TarponChaser said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Mikeyshooter said:

---

About halfway in and we've hit on all of your typical liberal talking points:

-LGBTQIA+
-White people are racist
-Equity vs. Equality

Hopefully we get to some actual education-related talking points.

---

Those ARE the educational talking points for progressives. They only care about indoctrination, not education.

---

Sure, its the progressives that are looking to indoctrinate. I think you're projecting again

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2023/04/26/kprc-2-investigates-proposed-bill-calls-for-ten-commandments-to-be-displayed-in-all-classrooms-is-that-constitutional/

---

I agree that's pretty ridiculous. If the Ten Commandments were displayed in a World History class or Philosophy or even English literature (the Bible is actually pretty interesting reading even if you're a non-believer) but this is pretty goofy.

Then there are, shall we say "special," people like this:

Quote:

---

"I am very excited about this because I think the Ten Commandments, we're talking about the Ten Commandments, right? I think the Ten Commandments are a foundation of our civilization. I mean, some people don't know it's not right to steal or it's not right to lie or it's not right to commit adultery," Harper said.

---

Really lady?

---

Yes, I am sure that there are plenty of people that have no concept that stealing or adultery or murder are, in fact, bad things.

cajunaggie08 said:

---

83AgCiti said:

---

Thank you for this info - we've received the flyers you're talking about- can you give any recommendations? Flyer I have us from Cuzela, Thieme and Calhoun. We've only been in Katy a few years and our kids are all adults - so our interest is purely for maintaining conservative values in the schools

---

Cuzela, Thieme and Calhoun are what people would see as THE MOST CONSERVATIVE of all running. However they are backed by a PAC with ties to school vouchers becoming a thing so if blowing up the state public school system is your thing, then there you go. One of them who has kids in a charter school lied in an interview by saying her kids go to a katy isd funded school and hasnt corrected herself or walked that back. If you cant be honest to people about a simple question like that, then I don't trust you with your intent to be on the board.

It no shocker to others, but as you might be new here I'll put up the disclaimer that I'm on the left side of the national political aisle. I grew up in Katy and went to Katy ISD schools for all of my education as well as my kids are in Katy ISD schools. I have skin in the game and I want this great school district to continue being great. However like I previously said there is only one actual democrat voting person running (Cicely Taylor) and I'm not even going to vote for her as she hasnt made a compelling argument to me for what she hopes to accomplish while on the board.

I'm leaning Bradford, Brettell, and Peterson. All three are conservative, honest, and up front about why they are running and who us backing them.

---

TarponChaser said:

---

Mikeyshooter said:

---

Right after one of the hefty mods says they are totally ignoring the issue of recapture in Texas. Perhaps she has been living under a rock these last several weeks considering that's all we've heard about.

---

I'm unfamiliar with the "issue of recapture" regarding education. What am I missing?

---

It's why La Joya district down in the valley has a $20MM water park, natatorium and swimming center.

Basically it's wealth re-distribution. The state looks at districts and sets an amount that they can have on a per student basis through property taxes, any excess is sent to the state for redistribution as they see fit to poorer districts. So instead of paying taxes for your kids in your district....you are paying school taxes for your district and other districts as well. Even though you have no say in how those districts are run, can't vote for board members, etc. Taxation without representation.

Funny thing though - none of the money is actually tracked and there are no real regs on what the school districts can or cannot spend said money handed to them after being stolen from somebody else on. And, like every other government budget, they have to spend it. So they do. And a water park and natatorium for a district that cannot afford it, and likely won't be able to afford maintenance without continued robin hood, are the result.

Meanwhile, districts like Galveston ISD can't upgrade their own facilities or even build new facilities because Galveston generates a pretty decent amount of revenue through property taxes. But they have to give $45MM away this year through recapture, while trying to maintain school buildings in many cases that are well over 50 years old.

On paper, it sounds like a great idea - the whole "all kids in Texas will get an equal education!" idea. But in reality it plays out way different and in typical government fashion, instead of a poor school district needing to find ways to be more frugal with their money or encouraging local residents to donate more or whatever, everybody ultimately suffers as a result. Because that is what government does - it makes everybody suffer. It's also a prime reason why bonds are such a big thing now - because bonds aren't subject to recapture.

It perpetuates the cycle of providing absolutely zero incentive for any government agency to be even within site of fiscally responsible.

schmellba99 said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Mikeyshooter said:

---

About halfway in and we've hit on all of your typical liberal talking points:

-LGBTQIA+
-White people are racist
-Equity vs. Equality

Hopefully we get to some actual education-related talking points.

