Do You Think Public Money Should Go To Support Private Schools?

Yes or no. No in between or maybe bullshit either.

Uh...NO.

I learned solid left ideology at the school I attended. Schoolmates included Alex Gibney (Director of Taxi to the Dark Side, Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room), Robert McChesney (founder of Free Press and Media Matters), Matt Bates (AFL-CIO), RFK, Jr., and just preceding my tenure, Adam Hochschild (co-founder of Mother Jones).

Nevertheless, I believe private schools should not receive public money. Had my school received public funding, I doubt we would have been exposed to progressive values.

but then again why should I have to pay taxes to fund public school if I send a child to private school?

Why should I have to pay taxes that go to support school at all since I don't have kids to send there in the first place?

Lets just defund schools and let the kids learn on the streets, right? Thats how we will prosper as a society...

*sigh*

with kids whose taxes could be used to fund the schools. My share of the taxes could be put to better use funding road, sidewalk and other infrastructure repairs in my community.

and you are paying for their portion of the roads.

Problem solved.

Jesus. What a stupid argument you're presenting. Public schools which enable a literate and educated citizenry advance the standard living for all.

...enable a literate and educated citizenry and advance the standard of living for all? Because my friend is getting the best education of his life for half as much... at a private school... weird huh.

I never said that private schools cannot provide a good education. That has nothing to do with what kind of system should be supported by public funds. And honestly, your friend's individual success story is immaterial to the discussion promoted by the OP.

If (according to you) we fund things that are good for society and private schools can be good for society, then in some cases we should fund private schools. How is that a strawman. Beyond that, funding private schools is what this topic is all about.

Similarly, private insurance is not a health care system. We fund roads and public transport, we do not divert public funds for limos and private jets. Private schools have their own individual charters which exclude most children outside of their charter. A private schools has no mandate to educate a child which it deems uneducatable for any reason whatsoever. Private confers exclusion.

My friends education is half as expensive then it would be in the public school system, as in the public school system he needed an individual aide to even get to passing grades in all of his classes. Still not enough to get good grades in all of his classes as aides have little knowledge in how to actually educate kids, but got him up to a c+ average, still horrible for a gifted kid like him. Beyond that we have been known to finance privately owned cars haven't we (I am thinking "cash for clunkers" for some weird reason... weird). All I am saying is if a kid isn't getting an adeuqate education from the public system, and there is a private school that can educate him better for less... why not finance it?

a publicly funded school system. Private schools exist with no public oversight, no independent assessment, and absent democratic input.

Cash for Clunkers may have been a publicly funded (temporary) program but it is, quite clearly, not a public transportation system.

Seriously talk about a strawman.

Though I know that is not always the case, but when kids with disabilities like him are getting bullied, picked on, have unknowledgable teachers (for the most part, a few here and there), and will grow up to most likely be unemployed or underemployed, maybe its time that we start allowing new options for them. What do you think?

Is that your argument in favor of taxpayer bailouts to private schools?

What about the free market system? If the private enterprise school is popular, it will be financially successful on its own, sort of like "build a better mousetrap".

NO?

We pay taxes for all kids education, just because a private school can do it cheaper is no reason to ignore said private school. Beyond that when you force people to fund 2 schools if they want to have their son go to private school that creates finicial problems.

Phillips Andover, (George W Bush went there!)
Phillips Exeter
Choate
Concord Academy


That's just FOUR that have been going for over 200 years.... um, COMPETING with public education and each other!

With the rich getting a good education and the poor getting screwed?

the freedoms our Constitution guarantees us all, even the rich, and the NOT so rich parents who make choices about their children's source of education.

I support America providing health care for ALL Americans, at taxpayer expense, NOT financially underwriting each and every parent's choice as to where they wish their child to go to school. That's pretty simple, I think. Let's give everyone an equal footing in health care, paid for by us all, and an equal footing in education, paid for the same way! In the same way, let's NOT drain the taxpayer of money so that ANYONE can have a face-lift simply because they WANT it. See the analogy here?

YES those with means can and do provide private educational choice for their children. Those that are NOT so rich get one choice. NO TWO TIERS, as YOU seem to be the taxpayer to be supporting, wanting BOTH OF themto be paid for by the taxpayer!

