OT: Latest (July 2022) county population estimates are out

[Boom Boom]

Amen! I teach Engineering at a Career Technology Center. During my Masters Degree program I met and discussed education with a lot of teachers. One in Columbus, MS taught SPED for Kindergarten. She told me 95% of the kids she gets were never taught ABCs, counting or have been read to. They aren't SPED kids, they were abandoned kids and the sad thing about this is that from 2 to 5 years old your personality and psychological profile are being developed. Great way to start a life???

Our education system needs to be revamped. 1-8th grade should be more focused on basic education and vocational education. 9th through 12th should be directed toward continuing education for the correct field of study. That would make high school meaningful to students.

Other countries do this. There are pros and cons. I think Americans find it distasteful to write a kids future off based on a 6th grade test score or whatever. It grates against our ideas of class mobility or something.

But yes, we should do something along these lines. Back when classes had only a couple neglected kids or just plain stupid kids, the one-size-fits-all approach to education acted to lift them up without holding back the rest. But now the bad students are clearly the overwhelming majority in many schools. They aren't just not being lifted up by the standardized approach, but the good kids are being held back too. We need a better way to "track" kids or something.

I would say offer vouchers only to top testing kids or high schoolers that have previously always been in public education, and only to schools that test better or when there is not a good testing school in the area.

My taxpayer dollars should not go to a kid to go to private school when there is a good local public school but their parents just don't want them to be around public school kids, or they just want a religious instruction or whatever.

My taxpayer dollars should not go to a kid to go to private school if he's an idiot.

 

[PRAVan1996]

To go back to the original point of this thread, if we as a state want to attract more people to move here (or encourage current residents to not move away), garbage like this doesn't help:

 

[johnson86-1]

This is missing the point because I didn't explain things best. Note I said "generic-ish". I said that because it's not limited to "generics". I don't really know how to describe it, as I don't really know how or why they are making their decisions. I think it's because only the grocery "generics", or cut rate brands, are offering "pure" products without added sugar etc. But I don't know for sure.

if it's as easy as excluding products with added sugar, and that's readily available info (is that data that is required to be included on the nutrition label?), that seems fine, except I would presume that knocks out a huge chunk of products? What jarred spaghetti sauce doesn't have added sugar? Does any cereal qualify? Peanut butter? Would that not limit beneficiaries to a bunch of more expensive, niche healthfood brands? I'm not opposed to requiring healthier eating, but I'd be concerned about making things hard on mothers and expectant mothers that aren't well equipped to navigate that.

Given the obesity and health stats for people on SNAP, I favor a change. I think you could do the category approach of WIC but relax the rules so more stuff is eligible, and that would (barely, maybe) be politically palatable enough yet give significant improvement.

I don't think that would be palatable because the lowest of low hanging fruit would be to disqualify soft drinks, so I think Coke and Pepsico have to fight basically any nutrition based distinction because once they go down that road, it would be untenable for politicians/bureaucrats to keep allowing soft drinks. Our system tolerates a lot of absurd hypocrisy, so maybe I'm wrong, but I think that might be too much.

But of course I'm not factoring in that conservatives don't want to fix SNAP. "Food stamps" is a real good bugaboo for them to rail on and drive people to vote for more tax cuts for the rich. BS stories about you know who buying a cart full of steaks on the 1st of the month. They don't want to fix it any more than they want to fix immigration or welfare (which really Clinton already fixed).

It always comes back to those boogeymen.

 

[johnson86-1]

Yeah, that's because I started to say one thing then cut it out, and left a hanging sentence with no good explanation.

I wasn't attempting to make a statement about quality. It was a statement about...politics I guess. Voucher proponents aren't arguing in good faith. They pretend it's about increasing quality or options for all. But in reality they are against the very idea of public education and are using vouchers as a Trojan Horse to kill it. Or at best just don't care that they would be dealing a massive blow to public education because they don't care about the kids that go there.

Seems much easier to say voucher opponents aren't arguing in good faith. They've left poor people in failing school districts for decades, but they claim to care about public education? They care about public schools, and they care much more about public schools than they do about educating the public.

 

[mstateglfr]

To go back to the original point of this thread, if we as a state want to attract more people to move here (or encourage current residents to not move away), garbage like this doesn't help:

Post more.

