100 Million for Religious Schools

[JoeyKnothead]

Caviar - the article doesn't say exactly how much of this 100 M goes to purely religious schools, but judging by the uproar, it may be quite high.

From the article here.

In a 225 to 195 vote, the House approved H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act. This legislation reauthorizes and expands the Washington, D.C. Federal private school voucher pilot program, under which millions of Federal taxpayer dollars — $100M per year over the next five years — are funneled into a voucher system which favors private religious schools over public and charter schools.

...religious schools, which, under this program, are allowed to discriminate in hiring and enrollment on the basis of religion.

...many schools that accepted voucher students did not meet accreditation and other quality education standards, and student achievement did not show statistically significant improvement.

For debate:

Is this a violation of church / state separation?

Could this money be better spent in improving the schools this program is designed to replace?

In a time when so many politicians, including the Speaker of the House, declare we must tighten the budget, is this a wise expenditure?

Is this just pandering to religious voters?

[East of Eden]

Strawman No one said that there was no difference between public and private schools.

Right that's why I've been spending half this thread answering challenges on that.

The point was that public schools have a mandate to educate the public and therefore lack to ability to be selective with regards to whom is enrolled. Private schools are able to pick the cream from the crop, if they so choose.

If that what the Catholic schools do? I don't think so. I could just as easily say public schools should be producing better students with their funding advantage. They're not.

The student body found at public schools is going to be different from the student body found at private schools. You acknowledge that there is a difference between public and private schools, yet you fail to take the difference between student bodies into consideration when comparing various schools. If you take the entire student population from a failing inner-city public school in Chicago and transfer all the kids to a Catholic school down the street, would not some of the hurdles that students face simply follow the student body?

There are studies showing kids from the same inner city area do better in Catholic schools, have higher rates of graduation, etc.

Also, people sacrifice and send their kids to private schools for a variety of reasons. I have a good friend who sent her kids to a Christian school because she wanted, admittedly, for them to be indoctrinated into the Christian faith at a young age.

So what? As I've already said the GI Bill could be used for theological seminary training.

Public tax dollars should not be going towards the religious indoctrination of school children.

Whether the parent wants their kid to be 'indoctrinated' in Christianity or naturalistic evolution is their business, not yours.

No ifs, ands, or buts about this; public funds supporting religious instruction is against the Establishment Clause of the Constitution!!!

Baloney, if parents sent their kids to a Methodist, a Jewish, a Muslim, and a Baptist school, which religious body is thereby established? NONE.

As for the claim that Catholic schools are cheaper, no supporting evidence is given. This guy on Fox News is just comparing two random schools that he selected. Perhaps the public school provides school buses, free and reduced lunches, provides expensive special education and speech therapy, and a whole lot of other activities that are not discussed. Of course a school that provides transportation is going to cost more than one that doesn’t. Should stuff like this be taken into account?

So if these extras aren't producing a better result, maybe we should get rid of some.

You are cherry-picking your data. Middlesex School is a private school that costs $31,000. How does this figure into your argument?

Your exception doesn't invalidate the averages at all. So that's where our former Governor went to school?

Catholic schools are heavily subsidized by the Church, that’s why they are cheap. Again, if we transfer the entire student body from all public schools and put those very same students into Catholic schools, will the Catholic church be able to subsidize everyone's education at these same rates? And if so, why doesn’t the Catholic Church just subsidize public education? Wouldn’t that be the Christian thing to do?

Why would they want to subsidize an amoral, failing system? Nothing Christian about that.

Your criticism of Teacher Unions is also unsupported. Perhaps unionized teachers are more expensive, but evidence shows that the presence of teacher unions has a positive effect on achievement. Out of the 10 states that have virtually no collective bargaining for teachers [none in AL, AZ, GA, MS, NC, SC, TX, and VA; there is only one district with a contract in LA, and two in AR], only Virginia has an average rank above the median, while four are in the bottom 10, and seven are in the bottom 15. In contrast, nine of the 10 states with the highest student achievement, as measured by the NAEP tests, have the highest concentration of unionized, collectively bargaining teachers.[2]

Yes, I saw your Washington Post article written by the teacher's union, here's a link showing no link between rising education costs and better test scores:

http://blog.riseofreason.com/teachers-u ... ation/661/

[Wyvern]

No, where is the money for the voucher itself supposedly coming from.

