posted
Parents have plenty of say in their education. You don't like the schools, move to a place that has one you like. Are you saying that if a parent doesn't like their street they should get the money that THEY paid to fix that street and they could...er...buy a better one? Or that if a parent chose a city with a mayor that they didn't like...would they then demand their portion of their taxes used to pay him or her back so they can pay some private party to officiate their little corner of the city? Take their funds that would pay for police service to fund a private one of their choosing?
If a parent can't take the time to better research their school district when purchasing a home where their child will spend 13 years learning...well, that is their problem. I don't need them to move into OUR neighborhood for the nice home and then take OUR public schools money so they can send their child to a wealthier suburban school. They move here, they support all that goes along with it. We should be doing more to expect more from our schools, not treat it like some commodity to pop our kids in and out of as our whim takes us. It is hard enough when jobs force families to move out of a school district where kids have made lots of connections. But to do it because school A is offering a special or school B had better scores LAST year...wrong headed thinking about schools, in my opinion.
posted
Fine for people who can afford to move. Again, if the government is providing X number of dollars for a child's education, why can't the parents use that in a school of their choice? What on earth is wrong with that?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the system isn't set up that way. They are providing money to pay for police services. They are providing money to pay for road repair. They are providing money to pay for judges. We can't just take our contributions and spend them as we want. Just the same, we can't take a public service that is paid by the public coffer and say "we want to have a different one." Schools are public institutions. Failing ones, to be sure, but public ones built to support a district, a city, a county or whatever.
You want to do this miracle system where driving kids all over creation will make better schools then you need to scrap the current system. Then what? Okay family A, here is your voucher for a school. Where do you go? How do you choose?
Your families who can't afford to move are going to have the same problems in a voucher system than the current "can't get out of this nasty part of town" system. If I have a voucher to send my child to school but the one I want is on the other side of the county and I don't have a car, then what? Stick their 5 year old kindergartener on a public bus (because school buses...thing of the past when there are no borders for who can go where) and off they go? Or will they go with closer because it makes more sense? Face it, vouchers will mostly benefit those who already have enough money to send their kids to private school by putting more money back in their pockets.
This is from a parent who sends his kid to private school, mind you. But that is my choice. At the same time, I am working with my city schools on a committee here or there to improve them such as building improvement committees. It is my city, I bought into it and will support it. Sure, they aren't at the level I want yet but we will work towards.
Simply raping the current system to pay for a new one just won't work. The same thing can be said about libraries. Should we take our tax dollars that support libraries so we can just buy a few books ourselves? Some would argue that, too but that someone clearly isn't of a community spirited mind with an eye on the general welfare and improvement of one's community.
posted
The best way to have a say in your school is to run for the School Board, to participate in all school board meetings, to talk with teachers and principals, to inform yourself, and to network network network!
Make sure your schools hire excellent teachers. Make sure they are meeting minimum instructional standards while striving for more.
Volunteer to help in the schools.
I think both Bush and Kerry are absolutely clueless about education today. Most politicians are. It is rare for policy makers to understand how their decisions actually pan out for those of us on the front lines.
That said, I am more attracted to Kerry than Bush at this point, for reasons already expressed in this thread. Especially the environmental aspects and the separation of church and state issues.
After all, didn't Bush insult Wiccans at one point? I'd really rather not live in a society where one's personal life (sexual partners, religious preferences, etc.) becomes a major issue. I fear that it will if the Conservatives have their way.
posted
This is, of course, fodder for a thread on its own.
The problem is that School A has 1000 students. Say 200 of them decide to take their funds and go to another school. That cuts 20% out of the budget assigned for that school.
Unfortunately, things like health insurance, utilities, maintenance etc at the school aren't based on a per/child cost. That school has lost 20% of its funds, but not 20% of its costs. This means that it has less money to devote to those children who remain.
Now, that 200 students are most likely going to be the ones with parents most concerned about thier childrens education. This translates to usually the top students in the school, and that includes the least expensive to teach. Problem students, abused, handicapped, delinquent, expensive students are those that will remain.