---

Those ARE the educational talking points for progressives. They only care about indoctrination, not education.

---

Sure, its the progressives that are looking to indoctrinate. I think you're projecting again

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2023/04/26/kprc-2-investigates-proposed-bill-calls-for-ten-commandments-to-be-displayed-in-all-classrooms-is-that-constitutional/

---

I agree that's pretty ridiculous. If the Ten Commandments were displayed in a World History class or Philosophy or even English literature (the Bible is actually pretty interesting reading even if you're a non-believer) but this is pretty goofy.

Then there are, shall we say "special," people like this:

Quote:

---

"I am very excited about this because I think the Ten Commandments, we're talking about the Ten Commandments, right? I think the Ten Commandments are a foundation of our civilization. I mean, some people don't know it's not right to steal or it's not right to lie or it's not right to commit adultery," Harper said.

---

Really lady?

---

Yes, I am sure that there are plenty of people that have no concept that stealing or adultery or murder are, in fact, bad things.

---

I think that people know they're wrong but just don't care. Not sure which is worse though.

cajunaggie08 said:

---

83AgCiti said:

---

Thank you for this info - we've received the flyers you're talking about- can you give any recommendations? Flyer I have us from Cuzela, Thieme and Calhoun. We've only been in Katy a few years and our kids are all adults - so our interest is purely for maintaining conservative values in the schools

---

Cuzela, Thieme and Calhoun are what people would see as THE MOST CONSERVATIVE of all running. However they are backed by a PAC with ties to school vouchers becoming a thing so if blowing up the state public school system is your thing, then there you go. One of them who has kids in a charter school lied in an interview by saying her kids go to a katy isd funded school and hasnt corrected herself or walked that back. If you cant be honest to people about a simple question like that, then I don't trust you with your intent to be on the board.

---

If these three want to blow up the public school system then that is exactly who I'm voting for. I was going to sit this election out since I didn't know about the candidates. So thank you for the endorsement.

F public schools. All of them.

Vouchers are not going to blow up the system, but it will lead to reforms and more freedom, which scares some people.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Vouchers are not going to blow up the system, but it will lead to reforms and more freedom, which scares some people.

---

This.

But the legions of brainwashed idiots that actively fight for continued failure and socialism want to scare people, so they say stupid things like this and other things that are patently false about the proposal. And, unfortunately, those false statements are the ones that get repeated most often.

It absolutely floors me that people actively fight against improvement in schools in any fashion outside of making sure their football stadium is the newest and biggest.

NoahAg said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

83AgCiti said:

---

Thank you for this info - we've received the flyers you're talking about- can you give any recommendations? Flyer I have us from Cuzela, Thieme and Calhoun. We've only been in Katy a few years and our kids are all adults - so our interest is purely for maintaining conservative values in the schools

---

Cuzela, Thieme and Calhoun are what people would see as THE MOST CONSERVATIVE of all running. However they are backed by a PAC with ties to school vouchers becoming a thing so if blowing up the state public school system is your thing, then there you go. One of them who has kids in a charter school lied in an interview by saying her kids go to a katy isd funded school and hasnt corrected herself or walked that back. If you cant be honest to people about a simple question like that, then I don't trust you with your intent to be on the board.

---

If these three want to blow up the public school system then that is exactly who I'm voting for. I was going to sit this election out since I didn't know about the candidates. So thank you for the endorsement.

F public schools. All of them.

---

that's a tremendous ideological position. No public education available in our state. perfect, really

schmellba99 said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Vouchers are not going to blow up the system, but it will lead to reforms and more freedom, which scares some people.

---

This.

But the legions of brainwashed idiots that actively fight for continued failure and socialism want to scare people, so they say stupid things like this and other things that are patently false about the proposal. And, unfortunately, those false statements are the ones that get repeated most often.

It absolutely floors me that people actively fight against improvement in schools in any fashion outside of making sure their football stadium is the newest and biggest.

---

love to hear how this will improve public schools. I have never read a concrete argument for how it will do so, only that some students trapped in crappy schools will magically get saved.

nice to toss in the boogey man of "socialism"... when, no ****, publicly supported schools available to all are seemingly the definition of a "social" program

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Vouchers are not going to blow up the system, but it will lead to reforms and more freedom, which scares some people.

