School Vouchers

[DeeJay]

Sorry, but the government doesn't define or see it that way. The amount of money you pay into the system per year is only about half the amount that it would take any school, public or private, to educate just one student. Your taxes are combined with the taxes of businesses and other private citizens, including those who don't have kids in school, or who don't have kids at all, to fund the public education system. Those other contributors have an equal say in how that money is spent. That's why there is a difference between schools that are "privately funded" and schools that are "publicly funded." The moment a private school accepts public money, it becomes subject to the accepted standards of the entity that distrubutes the money. It is no longer privately funded, it is publicly funded.

My state now looks at it that way. We just passed a voucher bill. Because it is in the news I have some numbers. The avg family pays $3800 per student in school. The avg amount for a voucher will be $2000 that leaves 1,800 dollers in the public school for each student that is removed to go to a private school.

There are very few regulations this new law imposes on private schools. They are all reasonable and ensure that the school is legitimate. Private schools already comply with state regulations like fire code. It does not change what is taught.

I'd love to apply the "I look at it as my money," theory when I am doing my income taxes and paying my property taxes. That'd be great.

It is your money. You pay for goverment services like roads.

Here, too, they are thriving. However, with tuition and fees at the decent schools averaging $15,000-$18,000 a year nationally, higher in some places, estimates are that only about 10% of the families in any given Christian church can afford to send their kids to a private, Christian school. Vouchers do not help the lower income people because they only average about $3,200 a year and the schools cannot charge the families of voucher recipients to make up the difference.

My kid has been in two private schools. The first had a tuition under $3,000 for elementry school students. The one we are in now has a tuition under $5,000. There are schools that are more expensive some up to $30,000 but the majority fall between $3,000 and $8,000 a 2 to 3,000 voucher will cover most of the tuition.

The bill we just passed has a voucher amount based on income. Familys making $37,000 or less get the whole $3000. The low end is $500. Like I say the avg family will qualify for $2000

Corporations and businesses need to dip into their immense profits and help finance Christian education. In the long run, they will benefit from having a pool of potential employees with an academically advanced education and with the majority of them having Biblical core values integrated into their educational experience. Endowments and corporately funded foundations would take the load off families and allow many more students to attend a private, Christian school.

It may be a good idea for them. But should in no way be manditory.

 

[DeeJay]

Doesn't sound like a problem for them.



Like a parasite, it doesn't hurt much at first. That's the way it always happens. "We just need you to fill out one little form to qualify for vouchers." All that does is establish that they have the right to regulate your behavior.

So your church does not comply with fire and building code. Your church did not get a goverment building permit when it was built or when you remodle/add on.

Um, yes. "We've decided that this voucher thing isn't working the way we wanted, Mr. Bureaucrat, and so we'd like to get our freedoms back. Please rescind all those regulations and keep your money."

And then Mr. Bureaucrat will smile and say "Why certainly! We'll remove all those regulations right away."

Won't he?

Schools are free to accept vouchers or not. Parents are free to send there kids there or remove them. There is nothing that says that a school has to accept vouchers.

 

[StefanM]

These are direct aid to students, based on the student qualification or merit, not on the school they attend. At that, students who receive these grants must attend an accredited school, according to government standards.

The Pell Grants go through the school. Yes, they are pegged to the student, but I don't the difference between that and a voucher. The only possibility would be that you can get excess Pell Grant money back if you go to an inexpensive college.

If a Pell Grant pays for tuition, what's the difference (other than financial need) between that an a tuition-paying voucher?

 

[Jack Matthews]

My kid has been in two private schools. The first had a tuition under $3,000 for elementry school students. The one we are in now has a tuition under $5,000. There are schools that are more expensive some up to $30,000 but the majority fall between $3,000 and $8,000 a 2 to 3,000 voucher will cover most of the tuition.

Wow. You are extremely fortunate. The national average tuition for private, Christian schools according to ACSI, which is the largest single Christian school organization and accrediting agency in the country, is over $8,500 per year. That's the average. You couldn't find an accredited, credible program within 250 miles of here for less than $7,000 and the two in our area that are in that range aren't worth considering. The average voucher program, according to ACSI, provides $1,500 per student per year.

The Pell Grants go through the school. Yes, they are pegged to the student, but I don't the difference between that and a voucher. The only possibility would be that you can get excess Pell Grant money back if you go to an inexpensive college.

The Pell Grants are money given to the student. Schools handle them as they would if the student just wrote a check. Of course, the schools make the information and applications available to the student, but they are grants that are strictly based on the individual student financial need qualification, not the schools.