Finally, do we regulate the other schools as well, or do we assume that just because they are a private school they will be ok? We have problems with diploma mills producing College degrees that are valueless, will our taxes go into the pockets of babysitters who produce classes of Valedictorians that can't read?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not against taxes...I am for limiting taxes...and limiting spending. True, there is no party that is for limiting spending (though the republicans used to at least give lip service to the idea)...my hope is they part can go back to small government someday. In the mean time I vote for the person who comes closest to my overall beliefs.
Note there are some in the party who do support smaller government. Mel Martinez is someone who I will be keeping my eye on over the next 10 years. He just won the republican senate primary in FL, I think he has real promise.
As for flat taxes, I have never heard someone ask for a flat amount. Generally a flat tax refers to a flat percent, not a flat number (ie everyone gives 15 percent of their income).
posted
Lupus, I know about flat tax...I was being facetious about flat amount. You had complained about a system that had people who made more money paying more. Along the lines of at McDonalds, I pay 3 bucks for a happy meal but someone who makes twice as much paying 6 bucks. I know you really didn't mean that...I assume you meant it that a rich person (on paper) pays more in a percentage of his income than a poorer person. But the fact is, their buck and a quarter will buy the same cup of coffee that a poor person may buy. The fact is, it costs more as a percentage of a poorer person's income to just sustain's one's basic needs than a person with significantly more money. A gallon of milk for someone at the poverty level costs the same for the guy in the top 5% of income. So I don't lose sleep if the rich guy has one less jet airplane so that a poorer family could have one more gallon of milk a month.
posted
And once again, let me state that I still see it as Bush breaking down the barriers between Church and state. There have already been claims (substantiated ones) that some religions are barred from receiving funds because they don't fix HIS view of what a religion should be.
So, let me recap...he signed an executive order that went against 2 centuries of educational and governmental rules, with the aim of granting public funds to religious organizations for education of young people. Many of these groups require religion as a mandatory class, which would be funded in part by public money. This reduces the funding to public schools by a radical amount, considering a large portion of a schools bills are not based per student...new construction, mandatory insurances, staffing issues with tenure....all these are fixes expenses that the schools would no longer have the funding to pay.
And the worse schools are the worse ones hit...more of the affluent students leave, reducing the already low budgets in the poorest school districts....which in turn leads to lower test scores.....
In addition, Bush allowed religious groups that had always been barred form receiving Federal aid to be granted aid despite their clear religious ties. These groups are still able to discriminate against people of other religious backgrounds when hiring and firing even though other, non-religious groups would lose their funding for doing the same. Their exemption is based on the fact that they are religious organizations, so the government shouldn't interfere with their practices due to separation of church and state!
In addition, funding is only being awarded to "approved" religions, relegating other religions to a pariah status within the allocation of funding. Only groups that are "mainstream" enough can receive funding from Bush's FBO program.
So, I must be missing something here....where is the separation that you speak of?
No, I won't be shot at for not being Christian (although I am), I will simply be discriminated against by both the FBO initiatives and by the religious groups dispersing the aid. If I want their help they even have the right to force me to listen to their speeches, which OF COURSE isn't illegal....at least not for them, now....
The Federal Government should not be in the business of funding Religious Groups, or deciding which group gets funding or not based on religious standards....which is precisely what is happening now.
I don't have kids, but I pay taxes....so that per kid amount you are talking about for vouchers DOES affect me, as it has been my money for the past 25 years!
And I don't want religions to have it to disperse at their pleasure...that is why I donate at church. Not at the polls, for a millage.
Less and less separation every day Bush is in office.
posted
You may think you're "winning," Dag, but you're really just nit-picking. At this point, can't you just work with the argument Kwea is actually trying to put forth? Or would it make you feel better if Kwea officially recinded the original comment first?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to make a very important point, which is too often utterly ignored on this board.
Hyperbole, exageration, and fear-mongering are not productive to political discourse.
