Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And that is exactly why private schools can never replace public schools. For private schools to replace public schools, public funds would be required to provide an education for poor children and with those funds would come all the requirements that must accompany public funds. Private schools have said no to the charter school movement because they want autonomy.Charter schools are mostly just a variant of the same socialized educational system because they still depend on societies to pay them.
The fact that the schools themselves aren't controlled by the government isn't really a big deal because the government still controls their finances.
He who has the gold still rules the schools, kiddies.
.
Privatizonation of Medicare and the prison systmes have also been failures so far.
In that they cost taxpayers more than the traditional way of doing things.
For private schools to replace public schools, public funds would be required to provide an education for poor children and with those funds would come all the requirements that must accompany public funds.
Any distribution of government funds must have strings attached because government is required to protect the taxpayer and to insure that those funds are used properly. Also government funds can not be used in such a way that they violate either state or federal laws such as promoting illegal discrimination.For private schools to replace public schools, public funds would be required to provide an education for poor children and with those funds would come all the requirements that must accompany public funds.
Why should that be the case? Just because that's the status quo? That's not very "forward" thinking I'd say.
There is no reason that a state can't decide to redistribute money to poor families for the purpose of helping to pay for their children's education. No strings need be attached. Let the recipient choose which school is best suited for their educational goals. There need be no government-imposed requirements...unless of course you're convinced that poor families are incapable of making their own educational choices without your guidance and oversight.
Any distribution of government funds must have strings attached because government is required to protect the taxpayer and to insure that those funds are used properly. Also government funds can not be used in such a way that they violate either state or federal laws such as promoting illegal discrimination.For private schools to replace public schools, public funds would be required to provide an education for poor children and with those funds would come all the requirements that must accompany public funds.
Why should that be the case? Just because that's the status quo? That's not very "forward" thinking I'd say.
There is no reason that a state can't decide to redistribute money to poor families for the purpose of helping to pay for their children's education. No strings need be attached. Let the recipient choose which school is best suited for their educational goals. There need be no government-imposed requirements...unless of course you're convinced that poor families are incapable of making their own educational choices without your guidance and oversight.
The government can not just hand money out to anybody who wants to open a school. They would be in federal or state court before the first dollar was spent. Even thou we may hate the bureaucracy, government must protect the tax payer by regulating the use government funds, if not, they will suffer the wrath of taxpayers and voters. When abuses and misuse of funds occur, the first question asked is where are the government regulations and safeguards? If they don't exist political pressure will kill the program.Any distribution of government funds must have strings attached because government is required to protect the taxpayer and to insure that those funds are used properly. Also government funds can not be used in such a way that they violate either state or federal laws such as promoting illegal discrimination.Why should that be the case? Just because that's the status quo? That's not very "forward" thinking I'd say.
There is no reason that a state can't decide to redistribute money to poor families for the purpose of helping to pay for their children's education. No strings need be attached. Let the recipient choose which school is best suited for their educational goals. There need be no government-imposed requirements...unless of course you're convinced that poor families are incapable of making their own educational choices without your guidance and oversight.
The only string that need be attached is that the redistributed money be used for education. Who the hell are you to determine what is proper for another family's child? Let them pick the school they like, you choose the school you like. Why is that so difficult?
Red herring on the illegal discrimination! That's already illegal and has nothing to do with providing funds for educational purposes. If a private school is violating a law, they can be prosecuted and/or sued. How do you go from a school that may or may not be engaging in illegal discriminatory practices to suggesting the government must run the entire education market, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots get served at lunch? Logical disconnect there.
Lastly, you think the taxpayer is being protected now?!
Though I was opposed to the release of this data because of how poorly it measures teacher quality, I was hopeful that when I got my hands on all this data, I would find it useful.
The government can not just hand money out to anybody who wants to open a school.
Privatizonation of Medicare and the prison systmes have also been failures so far.
In that they cost taxpayers more than the traditional way of doing things.
Gee who would have thought adding PROFIT to the equation would increase cost?