The same place the money for public schools comes from.

Exactly, you advocate that parents that send their children to private schools should not have to pay into the public school system and at the same time should be given money from this system they no longer pay into to subsidize their childs private education.

So how can you claim that three thousand dollars would be saved by the school?

Because they pay $3K for the voucher but don't spend $6K on the student in public schools

So you want public schools to pay for private school vouchers and at the same time have these parents of private school children no longer pay into the public school system? As previously stated a loss of one student is not going to change the expenses of a school, the school is still has to spend the same amount on employees, buildings and materials. So I will ask once again where is this money coming from? You aren't saving any money by taking both the student and the taxes their parent was contributing to the system away and by adding this same system now has to pay 3k towards the education of the student whose parents aren't even paying into the system this adds up to a loss for the public education system not a gain as you seem to think.

Where have I ever said there was no difference? Some schools are better than others regardless of whether they are public or private. The example I have given previously between MN and NM schools are a good illustration of this.

We're talking better or worse within a given area. Wouldn't you want your kid to go to the best school?

And your belief that private schools are universally better is unfounded. As you have said a number of times your district spends around 14k per student but your statewide average is closer to 7k per student, that tells me there's a lot of districts within your state that doesn't spend much on education. You may call the performance of students in your district mediocre at best but I would bet they are near the top in your state. The fact that your district can afford better teachers, facilities and materials gives them a leg up on other districts in your area, instilling the proper attitude in the students towards education is the parents responsibility.

The contradiction is that it starts out at 2:1 and ends at 2:1 even though in the middle an unidentified yet admittedly large amount is added. I'll say it again, if this is your idea of an analysis...

You need to be more specific before you go alleging contradictions.

How can I be more specific when your "analysis" gives no data. I'll say it again how can you start at one figure(2:1) add more expenses and come up with the same figure you started with? I would hope you understand that you can't add two numbers together and get the first number.

These parents have the option of putting their children in public education, they don't have to pay twice as you put it, they choose to do so.

Because the public schools are often lousy.

I don't see how this takes away from the freedom of choice that private school parents have chosen. You are simply trying to reward them for this choice.

Your idea would end up eradicating public education as the people that can afford it to pull out of putting their money into the public education system which would leave the system severely underfunded and even worse performing.

No it wouldn't, I've already shown they would profit $3K for every kid that leaves.

Lets see the fixed costs will still be spent by public school and will not be affected by any individual student leaving. On top of that the private school parents no longer pay into public school funding and on top of that receive 3k from the pool of funds they no longer pay into, I'm not seeing where this 3k profit comes from. It sounds like you are trying to create a welfare program that gets funded from public education funds.

Paying for public education is a civic duty no different than paying for public transit or libraries, even if you do not use that particular service it is good for the community at large to have it.

Paying for education, whether it is private or public should be irrelevant.

I wouldn't argue with that as long as private schools are under the same obligations and restraints as public schools.

After all if you can make the argument that those people that send their children to private schools should not contribute to public schools you can make the same exact argument for those that have no children or whose children have already graduated.

And using your argument it would be just as fair to have parents of public schools subsidize private schools.

That is exactly what you are advocating. You are advocating that private school parents should not have to contribute to public school funds because they have no children in the public school system. The same can be said of people that have no children or whose children have already graduated so by your logic they also should not have to pay into public education. My argument is that all these people should pay into public education because it is a civic duty and it is good for the nation.

There's change and then there's radical change such as you are advocating.

With a $14 trillion deficit, it's time for radical change.

Only way to make a significant reduction in that now is if you radically reduce the size of the military which after the current conflict is concluded would be easy to do.

As a citizen of the United States you are made to pay for political goals you may disagree with.

You shouldn't have to violate your conscience in order to hold a job.

Who says any teacher is violating their conscience? By the same argument you shouldn't have to violate your conscience to hold citizenship.