We can have a thread in which school vouchers are discussed. Or one in which faith-based organizations are discussed. The issues associated with the two are very different and very complex.
I haven't tried to discuss the school vouchers issue with Kwea, although I've thrown out one minor thinking point in response to someone else. I have consistently tried to deal with the precise accusation at issue.
I note that you didn't respond to me when I answered your questions about Bush's separation principles. All mys substantive posts on the topic have basically been ignored, especially the ones outlining why I take such exception the the statement. There is a huge difference between differences of opinion over where the proper line is between church and state, and accusing one side of not having a line.
There is an incredible amount of separation of church and state in this country. If Bush got everything he wanted passed, there would still be an incredible amount of separation of church and state in this country.
Less than Kwea wants? Apprantly so. "None to speak of"? Hardly. The difference isn't trivial, it's not insignificant, and it's not "nit-picking."
posted
Well, if you're looking for reasons to vote for Kerry...
What's good about his political views:
1. He proposes a "sensitive" war on terror. Right now we are losing the war on terror precisely because we are insensitive to the way the rest of the world is going to react to us, and end up inciting more terrorism than we can stop.
2. He promises fiscal responsibility, in terms of balancing the budget. Given the Democrats' successful record in doing this under Clinton, I'm inclined to believe that promise.
3. His stated views on social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, crime, health care, and religion seem well-thought out and fairly moderate. I don't agree with them, but among the candidates he's the one that seems least likely to try something radical.
What I like about his character:
4. His military leadership and political leadership is enough to convince me he's strong enough to be a decent president.
5. His anti-war protests would suggest he is not afraid to defend American ideals, even when doing so is unpopular among the American people. This capacity is critical right now, in the post 9/11 America, where there is pressure to act downright un-American in our willingness to sacrifice freedom and human rights for security.
6. Most importantly, his speeches and positions illustrates that he grasps the complexity of our affairs. He consistently turns his arguments on rather subtle but important lines. Republicans hammer this as "flip-flopping" in a day where speeches are supposed to be so simple that they can be summarized in a single sound byte, but I think it is more indicative of his being a person who understands fine lines and details. Really, this should be a feature we require of presidents, not something we complain about. We want well-thought-out leaders who are going to alter their views when the details change and are going to try to explain the complexities of our problems to us.
Truthfully, I don't know why people would hate Kerry. I do understand what would put people off about him, though. He has one really big fault: He tries to play politics in his campaign too much - another reason people call him a flip-flopper. I definitely don't like that.
However, I do not have the luxury of waiting for someone better. And the truth is, I think a politician who doesn't play politics too much during campaigns is pretty rare. Thus, I'd judge Kerry as a decent candidate - but not who I'd prefer to have if I could choose out of anyone in the U.S.
posted
I didn't say that the country had none. I said that Bush had no idea of what it meant, so for him there is none to speak of in his plan for the country.
I believe that if he had free reign, it would be the beginning of the end of the separation of church and state. That isn't fear mongering, and it isn't unrealistic.
I said I wouldn't be shot at....just marginalized, and not funded. My religion (if I weren't Christian, which I am) would be at a state funded disadvantage....
in schools in funding for charities in protection of employment opportunities that my tax money was funding.
I would begin to lose (actually, I already HAVE, thanks to his FBO order) the right to be anything other than *christian*...insert any religion there you want...because I would be out funded, and discriminated against and my government would not only allow it but BE FUNDING IT!
It might be a long time before it went to the logical conclusion, where there is a federal religion....or it might never get there.
I just think it is a HORRIBLE precedent to have, and I don't think Bush sees anything wrong with it at all.
If you want to nitpick, go for it.
Look back and see what I said. I see a future with no obvious separation. I was talking about Bush, not the USA. This thread wasn't about the USA> Or where we are now, but where we will be if Bush had his way.
I'm not saying he would kill all non-believers, or force them to convert...but he would make sure that his religion is one of the ones that gets funding where others don't. Wait, that's right...he already did that...
He would make sure that public monies would be use to teach religion in his religious schools....wait....
