Babbling

[Astromang]

---

ShowUsYourTaint wrote:

I think you're confused again, this time about private school vouchers and what they would actually allow a poor person to do vis a vis education.  The market and your existing resources would limit your choices far worse if you were economically destitute in a privatized system.  Everyone is going to want to go to the best school in town of course when given the ability to "choose".  Not everyone will be able to choose this school just because they all want to go there.  The extreme demand to get into this school will drive up the cost of going to that school tremendously.  Therefore, only the people who have the most money will get into the best schools.  Vouchers do not circumvent this problem because demand would still price it out of everyone but the wealthiest's range.  If 50,000 people take a voucher to a school that can fit 2,000, the 2,000 wealthiest are getting in in this case.  Unless you took money completely out of the equation and implemented a lottery (which, hey they're now doing this for public schools in a lot of places!), there's no way around this.  And this trend basically repeats itself all the way down the socioeconomic class chain, so that the rich get into the best schools, the middle class get into the middle class schools, and the poor get into really god awful schools.  What kind of school you get into depends entirely on your existing resources instead of just partially depending on that as it does now.   Now at least you get a baseline public education which you would not get with a voucher system that involves self-funded schools.  Basically the only people free to actually go where they want are the people with money.  Which they can already do.  Whereas the poor are stuck off in even worse hellholes than the public system provides.  This just basically benefits the people who don't want to pay taxes for other people to have educational opportunities and nobody else.

Privatization is basically a way to tell the poor to go f*ck themselves, it destroys any method of distinguishing yourself through your capability rather than your background.  At least they get some baseline education in a publicly funded system.  What you advocate destroys the American dream, it in any way enhance freedom.

---

Yeah, they're doing lotteries not to get into public schools, but to get into better public schools. Watch "Waiting For Superman" and it tells a pretty grim story of how parents are trying to get better education for their kids, but are being fought every step of the way by teacher unions and local politicians.

[Saddy]

when we lived in camden, we sent our daughter to school in another town. she stayed with my inlaws during the week and would come home on weekends. as far as the school knew, we lived at the same address. if i had to do it again, i would.

[Saddy]

---

ShowUsYourTaint wrote:

I think you're confused again, this time about private school vouchers and what they would actually allow a poor person to do vis a vis education.  The market and your existing resources would limit your choices far worse if you were economically destitute in a privatized system.  Everyone is going to want to go to the best school in town of course when given the ability to "choose".  Not everyone will be able to choose this school just because they all want to go there.  The extreme demand to get into this school will drive up the cost of going to that school tremendously.  Therefore, only the people who have the most money will get into the best schools.  Vouchers do not circumvent this problem because demand would still price it out of everyone but the wealthiest's range.  If 50,000 people take a voucher to a school that can fit 2,000, the 2,000 wealthiest are getting in in this case.  Unless you took money completely out of the equation and implemented a lottery (which, hey they're now doing this for public schools in a lot of places!), there's no way around this.  And this trend basically repeats itself all the way down the socioeconomic class chain, so that the rich get into the best schools, the middle class get into the middle class schools, and the poor get into really god awful schools.  What kind of school you get into depends entirely on your existing resources instead of just partially depending on that as it does now.   Now at least you get a baseline public education which you would not get with a voucher system that involves self-funded schools.  Basically the only people free to actually go where they want are the people with money.  Which they can already do.  Whereas the poor are stuck off in even worse hellholes than the public system provides.  This just basically benefits the people who don't want to pay taxes for other people to have educational opportunities and nobody else.

Privatization is basically a way to tell the poor to go f*ck themselves, it destroys any method of distinguishing yourself through your capability rather than your background.  At least they get some baseline education in a publicly funded system.  What you advocate destroys the American dream, it in any way enhance freedom.

---

er, no. not exactly. school choice doesn't necessarily equate to a voucher program. there are a lot of schools in our state that participate in the school choice program. there is no voucher required, you just get to choose your school, so long as it participates in the school choice program. these are not private schools, they are public schools. charter and private schools don't usually participate in the school choice program.

[Saddy]

the cartel is another good one to watch. it's centered around nj schools, but still, very good.