You seem to think this is grounds for disbanding unions by the same logic it is also grounds for disbanding the nation which a number of Republicans are actually calling for secession, the most noteworthy Republican involved with these secessionists is Palin.

Cite? I don't think she has ever advocated it, she may have associated with proponents of it the same way Obama has associated with an unrepentant terrorist and a racist, America-hating pastor.

The pastor was exercising his freedom of speech, the terrorist was nearly thirty years after the fact. Palin on the other hand has associated with active secessionists during her time as governor. Do you think we have forgotten your repeated attempts to smear the presidents name by saying he was paling around with a terrorist?

[Wyvern]

As for the claim that Catholic schools are cheaper, no supporting evidence is given. This guy on Fox News is just comparing two random schools that he selected. Perhaps the public school provides school buses, free and reduced lunches, provides expensive special education and speech therapy, and a whole lot of other activities that are not discussed. Of course a school that provides transportation is going to cost more than one that doesn’t. Should stuff like this be taken into account?

So if these extras aren't producing a better result, maybe we should get rid of some.

I think it would be humorous if you would take away school busing from all those staunchly conservative rural areas of the country. They pride themselves on their independance because they take so much for granted.

[East of Eden]

Exactly, you advocate that parents that send their children to private schools should not have to pay into the public school system

Where did I ever say that?

and at the same time should be given money from this system they no longer pay into to subsidize their childs private education.

So you want public schools to pay for private school vouchers and at the same time have these parents of private school children no longer pay into the public school system?

Wrong, never said that.

And your belief that private schools are universally better is unfounded.

Why not let the parents decide?

As you have said a number of times your district spends around 14k per student but your statewide average is closer to 7k per student, that tells me there's a lot of districts within your state that doesn't spend much on education. You may call the performance of students in your district mediocre at best but I would bet they are near the top in your state. The fact that your district can afford better teachers, facilities and materials gives them a leg up on other districts in your area, instilling the proper attitude in the students towards education is the parents responsibility.

See my prior graph, showing no correlation between higher education spending and better grades.

I don't see how this takes away from the freedom of choice that private school parents have chosen. You are simply trying to reward them for this choice.

Better them than the teacher's unions.

Lets see the fixed costs will still be spent by public school and will not be affected by any individual student leaving.

They could always lay off some unneeded beaurocrats.

On top of that the private school parents no longer pay into public school funding and on top of that receive 3k from the pool of funds they no longer pay into,

Again, I never said that.

I wouldn't argue with that as long as private schools are under the same obligations and restraints as public schools.

We agree.

That is exactly what you are advocating. You are advocating that private school parents should not have to contribute to public school funds because they have no children in the public school system.

Again, I never said that. Voucher recipients would still pay property taxes or however that district pays for education.

The Only way to make a significant reduction in that now is if you radically reduce the size of the military which after the current conflict is concluded would be easy to do.

You mean the one Obama just started in Libya, without UN or Congressional approval?

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Sen. Obama, 2007

Who says any teacher is violating their conscience?

By forcing them to pay union dues that will then go to support Obama-like candidates they may disagree with.

The pastor was exercising his freedom of speech,

So were the secessionists.

the the terrorist was nearly thirty years after the fact.

You would think he could repent of his crimes during that time, wouldn't you?

Palin on the other hand has associated with active secessionists during her time as governor. Do you think we have forgotten your repeated attempts to smear the presidents name by saying he was paling around with a terrorist?

And a racist, anti-American pastor who gives awards to the nutcase Louis Farakkan.

[bobroonie]

Yawn.

No different that the GI Bill, which could be used for theological training, or Medicare, much of which goes to religious health-care providers. There is no government establishment of religion here.

Considering how much better faith-based schools do in educating kids over the government monopoly/teacher's unions complex, I'm glad to see this.

Religion is taking more free money from the government without paying taxes.

No different then the GI bill?

Service members pay taxes and have to sign up and pay into the GI bill if they want the benefits. I should know I had to pay into it. It's not this free schooling you just get for joining the service.

Better schooling?

Religious schools teach that religion is real with no fact, no proof and leading with faith.