 

[Boom Boom]

if it's as easy as excluding products with added sugar, and that's readily available info (is that data that is required to be included on the nutrition label?), that seems fine, except I would presume that knocks out a huge chunk of products? What jarred spaghetti sauce doesn't have added sugar? Does any cereal qualify? Peanut butter? Would that not limit beneficiaries to a bunch of more expensive, niche healthfood brands? I'm not opposed to requiring healthier eating, but I'd be concerned about making things hard on mothers and expectant mothers that aren't well equipped to navigate that.


I don't think that would be palatable because the lowest of low hanging fruit would be to disqualify soft drinks, so I think Coke and Pepsico have to fight basically any nutrition based distinction because once they go down that road, it would be untenable for politicians/bureaucrats to keep allowing soft drinks. Our system tolerates a lot of absurd hypocrisy, so maybe I'm wrong, but I think that might be too much.


It always comes back to those boogeymen.

For some things, like juice, it knocks out a whole bunch (wth is 70% juice anyway? What is the 30%?). For others, like frozen veggies, not as much. Jif and Peter Pan pb qualify, others don't. So it does allow name brands, but they have to be unadulterated. Cereals are done a bit different. Many sugared ones qualify, like Frosted Mini Wheats. I don't know why. Whole fruits qualify, prepared ones don't.

There's definitely some potential issues. It's confusing,not helped that the stores are terrible at labeling them right. The scanner will figure it out, but that just means more overhead for the store to restock whatever got rejected.

Soft drinks are indeed the lowest hanging fruit, and the highest.

 

[Boom Boom]

Seems much easier to say voucher opponents aren't arguing in good faith. They've left poor people in failing school districts for decades, but they claim to care about public education? They care about public schools, and they care much more about public schools than they do about educating the public.

No, because the opponents are open to intermediate reforms. The voucher proponents always object at any real reform that doesn't undermine the entire public Ed system.

 

[Ranchdawg]

Even more of a Twilight Zone if you’ve got me bringing forth The Bible…

Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
($1 to Matthew & Jesus)

This thread does look like a religous debate between denominations! Symantics with people saying the same things but not really.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

Amen! I teach Engineering at a Career Technology Center. During my Masters Degree program I met and discussed education with a lot of teachers. One in Columbus, MS taught SPED for Kindergarten. She told me 95% of the kids she gets were never taught ABCs, counting or have been read to. They aren't SPED kids, they were abandoned kids and the sad thing about this is that from 2 to 5 years old your personality and psychological profile are being developed. Great way to start a life???

Our education system needs to be revamped. 1-8th grade should be more focused on basic education and vocational education. 9th through 12th should be directed toward continuing education for the correct field of study. That would make high school meaningful to students.

I would eliminate grade levels. Let kids work at their pace. The ones that fall behind don't hold back the others. The more ambitious get a jump on life. If they don't advance or want to be a college student, put them in a trade school (every district should have one). And there are ambitious kids who would love trade schooling as well. Give options on paths/directions instead of eliminating them as our government has to this point. Government is more concerned about $$$ than kids.

 

[Boom Boom]

I would eliminate grade levels. Let kids work at their pace. The ones that fall behind don't hold back the others. The more ambitious get a jump on life. If they don't advance or want to be a college student, put them in a trade school (every district should have one). And there are ambitious kids who would love trade schooling as well. Give options on paths/directions instead of eliminating them as our government has to this point. Government is more concerned about $$$ than kids.

I would say loosen the regs for any failing schools. Let the states/localities do what they want, the kids already arent getting a decent education. I would not do that for good schools, too many zealots want to stick their fingers into a good thing.

 

[mstateglfr]

I would eliminate grade levels. Let kids work at their pace. The ones that fall behind don't hold back the others. The more ambitious get a jump on life. If they don't advance or want to be a college student, put them in a trade school (every district should have one). And there are ambitious kids who would love trade schooling as well. Give options on paths/directions instead of eliminating them as our government has to this point. Government is more concerned about $$$ than kids.

I mentioned in a longwinded post earlier that we open enroll our kids to a different district. We used to live in that district, moved, but wanted to keep them in the same school. It was specifically that school.

Its the only public Montessori in the state and serves 4yo preschool thru 8th grade. They are in one building for 11 grades so they build continuity and form a community. Further, they are in the same classroom for 3 years. preschool, pre-k, and K are in one class. 1st, 2nd, 3rd are in one class. 4th, 5th, 6th are in one class. Then 7th and 8th are in the middleschool together.
The grouped grades help to further build continuity since they have the same teacher for 3 years and it isnt a constant rotation of relationships, especially when younger. The grouped grades also allow for kids to work at their own pace, so some can work ahead while others can continue to work on a subject or concept that others have already mastered. The lack of competitiveness is real and cool. Also, older kids who have mastered a concept can help younger students learn it, which helps solidify bonds that otherwise wouldnt exit in a traditional classroom and helps the older student too since teaching a concept furthers the understanding of it.