I support a single public tax to provide basic and adequate PUBLIC education to all children.

How arrogant of me to be such a lover of freedom where parents can make CHOICES to opt out only if they have the money. That's damn near elitism for me to think that's right!

Yeah, we taxpayers should just pay for whatever kind of PRIVATE school ANY PARENT wants, instead of addressing the problems in our public schools like a responsible society of adults. That's what YOU favor, right? That makes sense, when there's a problem, Americans should just run away from it, and spend more public money refusing to fix it, make the problem worse, the disparity greater, all at public taxpayer expense? You are arguing, in fact, for a two tiered PUBLICLY FUNDED system!

NO, that's not logical, nor is it responsible.

I don't quite get that. You don't think the government should take care of the health industry entirely (I assume). But you have problems with the government giving money to secular, non-profit, private schools; even for students that the public school system is failing, which is many out there. This is how we get to this state where bullycides happen, and where they don't the graduates are underemployed if they are employed at all. I don't think that is acceptable at all.

and the UK, where I have seen it works more than 95% of the time! But neither system is perfect, we acknowledge no human system is perfect.

The analogy was not clear in my original response, so I lengthened it, revised it a bit to make it more clear.

Canada's health care system isn't perfect, but it's much better than the US private insurance model.
Still, rich people in Canada, or elsewhere, can pay EXTRA for better, faster, or more comfortable private care!

That's the analogy, rich people ALWAYS can pay more for what they want. Basic health and education should be a right of any citizen of the USA, Canada, wherever...basic educational opportunity isn't always THE BEST, but it's better than none, and private schools will always exist when there are people in a free society with wealth and freedom to choose. The same goes for health care, as in Canada, where I have spent time...the best is not always the public system, but the public system is the one taxpayers get for no extra cost.

Private schools will always exist, in the US, as private health care will always exist in Canada.

Thats basically what I am calling for here. You should be able to choose your doctor/school, no matter what it is. Especcially if its cheaper (like my friends private school is, no para needed = a lot cheaper education).

Because those kids will some day be the ones that may save your life. They may be your doctor, nurse, police officer, firemen, soldier, etc.... Because you gain by having them there and using the services they, one day, will provide.

Kids are the future, not just yours, but all kids. Go ahead, send your kids to private schools, that is your right and privilege. You should do that if you feel that's best. There are excellent private schools out there. However, public schools are supported by the public, even those who choose to send their children to private institutions, and people who do not have kids, all people (the public). If everyone who sent their children to private schools quit supporting public schools, what do you think would happen?

that go to support school at all since I don't have kids to send there in the first place?"

Because at one time when you were in school, there were people who had no children in school that paid their taxes so you could go to school. Each generation helps the next generation.

Paying taxes is patriotic.:patriot:

... as it is in all of our interests. Good, productive citizens are educated citizens.

come from private schools?

bearing out your argument.

I'm sure you loved those lawyers who were in *'s justice department coming from universities like Robert's University. I once went to Catholic school, my parents paid--however, believe me when I say it was not a place to learn objectivity --it was pure indoctrination. Plus, spending time on my knees about six times a day. I don't mind if parents get some sort of tax credit for private schools--that's the parents. I'm against public funds going directly to private schools.

Why did my parents have to fund you?

I never had any children but I own property and pay taxes. I benefited from the same system and don't have a problem helping others benefit from the same type of system.

universal, not boutique schools for the upper class or test cases for military regimens for the poor, & not little profit centers for corps.

:eyes:

...especially here in Arizona.

And it shows.

Which is why I am increasingly opposed to charter schools ... many are becoming private schools funded by the taxpayers.

Pretty good ploy by the right-wing: call them 'public' charter schools and then slowly but surely do away with union teachers, ask for autonomy from school district rules, and before you know it you've almost got a private school system funded under the guise of the public school system.

That is the only valid reason for taxpayer money to go toward private school tuition.

It would be interesting to see what you think.

but kids with plain old regular needs being under-served are stuck behind? for the price it cost the State of Connecticut to send my cousin to a private school for special needs, they could have sent 3 kids to Choate. but hey, I guess they didn't have special enough needs. so they went to schools in downtown hartford that would make your blood run cold.

see how that slope works?