[conanwong]

fist off, relying on the heritage foundation for credible sources is wrong.
and second of all, that wsj article contains only a snippet and that you would have to subscribe to their paper to see the rest of the article. and not all unions want to force kids not to have a say in where they want to go. so clearly, you're bias against unions in general.

[Astromang]

---

Saddy wrote:
the cartel is another good one to watch. it's centered around nj schools, but still, very good.

---

Yeah, both are on netflix if anyone is interested.

[Astromang]

---

conanwong wrote:
fist off, relying on the heritage foundation for credible sources is wrong.
and second of all, that wsj article contains only a snippet and that you would have to subscribe to their paper to see the rest of the article. and not all unions want to force kids not to have a say in where they want to go. so clearly, you're bias against unions in general.

---

Wow, talk about getting owned and then trying to play it off like you won. Nice try conan, but it's pretty clear to see that teacher unions are fighting against school choice tooth and nail.

[Schizo]

---

railroadengine wrote:

Someone finally found a way to steal something given away for FREE!

---

 Not free. It's paid for by the property owners living within the school district. 

 The full 12 years includes penalties for selling drugs. She's not getting 12 years for defrauding the school system.

 This is what happens when you force children to attend schools within the area they live rather than allowing them a way to change schools.

[EmApathy]

It's rough that she's homeless. However, I grew up in a district that wasn't right next door, but close enough that inner city youths would claim to be living with a grandma etc. that was living in the town while living with their parents in another. It was a blue ribbon winning school system with a high % rate of graduation compared to the city they were in.

People abused it, the first few slipped in and it wasn't that big a deal, eventually it became a bigger and bigger drag. My brother transferred out and went to a private school instead. So, I understand the hullabaloo but think the focus shouldn't be on penalizing those seeking better education but improving the school system everyone is leaving. It's tough to tell if the surrounding environment outside of school is the problem or the school system.

Purely anecdotal 2 of the 3 kids that claimed to be living with their grandmother are now dead due to gang/drug related deaths. They stole a pound of marijuana, half a kilo of coke and a little under $20,000 dollars from a drug dealer. They were shot 10 times each and run over with a car. The woman who was driving, a girlfriend, apparently had second thoughts when they ordered her to run over the 2 guys they just shot so they stabbed her some ridiculous number of times, 3 times in the face and ran her over too. She somehow lived.

[ShowUsYourTaint]

---

Saddy wrote:

---

ShowUsYourTaint wrote:

I think you're confused again, this time about private school vouchers and what they would actually allow a poor person to do vis a vis education.  The market and your existing resources would limit your choices far worse if you were economically destitute in a privatized system.  Everyone is going to want to go to the best school in town of course when given the ability to "choose".  Not everyone will be able to choose this school just because they all want to go there.  The extreme demand to get into this school will drive up the cost of going to that school tremendously.  Therefore, only the people who have the most money will get into the best schools.  Vouchers do not circumvent this problem because demand would still price it out of everyone but the wealthiest's range.  If 50,000 people take a voucher to a school that can fit 2,000, the 2,000 wealthiest are getting in in this case.  Unless you took money completely out of the equation and implemented a lottery (which, hey they're now doing this for public schools in a lot of places!), there's no way around this.  And this trend basically repeats itself all the way down the socioeconomic class chain, so that the rich get into the best schools, the middle class get into the middle class schools, and the poor get into really god awful schools.  What kind of school you get into depends entirely on your existing resources instead of just partially depending on that as it does now.   Now at least you get a baseline public education which you would not get with a voucher system that involves self-funded schools.  Basically the only people free to actually go where they want are the people with money.  Which they can already do.  Whereas the poor are stuck off in even worse hellholes than the public system provides.  This just basically benefits the people who don't want to pay taxes for other people to have educational opportunities and nobody else.

Privatization is basically a way to tell the poor to go f*ck themselves, it destroys any method of distinguishing yourself through your capability rather than your background.  At least they get some baseline education in a publicly funded system.  What you advocate destroys the American dream, it in any way enhance freedom.