---

I agree and think school choice is a good thing but do we have any evidence to support your claim?

bularry said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Vouchers are not going to blow up the system, but it will lead to reforms and more freedom, which scares some people.

---

This.

But the legions of brainwashed idiots that actively fight for continued failure and socialism want to scare people, so they say stupid things like this and other things that are patently false about the proposal. And, unfortunately, those false statements are the ones that get repeated most often.

It absolutely floors me that people actively fight against improvement in schools in any fashion outside of making sure their football stadium is the newest and biggest.

---

love to hear how this will improve public schools. I have never read a concrete argument for how it will do so, only that some students trapped in crappy schools will magically get saved.

nice to toss in the boogey man of "socialism"... when, no ****, publicly supported schools available to all are seemingly the definition of a "social" program

---

You don't want to hear how it would benefit public schools because it goes against your immovable ingrained thoughts and opinions on the public school system.

How about this - since your system is evidently the absolute best it could possibly be, provide me with reasons and logic as to why introducing competition and fiscal responsibility into the school system (of which you admit is socialist and has neither of those currently) will be a negative to the system.

I'll wait, patiently, as to your answer. Because unlike you, I genuinely want to know the answer from you to my question.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

83AgCiti said:

---

Thank you for this info - we've received the flyers you're talking about- can you give any recommendations? Flyer I have us from Cuzela, Thieme and Calhoun. We've only been in Katy a few years and our kids are all adults - so our interest is purely for maintaining conservative values in the schools

---

Cuzela, Thieme and Calhoun are what people would see as THE MOST CONSERVATIVE of all running. However they are backed by a PAC with ties to school vouchers becoming a thing so if blowing up the state public school system is your thing, then there you go. One of them who has kids in a charter school lied in an interview by saying her kids go to a katy isd funded school and hasnt corrected herself or walked that back. If you cant be honest to people about a simple question like that, then I don't trust you with your intent to be on the board.

It no shocker to others, but as you might be new here I'll put up the disclaimer that I'm on the left side of the national political aisle. I grew up in Katy and went to Katy ISD schools for all of my education as well as my kids are in Katy ISD schools. I have skin in the game and I want this great school district to continue being great. However like I previously said there is only one actual democrat voting person running (Cicely Taylor) and I'm not even going to vote for her as she hasnt made a compelling argument to me for what she hopes to accomplish while on the board.

I'm leaning Bradford, Brettell, and Peterson. All three are conservative, honest, and up front about why they are running and who us backing them.

---

I voted for TCC (as Michael Berry referred to those three conservative candidates).

I got a flyer in the mail about the KISD election with photos of most of the candidates. That Cicely gal looked like a fish gal. I wouldn't vote for her just on that alone (sarcasm).

Katy ISD is a strong district. Want to keep it that way? Then vote against anyone with even a smidgeon of support of commie crap like DEI, white supremacism, and all other current Democrat talking points.

---

Thieme, Calhoun and Cuzela were my choice as well. They are conservative and fight for conservative values.

Conservatives win SBISD about 68/32

Sazerac said:

---

Conservatives win SBISD about 68/32

---

R/Houston gonna be big mad

I voted for the katy trio, then came here and saw that cajunaggie08 was against them, so I feel pretty good about my choice.

Glad to SBISD rejected the two abject morons that ran this cycle.

schmellba99 said:

---

bularry said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Vouchers are not going to blow up the system, but it will lead to reforms and more freedom, which scares some people.

---

This.

But the legions of brainwashed idiots that actively fight for continued failure and socialism want to scare people, so they say stupid things like this and other things that are patently false about the proposal. And, unfortunately, those false statements are the ones that get repeated most often.

It absolutely floors me that people actively fight against improvement in schools in any fashion outside of making sure their football stadium is the newest and biggest.

---

love to hear how this will improve public schools. I have never read a concrete argument for how it will do so, only that some students trapped in crappy schools will magically get saved.

nice to toss in the boogey man of "socialism"... when, no ****, publicly supported schools available to all are seemingly the definition of a "social" program

---

You don't want to hear how it would benefit public schools because it goes against your immovable ingrained thoughts and opinions on the public school system.

How about this - since your system is evidently the absolute best it could possibly be, provide me with reasons and logic as to why introducing competition and fiscal responsibility into the school system (of which you admit is socialist and has neither of those currently) will be a negative to the system.

I'll wait, patiently, as to your answer. Because unlike you, I genuinely want to know the answer from you to my question.