But to me giftedness is a special need, I was twice exceptional and teachers were just as bad with my giftedness.

Can't say any more. It's against the rules.:evilgrin:

accidentally

For reasons talked about elsewhere.

Are you not aware that Public Education is one of the main cornerstones of a Democracy? Diminish Public Education, you diminish democracy.

as dimishing public education. He continues to educated in public education he will be ignorant of the Democratic process and in most other areas when he gets out of public education. Why would giving him some assistance outside the public system diminish said public system at all, especcially when you save money doing it?

as you have done with many of our respected teachers on this board, but I find it extremely selfish of you to be thinking only about one person. What if I never in my lifetime used the services of our local police or fire department - what if I said I wasn't going to pay taxes based on that? A democracy thinks about the well being of all it's citizens and if your friend needs assistance, there are other avenues to take - but not my tax dollars.

My friend still does need school and you are more the willing to fund his education as long as its more costly and less effective. Why aren't you willing to fund it if its less costly and more effective? Do you enjoy having to support aspies for the rest of our lives because we can't get and hold a job?

offered the chance to go to public schools, just as every other person who "still does need school".

Children are offered public education at public expense, (taxation), they are NOT guaranteed the BEST education possible in the world with public funding, they are offered an "adequate" education, determined by the community, the state, and the feds, as to what children need to become "educated", they are NOT offered what the PARENTS MAY think is the best education available. Simple as that. parents make the choice, but the nation and the community offer one choice that is paid for, other choices made by the parents are not.

Being bullied, being ignored, having future employment difficulties, having unknowledgable teachers, at an increased rate of expense, is an appropriate (thats the technical word) education? Pardon me if I laugh.

you describe. The parents of your friend have the option of moving, (it's a free country), if they don't find the education in the community where they live to be reasonable and appropriate for their child. The fact that SOME schools are not great places for some children is NOT a logical sequitur to FORCE taxpayers to support private schools. I can choose to live on a street with potholes in it, or I can move to a street that's well maintained. That's no argument in favor of taxpayer money paving private driveways.

There are job concerns, family concerns, support system (friends, family, etc.) concerns. Beyond that for special needs kids those problems are pretty much universal, most communities don't require teachers to have more then one class in understanding special needs kids.

I'd like to see an independent evaluation of the outcome of its students, of the credentials of the teachers, what services are offered, what the criteria is for admission, etc.

There is also a campus in Grapevine, from what I can see almost all the parents and kids love it. Don't know where to get other evaluations though, all the teachers are required to have special education certification, standard for such a school, all forms of counseling and social skills training are offered as well as some other services, and it seems like the criteria for admission is to have a need that the school can help out with.

Here is some more information

http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/tx/private/7665#from..Tab (tons of positive reviews and occasional negative one, to be expected, all schools get one)
http://www.hillschool.org/ schools website.

That being the "Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax".
http://hill-school-of-fort-worth.idilogic.aidpage.com/hill-school-of-fort-worth/index.b124.u136.htm

The Hill School has 295 students. It received $3,597,715 in tuition and registration fees. That works out to $12,195.00 per student. It's total revenue, from all sources was more.

The total expenditures (faculty, admin, supplies, etc.) equaled $4,079,147.

That works out to be $13,828 per student. Texas spends $7818 per student. It appears that your great school at half the price spends $6000 more per student than the public school system.

And I am guessing that a para costs more then 6,000 a year, probably closer to 20,000 a year. 27,818 divided 2= about 13,828. Weird huh.

Hell No.

If people want to build their own private schools with their own money, let them.

Private school is a choice that parents make. If they choose it, they should pay for it. I don't have any kids but I still want my tax dollars to go into building a strong, secular and viable public school system that answers to the community and has a uniform curriculum that will prepare the children to be good citizens and find employment which will give them something other than a dead end life.

If children are going to get a religious education they should get it in church, or at home. I don't think any school is a place to indoctrinate children or teach them intolerance for anyone who does not think as they are being taught to think. We live in a diverse world now and we need to learn to respect each other and disparate cultures and ideas. A good public education is the best way to start.

And more. Thank you gleaner. :) :patriot: :headbang: :pals: :fistbump: :loveya: :kick:

:hi: :fistbump:

My son attended private schools, too. I voted no. And I think I should pay taxes to support public schools.