Here's the difference. Pell grants or financial need grants are not necessary for students in grades 1-12, because families do not have to pay out of pocket for education on those grade levels. A Pell grant is an equalization for students who come from families that do not have the means to provide a college education for their children. The amount is based on the family income and the student need, not on where the student chooses to go to school. The only requirement for using it is that the school must be approved to receive the grants by being accredited. Since public education is available without charge to all students living in the district, equalization grants are not necessary.

The administration of the school where my guys go, along with most of the other accredited private, Christian schools in town are opposed to vouchers of any kind because what the state alone could provide per student is not enough to cover their expenses. Combining state funds with federal funds might provide enough, if the school never has to raise its tuition rates, but federal funds in any form prevent Christian schools from requiring recipients of the money to attend Bible class or chapel, or integrating Biblical principles into other curriculum areas. Our administrator sees vouchers as a means of turning private, Christian education into public education, and then diluting it or eliminating it altogether. I do, too.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Wow. You are extremely fortunate. The national average tuition for private, Christian schools according to ACSI, which is the largest single Christian school organization and accrediting agency in the country, is over $8,500 per year. That's the average. You couldn't find an accredited, credible program within 250 miles of here for less than $7,000 and the two in our area that are in that range aren't worth considering. The average voucher program, according to ACSI, provides $1,500 per student per year.

I guess I'm extremely fortunate, as well, since I pay about $4200 a year. And that's for a school in Massachusetts, where I would bet tuition would be ahead of the rest of the country.

 

[Dragoon68]

I'm for having no government schools at all. Then their would not need to be any vouchers to spend money where we want that was collected from us in the first place.

 

[DeeJay]

I'm for having no government schools at all. Then their would not need to be any vouchers to spend money where we want that was collected from us in the first place.

I was almost ready to go along with that, untill I thought about poor familys with out any or very little money.

If there kids dont go to school they will have ZERO chance of making it in this world. That sets up a situation where once a family is poor the family will always remain poor.

We will then pay alot more to house them in prison then we would if we pitched in for their school.

I could go along with getting rid of public schools. But we still need to use OUR tax money to send kids from poor families to school even if it is private schools.

 

[Dragoon68]

I was almost ready to go along with that, untill I thought about poor familys with out any or very little money.

If there kids dont go to school they will have ZERO chance of making it in this world. That sets up a situation where once a family is poor the family will always remain poor.

We will then pay alot more to house them in prison then we would if we pitched in for their school.

I could go along with getting rid of public schools. But we still need to use OUR tax money to send kids from poor families to school even if it is private schools.

That's how government convinces its citizens to fork over all the money they do. It uses the "poor people" excuse. The fact is, we can take care of the "poor people" without the government's help and do a much better job of it. That's the role of churches and charities. The government takes in far far more than is needed to help the "poor people". With that comes unmeasurable control and redistribution of wealth completely outside the control of those funding the programs.

 

[DeeJay]

That's how government convinces its citizens to fork over all the money they do. It uses the "poor people" excuse. The fact is, we can take care of the "poor people" without the government's help and do a much better job of it. That's the role of churches and charities. The government takes in far far more than is needed to help the "poor people". With that comes unmeasurable control and redistribution of wealth completely outside the control of those funding the programs.

I agree they take it way to far. I would just want to know that they would be taken care of. If churchs will do it great, but I see how people get along with out an education and it costs the tax payers a fortune.

The guy who shot up the mall in Utah. He dropped out of school early. I am not saying that is why he did it but I am sure it did not help.

 

[The Galatian]

It might be instructive, if you made a list of countries that relied on private schools as the primary educational tool, and a list of countries that relied mainly on public education.

Then compare standard of living, educational attainment, etc.

Try it and think it over.

 

[DeeJay]

It might be instructive, if you made a list of countries that relied on private schools as the primary educational tool, and a list of countries that relied mainly on public education.

Then compare standard of living, educational attainment, etc.

Try it and think it over.

That might work if type of education were the only factor. Are you saying that if any third world country converted its education system to a public education all there problems would be solved and they would become a super power?

 

[DeeJay]

There has been objections here about public money going to religious entities.

I had my taxes done and realized something.

You can deduct money give to charities. Even religious charities. Is this not giving tax money to religious entities?

 

[Dragoon68]

... The guy who shot up the mall in Utah. He dropped out of school early. I am not saying that is why he did it but I am sure it did not help.