Faith: When I don't know means god did it.

Yeah I would say that's one big scam that has the house fooled.

[Wyvern]

Exactly, you advocate that parents that send their children to private schools should not have to pay into the public school system

Where did I ever say that?

and at the same time should be given money from this system they no longer pay into to subsidize their childs private education.

So you want public schools to pay for private school vouchers and at the same time have these parents of private school children no longer pay into the public school system?

Wrong, never said that.

Oops, my bad confused your argument with Winepushers from the other thread about schools. This just shifts the argument to those parents that do not pay property taxes such as people that live in apartments.

And your belief that private schools are universally better is unfounded.

Why not let the parents decide?

I think it would be better to let the data determine which is better. Also noone is stopping any parent from putting their child into a private school.

See my prior graph, showing no correlation between higher education spending and better grades.

When averaged you are correct, but do you really think there is no difference between your district that spends 14k and a district that spends 3k?

I don't see how this takes away from the freedom of choice that private school parents have chosen. You are simply trying to reward them for this choice.

Better them than the teacher's unions.

How cheeky, come back when you want to give a substantive response.

Lets see the fixed costs will still be spent by public school and will not be affected by any individual student leaving.

They could always lay off some unneeded beaurocrats.

Wow two cheeky nonsubstantive responses in a row.

Voucher recipients would still pay property taxes or however that district pays for education.

What about those parents that do not pay property taxes such as renters?

The Only way to make a significant reduction in that now is if you radically reduce the size of the military which after the current conflict is concluded would be easy to do.

You mean the one Obama just started in Libya, without UN or Congressional approval?

Actually those strikes were carried out with UN approval. In addition you will be happy to know that Obama did not start it nor is the US the lead country in the action.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Sen. Obama, 2007

Then you will be happy to know that it was not carried out unilaterally, it was authorized by the UN and is being implemented by NATO.

Who says any teacher is violating their conscience?

By forcing them to pay union dues that will then go to support Obama-like candidates they may disagree with.

Noone is forcing them to join a union, are private school teachers also part of this union? By the same argument we should disband the US because people are being forced to pay taxes to a nation that carries out policies many people disagree with

The pastor was exercising his freedom of speech,

So were the secessionists.

Are you a secessionist?

the the terrorist was nearly thirty years after the fact.

You would think he could repent of his crimes during that time, wouldn't you?

Last time I checked treason is a bigger crime than terrorism. Funny how you give right wing traitors a free pass but a left wing uncharged terrorist is guilty forever.

Palin on the other hand has associated with active secessionists during her time as governor. Do you think we have forgotten your repeated attempts to smear the presidents name by saying he was paling around with a terrorist?

And a racist, anti-American pastor who gives awards to the nutcase Louis Farakkan.

Nicely done attempt to shift the argument but it doesn't take away the fact that during Palins short lived governorship some of her closest advisors were avowed secessionists.

[nursebenjamin]

Strawman No one said that there was no difference between public and private schools.

Right that's why I've been spending half this thread answering challenges on that.

Ummm, the conversation that we were having (which you omitted) was over the composition of student populations at public and private schools. The student population at public and private schools is different. My original point was that “kids at one school could have begun that school with certain advantages…�.

When comparing across schools, one needs to take into account the differences in student population at those schools. The Department of Education released a report concluding that average test scores for reading and mathematics, when adjusted for student and school characteristics, tend to be very similar among public schools and private schools. If results were left unadjusted for factors such as race, gender, and free or reduced price lunch program eligibility, private schools performed significantly better than public schools.[3]

And by the way, you have not presented any evidence, besides a single Fox News opinion piece, supporting your claim that private schools are better than public schools at educating children.

The point was that public schools have a mandate to educate the public and therefore lack to ability to be selective with regards to whom is enrolled. Private schools are able to pick the cream from the crop, if they so choose.

If that what the Catholic schools do? I don't think so. I could just as easily say public schools should be producing better students with their funding advantage. They're not.

Like I said earlier, you can say anything that you wish, but saying something won’t necessarily make it true. Your claim that public schools are not producing better students is unsubstantiated (again). Please provide support for this claim.