And let me say that most people here know that I am a public school teacher. My son attended public schools here, and though there are a few private schools, none of them can touch our local public school system. Now in larger cities, there are many more choices, and maybe if there were a private school that would be a better choice, we might have sent our son there, but that simply wasn't the case. If we had chosen to send our son to a private school, we would have HAPPILY paid taxes, but we do that anyway, and we haven't had a child in the public school system in 12 years.:)

and I just moved one of my daughters to a private school. Our public schools are pretty good and I would have
happily kept her in there but they couldn't and wouldn't protect her from bullying. This private school does
offer more than the public schools and for her it was the right move as she is in a much healthier, positive
and proactive environment. I'm still happy to support the public schools though. If I can afford it though
I may move the other child to the private school too.

No freakin' way!

And the only way vouchers or other privatization would work, is if there's a hell of a lot of Keynesian regulation keeping everyone honest.

Given the current post-Bush climate, I'd have to say hell, no!

as we sit here and debate "real" private schools. Look at the new superintendents who are coming into public education: they are either unqualified or underqualified. Cases in point include Joel Klein, an attorney, who runs and is ruining the New York public school system, and Michelle Rhee, with only a couple of years teaching as a TFA "teacher," running D.C. schools. Many of these new superintendents are now "graduates" or "fellows" of the Eli Broad Academy which in turn is trying to encourage MBAs to go into educational administration. Look at the attempts to subvert tenure laws which were designed to prevent favoritism by administrators and provide stable educational environments for students. Administrators all over the country are targeting older, tenured teachers so that they will resign or retire because they are too expensive, or fire them altogether on bogus charges, or deny tenure to younger or newer teachers so these teachers never become vested in retirement.

Privatization is already going on, insofar as it pertains to forcing business models on public schools in order to set them up for failure, and it goes far beyond the standardized testing mania and cookie cutter curriculum.

I wouldn't mind public monies going to a private school if the school (1) is secular and (2) enrolls students on a lottery basis. Private schools shouldn't be ble to cherry pick the best students and divert those children (and their often involved, engaged parents) away from public schools without also accepting some of the "less desirables."

There is no such thing as "choice" as in parents picking the private school of their choice; it is the SCHOOLS which do the choosing. They have the final say as to who gets to attend their schools. ALWAYS.

They are privately run though supported in large part by tax dollars, free to applicants within said district/county, and admissions are based not on testing or other credentials but on some sort of open enrollment plan. Biggest problem with these schools is that the state doesn't regulate them as well as it should and you can end up with crack pots running things. Otherwise, I'm at least not opposed to tax dollars going to those schools. I'd rather my money not be sent to the Bible Thumpers Are Us End Times Church School, though.

Most charter schools in Arizona are for-profit ventures. I don't want taxpayer money going to these @$$holes to make a buck.

the Constitutional separation between church and state.

That means tax dollars don't go a church.

And if demand was created, there would be more.

How about Lutherans, Baptist and Jews?

How about my new church? We worship Elvis. We are Presleyterians.

I meant that it was okay to fund secular private schools, not religious schools. I am sure there is a way of creating a law that distinguishes between the two.

And I am sure the SCOTUS cannot wait to hear the arguments of that case.

In fact, I'd like to hear the arguments of that case. Have any good ones?

Good arguement there I think.

I bet not compelling enough to bust that church state separation thingy.

And once again laws can be made to fund secular organizations without funding religious organizations. So why not?

Everybody shall have equal access to F.A.E.P.E. (a free and equal and "public" education). That's why not.


edit to add the word :equal

Any number of the problems special needs kids face on a regular basis makes the education they receive not be appropriate. Just because its offering a F.A.P.E. doesn't mean it can't offer something else. Why can't we go beyond a law that was created 35 years ago, we do in most other areas.

a ten foot fishing poll.

What about the other kids in the district? Shall they all suffer at the expense of said student Z?

What shall be the medical diagnosis, act, disability or trigger that gets student X the same extra funding as said Z?