---

Would be willing to bet previous poster has a vested interest. Whenever I bring up the benefits of vouchers, it illicits a non-rational response from those whose family members are public school teachers or administrators. I realized this way back in 1991 when I presented a research project about school choice in an upper level econ class. One dude nearly came unglued, sputtering and unable to make an intelligible rebuttal. Come to find out, his wife and parents were all public school teachers.

I mean, not all voucher programs are equal. I'm open to the possibility that the one being debated in txlege right now is not a good one. But jeeeezus people lose their heads and get emotional every time the topic comes up, so I just assume (like you) that most people aren't arguing in good faith about the best way to help kids in failing, expensive, unaccountable schools.

I'm a public school teacher and I'm pro-voucher but is there any evidence that vouchers change educational outcomes? Any help is appreciated.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I'm a public school teacher and I'm pro-voucher but is there any evidence that vouchers change educational outcomes? Any help is appreciated.

---

Sure. Look at private educations. Much better outcomes than the public school system and now the parents will have the option to utilize their tax dollars on their own child.

If they want to utilize them at the public school, great. If not, they can choose the best form of learning for their child (private, charter, homeschool).

Anastasia Beaverhaven said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I'm a public school teacher and I'm pro-voucher but is there any evidence that vouchers change educational outcomes? Any help is appreciated.

---

Sure. Look at private educations. Much better outcomes than the public school system and now the parents will have the option to utilize their tax dollars on their own child.

If they want to utilize them at the public school, great. If not, they can choose the best form of learning for their child (private, charter, homeschool).

---

In addition, it's also about providing accountability for the public school system which there is very little right now. Look no further than Randi Weingarten. Absolute marxist that held our children hostage the past 2-3 years and lies about it.

I don't even have children and it infuriates me.

Anastasia Beaverhaven said:

---

Anastasia Beaverhaven said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I'm a public school teacher and I'm pro-voucher but is there any evidence that vouchers change educational outcomes? Any help is appreciated.

---

Sure. Look at private educations. Much better outcomes than the public school system and now the parents will have the option to utilize their tax dollars on their own child.

If they want to utilize them at the public school, great. If not, they can choose the best form of learning for their child (private, charter, homeschool).

---

In addition, it's also about providing accountability for the public school system which there is very little right now. Look no further than Randi Weingarten. Absolute marxist that held our children hostage the past 2-3 years and lies about it.

I don't even have children and it infuriates me.

---

First off, I'm all about parents having choices for their children.

Randi Weingarden is an awful human being, but for the most part her and her unions have nothing to do with Texas public schools. Let's keep it that way.

As for your point about "look at private schools", I find this to be unreasonable. Private school parents, for the most part, care about their children and their children's education. This factor alone is HUGE in the difference between outcomes. Additionally, class size is important too.

In Texas, there are good public schools and bad public schools. For years, bad parents have taken their bad kids out of bad public schools and taken them to good public schools, and the result is obvious. Those schools start to slide as a tipping point is reached.

The same thing will happen when every parent is given vouchers and school choice. The kids who don't give an eff about learning and their parents who just want free daycare and have no desire to rear their children with rules and expectations will still wind up at the private schools with their vouchers. 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.

Most of our school problems are parent problems. Yes, there are some decent parents out there that just have terrible kids that make life miserable for the other students and teachers, but they are outliers. It's mostly crappy parents raising children who don't want to become productive members of society.

The school issues won't be fixed until society actually addresses the underlying issue(s)

So question for those here that seem to have a good grasp of the subject. Explain to me like I'm a 5 yo. Not against school choice/vouchers just have trouble wrapping my head around the annual budgeting, logistics, staffing, etc.

How would a district accurately budget for needs if we could switch schools annually for whatever reason? Just curious. Seems like the first few years of this would be the wild Wild West and then likely level off some but maybe I'm way off base.

lb sand said:

---

Last year at this same time, I was talking with David Slattery who was a school board candidate then. He was explaining the Robin Hood aspect of tax redistribution especially how it pertains to sbisd. I don't remember the exact amount he said, but it was well over 50% of the tax collected in sbisd was sent to the state to be used in other districts. I was flabbergasted.

---

The "Robin Hood" and "sent to be used in other Districts" are kind of lies. That is the conceptual rationale for the mechanism, but it is not actually how it works.