Clearly I like the approach to learning. You mentioning getting rid of grade levels made me think of it. Montessori isnt as radical as what you suggest, but it is definitely on that same road in some ways.

 

[CoastTrash]

Why does Mississippi have state elections in an odd year (2019, 2023)? Move state elections to either a presidential year or mid term.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Why does Mississippi have state elections in an odd year (2019, 2023)? Move state elections to either a presidential year or mid term.

Because Mississippi is an odd state...

 

[Wesson Bulldog]

I would eliminate grade levels. Let kids work at their pace. The ones that fall behind don't hold back the others. The more ambitious get a jump on life. If they don't advance or want to be a college student, put them in a trade school (every district should have one). And there are ambitious kids who would love trade schooling as well. Give options on paths/directions instead of eliminating them as our government has to this point. Government is more concerned about $$$ than kids.

Preach ^^^^

 

[WilCoDawg]

I cant answer for him, but will for where I am.
A voucher bill was recently passed and signed because our Gov forced it in for the 4th legislative session in a row. She actually extended last year's session for a month and a half or so while trying to force people to vote for it.
A couple of bigger ones are in bold. Also, the list below is not the entirety.
Private schools will receive $7600 per student.

- Public schools must be accredited through the state, which means on site visits and approved 5 year plans. Private schools have the option to be accredited, but do not need to be.
- Public schools must hire teachers that have a teaching degree and current licensing. Private schools can hire any person to teach, regardless of if they have any idea how.
- Public schools must accept all students living within their district boundaries. Private schools can decline students and do not have to offer special education(which typically costs more). The financial burden is then put onto public schools while their funding is reduced.
- Public schools are required to offer free breakfast and lunch to qualifying students. Private schools do not have to.
- Public schools are held accountable to the public for the money they spend by way of audits and public elections for school boards(so the public has a say in who sets local school agenda). Private schools are not audited and have no accountability to the public for what is taught or how public funds are spent.

So ultimately, you don’t care if the child actually gets a better education; accountabilty is the main concern.

 

[mstateglfr]

So ultimately, you don’t care if the child actually gets a better education; accountabilty is the main concern.

Curious interpretation.

What I care about, as a resident, is that public funds are spend appropriately.
Also, giving public funds to private religious institution that are allowed to discriminate enrollment requests, seems fundamentally unjustifiable and a violation of the state's protected classes.

Public funds should be spent on public education. It's really simple.

As for me as a parent- of course I want a better education for my children. There is 0 evidence that the fly-by-night organizations that have already announced they are coming to suck up voucher dollars even provide a better education.

We chose to live where we live because the public schools are strong. If I lived in a place where the schools were bad, I would either try to fix the issue, move, or pay for my kids to go elsewhere.
None of those include me expecting public funds to be sent to private schools that have no oversight and can selectively accept students.

I laugh when I see claims that one of the local parochials has good test scores. Well of course the schools I am thinking of have good test scores- they don't have to accept all children. They get to selectively take only those who don't have physical or mental disabilities. They get to selectively take only those who are at a certain proficiency level.
Yeah, obviously their test scores will be better.

This is what happens when we try to make education of children into a business marketplace, but don't make everyone follow the same rules.
It's a joke.

 

[BingleCocktail]

Because Mississippi is an odd state...

BANANA REPUBLIK?**

 

[Maroon Eagle]

BANANA REPUBLIK?**

Tater Republic. **

 

[WilCoDawg]

Curious interpretation.

What I care about, as a resident, is that public funds are spend appropriately.
Also, giving public funds to private religious institution that are allowed to discriminate enrollment requests, seems fundamentally unjustifiable and a violation of the state's protected classes.

Public funds should be spent on public education. It's really simple.

As for me as a parent- of course I want a better education for my children. There is 0 evidence that the fly-by-night organizations that have already announced they are coming to suck up voucher dollars even provide a better education.

We chose to live where we live because the public schools are strong. If I lived in a place where the schools were bad, I would either try to fix the issue, move, or pay for my kids to go elsewhere.
None of those include me expecting public funds to be sent to private schools that have no oversight and can selectively accept students.

I laugh when I see claims that one of the local parochials has good test scores. Well of course the schools I am thinking of have good test scores- they don't have to accept all children. They get to selectively take only those who don't have physical or mental disabilities. They get to selectively take only those who are at a certain proficiency level.
Yeah, obviously their test scores will be better.