What if those dope smoking Presleyterians are specialsit in curing autism? Are you going to fund their dope smoking hillbilly ways with your tax dollars?



edit: word order

its cheaper to educate him elsewhere. Individual aides (paras whatever), resource rooms that very few students use, and the like all cost a lot of money. 13,500 is pretty reasonable in comparision. Though personally I care more about the student then the cost of educating the student, to quote Marx (though I am not a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination), "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", if he needs an education that the current school district isn't supplying him, then he should get a new education, especcially if its a cheaper education. I hope that clears up any confusion.

P.S. If it helps think of it this way, you pay for him now or you pay for him later. With the unemployment rates that asperger's people face (even here in Iowa the local GRASP group has either everyone be a professor or on SSI... its scary really) an education now is a lot better in the long run then SSI later on.

I have a 24 y.o. niece with hydrocephalus. One of my best friends, the drummer for my band, is an adult with Asbergers.

But you still have to fight the good fight you know.

...Z failing in public schools but getting a c+ in the private school? Without access to his records this means bupkus. A private school is noever going to fail a student you have described after poaching them from the public sector. If Z needed a personal aid in the public school and doesn't get one in the private school that simply tells me that Z has been flagged not to fail. As long as Mom and Dad's checks keep rolling in Z will continue to get C+ grades whether he bothers to attend or not.

and getting C+s after aides. Now he is getting better grades, or at least doing better (I don't think report cards have come out yet this year). Beyond that most of his classmates needed a personal aide in public school, it is much easier not to have one when you are being taught by someone with a master's in special education. Lastly he is not the type to EVER play hookey or do anything like that. His main problem with grades before was the teachers that didn't understand him would stress him out so he does bad on tests, and misses a few days of homework, and just doesn't get the material anywhere near as good. I have heard from many parents of aspies that they have had to put homework restrictions (either some or none) on their sons IEP because it stresses them out so much. With a private school that has everyone be a special education teacher, there is less cause for doing this. I would tend to believe he is probably earning better grades then a C+ average, but who knows.

I hadn't read that in any of your earlier posts. Of course I found them to be repetitive and uninformed so I started skipping a lot of them, perhaps I missed it. Jinto I have no doubt your intentions are good but the path to hell is lined with good intentions. Jinto you just do not have enough information to champion your topic the way you have been. Educate yourself about it and I am certain you will change your tune. Until then, frankly, you sound like a teabagger.

I know all about aspie kids troubles in school (with bullying and with teachers and with being socially isolated) that I know plenty about that (read more books then you can count, read about every article online and on the news shelves, taken classes, then of course there are my own experiences.) Then I know all about the trouble aspeis have after school (same basic stuff + they find it hard to get a job.) So yea, I think I know plenty about why aspies could use a new system.

P.S. Frankly I think the fear mongering and slippery slopes I have been given sound a lot more teabaggerish.

... (yeah, that will be REAL successful) but have him do it on his own dime. Instead of diverting limited resources away from the public schools campaign for increased funding for the schools so they can provide those services to your friend.

Beyond that, remember how I said it would be cheaper (no para needed=cheaper education) so how is it diverting limited resources away?

...why would you ask how that diverts the resources?

that can be used to better educate the other kids in the class. No more one on one para means no more needing to spend money on a one on one para.

...saves money for the public schools? Up is down, black is white. I see where you are coming from now.

Stupid computer

It costs private schools 13,000 to educate him. Which is more, 30,000 or 13,000.

But do you really think giving him a para costs a school district less then 13,000 a year? Then when you consider he has access to things like a resource room whenever he needs it (which probably very few kids in the school use, thats a few more 1000 that he gets. Then there is the general 7,000 or so that every student gets. So assuming that the para just costs 13,000 (probably a reasonable guess, maybe closer to 11,500 if you really want to be technical), and the resource room teacher costs 2,000 more per student that uses her, 11,500 + 7,000 + 2,000= 20,500, so 30,000 might have been a bit bad, but certainly more then 13,000 I think. Then when you consider many of his classmates probably also had their own paras, or their own reading recovery teachers (or whatever they call it in Texas), or their own sped teachers (you would be amazed), etc. most of his classmates probably also cost their respective schools more then 13,000; certainly anyone with a decent IEP would. Next objection?

Sorry

There's one just a town away from here.
Just because a school is private does not mean it has religious ties whatsoever.

In the 1990s we sent our son to a private high school and applied for partial financial aid from their endowment fund because he needed to be there and we needed the help.