The student body found at public schools is going to be different from the student body found at private schools. You acknowledge that there is a difference between public and private schools, yet you fail to take the difference between student bodies into consideration when comparing various schools. If you take the entire student population from a failing inner-city public school in Chicago and transfer all the kids to a Catholic school down the street, would not some of the hurdles that students face simply follow the student body?

There are studies showing kids from the same inner city area do better in Catholic schools, have higher rates of graduation, etc.

I’m not going to take your word on this. Please support this claim.

Anyhow, your response doesn’t address my post. It’s not surprising that from any given area, some kids will graduate and some kids will not regardless as to which high school they go to. My post was about the entire neighborhood: richer kids, poorer kids, kids which more parental guidance, kids with no parental involvement, hungry kids, kids that eat three meals a day, kids that have college aspirations, kids that are neglected, abused, etc… If you take the entire student population from a failing inner-city public school in Chicago and transfer all the kids to a Catholic school down the street, would not some of the hurdles that students face, simply follow the student body?

Also, people sacrifice and send their kids to private schools for a variety of reasons. I have a good friend who sent her kids to a Christian school because she wanted, admittedly, for them to be indoctrinated into the Christian faith at a young age. Public tax dollars should not be going towards the religious indoctrination of school children.

So what? As I've already said the GI Bill could be used for theological seminary training. … Whether the parent wants their kid to be 'indoctrinated' in Christianity or naturalistic evolution is their business, not yours. … Baloney, if parents sent their kids to a Methodist, a Jewish, a Muslim, and a Baptist school, which religious body is thereby established? NONE.

I acknowledge your point on the G.I. Bill. The Supreme Court has ruled (by a 5-4 margin) that vouchers to religious schools do not violate the Constitution. And the dissenting opinion was that the Government should not be subsidizing the religious indoctrination of minor children. Personally, I don’t have a problem with the G.I. Bill. An education is something that the military uses to entice adults into joining. Veterans should be allowed to use that benefit at any accredited college or vocational school.

I view the religious indoctrination of children to be a form of child abuse -- the fear of Hell, the fear to critically think, the fear to examine the evidence for the existence of a God, fear of the celestial dictatorship -- and the government should have no part. I feel that the United States is on the verge of becoming a Theocracy, and the indoctrination of children is something that should concern us all.

I’m not sure where you are going with this evolution tangent. Evolution is a fact and an explanation that unifies the field of Biology. Children should have access to the current body of knowledge from all fields: chemistry, biology, history, physics, and health. If you which to debate the fact of evolution, there are lots of threads on this subject open in the science subforum.

As for the claim that Catholic schools are cheaper, no supporting evidence is given. This guy on Fox News is just comparing two random schools that he selected. Perhaps the public school provides school buses, free and reduced lunches, provides expensive special education and speech therapy, and a whole lot of other activities that are not discussed. Of course a school that provides transportation is going to cost more than one that doesn’t. Should stuff like this be taken into account?

So if these extras aren't producing a better result, maybe we should get rid of some.

What do you suggest that we get rid of? Transportation? Free school lunches to needy kids? Special education? Speech therapy? You’re lack of concern for the wellbeing of school children is disturbing.

And how is transportation and school lunch not "producing results"? Please substantiate this claim.

You are cherry-picking your data. Middlesex School is a private school that costs $31,000. How does this figure into your argument?

Your exception doesn't invalidate the averages at all. So that's where our former Governor went to school?

You are not talking averages. You are comparing cherry-picked school districts with highly subsidized Catholic schools.

You Catholic schools are heavily subsidized by the Church, that’s why they are cheap. Again, if we transfer the entire student body from all public schools and put those very same students into Catholic schools, will the Catholic church be able to subsidize everyone's education at these same rates? And if so, why doesn’t the Catholic Church just subsidize public education? Wouldn’t that be the Christian thing to do?

Why would they want to subsidize an amoral, failing system? Nothing Christian about that.

Unsubstantiated claim! Some school districts, especially those in highly impoverished area are failing. Do you have any proof that the entire system is failing?