This is what happens when we try to make education of children into a business marketplace, but don't make everyone follow the same rules.
It's a joke.

So you’re mad that private schools can’t afford to take kids with special needs? There comes a point that it’s not fiscally feasible to do that. There are private schools that do focus on disabilities. There’s one here in Nashville.
The funds may be public but they’re for the education of the children. Why does it bother you if the funds to educate kids is spent at a private school as long as the kids get a great education?
Your mentioning that if you don’t like your kids school, you’d move or pay for private is out of touch. Not everyone can do that. Vouchers provide those people with a great option for a quality education. And if the “fly by night” schools suck, do you think parents will keep their kids there?

 

[Perd Hapley]

Again, I shouldn't have to move when I live 2 miles from a good school and my county taxes are paid. It's the district's responsibility to provide the education I pay for. They didn't.

Uh yeah, you should have to move unless you also think another family who lives in the county 15 miles away from both schools should also just get to arbitrarily choose the city public school, too…..which would be absurd.

And yes, the county did provide the exact education that you and all your other county residents paid for. They built a school building and hired educators and administrators to run it. And, spoiler alert, it’s likely not the school or admistrators fault if the school is underperforming. County schools underperform their adjacent city counterparts at least by some extent almost across the board, with very few exceptions. And generally always for the same primary reason…..poorer student families (on average) with less educated and less involved parents on average. Not to mention less property tax and sales tax revenue being made available to pay those teachers competitively. But its the students and their families that make or break any public school. Always. Families with high expectations of both their kids and the school will hold school board members, superintendents, and teachers way more accountable than those who don’t.

But hey….why can’t you just send your kids to another school in a nearby district where all the actual in-district residents are paying way more taxes to support that school? Because that’s where your money doesn’t go….to a different tax base made up of people who chose to pony up for higher home prices per square foot and higher property taxes being routed to that school. In doing so, they made sure they could send their kids to that “better school”. That’s why.

 

[mstateglfr]

So you’re mad that private schools can’t afford to take kids with special needs? There comes a point that it’s not fiscally feasible to do that. There are private schools that do focus on disabilities. There’s one here in Nashville.
The funds may be public but they’re for the education of the children. Why does it bother you if the funds to educate kids is spent at a private school as long as the kids get a great education?
Your mentioning that if you don’t like your kids school, you’d move or pay for private is out of touch. Not everyone can do that. Vouchers provide those people with a great option for a quality education. And if the “fly by night” schools suck, do you think parents will keep their kids there?

Here is some some math.
Let's say a school district gets $9000 per student. That means some cost the district $5000 while others cost the district $9000 and others cost the district $20000.
In reality, the high number I cited is in the low end.
Anyways, if a private school only accepts kids without disabilities, they get the kids that cost $5000-9000 while receiving $9000 in funding voucher per student.
Meanwhile, the public school now has $9000 per student with fewer low cost students around to offset the more expensive students.
It shouldn't be difficult to see the issue.
This issue exists because public schools are, by law, required to educate kids even if they cost a lot. Private schools can pick and choose.

If private schools are receiving taxpayer money, they should be subject to basic processes like having open meetings, being audited to ensure public funds are spent responsibly, and accept students regardless of belief/limitation/gender/etc.


It should be shocking to see how many here selectively don't care about ensuring public funds are spent properly, but it's par for the course around here.

After all these posts, if you really still don't understand why I think spending public funds on private schools is dangerous, you simply aren't even trying to understand my views.
You don't have to agree with them, but it should be easy to at least understand them.

I eagerly await the first satanic school for little darlings that opens here. It should be fun to see the outrage, even though they are doing the very thing complainers were advocating for.

 

[Ranchdawg]

I would eliminate grade levels. Let kids work at their pace. The ones that fall behind don't hold back the others. The more ambitious get a jump on life. If they don't advance or want to be a college student, put them in a trade school (every district should have one). And there are ambitious kids who would love trade schooling as well. Give options on paths/directions instead of eliminating them as our government has to this point. Government is more concerned about $$$ than kids.

I'm a huge fan of this. In fact, my Masters thesis was on the benefits of grade skipping for advanced students. Right now it is "one size fits all". I believe every school district has a Career Technology Center. Ours caters to 5 high schools. The problem we have in America is that our high school graduates don't know what they want to be when they grow up. When the 8th and 9th grades visit our Center I ask each student individually what they plan to do after graduation. About 1 in 50 has an idea. My most successful students knew what they wanted to do when they started my class.