The "other districts" do not get extra money when SBISD or Austin ISD or HISD or whichever districts send more money to the state. The recapture payments are reimbursements sent directly to the state general fund and they get to spend them however they want.

Imagine a Texas with only 2 school districts, and based on the complicated ass formulas used to decide such things, both districts require $100,000,000 or whatever amount. The poor district has a low property tax base that can really only raise, lets say $50,000,000. So the state cuts them a check for the extra $50,000,000. The rich district has a tax base that is able to cover the $100,000,000, but not to levels that would be subject to recapture, so they raise $100,000,000 themselves from their tax base and get $0 from the state.

So in this case, local taxpayers paid out $150 million, the state kicked in $50 million to cover the shortfall in the poor district.

Now ten years go by and the tax base in the rich district has doubled due to rising property values and even the poor district went up by lets say 50%. Lets also say the cost of educating children went up by 25% for inflation or whatever.

So poor district now has a budget need of $125,000,000 according to the formulas, their tax base went up 50%, so they are now raising $75,000,000 in taxes, and the state still has to kick in $50,000,000 in order to get them up to the $125M that they need.

Now the other school district has blown through into Robin Hood territory. Their taxes now raise $200,000,000. But now they have to send $75,000,000....not to the other school district, but to the State of Texas and use the rest of the $125,000,000 to fund their district.

So after ten years, now taxpayer burden has increased from $150 million (50 and 100) to $275 million (75 and 200). The state used to pay $50,000,000 for education. But now under "Robin Hood" in this example they would pay out $50,000,000 still to the poor district and take in $75,000,000 from the rich district and now have $25 million of free local tax revenue that they can spend just like their state tax revenues.

That is what has been happening over the years. As property values go up and up and up, the state continues to bankroll education but they profit off of all the gains that are being forced out of property taxpayers. The state no longer has to use their state revenue sources to pay for education, they just get more and more back from "rich" school districts. Basically the way Recapture has been functioning for the last 30 years or so as the real estate boom has been happening is that the State is slowly able to implement "Robin Hood" by replacing their own obligation to poor school districts with more and more money for rich districts while they just get themselves out of funding schools altogether and put it totally on the backs of local taxes.

There are some things that I think will need to change for public schools once vouchers are approved because they will be:
1. No more STAAR tests in public schools. If all a private school needs is parental endorsement that they are doing a good job, the same should be said for public school parents.
2. Make it easier for public schools to get rid of problem students. Otherwise, we're still holding good students hostage that can't enroll in private schools.

Jack Cheese said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

bularry said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Vouchers are not going to blow up the system, but it will lead to reforms and more freedom, which scares some people.

---

This.

But the legions of brainwashed idiots that actively fight for continued failure and socialism want to scare people, so they say stupid things like this and other things that are patently false about the proposal. And, unfortunately, those false statements are the ones that get repeated most often.

It absolutely floors me that people actively fight against improvement in schools in any fashion outside of making sure their football stadium is the newest and biggest.

---

love to hear how this will improve public schools. I have never read a concrete argument for how it will do so, only that some students trapped in crappy schools will magically get saved.

nice to toss in the boogey man of "socialism"... when, no ****, publicly supported schools available to all are seemingly the definition of a "social" program

---

You don't want to hear how it would benefit public schools because it goes against your immovable ingrained thoughts and opinions on the public school system.

How about this - since your system is evidently the absolute best it could possibly be, provide me with reasons and logic as to why introducing competition and fiscal responsibility into the school system (of which you admit is socialist and has neither of those currently) will be a negative to the system.

I'll wait, patiently, as to your answer. Because unlike you, I genuinely want to know the answer from you to my question.

---

Would be willing to bet previous poster has a vested interest. Whenever I bring up the benefits of vouchers, it illicits a non-rational response from those whose family members are public school teachers or administrators. I realized this way back in 1991 when I presented a research project about school choice in an upper level econ class. One dude nearly came unglued, sputtering and unable to make an intelligible rebuttal. Come to find out, his wife and parents were all public school teachers.

I mean, not all voucher programs are equal. I'm open to the possibility that the one being debated in txlege right now is not a good one. But jeeeezus people lose their heads and get emotional every time the topic comes up, so I just assume (like you) that most people aren't arguing in good faith about the best way to help kids in failing, expensive, unaccountable schools.

---

He may, may not. But the fact is that when presented with a statement like he did, it's patently obvious that anything other than the status quo is wrong in their mind.

