Another look at those 'gubmint' schools. . . .

All children can succeed if given the chance, not matter where they come from.

:lol::lol:

I'm gonna go pull on my waders to walk around in your BS today.

The ol' "All Children Can Succeed" Chant?

No, let's face it, not all children can "succeed." We need to take a realistic approach. Offer free education until Grade 9. Then cut them loose to "succeed" on their own.

So you don't think a child should be given a chance to figure out what they want to become after Freshman Year in High School? You had it all figured out by then Samson?

And what about vocational school/progams in the high school, for those that don't plan to go to college, you don't think that would be a valuable assest to these kids after 9th grade?

You want to send them out into the world at age 15, ready for college or the job market, without any skills?
 
That would change with a voucher program. It's a nice idea on the surface, but it's really just subsidized private education that would end up changing private ed into something similar to our public ed system we have now. Unintended consequences and all that.

No.

Private schools, if they were endangered with what you are imagining, which is unlikely, would simply raise the price of tuition beyond the reach of voucher holders.

Yep. The voucher program would kill itself.
 
That would change with a voucher program. It's a nice idea on the surface, but it's really just subsidized private education that would end up changing private ed into something similar to our public ed system we have now. Unintended consequences and all that.

No.

Private schools, if they were endangered with what you are imagining, which is unlikely, would simply raise the price of tuition beyond the reach of voucher holders.

If public education was eliminated, and we switched to a universal voucher system, this would certainly happen.
 
That would change with a voucher program. It's a nice idea on the surface, but it's really just subsidized private education that would end up changing private ed into something similar to our public ed system we have now. Unintended consequences and all that.

No.

Private schools, if they were endangered with what you are imagining, which is unlikely, would simply raise the price of tuition beyond the reach of voucher holders.

Yep. The voucher program would kill itself.

True.

A. Better Schools would locate themselves far from poorer neighborhoods, making it impossible for poorer parents to drive (if they had a car) their kids there.

B. Better Schools would raise tuition

C. Good Schools would become Better Schools

D. Bad Schools would become Worse.
 
That would change with a voucher program. It's a nice idea on the surface, but it's really just subsidized private education that would end up changing private ed into something similar to our public ed system we have now. Unintended consequences and all that.

No.

Private schools, if they were endangered with what you are imagining, which is unlikely, would simply raise the price of tuition beyond the reach of voucher holders.
See: Pell grants.
 
There is no "magic pill" to fix public ed. And you cannot say to a parent "give us a few more years to figure it out" when their child is in the 2nd grade. They have to deal with the here and now, and right now there are failing schools in dangerous neighborhoods where no child should go. But if they can save a few, who could possibly oppose that?

And I disagree with the cost factor. My son's Catholic High School wa set to close next year. With the help of the entire community, we saved our school for the next five years. They needed 20 more freshmen to make the numbers work and prevent an increase in tuition. More kids, lower tuition. Supply and demand.
 
Good idea! Screw the poor people, which is exactly what Thomas Jefferson DID NOT want.

Are you suggesting that poor parents aren't good?

I think she's suggesting that poor parents can't afford private school, even if they do give up their second house.

(that's sarcasm, if you couldn't see it)
They seem to be able to afford to eat, live indoors, buy clothing and automobiles.

Perish the thought that parents prioritize their spending to provide the best education for their kids.
 
That would change with a voucher program. It's a nice idea on the surface, but it's really just subsidized private education that would end up changing private ed into something similar to our public ed system we have now. Unintended consequences and all that.

No.

Private schools, if they were endangered with what you are imagining, which is unlikely, would simply raise the price of tuition beyond the reach of voucher holders.
See: Pell grants.

Why?

Did someone receive a $50,000/yr Pell Grant to pay their tuition to Harvard or Yale?
 
Are you suggesting that poor parents aren't good?

I think she's suggesting that poor parents can't afford private school, even if they do give up their second house.

(that's sarcasm, if you couldn't see it)
They seem to be able to afford to eat, live indoors, buy clothing and automobiles.

Perish the thought that parents prioritize their spending to provide the best education for their kids.

So, you're saying they should live outdoors, and send their kids to private schools?
 
No...The point is that schools will raise their tuition when they get all that "free" money.

You want to watch tuitions drop like a rock, abolish Pell grants.

I doubt that a great deal.
 
Are you suggesting that poor parents aren't good?

I think she's suggesting that poor parents can't afford private school, even if they do give up their second house.

(that's sarcasm, if you couldn't see it)
They seem to be able to afford to eat, live indoors, buy clothing and automobiles.

Perish the thought that parents prioritize their spending to provide the best education for their kids.

40% of American families make less than 35 thousand dollars a year. The average cost of private K-12 schools is $10,000 a year.

Are you suggesting that poor families go hungry to send their kids to private school?
 
I think she's suggesting that poor parents can't afford private school, even if they do give up their second house.

(that's sarcasm, if you couldn't see it)
They seem to be able to afford to eat, live indoors, buy clothing and automobiles.

Perish the thought that parents prioritize their spending to provide the best education for their kids.

So, you're saying they should live outdoors, and send their kids to private schools?
I'm saying that the price for gubmint schools are artificially inflated.

I'm also saying that the same marketplace that delivers the the cheapest and/or most valuable homes, food, clothing and transportation at the lowest possible prices can do the same for education.
 
I think she's suggesting that poor parents can't afford private school, even if they do give up their second house.

(that's sarcasm, if you couldn't see it)
They seem to be able to afford to eat, live indoors, buy clothing and automobiles.

Perish the thought that parents prioritize their spending to provide the best education for their kids.

40% of American families make less than 35 thousand dollars a year. The average cost of private K-12 schools is $10,000 a year.

Are you suggesting that poor families go hungry to send their kids to private school?
A price that is grossly inflated because gubmint runs them and bears no economic penalties for being wasteful and inefficient.
 
They seem to be able to afford to eat, live indoors, buy clothing and automobiles.

Perish the thought that parents prioritize their spending to provide the best education for their kids.

So, you're saying they should live outdoors, and send their kids to private schools?
I'm saying that the price for gubmint schools are artificially inflated.

I'm also saying that the same marketplace that delivers the the cheapest and/or most valuable homes, food, clothing and transportation at the lowest possible prices can do the same for education.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you advocating eliminating free public education?
 
They seem to be able to afford to eat, live indoors, buy clothing and automobiles.

Perish the thought that parents prioritize their spending to provide the best education for their kids.

40% of American families make less than 35 thousand dollars a year. The average cost of private K-12 schools is $10,000 a year.

Are you suggesting that poor families go hungry to send their kids to private school?
A price that is grossly inflated because gubmint runs them and bears no economic penalties for being wasteful and inefficient.

Wait... wah?

The government doesn't run private schools. That's what makes them "private".
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top