 

[WilCoDawg]

Here is some some math.
Let's say a school district gets $9000 per student. That means some cost the district $5000 while others cost the district $9000 and others cost the district $20000.
In reality, the high number I cited is in the low end.
Anyways, if a private school only accepts kids without disabilities, they get the kids that cost $5000-9000 while receiving $9000 in funding voucher per student.
Meanwhile, the public school now has $9000 per student with fewer low cost students around to offset the more expensive students.
It shouldn't be difficult to see the issue.
This issue exists because public schools are, by law, required to educate kids even if they cost a lot. Private schools can pick and choose.

If private schools are receiving taxpayer money, they should be subject to basic processes like having open meetings, being audited to ensure public funds are spent responsibly, and accept students regardless of belief/limitation/gender/etc.


It should be shocking to see how many here selectively don't care about ensuring public funds are spent properly, but it's par for the course around here.

After all these posts, if you really still don't understand why I think spending public funds on private schools is dangerous, you simply aren't even trying to understand my views.
You don't have to agree with them, but it should be easy to at least understand them.

I eagerly await the first satanic school for little darlings that opens here. It should be fun to see the outrage, even though they are doing the very thing complainers were advocating for.

Given the topics and matters discussed, public schools essentially meet that criteria already. No *** needed.

On a sidenote, I love the basic premise that schools need more money while it is also noted that they’re not doing a good job of educating since the format used is just dragging the smart students down to the lowest denominator.

There’s no discussion of how to fix our current public education system besides “throw more money at it”. This is exactly why vouchers are becoming so mainstream (even with minorities who would benefit the most from them). No one really wants to fix the problem.

 

[Ranchdawg]

Here is some some math.
Let's say a school district gets $9000 per student. That means some cost the district $5000 while others cost the district $9000 and others cost the district $20000.
In reality, the high number I cited is in the low end.
Anyways, if a private school only accepts kids without disabilities, they get the kids that cost $5000-9000 while receiving $9000 in funding voucher per student.
Meanwhile, the public school now has $9000 per student with fewer low cost students around to offset the more expensive students.
It shouldn't be difficult to see the issue.
This issue exists because public schools are, by law, required to educate kids even if they cost a lot. Private schools can pick and choose.

If private schools are receiving taxpayer money, they should be subject to basic processes like having open meetings, being audited to ensure public funds are spent responsibly, and accept students regardless of belief/limitation/gender/etc.


It should be shocking to see how many here selectively don't care about ensuring public funds are spent properly, but it's par for the course around here.

After all these posts, if you really still don't understand why I think spending public funds on private schools is dangerous, you simply aren't even trying to understand my views.
You don't have to agree with them, but it should be easy to at least understand them.

I eagerly await the first satanic school for little darlings that opens here. It should be fun to see the outrage, even though they are doing the very thing complainers were advocating for.

Personally, if a parent wants to send their child to the Satan's School and use public funds from the public school system I'm all for it. I'm for personal freedom in America and I love the idea of the voucher program. The real reason our Government is against it is because Newt Gingrich piloted the voucher program in Washington DC private schools. He allowed black students to use vouchers to gain access to some of the private schools that Congressional leaders had their children and grandchildren attending. He was immediately chastised and run out of Washington on a rail. The outrage by his contemporaries was palpable. Think about it, people paying for their kids to attend private school is primarily due to white flight.
I teach in public school and enjoy listening to public school teachers go crazy when I give my opinion on this. The standard response is, "If the kids go to private school then the funding is cut from our school. Some of us will lose our jobs!" Well, if a lot of kids leave what does that tell you about the your school? If kids flock to the private school that will mean new jobs open at the private schools so the number of teachers will remain the same just relocated. Competition may/will raise salaries. It does in industry. I'm sure the administrations at the private schools are more streamlined than the bloated public system.
I agree that responsible spending be audited by any entity using taxpayer money. In fact, I'd love to see how OUR money is being spent in the Ukraine.
BTW, I don't agree that a private school should be required to accept any student regardless of belief/limitation/gender/etc. Private school is a choice not a dictate. If little Johnny wants to attend Satan's School he should not be bothered by pesky Christians that annoy him while he is trying to learn!

 

[mstateglfr]

On a sidenote, I love the basic premise that schools need more money while it is also noted that they’re not doing a good job of educating since the format used is just dragging the smart students down to the lowest denominator.

