Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
So the answer can't ever be 'no state dabbling',

Sure it can.

How, raise state taxes? Abolish public schools? Please enlighten us

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
So the answer can't ever be 'no state dabbling',

Sure it can.

How, raise state taxes? Abolish public schools? Please enlighten us

The wonders of the Free Market™!

 agnosto wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Not really since they nearly all prove as equally inept as the feds at it.

Oh, well I guess they better get back to wasting their time legislating for schools to read out prayers read by congress.

Self-fulfilling prophecy, much?

I'm very jaded in the matter. I have seen bill after bill work its way through my state legislature. Each one started as a well-meaning "adjustment" to public education but ended in nothing more than increased confusion and bureaucracy.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma. There is your problem right there. That is why you ae jaded about state government.

 Easy E wrote:

Oklahoma. There is your problem right there. That is why you ae jaded about state government.

Yeah, no argument.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
So the answer can't ever be 'no state dabbling',

Sure it can.

How, raise state taxes? Abolish public schools? Please enlighten us

The wonders of the Free Market™!

I'm still waitng on Seaward though.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
So the answer can't ever be 'no state dabbling',

Sure it can.

How, raise state taxes? Abolish public schools? Please enlighten us

Abolish public schools. Use that money for vouchers.

I assume by public we mean schools you do not need to pay to attend.

 Seaward wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
So the answer can't ever be 'no state dabbling',

Sure it can.

How, raise state taxes? Abolish public schools? Please enlighten us

Abolish public schools. Use that money for vouchers.

So, get rid of government. And then create more government that won't work as well.

 Seaward wrote:
Sure it can.

Well yeah, some people do pine for a return a return to the utopian society before public education. But I'm not in the mood for that conversation, again, and would much rather discuss something sensible.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So, get rid of government. And then create more government that won't work as well.

Private schools work rather well.

Ok, I feel like I have to be "that guy" right now. I'm calling this a hoax. I have been looking all over and I can;t find ONE actual news station/company/website that covers it, I have only found it on Pro-atheism sites. Would it not make sense that the Pro-Christian sites would be all over this too? and yes, it is un-constitutional.

It takes 30 seconds to jump on the website for the Alabama legislature and search for the bill...

http://openstates.org/al/bills/2014rs/HB318/documents/ALD00017854/

 Seaward wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
So the answer can't ever be 'no state dabbling',

Sure it can.

How, raise state taxes? Abolish public schools? Please enlighten us

Abolish public schools. Use that money for vouchers.

And then the vouchers will be whittled down over time. The rich will go to good schools and the poor to crap schools. I've seen this movie before. Vouchers work if they can only be used for another public school.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
So the answer can't ever be 'no state dabbling',

Sure it can.

How, raise state taxes? Abolish public schools? Please enlighten us

Abolish public schools. Use that money for vouchers.

And then the vouchers will be whittled down over time. The rich will go to good schools and the poor to crap schools. I've seen this movie before. Vouchers work if they can only be used for another public school.

Abolishing public schools would disproportionately effect the poor, and be more expensive n the long run. Private schools are expensive, and that's what those vouchers would be for. It would cost the people more than what the public schools cost in tax dollars. The government is needed. It gives us things like a military, and agencies that protect citizens (FEC, FCC, EPA, ect.). Without the government we would not have lots of roads, bridges, infrastructure, the internet, ect.

Private schools are not always expensive.

My county spends $7,503 per year per student.

The school I send my daughter to costs me under 7k for the year. And the average SAT scores and graduation rates, and acceptance into college rates are a LOT higher than the county schools.

well you are quite lucky. The only private school around where I live is the woodstock day school. These are it's costs.

Nursery School/Preschool
5 full days: $10,500.00 / 5 half-days: $6,562.50

4 full days: $8,500.00 / 4 half-days: $5,250.00

3 full days: $7,875.00 / 3 half-days: $3,937.50

Kindergarten: $12,600.00

Grades 1-6: $14,550.00

Grades 7-12: $16,200.00

16K a year for high school.

Also the fact that do you really think there are that many private schools in the middle of the great plains where there can be nothing but fields for 30 miles have many private schools or the money to pay for it.

The private school my daughter goes to is in very rural Georgia. I'm confident if it can exist and expand as it has over the last few years that the great plains area could manage as well. The school pulls in kids from several surrounding counties. It is over 30 miles from my house to the school. I'm not sure what your point about the distance or rural areas is.

And there are a few more private schools in the Woodstock NY area, and not all are that expensive. For example: http://www.colemancatholic.org/tuition.shtml

Abolish public schools?

Of course, everyone who knows anything about American History knows that the time before public schools was an educational renaissance that has not been equalled before or since!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Abolishing public schools would disproportionately effect the poor, and be more expensive n the long run. Private schools are expensive, and that's what those vouchers would be for.

Given that there would be a lot more private schools springing up in the face of the abolition of public schools, I think we can safely say that costs would go down for most. Competition, etc.

So would the voucher amounts.

 Frazzled wrote:
So would the voucher amounts.

You know Frazz, I suspect, just like college tuition, once private school tuition was subsidized by the Feds prices would adjust to match the subsidization.

 Seaward wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Abolishing public schools would disproportionately effect the poor, and be more expensive n the long run. Private schools are expensive, and that's what those vouchers would be for.

Given that there would be a lot more private schools springing up in the face of the abolition of public schools, I think we can safely say that costs would go down for most. Competition, etc.

And, of course, the cheapest options would be just as good an education as the best options, just like in the rest of the free market! Thus creating an entirely equal playing field for the children of the poor to compete in that same market with the skills they acquire in these 'bargain price' schools...

Well put MGS.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
And, of course, the cheapest options would be just as good an education as the best options, just like in the rest of the free market! Thus creating an entirely equal playing field for the children of the poor to compete in that same market with the skills they acquire in these 'bargain price' schools...

So we'd be no worse off than the current public school system, in other words.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."

Every single morning for thirteen years. If I didn't feel like doing anything in school that day I'd just refuse to stand for the pledge and I'd be sent to In-School Suspension for the rest of the day to sleep in a room that could only be opened from the outside.

Seperation of church and state should apply here, since its a public school and all.

 Seaward wrote:

So we'd be no worse off than the current public school system, in other words.

Nor would the state lack a presence in education. So, quite honestly, I don't see the point.

 dogma wrote:
Nor would the state lack a presence in education. So, quite honestly, I don't see the point.

It would have a ridiculously smaller presence. Handing parents vouchers and letting them send their kids where they want is considerably different than establishing a department of education, certifying teachers, mandating curricula, etc.

 Seaward wrote:

It would have a ridiculously smaller presence. Handing parents vouchers and letting them send their kids where they want is considerably different than establishing a department of education, certifying teachers, mandating curricula, etc.

There's no reason to assume that the state could not make vouchers conditionally available on the basis of staff, curriculum, or other more obscure factors*. Hell, regarding curriculum, it already does that by way of grants (what vouchers essentially are), and scholarships.


*Can a voucher be applied to a school that does not teach abstinence, or to one which teaches sex-ed? Or even to one that teaches science in a certain way? These would all be significant political issues in the pursuit of a voucher system, if it were being honestly considered. And they all involve the involvement of the state.

 dogma wrote:
There's no reason to assume that the state could not make vouchers conditionally available on the basis of staff, curriculum, or other more obscure factors*. Hell, regarding curriculum, it already does that by way of grants (what vouchers essentially are), and scholarships.

The state could do that, yes. The state could also continue right along with public education. My suggestion was that they do neither of those things, but instead simply provide vouchers.