BTW - my wife is an administrator in our district. Both of us are absolutely FOR changes to be made in the structure of our public education, whether that be vouchers or money goes with child, etc. Hell, just instilling a system that allows schools to remove the 10% problem kids and raise the standards instead of lowering them would be welcome. Changes need to be made, if anything to benefit those kids that want to learn and advance their lives who are currently held back because of the system and how it functions.

And you know what? If a system is proposed that sucks - it needs to die on the vine like any other proposal that sucks. Do it right and put the quality of education at the forefront, not whatever social justice issue of the day is or any other frivolous matter that has little to nothing to do with education.

If a school district is generating more tax revenue than they will be allowed to keep (presumably because of a higher than average tax base), why doesn't that district lower its tax rate accordingly? Just generate what you can use and no more. Seems like that would make the district even more desirable to families.

I think the deal is the state estimates what your tax revenue should be and what the budget should be. Then if they think you should take in more than your budget, you (being the school district) owe that to the state.

I think that's the deal and one reason HISD got behind. Well, that and stupidity.

So big assumptions here

Quote:

---

As for your point about "look at private schools", I find this to be unreasonable. Private school parents, for the most part, care about their children and their children's education. This factor alone is HUGE in the difference between outcomes.

---

There are plenty of absentee parents that send their kids to great schools. There are plenty of attentive parents who can't afford to put their kids in private schools. Vouchers will change that. The status quo won't.

Quote:

---

The same thing will happen when every parent is given vouchers and school choice. The kids who don't give an eff about learning and their parents who just want free daycare and have no desire to rear their children with rules and expectations will still wind up at the private schools with their vouchers. 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.

---

Private schools will be able to exclude the worthless parents and students, just like they do now.

10Aggie10 said:

---

Anastasia Beaverhaven said:

---

Anastasia Beaverhaven said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I'm a public school teacher and I'm pro-voucher but is there any evidence that vouchers change educational outcomes? Any help is appreciated.

---

Sure. Look at private educations. Much better outcomes than the public school system and now the parents will have the option to utilize their tax dollars on their own child.

If they want to utilize them at the public school, great. If not, they can choose the best form of learning for their child (private, charter, homeschool).

---

In addition, it's also about providing accountability for the public school system which there is very little right now. Look no further than Randi Weingarten. Absolute marxist that held our children hostage the past 2-3 years and lies about it.

I don't even have children and it infuriates me.

---

First off, I'm all about parents having choices for their children.

Randi Weingarden is an awful human being, but for the most part her and her unions have nothing to do with Texas public schools. Let's keep it that way.

As for your point about "look at private schools", I find this to be unreasonable. Private school parents, for the most part, care about their children and their children's education. This factor alone is HUGE in the difference between outcomes. Additionally, class size is important too.

In Texas, there are good public schools and bad public schools. For years, bad parents have taken their bad kids out of bad public schools and taken them to good public schools, and the result is obvious. Those schools start to slide as a tipping point is reached.

The same thing will happen when every parent is given vouchers and school choice. The kids who don't give an eff about learning and their parents who just want free daycare and have no desire to rear their children with rules and expectations will still wind up at the private schools with their vouchers. 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.

Most of our school problems are parent problems. Yes, there are some decent parents out there that just have terrible kids that make life miserable for the other students and teachers, but they are outliers. It's mostly crappy parents raising children who don't want to become productive members of society.

The school issues won't be fixed until society actually addresses the underlying issue(s)

---

You or your spouse/family is a public school teacher. So is my ENTIRE family.

,

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 give

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.

---

Please 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.

Buck Turgidson said:

---

If a school district is generating more tax revenue than they will be allowed to keep (presumably because of a higher than average tax base), why doesn't that district lower its tax rate accordingly? Just generate what you can use and no more. Seems like that would make the district even more desirable to families.

---

They can, but the assessor's district will then magically decide your property is worth 2x more. Because other taxes are tied to the value of your property in our stupid property tax system. So you still pay more. Because there is no incentive for anything else by the governments.

Even from a state level, there is no incentive because of things like recapture. It's a great way for reps and legislators to tout their success when it's time for re-election, along with getting that recapture money and ensuring that it is directed towards friends, family and big donors.

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 give

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.

---

Please 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.

---

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:

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 give

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.

---

Please 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.

---

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:

---

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.

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.

schmellba99 said:

---

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 give

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.

---

Please 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.

---

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:

---

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.

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

Adams-Jefferson correspondence going on here.