Its wild, but perhaps more than one view exists? One view being schools are underfunded and increasing funding will help close gaps. Another view being schools are not focusing on the more talented enough.
Crazy that more than one view exists on an issue, right? I mean, what is wrong with people for not all having the exact same view?!?**

There’s no discussion of how to fix our current public education system besides “throw more money at it”. This is exactly why vouchers are becoming so mainstream (even with minorities who would benefit the most from them). No one really wants to fix the problem.

In many instances, it isnt 'throw more money at it', and its actually 'please dont continue to cut funding'. In specific instances I have mentioned and thought about thru this thread, it isnt actually throwing more money at the problem. If more money were thrown at the problem, it would only mean the same amount as prior years is being thrown at the problem.
Thats what happens when public education is continually villainized and attacked by one side for years and years- when they have power they pull funding thru a slow and steady process. Getting more funding now would really, in many instances, just get districts back to where they were before the cuts.

 

[johnson86-1]

Here is some some math.
Let's say a school district gets $9000 per student. That means some cost the district $5000 while others cost the district $9000 and others cost the district $20000.
In reality, the high number I cited is in the low end.
Anyways, if a private school only accepts kids without disabilities, they get the kids that cost $5000-9000 while receiving $9000 in funding voucher per student.
Meanwhile, the public school now has $9000 per student with fewer low cost students around to offset the more expensive students.
It shouldn't be difficult to see the issue.
This issue exists because public schools are, by law, required to educate kids even if they cost a lot. Private schools can pick and choose.

What you are describing is not an issue with vouchers, it's a problem with how we fund education. It's certainly not a reason to trap poor children in terrible schools.

If private schools are receiving taxpayer money, they should be subject to basic processes like having open meetings, being audited to ensure public funds are spent responsibly, and accept students regardless of belief/limitation/gender/etc.

It's perfectly reasonable to require schools that accept vouchers to not discriminate based on religion or race. I think single sex schools are fine. Not what I would choose for my children, but I don't see anything wrong with them. Outside of single sex schools, most private schools don't discriminate anyway, except on behavior. Certainly some religious schools do require students and parents sign on to a certain belief system, but most don't.

It should be shocking to see how many here selectively don't care about ensuring public funds are spent properly, but it's par for the course around here.

It's shocking that you are still insisting on misunderstanding what public funds are.

After all these posts, if you really still don't understand why I think spending public funds on private schools is dangerous, you simply aren't even trying to understand my views.
You don't have to agree with them, but it should be easy to at least understand them.

I eagerly await the first satanic school for little darlings that opens here. It should be fun to see the outrage, even though they are doing the very thing complainers were advocating for.

There will be idiots complain the first time a muslim school gets to accept vouchers. But idiots existing is not a great reason to condemn poor students to a ****** education and further stack the deck against them. The deck is stacked enough without affluent people working to make sure they don't have access to a decent school.

 

[johnson86-1]

Curious interpretation.

What I care about, as a resident, is that public funds are spend appropriately.
Also, giving public funds to private religious institution that are allowed to discriminate enrollment requests, seems fundamentally unjustifiable and a violation of the state's protected classes.

Public funds should be spent on public education. It's really simple.

As for me as a parent- of course I want a better education for my children. There is 0 evidence that the fly-by-night organizations that have already announced they are coming to suck up voucher dollars even provide a better education.

We chose to live where we live because the public schools are strong. If I lived in a place where the schools were bad, I would either try to fix the issue, move, or pay for my kids to go elsewhere.
None of those include me expecting public funds to be sent to private schools that have no oversight and can selectively accept students.

I laugh when I see claims that one of the local parochials has good test scores. Well of course the schools I am thinking of have good test scores- they don't have to accept all children. They get to selectively take only those who don't have physical or mental disabilities. They get to selectively take only those who are at a certain proficiency level.
Yeah, obviously their test scores will be better.

This is what happens when we try to make education of children into a business marketplace, but don't make everyone follow the same rules.
It's a joke.

It's always wild to me to see people more or less openly declare, I'm not poor and if my school is ****** I will move somewhere that has good schools (and is almost certainly more expensive in general) or pay for a private school. If poor parents want a better education for their children, they should try not being poor.

 

[Boom Boom]

There will be idiots complain the first time a muslim school gets to accept vouchers. But idiots existing is not a great reason to condemn poor students to a ****** education and further stack the deck against them. The deck is stacked enough without affluent people working to make sure they don't have access to a decent school.

Except there are plenty of ways to not condemn poor student to a bad education without destroying the public education system. Which is what these voucher proposals will do. And then once poor students are totally reliant on vouchers and private schools for an education...well that probably won't go well for them either.