I don't have any sympathy for the bonehead kid that shot some people in Utah. He did what he did because he chose to do it. Even Satan did not make him do what he did. He did it because he wanted to do so. He's responsible for that. His school, his parents, his environment, etc., etc. are not the problem. He was the problem.

Another fallacy is that more education or eradication of poverty are the solutions to crime. Government wants us to believe that! They are not the answers!
[SIZE=+1]
Government education have been around for a long time. They keep making promises they can't keep. Crime continues because of the inherent evil nature of mankind not because of a lack of education. In fact, an argument could be made that higher education only equips evil mankind with better tools to perpetuate their crimes with less chance of being caught. Children coming out schools, especially government schools, don't learn there what their parents should teach them by example and their church should teach them. They learn everything except that!

Public education has not eradicated poverty aside from the fact that poverty in this country is minimal relative to others. We know from the Bible that wealth is not a requirement for righteous behavior and, in fact, makes it more difficult. We also know that the best way out of poverty is hard work and sacrifice. Yes, that can be difficult and impossible for some yet it is not the role of government to provide wealth for it's citizens. It is the responsibility and freedom of the individual.

Some of the problems with public education are that it's become an entitlement for everyone, it's a free baby sitting service, it's standards are lowered to lowest common denominator, it's a haven for liberal thinkers especially college professors, it's teachers and parents have been stripped of their ability to maintain discipline, it's a center of entertainment for children and adults, it's overly expensive for the value received, it's a haven for exceedingly well paid administrators and bureaucrats, it's unable to teach what people want because it's "government", it's no longer under the control of it's local owners, it's forced to pander to misfits, and, at the higher levels, a terrible snare of immoral behavior for vulnerable young people.
[/SIZE]

 

[DeeJay]

First, I did not excuse the shooters behaviour. Of course he made his choices and he is responsable. He chose to drop out and he choose to be a mass murder.

I speak from experiance as a person who has had a decently long career in the area. People with low/no education are alot more likely to become criminals, gang bangers and people who have to live useing public money. People who can not write their own name are easy targets to be recruted by gangs they have no self worth and nothing better to do. Add to that the lure of money that they get with crime and they will never ever see without. Even then they are responsable for their actions. But for every person you house in prison for one year you could send atleast 2 kids thru school for all grades.

I agree with most of your assessment of public schools. I think the problem could be solved by adding competition to the mix. Allow parents to vote with their feet what schools are best. I think all types of education would raise the standards.
People who have a career and a life that minimal education provides are far far less likely to commit crimes. That is a fact.

 

[faithgirl46]

Is there any way that a private Christian school can accept government funding and still remain under the establishment clause?

I doubt it.
Faithgirl

 

[The Galatian]

Originally Posted by The Galatian
It might be instructive, if you made a list of countries that relied on private schools as the primary educational tool, and a list of countries that relied mainly on public education.

Then compare standard of living, educational attainment, etc.

Try it and think it over.

That might work if type of education were the only factor.

Feel free to adjust for other factors. Pick any country lacking an extensive public schools system. Compare it to countries that rely on public schools. You'll get the same results.

Are you saying that if any third world country converted its education system to a public education all there problems would be solved and they would become a super power?

What I'm saying is that you'll find few nations outside of the third world that do not rely on public education. Do third world nations with strong public education systems have higher educational attainment than third world nations that don't? Yep. For all the obvious reasons.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

It is also a tremendous boon to employers by supplying them with a much larger pool of workers to chose from and thus lowering costs and raising quality.

This has been proven untrue in areas such as Orlando Fl Where I am from. A majority of employers will not hire you if you do not own your own transportation. If you must rely on public transportation you are unreliable because the current bussing system is unreliable and people do not in many cases make it to work when required.

It is a system that is burdensome as many are forced to travel downtown first before they get to their destination which was closer to them than the downtown area. The bus system in Orlando is a financial burden on the community as it remains in the red from year to year. I am not sure if it is a result of mismanagement or impossible scheduling but I'm sure a little of both. Either way it is inefficient, troublesome, burdensome, and unreliable. and in the end it does nothing to accomodate employers.

 

[Dragoon68]

First, I did not excuse the shooters behaviour. Of course he made his choices and he is responsable. He chose to drop out and he choose to be a mass murder.

Yes, I realize you weren't offering excuses for him. I apologize for writing in a way that may have implied that. I'm reflecting my frustration with the typical news reports that seem to follow all these kinds of events in which the focus is on all the possible external causes for the actions of a given individual. It attempts to shift guilt from where it rests.

