10Aggie10 said:schmellba99 said:1. It isn't "government" money. It's the parents' money that is forcibly taken from them by the government. Hard to make an argument that it is "government" money if it follows the child to wherever they go. Strike 1.10Aggie10 said:Panama Red said:
,.Quote:
but for the most part her and her unions have nothing to do with Texas public schools. Let's keep it that way
Teachers unions are funding the anti-school choice movement in Texas and paying rural republicans in Texas Legislature to be against it despite their constituents wanting it. They are pushing the "this will hurt rural schools" fiction.
The same thing will happen when every parent is given vouchers and school choice. The kids who don't givePlease show us in the bill where private schools will be forced to take these kids. More "disinformation" brought to you by teacher's union lobby.Quote:
The private schools that will be forced to take these kids using government money will then fall victim to all of the same things that plague our public schools.
I said "for the most part", which was a true and accurate statement.
I didn't say private schools will be forced to take anyone. I said "for the private schools that will be". Most reasonable folks understand that any public money used in a private manner will lead towards the government having their fingers in those pies.
I'm curious where you think the voucher kids will go? If you don't think they'll wind up at a private school or another public school that is "forced" to take them, then I guess you're suggesting that they'll be "stuck " in their current school?
Why is this even a discussion if no kids will be changing schools?
Or perhaps you're suggesting that schools will get to accept and reject kids? Again, we're talking about state (and potentially federal) funds here. Have you not paid attention to lawsuits over the last few decades? Kids and parents will absolutely force themselves on schools that don't want them. Yes, some private schools won't accept any vouchers at all; we aren't talking about those schools. I'm interested in these schools that you personally think vouchers will lead exiting kids to? How will the people they're fleeing from not go to the same schools? I'm genuinely interested
:edit to fix a typo and take out a part that didnt stay on topic:
2. Private schools will not be "forced" to take any kids. Just like they aren't now, the benefit of being a private school is that they can choose who to accept and who not to accept and under what terms. Strike 2.
3. Just like with open districts now, districts won't necessarily have to accept students from outside of the district. They can currently reject a student from outside the district for any number of reasons - disciplinary to numbers. That won't change with the voucher proposals. Currently each district has a maximum number of students they can handle. If the residents in the district boundaries don't provide enough students to meet that maximum number, they can choose to fill the empty spaces with kids from outside the district (assuming the school board declares them an open district). But the parent of those kids are responsible for getting the kid to the school, the district is not responsible to get the child like they are with residents. But as it stands, those living in the district are automatically accepted at the district schools no matter what, and that won't change with any legislation. Strike 3, you're out.
So the whole "rural districts will be decimated" or "local kids will be displaced by those coming from out of district" or whatever other fear mongering falsehoods are spouted are exactly that - pure lies. I would say "misunderstanding" or "disinformation", but they aren't those - they are flat out lies stated with the express intent of keeping the status quo and fostered by those that have vested interests in keeping the status quo.
Even with vouchers or whatever you want to call it, that doesn't mean that every kid from every district will suddenly go somewhere else. There will be plenty of districts that will likely have zero changes in terms of enrollment, either because they are a good district or because there aren't any options that are logistically capable for parents (think really rural districts in this capacity).
There will be districts that see some changes in numbers, but not enough to freak out over. There will be the parents that choose to home school and you may see a new private school pop up here and there, but it certainly won't be the waves of kids leaving that the gnashing of teeth wailers are trying to claim it will be.
There will be some that see a large number of parents that want to take their children out and to somewhere else - not all will be successful because it simply can't happen that way. Those are the districts that will be the most impacted, because they will probably start losing teachers to better districts or to private schools that can add a teacher or two to the staff as a result of parents being able to afford sending their kids there. And in many cases, teachers won't be leaving for more money, but better working conditions, better admin than they have now, districts that aren't so corrupt the state has to take them over, etc. In the private sector, we call this "competition", and it is a good thing. It is literally why almost everything you can buy these days is of higher quality, can be produced faster and is considerably cheaper than it was 5 years ago. That same competition will work in schools for administrators and teachers in exactly the same manner it does for professionals in the private sector.
With respect to the "why is this a discussion if no kids will be changing schools?" comment - it's because parents should have the ability to choose where their kid is educated and not be forced to pay for a substandard education while also paying for their kid to go to a better school. If the law mandates that kids must go to school from 1st through 12th grade, then the parents absolutely should have a significant say in where, and nothing talks like money. I abhor the mentality that because you can't (or refuse) to see anything more than what you are willing to see, it all must be null and void.
The idea that suddenly there will be lawsuits from parents forcing districts to take kids when there aren't any right now is fear mongering, and it can be written into the legislation to prevent this from being a thing.
Or, we can do what we have been doing - continue to pump more and more money into a failing system, continually lower the standards across the board, then sit back and wonder why those in the system today have zero respect for anything and why we have kids in high school that can't do basic math. Something about the definition of insanity fits extremely well with regard to how we run public schools.
Seems like you're pretty upset with me.
1. I guess I need to re-read the bill again. My understanding was that I didn't get to not pay my taxes, but that my voucher money would follow my kids. I guess if I'm keeping it and can spend it as I like, then you're right. If all it does is moves my money like a voucher from one place to another then no, you're wrong. It's still gonna technically be the government's money. And what happens if I don't have kids? Do I keep all of it? Otherwise you're being dishonest; the government absolutely will keep track of it and they'll think it's their money. High and right. Not a strike. Like I said, I should re-read it because my understanding of it was different than what you just said.
2. My earlier post covered that private schools aren't forced to take kids so not sure what you think you're proving here. Way outside. Not a strike. All I said is that if the government considers it to be tax money then you can bet they'll track it and there will be some type of strings attached. Again, I need to re-read this thing because it's sounding like I may have it wrong . If I didn't read it wrong, we have some awfully optimistic people around here that haven't seen what our government has been doing via regulation and oversight.
3. Possibly a strike. No intention of fear mongering. I honestly feel like I'm being realistic that there will be a lot of people who take advantage of this. It seems pretty even that there are strong feelings on both sides. It's my take that we'll have a lot of parents want to use vouchers since it's their money and their kids. I think the numbers of people wanting to move to better schools whether they be public or private, if possible, is higher than you're projecting or anticipating. Maybe I'm fatefully optimistic that there are more parents out there who are active and involved and going to try to get the best situation for their kids.
Not sure why the next part was directed towards me. I haven't mentioned rural schools being decimated or kids being displaced anywhere in this thread, or anywhere else. If anything I think rural schools are the ones that will see the least change.
Your next paragraph there is intriguing to me. It's the part that had me predicting possible lawsuits. If kids/parents are trying to leave and can't find a landing spot, then I think johnnys mommy and braelynns other mommy are going to cause quite a ruckus because they want to use their voucher to go to other schools. Now, I'm not predicting large numbers. We seem to be on the same page, but just disagreeing about how it's gonna go down. The way I'm reading your post is that you predict the unsuccessful parents will just be "aww shucks I guess I'll just keep my kid and my money in this school that I want to leave because o can't go anywhere else" whereas I think those same parents will not go so quietly into the night.
What's the point of being able to use your money how you best see fit for your child's education if you can't actually do it?
Your next statement seems to contradict the last. My question directly came from that belief: a parent should be able to have a say in where their kid is educated and not accept substandard.
I completely agree with the last paragraph and feel like I said the same thing in my initial post. Again, it seemed like you were upset with me but that doesn't make sense
TLDR. Ban user for life.