 

[Boom Boom]

Except there are plenty of ways to not condemn poor student to a bad education without destroying the public education system. Which is what these voucher proposals will do. And then once poor students are totally reliant on vouchers and private schools for an education...well that probably won't go well for them either.

Let's put it this way: anyone who wants to can get a voucher to go to an out of state college. In state colleges will have funding reduced in kind. Sound like a good idea? Why are you against MS kids getting a good college education?

 

[johnson86-1]

Except there are plenty of ways to not condemn poor student to a bad education without destroying the public education system. Which is what these voucher proposals will do. And then once poor students are totally reliant on vouchers and private schools for an education...well that probably won't go well for them either.

Man, seems like it would have been good to try some of those over the last six decades. But no hurry I guess? What's another generation or two of poor kids that don't get a shot at a decent education?

 

[Pilgrimdawg]

It’s great to see so many debating how to best educate our youth and I applaud everyone’s sincere concern. However, the root cause of the vast majority of the problems in educating our youth is the complete failure and don’t care attitude of their Parents that make little to no effort to help or encourage them. We could have a perfect school system but without responsible Parents behind the students they are doomed to continue the failures that we see on our streets everyday. It’s a rinse and repeat cycle from one generation to the next that only gets worse with the higher birth rates of the uneducated.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

It’s great to see so many debating how to best educate our youth and I applaud everyone’s sincere concern. However, the root cause of the vast majority of the problems in educating our youth is the complete failure and don’t care attitude of their Parents that make little to no effort to help or encourage them. We could have a perfect school system but without responsible Parents behind the students they are doomed to continue the failures that we see on our streets everyday. It’s a rinse and repeat cycle from one generation to the next that only gets worse with the higher birth rates of the uneducated.

No, it's generally a socioeconomic issue. Those who have, generally do. Those who do not, don't in most cases. Not that there aren't exceptions (there are). But it's still the primary issue.

 

[Ranchdawg]

It’s great to see so many debating how to best educate our youth and I applaud everyone’s sincere concern. However, the root cause of the vast majority of the problems in educating our youth is the complete failure and don’t care attitude of their Parents that make little to no effort to help or encourage them. We could have a perfect school system but without responsible Parents behind the students they are doomed to continue the failures that we see on our streets everyday. It’s a rinse and repeat cycle from one generation to the next that only gets worse with the higher birth rates of the uneducated.

Nobody want to talk about the REAL problems in America because then you will be labeled. We have culture issues that need to be addressed and it is always swept under the carpet because anyone trying to address it gets labeled. Besides, one party loves to keep people down because it increases their voting base and allows them to pander as the "caring party".

 

[PRAVan1996]

I'll probably regret this but I want to weigh on the school choice debate. And I want to try to do so without pointing fingers at any individual posters here - because I believe you sincerely just want the best possible education for your children.

The problem with school vouchers is that some of the ideas for (or reasons behind) them mentioned by people on this board don't actually line up with how school voucher legislation is typically written. For example, some of the proponents here have suggested that if private schools do get public funds, they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate when picking students. The reality, however, is that voucher legislation is typically written so that private schools can continue to discriminate based on any factor they want (race, sex, belief, etc...). It's also written so that private schools can teach whatever they want to teach, without any sort oversight or consistency.

Similarly, some proponents on the board have suggested that if a private school does receive public funds, then we should be able to audit them. But again, voucher legislation is written in such a way that those schools can't actually be audited. Which, again, means those private schools are spending our tax dollars without any sort of oversight.

Proponents also like to point to the idea that vouchers can help low income students attend better schools. But that argument is disingenuous at best. Voucher legislation is written in such a way that it's never really fully funded. And that's intentional. It means low income students can't actually take advantage of the program. If Private School A costs $10,000 a year and the voucher is only for $4,000 a year, those lower income families can't cover the difference. But a middle or upper class family, who can probably already afford the tuition anyway, would be happy to have the tax payer give them a discount.

Voucher laws are written as basically one-way traffic - taxpayer money flows away from public schools, through middle and upper class families, to private schools but the private schools don't face any obligations about who they teach or what they teach, etc. And there aren't any regulations about who they hire as teachers. As mentioned a few times before, public schools don't have that luxury. They have to follow state curriculums and accept anyone in their district.

Somebody mentioned Newt Gingrich above. He has said publicly that his goal is to abolish the public school system in this country. The truth is that the voucher system - as it is actually written in legislative form - is design to starve the public school system of resources so that it eventually collapses. That then puts the cost of educating children on individuals (and not on the community as a whole), which obviously means that students from lower income families are going to be left further behind.

