition:
(1) is in the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

Im Gipper said:

---

Because by their very nature, libs are dishonest

---

You're mistaken if you think opposing vouchers automatically makes someone a liberal. It's amazing to me those who claim vouchers are conservative policy when they threaten freedoms and increased government oversight. "Small government" and "leave us alone" are the rally cries of a conservative not "let me hold the door open for you".

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Because by their very nature, libs are dishonest

---

You're mistaken if you think opposing vouchers automatically makes someone a liberal. It's amazing to me those who claim vouchers are conservative policy when they threaten freedoms and increased government oversight. "Small government" and "leave us alone" are the rally cries of a conservative not "let me hold the door open for you".

---

Welcome to F16. Anything left of Tea Party militia and you're branded a "Kamala voter" around here.

Martin Cash said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

What a ****ing joke.

"We're going to give you back some of your money we stole through our criminal property tax system so you can choose where your kids go to school. But only for 1.8% of you, and only if you don't make too much money, and only if you win a lottery." Complete ****ing joke.

---

You may dislike the property tax system, but it is the law. To call it criminal is idiotic and honestly? Childish.

---

Nahh, it's criminal that in the state of Texas you never outright own property and even after you have paid off your mortgage and any other purchase or debt obligations, the state can come in and still confiscate your property because taxes.

It's also one of the only things out there that you pay sales tax on year over year, all the while having almost zero actual control as to what that tax rate and final bill will be.

Criminal is a good description for it.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Because by their very nature, libs are dishonest

---

You're mistaken if you think opposing vouchers automatically makes someone a liberal. It's amazing to me those who claim vouchers are conservative policy when they threaten freedoms and increased government oversight. "Small government" and "leave us alone" are the rally cries of a conservative not "let me hold the door open for you".

---

Right, having education run entirely through one state level institution where you have no choice where you can take your kids without double paying is waaaay more conservative. It's more like the Canadian Healthcare system. You have a choice to pay extra for private care, so why make any changes?

Phatbob said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Because by their very nature, libs are dishonest

---

You're mistaken if you think opposing vouchers automatically makes someone a liberal. It's amazing to me those who claim vouchers are conservative policy when they threaten freedoms and increased government oversight. "Small government" and "leave us alone" are the rally cries of a conservative not "let me hold the door open for you".

---

Right, having education run entirely through one state level institution where you have no choice where you can take your kids without double paying is waaaay more conservative. It's more like the Canadian Healthcare system. You have a choice to pay extra for private care, so why make any changes?

---

Just because some parents are getting some of their education bill paid via tax money doesn't mean it's a conservative policy, not with the way they've written these proposals. They want to not take it from us in the first place, they'll have my vote in a heartbeat. They want to hand me some of my money back plus other people's and then tell me they reserve the right to add limits and requirements to it - no thanks. This money isn't even coming from the school fund in this proposal. So now property taxes are continuing to pay into the public school system plus there will be less money in the general fund for whatever, essentially paying for these students twice. Sounds like a good use of our taxes. And we know exactly why they wrote it this way - to try to get rural support.

This program will pay for less than 100,000 students. Want it to grow and be meaningful? Bye bye general fund or hello increased taxes.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Because by their very nature, libs are dishonest

---

You're mistaken if you think opposing vouchers automatically makes someone a liberal. It's amazing to me those who claim vouchers are conservative policy when they threaten freedoms and increased government oversight. "Small government" and "leave us alone" are the rally cries of a conservative not "let me hold the door open for you".

---

Right, having education run entirely through one state level institution where you have no choice where you can take your kids without double paying is waaaay more conservative. It's more like the Canadian Healthcare system. You have a choice to pay extra for private care, so why make any changes?

---

Just because some parents are getting some of their education bill paid via tax money doesn't mean it's a conservative policy, not with the way they've written these proposals. They want to not take it from us in the first place, they'll have my vote in a heartbeat. They want to hand me some of my money back plus other people's and then tell me they reserve the right to add limits and requirements to it - no thanks. This money isn't even coming from the school fund in this proposal. So now property taxes are continuing to pay into the public school system plus there will be less money in the general fund for whatever, essentially paying for these students twice. Sounds like a good use of our taxes. And we know exactly why they wrote it this way - to try to get rural support.

This program will pay for less than 100,000 students. Want it to grow and be meaningful? Bye bye general fund or hello increased taxes.

---

1. If the state puts its fingers in too far, the school doesn't have to take the funds and you don't have to either. Easy solution.

2. No expansion has been offered, so it is silly to oppose the first one based on how they'll screw up the next one

Not sure why this matters to you so much since you don't live here but if people like it fine, they can ignore me. But for those who want to understand the bill, its failures, and voice their opposition, I've given them the information. You mention don't worry about future proposals (which is awfully short sighted, but ok) and my very first comment on this thread was specifically regarding this proposed bill, not some hypothetical future proposal.

Phatbob said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Because by their very nature, libs are dishonest

---

You're mistaken if you think opposing vouchers automatically makes someone a liberal. It's amazing to me those who claim vouchers are conservative policy when they threaten freedoms and increased government oversight. "Small government" and "leave us alone" are the rally cries of a conservative not "let me hold the door open for you".