I speak from experiance as a person who has had a decently long career in the area. People with low/no education are alot more likely to become criminals, gang bangers and people who have to live useing public money. People who can not write their own name are easy targets to be recruted by gangs they have no self worth and nothing better to do. Add to that the lure of money that they get with crime and they will never ever see without. Even then they are responsable for their actions. But for every person you house in prison for one year you could send atleast 2 kids thru school for all grades.

I don't agree that lower educational level is a cause for criminal behavior. I don't believe there's any difference in the moral character of a person because of their educational attainments. I've worked with and among people of various educational backgrounds. I find honesty and dishonesty in all extremes of educational experience and economic wealth. Rich kids are no better than poor kids. College graduates are no more honest than eighth grade graduates. I've found intelligent people among those with little education and lowly titles. I've found it in foreign lands with even less than the least of our own.

There are statistical connections between certain types of criminal behavior and certain demographic factors including educational background and economic status but they doesn't mean one follows the other. The connection that's often missed is why the people are in those groupings. Kids are often in their situation because of the achievement levels of their parents. Laziness and stupidity - in it's real meaning - can not be corrected with education. Some parents raise their children into their own criminal behavior either actively or passively. Children who become adults have a choice to break out of that rut or stay in it. It becomes their responsibility - not the government's and not society as a whole. Many find it easy, thanks to government programs to stay in the rut. Others just don't care and never will. Some take a turn a demonstrate what can be done when a person take's responsibility and works towards betterment.

If we don't have enough room in the prisons then I say let's build some more of them. There are people that can be sent to school over and over and will never change. You can often see it early in life. We waste a lot of time giving criminals second, third, and forth chances at the expense of those who aren't a problem. Prisons are for punishment not rehabilitation as in now commonly expected. Non-criminals are far more deserving of an education that criminals.

[SIZE=+1]I agree with most of your assessment of public schools. I think the problem could be solved by adding competition to the mix. Allow parents to vote with their feet what schools are best. I think all types of education would raise the standards. People who have a career and a life that minimal education provides are far far less likely to commit crimes. That is a fact.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]

People that have values based upon Christian beliefs and who daily seek the Lord's guidance are less likely to commit crimes. People that have these values will work hard, earn a living, and apply whatever talents the Lord has blessed them with. Their career may be as a laborer, a craftsman, an engineer, a scientist, or whatever but they'll be happy and have true wisdom. They'll also likely be affiliated with others of like beliefs and among them will be those that will be led to help them with whatever short comings they might have.

We will never have control of government schools again. It is a lost cause. The only solution is to rebuild education based upon what God fearing parents know is best for their children. That must be free of all government control. The church and education must be protected from government.
[/SIZE]

 

[DeeJay]

Originally Posted by The Galatian
It might be instructive, if you made a list of countries that relied on private schools as the primary educational tool, and a list of countries that relied mainly on public education.

Then compare standard of living, educational attainment, etc.

Try it and think it over.

Feel free to adjust for other factors. Pick any country lacking an extensive public schools system. Compare it to countries that rely on public schools. You'll get the same results.

What I'm saying is that you'll find few nations outside of the third world that do not rely on public education. Do third world nations with strong public education systems have higher educational attainment than third world nations that don't? Yep. For all the obvious reasons.

To point to that one factor out of the many factors that can influece the standard of living would be pointless. There is no proof that that one factor is what makes standard of living lower. I think a comparison of a counties type of goverment will play a bigger roll in the standard of living.

But just to play along. Make a list of counties where the citizens enjoy a form of skiing (snow or water) and compair it to countries that do not enjoy wide spread usage of skiing. I think you will find that the standard of living in countries that enjoy wide spread skiiing have a much higher standard of living then countries that do not ski. Obviously skiing is what makes the standard of living higher.

 

[Dragoon68]

To point to that one factor out of the many factors that can influece the standard of living would be pointless. There is no proof that that one factor is what makes standard of living lower. I think a comparison of a counties type of goverment will play a bigger roll in the standard of living.

But just to play along. Make a list of counties where the citizens enjoy a form of skiing (snow or water) and compair it to countries that do not enjoy wide spread usage of skiing. I think you will find that the standard of living in countries that enjoy wide spread skiiing have a much higher standard of living then countries that do not ski. Obviously skiing is what makes the standard of living higher.

In some countries - even "third world" countries - there's a lot more competion for seats in public schools. It's not free to all students through all grades. Kids work hard because they want to excel. Those they do get to the top. Those that don't get pushed out. That's a "foreign" concept isn't it?