Whoever said above that calls for more funding for education in this day and age are less about giving schools more money and more about keeping their budgets from getting smaller is right. At least here in Mississippi anyway. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we have the lowest funding for education in the entire country (at least on a per student basis). So people saying that "giving more money to public education here won't help" don't actually know that. We've never fully funded education in this state so we don't know how outcomes would improve if we did spend more money on it.

There are legitimate criticisms of the educational system in this country (and certainly of the system here in Mississippi), plenty of which I agree with. I definitely sympathize with people who are in poorer performing school districts with no easy way out. And the "well just pick up and move" approach is a bit callous because that's obviously not possible for a lot of people.

I'm not an educator so I'm not going to pretend I know how to make public education in this state or this country better. But I do believe that public education - like police and fire and roads and the military and plenty of other tax payer-funded things - is a public good and should be supported by the community as a whole. If for no other reason than "A rising tide lifts all boats." And so anything - like a voucher program - that diminishes public schools is a bad idea.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

Nobody want to talk about the REAL problems in America because then you will be labeled.

Can we eschew culture labels and use the "stupid" label? We've got a lot of stupid people that spend way too much time on themselves at the expense of their own children and their community. They come from all different denominations, political tribes, and in all shapes, sizes, and colors. Their bank accounts vary as well. Plenty of blame to go around.

 

[Boom Boom]

Man, seems like it would have been good to try some of those over the last six decades. But no hurry I guess? What's another generation or two of poor kids that don't get a shot at a decent education?

Yeah, probably. So stop standing in the way already. I proposed something that would help, but you haven't supported it.

 

[mstateglfr]

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

 

[johnson86-1]

Yeah, probably. So stop standing in the way already. I proposed something that would help, but you haven't supported it.

What have you proposed? Loosening regulations on failing schools?

I think public schools often have their hands tied, but I'm not sure that giving more discretion to leaders of failing schools is going to help them.

What are you even envisioning? Allowing schools to send kids to alternative school more easily? I could see how that would help. I'm not sure reducing the administrative burden would move the needle. Exempt them from testing requirements? I'm not a fan of how we do testing, but I think that would be more likely be used to hide the failure than to actually reform how they teach.

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

These are some of the best points dealing with this issue that I have read in this entire thread and, I must say that golfer and PRA are really hitting the nail on the head:
Point #1 It's also written so that private schools can teach whatever they want to teach, without any sort oversight or consistency.
Point #2 Which, again, means those private schools are spending our tax dollars without any sort of oversight.
Point #3 But a middle or upper class family, who can probably already afford the tuition anyway, would be happy to have the tax payer give them a discount.
Point #4 We've never fully funded education in this state so we don't know how outcomes would improve if we did spend more money on it.
Point #5 The truth is that the voucher system - as it is actually written in legislative form - is design to starve the public school system of resources so that it eventually collapses.

I could not agree with these five points more. The reality is proponents of the school choice voucher system as proposed are looking to shut down the public education system. Some might think this is a great idea but many others including myself do not. The bashing of the public school system by politicians and others that have never set foot in a classroom make it seem like this is a viable option, but as we can see from the points above it is not really viable. Not only that but it would only make the situation for poor kids worse unless the money comes with oversight this is a really just another power grab by the wealthy. I can not believe I am agreeing with golfer but his analysis is spot on in terms of accountability. As long as private schools are allowed to play by their own set of rules then they should never receive any kind of public funds.

 

[Boom Boom]

What have you proposed? Loosening regulations on failing schools?

I think public schools often have their hands tied, but I'm not sure that giving more discretion to leaders of failing schools is going to help them.

What are you even envisioning? Allowing schools to send kids to alternative school more easily? I could see how that would help. I'm not sure reducing the administrative burden would move the needle. Exempt them from testing requirements? I'm not a fan of how we do testing, but I think that would be more likely be used to hide the failure than to actually reform how they teach.

No. Vouchers, dollar for dollar, all expenses paid, but only for high achieving students to leave for better schools, or for older public school students to leave failing schools. It gives you what you say you want, while not destroying the public school system. Again, my (extra) tax dollars shouldn't go to a family that just doesn't want to use a good public school, or to idiot kids.

I can also be behind giving states/localities more room to do something different than federal regs/funding typically allows for failing schools. I fear that some states would drive schools to failing so they could take over, but that could probably be dealt with.