At the same time we have voted against every effort to take money away from public schools and give it to private schools. A good public education system is the foundation of this country's democracy in every conceivable way, including that it throws kids together from all walks of life and they have to learn to get along.

Americans have always had both home schooling and private schools for children whose parents believe they have special needs that cannot be met in the public schools: like rubbing shoulders only with other uber-rich kids (Bush) or religious segregation (parochial schools for Catholics and others) or safety and privacy issues (Sasha and Malia Obama) or sometimes bright kids who just don't fit in their school and are failing.

But parents who believe this way should be prepared to pay for it themselves or ask for scholarship money from the school's endowment fund. Public tax money should go only to public schools.

Hekate

and my parents sacrificed and worked extra to afford it but it was our family's choice. I see no reason that the taxpayer should have paid for our private school because basically we couldn't "hack it" (ie adjust) in the public schools.

I don't think it should go to pseudo-public schools, either.

There's lots of deception in the clever use of "public charter schools".

They are redefining public.

as Republicans and the right, when it serves the goal. In this case, it's been a decades-long march towards privatization, and we are seeing the pace pick up, rather than seeing that trend reverse itself, under the new administration.

then they can foot the bill themselves.
Public schools have too many mandates to satisfy to receive their funding, it isn't fair that the private schools wouldn't have to meet the same criteria.

charter schools.

I think private schools should be able to apply for competitive government grants as well as foundation grants but I oppose tuition tax credits.

if they're going to give tax credits/vouchers to parents whose kids are in private school- then thay should also give refunds to people who don't have kids at all.

For schools which specialize in educating children which the local district can't. Schools for the deaf and blind being two examples.

Like aspies, ADHD kids, dyslexics, and the like?

are public schools and quite successful.

... and fund a regional school for kids with learning disabilities.

disabilities into the public system. Enrollment in specialized schools it down year over year, as less students need to go there. This is a learning opportunity for kids with no disabilities, too!

Several schools for kids with disabilities are now shut down, or continuing simply as private schools these days, since public educational facilities can often handle and effectively educate most children with disabilities.

My son has Autism, and our goal is to maximize his productive general-ed classroom time.

But there are some therapies that are cost prohibitive for each district to duplicate.

education, not sucking money out of it to give to private schools.

And I say that as someone who came from a very working-class background ("upper-class poor" as my dad used to say), whose parents nonetheless thought it was important to send me to private school from preschool through grade 12. My mom wanted me to have a Christian education - my dad was just a little racist and paranoid about the public school in the district we could afford to live in.

And I also say that as someone who never intends to have children myself.

My views on public education are best summed up by a quote from West Wing..."Education is the key. Education is the silver bullet. We don't need minor, incremental change; we need massive, overwhelming change. School should be palaces. Teachers should be making six-figure salaries. Education should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free for the citizens. Just like national defense."

Public schools should be top notch and accommodating. Parents who desire religious education for their children should home school them on the subject or pay for private school. There are many laws concerning children with special needs and parents of those children should demand everything these laws were written for.
Two examples: IDEA:Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Federal special education law (cited as 20 U.S.C §§1400-1487 and 34 C.F.R Part 300)
The purpose of IDEA is "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living."
and FAPE Free Appropriate Public Education Special education and related services that are: (a) provided in an Individualized Education Program (IEP); (b) designed to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability; (c) meet state standards; and (d) are provided at public expense.

Yep. Our public school system is a disgrace. Scrap it and go with what system works, if there are any out there.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

NOT ALL public schools are a disgrace, and not all are "what works", but there are some of each.

Painting with too broad a brush is no way to solve a problem, one must address specific problems in specific schools.

Are you going to sit there and seriously try and tell me that the system doesn't need a complete overhaul, when we are eleventh in the world in education?

improve what we have

Most big city school districts are not effective. We can discuss why forever: more funding, better organization, society's responsibility to deal with the poverty that causes dysfunction, personal responsibility, etc. We all have our favorite whipping boy or solution to the problems of big city schools.

Whatever long term solution is I do feel for families that have to send their children to schools that I would not have sent my son to. I have little sympathy for suburban parents who don't like some aspect of their school district or for religious reasons want to send their children to private schools. That is their prerogative but I have no desire to fund their decision.