Your criticism of Teacher Unions is also unsupported. Perhaps unionized teachers are more expensive, but evidence shows that the presence of teacher unions has a positive effect on achievement. Out of the 10 states that have virtually no collective bargaining for teachers [none in AL, AZ, GA, MS, NC, SC, TX, and VA; there is only one district with a contract in LA, and two in AR], only Virginia has an average rank above the median, while four are in the bottom 10, and seven are in the bottom 15. In contrast, nine of the 10 states with the highest student achievement, as measured by the NAEP tests, have the highest concentration of unionized, collectively bargaining teachers.[2]

Yes, I saw your Washington Post article written by the teacher's union, here's a link showing no link between rising education costs and better test scores:

http://blog.riseofreason.com/teachers-u ... ation/661/

A. The article wasn’t written by “the teacher’s union�.
B. You neglected to address my point that evidence shows that the presence of teacher unions has a positive effect on student achievement and that the lack of teacher unions has a negative effect on achievement.
C. Your response is nothing but another Strawman. We are talking about unions here, not about the rising cost of education. There’s a ton of reasons why the cost of education is rising, and you didn’t even attempt to link the rising cost of education with teachers unions. If your argument is that unions are to blame for the rising cost of education, can you please substantiate this claim?

***

The blog that you linked talks a whole lot about “school choice�. School vouchers have nothing to do with school choice. It is nothing but another attempt to transfer public money to wealthy individuals. The poorest of the poor aren’t going to be able to attend private schools even if they had a voucher. Or perhaps the only private school available won’t admit them because they are Muslim, or have ADHD, or are black.

“From a societal standpoint, [vouchers are] an unacceptable choice, because so many children will not have the choice. They will not be able to afford the schools even with vouchers; will not be chosen by private schools for a specific reason, or for no reason at all, or perhaps for a socially unacceptable reason like race or religion; or maybe their parents will not be able to afford the transportation, the uniform, or the school trips. It is unpalatable for a parent to have to choose between giving up his child’s religious upbringing and getting the child the education he or she needs. To call vouchers school choice is a misnomer, for they merely leave many with a worse choice or no choice. The poorest are left behind in schools that are even more bound to fail.�[4] (page 6)

There’s 6 million children in private schools right now.[5] If every one of them is given a $3000 voucher, that is going to cost the government 18 billion dollars. Where is this money going to come from?

If you send more children to private schools with a $3000 voucher, where will this money come from? It can not come from existing school budgets. Even if you remove a handful of children from a school, that school will still have to operate with almost the same obligations as before. Teachers still have to be paid, buses have to run, the heating bill has to be paid, and the cafeteria ladies earn a salary regardless of whether or not a handful of students have been transferred to a private school. If a school district hands out 10 vouchers, they can not simply lay off a cafeteria worker or custodian.

[East of Eden]

Oops, my bad confused your argument with Winepushers from the other thread about schools. This just shifts the argument to those parents that do not pay property taxes such as people that live in apartments.

The apartment builidng owner would pay, just like now.

How cheeky, come back when you want to give a substantive response.

That was a serious comment. You seem very willing to go against the wishes of the parents, but would never inconvenience the teacher's unions, I suspect because they are such a cash-cow to your party.

Wow two cheeky nonsubstantive responses in a row.

That says a lot about you that laying off redundant bureaucrats is a joke.

What about those parents that do not pay property taxes such as renters?

What about them right now? Nothing would change with a voucher program except it would save a school district money.

Actually those strikes were carried out with UN approval.

Cite?

Noone is forcing them to join a union,

I'm not sure about that, unions members today are being forced through their dues to support politicians they disagree with. That should be a scandal.

Are you a secessionist?

No, but I do believe in freedom of speech, whether a secessionist or Obama's unrepentant terrorist friend.

Last time I checked treason is a bigger crime than terrorism. Funny how you give right wing traitors a free pass but a left wing uncharged terrorist is guilty forever.

The secessionist haven't set off bombs or killed people like Ayers. Ayer's group (Weathermen) did declare war on the US.

Nicely done attempt to shift the argument

Kind of like you bringing up Palin.



"Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly the same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. This is what economists call negative productivity.

But education is an industry where we measure performance backwards: We guage school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn't pay teachers enough or we need smaller clas sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores.

The same is true for almost all other government services. Mass transit spends more and more every year and yet a much smaller share of Americans use trains and buses today than in past decades. One way that private companies spur productivity is by firing underperforming employees and rewarding excellence. In government employment, tenure for teachers and near lifetime employment for other civil servants shields workers from this basic system of reward and punishment. It is a system that breeds mediocrity, which is what we've gotten.

Most reasonable steps to restrain public-sector employment costs are smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20-40% off the cost of many services - fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operations - through competitive contracting to private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts. Public employees maintain that they are underpaid relative to equally qualified public-sector workers, yet they are deathly afraid of competitive bidding for government services.

We need to grow the economy that makes things, not the sector that takes things."

Stephen Moore, senior econimics writer for The Wall Street Journal

[Wyvern]

Oops, my bad confused your argument with Winepushers from the other thread about schools. This just shifts the argument to those parents that do not pay property taxes such as people that live in apartments.

The apartment builidng owner would pay, just like now.

So you are advocating a new welfare program.

How cheeky, come back when you want to give a substantive response.

That was a serious comment. You seem very willing to go against the wishes of the parents, but would never inconvenience the teacher's unions, I suspect because they are such a cash-cow to your party.

My party? You are under the mistaken notion that I am a member of any political party. You can suspect all you want but if this is what you suspect you would be wrong. How can I consider this a serious comment considering the contortions you had to perform to be able to insert your favorite whipping boy of the moment into the conversation.

Wow two cheeky nonsubstantive responses in a row.

That says a lot about you that laying off redundant bureaucrats is a joke.

That you automatically assume that there are bureaucrats just hanging around doing nothing is a joke and that you seem to think this is a reflection of reality is just sad.

What about those parents that do not pay property taxes such as renters?

What about them right now? Nothing would change with a voucher program except it would save a school district money.

Except under your proposed program they would be given 3k per child that goes to a private school while not paying anything into the public education coffers which you want to fund this whole thing. I remember you saying not to long ago that your proposed program would actually be a positive to the schools. Unless you are also proposing to drastically change how property taxes work this can only end up destroying public education. The worst hit areas would also be the areas that can afford it the least, poor urban areas.

Actually those strikes were carried out with UN approval.

Cite?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12782972 I guess you haven't been paying attention to the news.

Noone is forcing them to join a union,

I'm not sure about that, unions members today are being forced through their dues to support politicians they disagree with. That should be a scandal.

Be careful what you ask for, if unions are not allowed to support campaigns then neither would corporations. American citizens today are being forced through their taxes to support policies they disagree with. How is this any less scandalous than what you are saying?

Are you a secessionist?

No, but I do believe in freedom of speech, whether a secessionist or Obama's unrepentant terrorist friend.

There you go again calling him a friend, do you call everyone you meet friend?

Last time I checked treason is a bigger crime than terrorism. Funny how you give right wing traitors a free pass but a left wing uncharged terrorist is guilty forever.

The secessionist haven't set off bombs or killed people like Ayers. Ayer's group (Weathermen) did declare war on the US.

Ayers never killed anyone, could you provide evidence that he did. While you're at it also provide proof that the Weathermen declared war on the US. The last time that secessionists got any political traction it turned into the bloodiest comflict in US history. I guess it's true if you don't know history its easy to make the same mistakes.

"Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly the same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. This is what economists call negative productivity.

I like how he doesn't take into account that the tests themselves change. Wow who would have thought that in thirty-five years schoold employment would double just as the general population also nearly doubled.

But education is an industry where we measure performance backwards: We guage school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn't pay teachers enough or we need smaller clas sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores.

Last time I checked a child was not a machine nor is education in the manufacturing sector. If this person wanted to make a valid comparison he would have used the service sector. If you can find a way to incorporate automation into education(which is how manufacturing got most of its productivity gains)I'd back it. Children are not machines, there is no education assembly line where you have teachers busily bolting on bits of knowledge.