I didn't say in my original post that we don't have any seperation...but I did say, in context to Bush and what I don't like about his policies, that there was no separation
quote:to speak of.
And in his stance I don't see any real concept of what he has begun. He has single-handedly begun a decay of that separation that may someday remove the rights of other religions to be treated equally under the law...
Wait, that's happening now ...
My ORIGINAL post:
quote:Also, I don't care how many minimum wage jobs are created, I don't like where the economy is heading under the Republican administration. Things are not any better for the middle class..as a matter of fact, even with both my wife and I working full time, we could probably qualify for food stamps....so I think Bush's plan to "change" (read eliminate) overtime rules is one of the worse ideas I have ever heard! A ton of people will become "Exempt" from the normal work week of 40 hours, and make less even though they are working more hours due to no more overtime pay or holiday pay...and only the companies will benefit from relaxing these rules, so they are free to create MORE 60 hour, non-overtime jobs...just what we need, right?
As long as your last name is Bush, Cheney, or Ashcroft, things will only get better and better...
And you are a fundamental Christian...no separation of Church and State to speak of...
If you want to nitpick at least make sure you are misquoting me correctly... I was clearly (or not so clearly, I guess) speaking about the Bush administration, and the future they are creating. In their platform I don't see any true concept of what Separation of Church and State has meant over the last 100 years.
And I didn't say no seperation...I said none to speak of. Show me an example of the Bush administration has upheld that separation, in an active role.
Dabbler:
quote: Again, I think we're trying to base this on the man Bush is, not the worst theocrat possible. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, at least someone got where I meant to go with that....
Although I will not take what I said back, perhaps now we can stop the objections to how I said it, and perhaps hear a few reasons why I am wrong?
Not that I will believe you, Dag, but I would like to hear your thoughts on this....
Unless you want to ignore substance and go for the grammer overkill again..... Kwea
posted
Look, unless you're willing to say Bush would, if allowed, create a total theocracy, then the statement is wrong. If you are willing, we're too far apart to discuss pretty much anything.
As for substance, no one has refuted my analysis of GWB's separation above.
posted
I haven't seen a refutation worth responding to, to be honest.
I am not trying to be rude, just saying that all I have seen is you claiming that I shouldn't have used that phrase.
You said something about Bush using religion as a guide for his policies, and agreed with it. I agree as well.....but not to the point that I think public monies should be allocated to fund one religion over another...or one group of religions over another group of them.
I have a major problem with what he is doing. I never said that we have no current seperation....but I fear that the future under Bush's rules would lead to a reduction of that separation, to the point that it might disappear completely.
Think about it for a second. If someone was to say here in the USA that we should have an official State or Federal religion, people would be outraged, and it would never, ever happen.
Now, in 100 years, after the rules for the government have been changed so that the government has been funding religious education during all that time, and the rules for grants have become more and more restrictive....after all, the precedent for funding one and not the other has already been set....it is far more plausible under those circumstances, isn't it? After all, government funded discrimination in the workplace would have not only been allowed but encouraged for over a century at that point.
I don't see Bush having any true grasp of the possible consequence of his actions. There is a reason his FBO's took an executive order to implement.
I treasure the idea of separation of Church and State we have now, but I don't see Bush respecting that at all...so I see any meaningful separation in his platform, so I oppose it.
What will he seek to weaken next?
There is a difference between discriminating against a religion and actively attempting to outlaw it or suppress it. I never accused Bush of suppression, at least not by force. I just don't think he is willing to keep religion and state apart, as his actions have proven.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I know you really didn't mean that...I assume you meant it that a rich person (on paper) pays more in a percentage of his income than a poorer person. But the fact is, their buck and a quarter will buy the same cup of coffee that a poor person may buy. The fact is, it costs more as a percentage of a poorer person's income to just sustain's one's basic needs than a person with significantly more money. A gallon of milk for someone at the poverty level costs the same for the guy in the top 5% of income. So I don't lose sleep if the rich guy has one less jet airplane so that a poorer family could have one more gallon of milk a month. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