---

er, no. not exactly. school choice doesn't necessarily equate to a voucher program. there are a lot of schools in our state that participate in the school choice program. there is no voucher required, you just get to choose your school, so long as it participates in the school choice program. these are not private schools, they are public schools. charter and private schools don't usually participate in the school choice program.

---

I wasn't talking about that.  I thought the method of choice astro was referring to was a private school voucher plan because he's always beating the no government drum.

If we're talking about the lottery system and not a private school voucher plan, that's a different problem.  Sure, there is resistance from teachers, parents and administrators in the affluent schools/neighborhoods.  But it's still resistance related to what is effectively too much private influence on public schools.   It's not because of "unions" at all.  The better schools tend to be better because they're drawn from communities who are more affluent and get their funding through those communities.  They want to maintain their elite status and bringing in disadvantaged students threatens their position.  They face considerable pressures from their local funding sources to resist.

The problem is that these elite public schools got that way because they are just not really "public" enough.   There's a disturbing lack of parity between different public schools depending on where you go and that's primarily because of the way they're funded.  In order for them to be truly public there should be little difference in quality no matter where you go.  I don't believe where you live should have an impact on the quality of schooling you get either but that's how it works now and it's because funding for your local school is tied to the wealth you and your neighbors have and the property you can afford.  That's a problem that needs to be solved at the national level with massive reform in how the schools are funded:  We should be collecting all the taxes into one big pot then distributing them back out proportionately to schools rather than just having local areas foot the bill for their own schools.  That would be an actual public system.  But god forbid we have big government.  I agree with the lotteries as a temporary measure but they aren't really going far enough to solve the underlying issue in a meaningful way.  And just to be clear, a voucher program would not be an alternative that would solve this problem, it would only exacerbate it if some people are viewing that as some sort of superior alternative.  Privatization very obviously doesn't breed equality.

[Snowy1]

You can't steal something that doesn't exist...

[Buddyroe274]

OOOOOHHHHHHH.....OK, I though you were going to inform me on how to do it as if it needed to be done......I get it now though.

[Gaius_Sextus]

---

Astromang wrote:

---

railroadengine wrote:
Democrats and leftists want people to go to jail for sending their kids to school?

---

No, for choosing their school. Democrats and leftists are always pro choice... unless it upsets a union somewhere.

---

And we all know you hate public schools and unions, so it's not like you're unbiased here.

[The_Alt]

Actually you don't necessarily go to the nearest school. You go to the school your address is zoned to. Which could be completely on the other side of the city. It prevents over crowding in some cases, and in other cases it's just done to try (and fail usually) to make the horrible schools look not so horrible.

[westpark]

So if you want whats best for your kid & want to send them to a good school you're the same as a rapist or a serial killer?

Typical rich Republican logic.

[Saddy]

there's no lottery system for public schools, at least not here. if you live in a school choice district you can choose to send your child to another choice district. it's as simple as that. the only schools that do the lottery system are charter schools, and that's just a show anyways. the only way to get your kid into a charter school is to know someone on the board. more and more schools in our area are becoming choice schools, it's in their best interest. they're finding out that allowing more children from lower income areas into their schools isn't such a bad thing and it gets them a little extra cash.

[ShowUsYourTaint]

We do a lottery around here for the most desired public schools if there's huge demand.  Anyone who has a waiting list these days.  Which yeah, it's most often the charter schools who have the longest waiting lists.  But just in general charter schools are public schools, by the way.  They take public money and are part of the public school districts they reside in.  Like I was saying the problem with them is they're often established in wealthy areas to serve the interests of the locals/provide better education to their children than elsewhere.  Which is kinda what provoked the need for a lottery for them in the first place.  Because they're often among the most desirable of the public schooling options.

[Saddy]

charter schools here are usually in lower income areas. and while they are considered public schools and supposedly prohibited from charging tuition, most charter schools require that parents volunteer at the school and some charge tuition for out of district students. i'm sure if someone wanted to, they could report these schools, but with the way things are run in this state, i doubt anything would be done any time soon.

[Pero8P]

---

conanwong wrote:
 that wsj article contains only a snippet and that you would have to subscribe to their paper to see the rest of the article. 

---

Subscriber to the RESCUE!!!!