Most reasonable steps to restrain public-sector employment costs are smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20-40% off the cost of many services - fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operations - through competitive contracting to private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts. Public employees maintain that they are underpaid relative to equally qualified public-sector workers, yet they are deathly afraid of competitive bidding for government services.

Back in the nineteenth century they tried privatizing fire fighting, it didn't work the competing fire fighters would fight each other and let the fires burn. There are a number of private prisons already, with little to no savings. In my area garbage collection is entirely private and has been for as long as I've been alive, one of my granduncles was a garbage collector.

[/url]

[East of Eden]

So you are advocating a new welfare program.

What are you talking about now?

My party? You are under the mistaken notion that I am a member of any political party. You can suspect all you want but if this is what you suspect you would be wrong.

OK, how about I change 'party' to 'liberal movement'?

How can I consider this a serious comment considering the contortions you had to perform to be able to insert your favorite whipping boy of the moment into the conversation.

You mean like you bringing up Palin?

That you automatically assume that there are bureaucrats just hanging around doing nothing is a joke and that you seem to think this is a reflection of reality is just sad.

What's sad is the fact you are ignorant this is going on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/2 ... 19336.html

Note in NYC 700 teachers, including those charged with sex offenses, are doing nothing all day at a cost of $65,000,000. Explain how this helps to educate kids? I guess at least they aren't doing any damage to the kids.

Except under your proposed program they would be given 3k per child that goes to a private school

while the public school doesn't have to spend $6K educating that kid. They just made $3K.

while not paying anything into the public education coffers which you want to fund this whole thing.

Will you quite making stuff up? For the umpteenth time, I never said that.

I remember you saying not to long ago that your proposed program would actually be a positive to the schools. Unless you are also proposing to drastically change how property taxes work this can only end up destroying public education.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12782972 I guess you haven't been paying attention to the news.

Thank you, but there was no Congressional approval as Bush obtained.

Be careful what you ask for, if unions are not allowed to support campaigns then neither would corporations.

You're making stuff up again, I never said unions shouldn't be able to support campaigns, I said union members should be able to opt out of having their dues support candidates they disagree with. Who could oppose that?

American citizens today are being forced through their taxes to support policies they disagree with.

Like Obamacare?

There you go again calling him a friend, do you call everyone you meet friend?

If I was a politician and launched my political career in someone's house I would call them a friend.

Ayers never killed anyone, could you provide evidence that he did. While you're at it also provide proof that the Weathermen declared war on the US. The last time that secessionists got any political traction it turned into the bloodiest comflict in US history. I guess it's true if you don't know history its easy to make the same mistakes.

If he didn't kill anyone, it was sheer luck.

"Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days.

Some media reports and political critics have suggested that Ayers, Dohrn or the Weathermen were connected to the fatal 1970 San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing but neither Ayers nor anyone else has been charged or convicted of this crime.[19] Wikipedia

How about this quote from the creep Ayers:

Larry Grathwohl, an undercover FBI agent who infiltrated The Weather Underground, claimed that Ayers wanted to overthrow the United States government. In an interview in January 2009, Grathwohl stated that:

"The thing the most bone chilling thing Bill Ayers said to me was that after the revolution succeeded and the government was overthrown, they believed they would have to eliminate 25 million Americans who would not conform to the new order."[59]

Is that someone the future President of the United States should have been associating with?

Last time I checked a child was not a machine nor is education in the manufacturing sector. If this person wanted to make a valid comparison he would have used the service sector. If you can find a way to incorporate automation into education(which is how manufacturing got most of its productivity gains)I'd back it. Children are not machines, there is no education assembly line where you have teachers busily bolting on bits of knowledge.

We should treat kids education at least as seriously as we do manufacturing, instead of coddling an expensive, inefficient monopoly.

Back in the nineteenth century they tried privatizing fire fighting, it didn't work the competing fire fighters would fight each other and let the fires burn. There are a number of private prisons already, with little to no savings. In my area garbage collection is entirely private and has been for as long as I've been alive, one of my granduncles was a garbage collector.

Why are you so afraid of competition?