---

Right, having education run entirely through one state level institution where you have no choice where you can take your kids without double paying is waaaay more conservative. It's more like the Canadian Healthcare system. You have a choice to pay extra for private care, so why make any changes?

---

Neither position is conservative.

Meanwhile, in Arkansas, after passing school choice in 2023...

HB1144 - TO REQUIRE A PARTICIPATING SCHOOL UNDER THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM ACCOUNT PROGRAM TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME STATUTORY AND DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO WHICH PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE SUBJECT.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Meanwhile, in Arkansas, after passing school choice in 2023...

HB1144 - TO REQUIRE A PARTICIPATING SCHOOL UNDER THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM ACCOUNT PROGRAM TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME STATUTORY AND DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO WHICH PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE SUBJECT.

---

Those anti-voucher Reps like Jim Wooten who filed that bill (hasn't even made it through committee) will try anything just to poison vouchers to keep the government monopoly on parent's educational tax dollars.

Quote:

---

A dogged advocate for public education, Wooten was one of very few Republicans who opposed Gov. Sarah Sanders' Arkansas LEARNS universal voucher bill that will leech money from traditional public schools as students claim taxpayer-funded freedom vouchers to put toward private school tuition

---

https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2023/03/28/arkansas-legislators-protect-private-schools-that-accept-public-money-from-having-to-provide-transportation-to-poor-kids

Nice try. Next time find something that has actually passed and proposed by someone not trying to kill vouchers.

The Public School industry is very defensive. Monopoly gonna monopoly, especially when it gets to set the rules of the market.

The simplest solution is a bill that phases out all government control of schools and auctions off all physical property to private schools.

Everyone gets their tax dollars back.

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

The simplest solution is a bill that phases out all government control of schools and auctions off all physical property to private schools.

Everyone gets their tax dollars back.

---

Correct. There is nothing more conservative than choosing and then paying for your damn self.

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

The simplest solution is a bill that phases out all government control of schools and auctions off all physical property to private schools.

Everyone gets their tax dollars back.

---

"Simple".


lol

Tom Fox said:

---

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

The simplest solution is a bill that phases out all government control of schools and auctions off all physical property to private schools.

Everyone gets their tax dollars back.

---

Correct. There is nothing more conservative than choosing and then paying for your damn self.

---

So, let's see the anti-public school folks break cover and propose a state constitutional amendment to eliminate public education.

Do you have any idea how fringe that idea is? Not one senator or representative is going to do that. Whatever they propose, they all take pains to claim it won't hurt public education. So, are they all lying, or are you way out in the fringe?

twk said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

The simplest solution is a bill that phases out all government control of schools and auctions off all physical property to private schools.

Everyone gets their tax dollars back.

---

Correct. There is nothing more conservative than choosing and then paying for your damn self.

---

So, let's see the anti-public school folks break cover and propose a state constitutional amendment to eliminate public education.

Do you have any idea how fringe that idea is? Not one senator or representative is going to do that. Whatever they propose, they all take pains to claim it won't hurt public education. So, are they all lying, or are you way out in the fringe?

---

I'm cool with funding it through primary school. Possibly further for high performers, but not universally. It is not a daycare.

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

The simplest solution is a bill that phases out all government control of schools and auctions off all physical property to private schools.

Everyone gets their tax dollars back.

---

Unless you're going to phase it out over 20 years, that just isn't feasible. Private schools don't have the capacity right now and if you just suddenly threw together enough to do it, most of them would be a disaster for the first several years.

There's being conservative and then there is believing in unicorns.

Phatbob said:

---

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

The simplest solution is a bill that phases out all government control of schools and auctions off all physical property to private schools.

Everyone gets their tax dollars back.

---

Unless you're going to phase it out over 20 years, that just isn't feasible. Private schools don't have the capacity right now and if you just suddenly threw together enough to do it, most of them would be a disaster for the first several years.

There's being conservative and then there is believing in unicorns.

---

I'm good with a phase out. It wouldn't take twenty years if the majority are out of the system after 11.

Problem is, our school district of a district with 13000 pupils needs a $403 million bond to fix the buildings. Why spend that if we're about to have ESAs?

Fairly decent summary of public testimony would be: Catholic schools and representative organizations like it, Pre-K schools want to be included, and public and homeschoolers say no thanks.

Sounds like Groundhog Day from last session.

Abbott is likely going to declare vouchers an emergency item on Sunday so they can get to work right away on trying to get something passed. Now is the time to be emailing and calling your Senator and all the others. Might as well begin to make work on the House as well.

I get some people want this - the bill needs to be better. Lots of people don't - start voicing your opinions.

Why do some people want to stunt the education of poor minority childern? Because that is what they are doing.

doubledog said:

---

Why do some people want to stunt the education of poor minority childern? Because that is what they are doing.

---

Lots of different ways people can respond to this question depending on what side you're coming from. Supporters say not having vouchers stunts, opposers say having vouchers stunt.