The irony is that the suburban family has the better school system and has the means (in many cases) to chose not to send their child to those public schools. The urban family has the worse school system and most often does not have the means to chose to send their child anywhere but to those schools. I taught in an urban district and would not have sent my son to school there. We lived in a semi-rural suburb with its own socio-economic problems and our son attended the public schools there, though no one would say they were fantastic. We thought about private school, but on principle did not do that.

I realize that providing any kind of financial assistance to urban families so they have a short-term choice in educating their children opens the door for suburban families, who are a different story IMHO. In the long run, effective urban schools is ever progressive's goal, but what to do about the families caught in current urban school systems.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe the funding that some are thinking should go towards vouchers should be used to revitalize the actual communities that urban students live in, as well as the school systems. I just think there has to be a balance between home life and school life. If one area is broken, the other area will suffer as well.

public money should finance the public school system only. If you choose to opt your kids out of the public system, you should pay for both the public system (through your property taxes) and whatever private school you enroll little Johnny or Janie into.

Sid

Ruled that if a public school is incapable of providing the proper education of a special needs child the school must pay for such schooling. This is not a bad thing...if a school can't give a child the best education then it should be required to use their money to do so. I have a special needs child and at times his public school does not do a good job of providing an appropriate education, so we have to go to the school and talk to the superintendent and explain my sons needs so they understand. I have not felt the need to place him in a special school and my wife and I do all we can to help the school out but sometimes I feel that if he were blind or in a wheel chair they would treat him differently, meaning treat him the way he should be treated. Now when it comes to a religious school...that is not my bag. I believe in the separation of church and state.

after all, most private schools are non-profits exempt from taxes. or are you talking about vouchers or other direct assistance? how about the use of public school transportation? (I was a private school kid but rode the yellow bus to school every morning just the same, I mean except when I went in my limo of course. is that not the state supporting private education?) how about books? in many states, the state board of education owns textbooks that are loaned out to all schools that want to follow the central curriculum. again, in elementary school, many of my textbooks were labeled 'property of the State of Ohio Board of Education'. isn't that subsidizing private education with public funds? what about extra-curricular activities? should public and private schools share athletic conferences? (we did) orchestras? (we did) mock trial? (yep) Model UN? (yuppers) community service? (uh huh)

every single one of those things listed above is the public system, and therefore public dollars, subsidizing private schools by enabling those schools to provide opportunities to fee-paying students that otherwise would have been too expensive. so would that fall under the 'yes' or the 'no' category?

so that stamp does not mean Ohio bought them for the school. Donated them used, maybe. In all of my private schools, we paid for our own books and transportation, thanks, we were not 'following the central curriculum' which was actually the point of not being in public school.
When our schools used public fields and such, which we did at times, we paid to do so. Do you know if yours did as well? Do you know that they did not?
Of course I was not in Ohio, and my schools could afford our own buses so 'private' schools with no money, I don't really know about, nor the ones that teach the same course as the public down the street. If it is the same course and the same bus and the same books and the same sports program, what exactly is the point of having two schools at all?

I think secular schools should receive some funding (not fully funded).
Funding for lunches, supplies, and books that public schools dually receive and use.
These are things the student would have required even at a public school.

However facilities, faculty expense, sports, etc... should be the burden of the private institution.

child. Be it public or private.

$45,000 a year, compared to $7500 a year in public high school.

I should get this for free, why?????

I know, you will say " of course they are, they are the parents".... how about parents that listen to Glenn Beck and think he's God?

Are they really good decision-makers?

Cool

follow and love Glenn Beck.

Obviously you have NEVER been a public school teacher, never had to deal with crazy parents, or demented parents.

Maybe someday you will join reality.... ALL parents want better for their children that what is reality.

No taxpayers are going to pay for your child's private school education, that's YOUR job!

Can you imagine being told all you can get is a general practioner in real life, if you want anything else "that's YOUR job". That would be scary.

people go from preschool to PH.D. in the "PUBLIC" system of education, some without paying any costs at all, other than living expenses as 18+ adults in college... tuition paid, fees paid, etc., all the way to Ph.D.!

Now, in the USA, a "general practitioner" was fine and dandy for me as a kid, he did my physicals, and operated on me twice before I was 10! Would that happen today with a kid under 10? NO!