By RICHARD KOMER

The 2010 elections had many obvious effects, but one of the lesser-known is that they revived the school-choice movement in a big way. Although many education writers had assumed the movement was dead, there have been far more efforts to pass school-choice programs this year than ever and, more importantly, the success rate has gone up too.

This reflects the political nature of school choice, which has in modern times been promoted primarily by Republicans. Increasingly, however, Democrats, particularly minority Democrats, have begun bucking the wishes of the national teachers unions, which oppose school choice in any form.

School choice has even broken into the national consciousness with the success of such documentaries as "The Lottery" and "Waiting for 'Superman.'" These focused on parents' efforts to get their children into charter schools, which are public schools operated independently of their local school districts—and, not coincidentally, without teacher union involvement.

From the perspective of status quo supporters, charter schools are the least threatening form of school choice, because they remain public schools, meaning they cannot charge tuition and their admissions practices typically are controlled by lottery. This year has seen dramatic increases in interest in charter schools, as an alternative to regular public schools. Even the Obama administration got into the act, by making the removal of existing caps on the number of charter schools a component of states' applications for federal "Race to the Top" funds.

More threatening to the status quo are scholarship programs that allow parents to choose private schools for their children, with the scholarships either funded by the states or generated by offering individuals and corporations tax credits for donations to privately operated scholarship funds. Although scholarship programs like federal Pell Grants, the G.I. Bill and similar state programs are common at the postsecondary level, so far similar programs have rarely been enacted for K-12 education, where monopolistic public-school systems are the norm. After the Democrats' success in the 2008 elections, the newly emboldened allies of the teachers unions launched attacks on several of the existing programs.

For example, the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration doomed the only federal K-12 program, the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program, to a slow and lingering death in 2009 by refusing to allow the enrollment of any new students. This despite the program's success, proven by a federal study, and local political support (the salient exception being D.C.'s Congressional delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton).

In 2009 in Wisconsin, the newly elected Democratic General Assembly joined with then Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle to reduce per capita funding for the nation's first modern scholarship program, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, and to impose burdensome new regulations to discourage continued participation by the private schools. In Pennsylvania, before leaving office in January Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell pushed through a substantial reduction in corporate tax credits available for donations to that state's Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC), causing a reduction in the number of scholarships awarded to fewer than 39,000 from over 45,000, and driving many students back into the public schools.

Thanks to the 2010 elections, however, many of these antichoice efforts have been reversed. Due to the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program has been reauthorized and is expanding again. Gov. Scott Walker and the Wisconsin legislature have expanded the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program to a second city, Racine, and removed the cap on the number of Milwaukee students who can receive scholarships.

Although Pennsylvania failed to pass a new scholarship bill to help support school choice, Indiana passed what could become the largest such program in the nation, offering private-school scholarships to qualifying families statewide. Oklahoma passed a statewide tax-credit scholarship program, and Arizona enacted a new program called Empowerment Savings Accounts for special-education students. Although most of these K-12 programs are for poor children in the public-school system, even a relatively affluent school district in Colorado has created a pilot program for 500 students to attend the private schools of their choice.

The teachers unions and their allies have sought to kill several of these new school-choice initiatives already by challenging them in the courts. But any legal defeats will only motivate renewed effort on the part of school-choice advocates. The recent history of the movement shows that despite temporary setbacks, school choice is now here to stay.

Mr. Komer is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice.

[Pero8P]

Also, I thought this would be about someone sneaking into college classes. That would've been interesting.

[conanwong]

after reading that opinion article, i can say that only a handful of teacher unions are against school choice depending on who's leading the charge in what state or district. and sometimes they may want vouchers (depending whats on the voucher and whatnot, sometimes vouchers is a way to increase a school's budget) but in the end the voters gets to decide it on a ballot.

[railroadengine]

I think there are legal channels you can go through to be able to do that.

[railroadengine]

My district was small.
So that's how it worked for me.

[railroadengine]

---

westpark wrote:

So if you want whats best for your kid & want to send them to a good school you're the same as a rapist or a serial killer?

Typical rich Republican logic.

---

Even more so if you're homeless.

[railroadengine]

CT has actually been cracking down on that.