Today, we have advanced the art and science of medicine, as we have advanced all educational services, over the last 50 years. We need more than a high school diploma available from public funding, likewise we need bone specialists, oncologists, pediatricians, surgeons, psychiatrists, etc. etc. etc. to provide a better set of tools with which to deal with delivery of health care services, just as simply a publicly funded high school diploma doesn't provide adequate education for students in our 21'st century society.

We already provide hundreds of thousands of students with more than a publicly funded "general practitioner" level of education! We provide them with publicly funded colleges, technical schools, post graduate education and fellowships, etc. So I lost your analogy there somewhere.

Most aren't certified to teach gifted, physically disabled, artistic, ED/BD kids, LD kids, deaf/blind kids, or DD (developmentally delayed kids), yet we lump all these kids with very unique gifts and needs in the same classroom and tell the teacher, go on. Parents should be able to request more then that, even if that help comes from outside sources.

Theoretically, secularized private schools specially geared toward the gifted and toward special need students could work, but that would require more faith in the private sector than I currently have (especially in the context of infrastructure and public services) and it would be too wide of a back door (almost as wide as Ted Haggard's, in fact) for religious kooks to gain traction within the education system. Such an arrangement with a Rick Perry or Haley Barber-led government would be scary as fuck;

I would have no problem their taking a loan/grant from a gov't program giving out loans/grants to small businesses!

When the Catholic high school in my hometown burned down in the middle of the school year, the public school made every effort to accomodate their students and staff for the remainder of the school year rather than merging their students into the public school midyear. Nothing wrong with using public money to help out during a disaster.

More to the point, I could see paying a private school for certain specialities that the public school perhaps doesn't have. Particularly in rural areas where the need for that speciality may be so small it simply makes no sense building it into the public school infrastructure. A handful of us convinced our high school to arrange an in-school college class for our senior year (it became a regular program and has even been expanded since then). Of course, it was a state college, so I guess this doesn't count. But if there had been a private college in the community and no state one, then....

Then it should be OK for the government to pay for private schools that are accredited.

this is another scam on "we" the tax payers. Private entities getting their greedy finders into our public system. Fuck them... they make everything they touch more expensive, while supplying crappy service.

This was in New York State in the late 60s. I attended a Catholic high school. Students received textbooks from the local school districts - but only if the books were on the state approved list and were for Regents-approved courses
(I don't know how it is now, but back then the New York State Regents set statewide curricula standards and graduation requirements for high schools. They also gave state-wide standard exams in various courses, and if you passed the required set you got a Regents diploma at graduation.) We got textbooks for science, math, history and language classes, but had to buy any religous-oriented ones. We also got transportation: bus passes for those in the city and school buses for students from outlying areas, if there were enough of them.

The philosophy was that the aid went to the students rather than the school. Keeping track of textbooks from several school districts was a logistical challenge for the administration.

The Private Schools enjoy certain tax breaks such as lower or fully eliminated property tax especially if the private school is connected with a church.

And in many cases, endowments and scholarship funds are financed through tax deductible contributions.

It gives me some hope, if the harm is not done already.

:hi:

Pleasantly surprised it's still here

Glad to see overwhelming support for the no option on this issue.

hell no!!!! The idea of supporting a private entity when my tax money should be going to improve the public entity I support and pay for with my taxes pisses me off. I do not think private schools need one fuckin' dime of my tax money. I don't care. We need to put the same energy into improving the public school system (and get rid of the damn test to death crap) so we can become competitive again.

Anyone on medicare should only be able to go to publicy sponsored doctors! We can't allow those private entities called doctors offices and hospitals to get our money! Who is with me!

people go to private colleges and get grants, which I believe are exactly that - grants. That's tax dollars, isn't it?

As for the little kids. Public schools get X dollars for each kid. If a parent decides to send the youngster to a private school because they are not satisfied with the education little Johnny is getting, why should the public school continue to benefit monetarily, send the money with the child. There is no additional burden on the taxpayer, the parent is satisfied, and little Mary Lou might even learn something.

So, I voted yes.

Keep the fucking $ where its supposed to be - for public schools, not charter, or any other schemes the repukes are trying to come up with.