Only people with functioning brains
The government can not just hand money out to anybody who wants to open a school. They would be in federal or state court before the first dollar was spent. Even thou we may hate the bureaucracy, government must protect the tax payer by regulating the use government funds, if not, they will suffer the wrath of taxpayers and voters. When abuses and misuse of funds occur, the first question asked is where are the government regulations and safeguards? If they don't exist political pressure will kill the program.Any distribution of government funds must have strings attached because government is required to protect the taxpayer and to insure that those funds are used properly. Also government funds can not be used in such a way that they violate either state or federal laws such as promoting illegal discrimination.
The only string that need be attached is that the redistributed money be used for education. Who the hell are you to determine what is proper for another family's child? Let them pick the school they like, you choose the school you like. Why is that so difficult?
Red herring on the illegal discrimination! That's already illegal and has nothing to do with providing funds for educational purposes. If a private school is violating a law, they can be prosecuted and/or sued. How do you go from a school that may or may not be engaging in illegal discriminatory practices to suggesting the government must run the entire education market, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots get served at lunch? Logical disconnect there.
Lastly, you think the taxpayer is being protected now?!
The government can not just hand money out to anybody who wants to open a school. They would be in federal or state court before the first dollar was spent. Even thou we may hate the bureaucracy, government must protect the tax payer by regulating the use government funds, if not, they will suffer the wrath of taxpayers and voters. When abuses and misuse of funds occur, the first question asked is where are the government regulations and safeguards? If they don't exist political pressure will kill the program.Any distribution of government funds must have strings attached because government is required to protect the taxpayer and to insure that those funds are used properly. Also government funds can not be used in such a way that they violate either state or federal laws such as promoting illegal discrimination.
The only string that need be attached is that the redistributed money be used for education. Who the hell are you to determine what is proper for another family's child? Let them pick the school they like, you choose the school you like. Why is that so difficult?
Red herring on the illegal discrimination! That's already illegal and has nothing to do with providing funds for educational purposes. If a private school is violating a law, they can be prosecuted and/or sued. How do you go from a school that may or may not be engaging in illegal discriminatory practices to suggesting the government must run the entire education market, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots get served at lunch? Logical disconnect there.
Lastly, you think the taxpayer is being protected now?!
Charter schools work, regardless of what the teachers union claim. So to this rant BULL SHIT! If it were true, the President would not be sending his children to a private school would he? Why is it that people that can afford to pay for private school send their children to private school if both were equal? Why is it that teachers union's fight the concept of charter schools? Let the people decide and right on how they wish their children to be educated!
It sounds like your're confusing charter schools and private schools. Private schools charge tuition and do not receive government support. Charter schools are part of the public education system. They receive government funding and are not allowed to charge tuition nor can they have a selective admission policy; they are open to all students. Although Charters must meet most of the requirements of public schools, they are allowed more autonomy.Charter schools work, regardless of what the teachers union claim. So to this rant BULL SHIT! If it were true, the President would not be sending his children to a private school would he? Why is it that people that can afford to pay for private school send their children to private school if both were equal? Why is it that teachers union's fight the concept of charter schools? Let the people decide and right on how they wish their children to be educated!
Vouchers have their own set of problems aside from the constitutionality issue of providing vouchers for students going to sectarian schools. This is not a trivial issue since a large percentage of private schools are religious schools.The government can not just hand money out to anybody who wants to open a school. They would be in federal or state court before the first dollar was spent. Even thou we may hate the bureaucracy, government must protect the tax payer by regulating the use government funds, if not, they will suffer the wrath of taxpayers and voters. When abuses and misuse of funds occur, the first question asked is where are the government regulations and safeguards? If they don't exist political pressure will kill the program.The only string that need be attached is that the redistributed money be used for education. Who the hell are you to determine what is proper for another family's child? Let them pick the school they like, you choose the school you like. Why is that so difficult?
Red herring on the illegal discrimination! That's already illegal and has nothing to do with providing funds for educational purposes. If a private school is violating a law, they can be prosecuted and/or sued. How do you go from a school that may or may not be engaging in illegal discriminatory practices to suggesting the government must run the entire education market, from what's in the text books to how many tater tots get served at lunch? Logical disconnect there.
Lastly, you think the taxpayer is being protected now?!
I'm not talking about giving taxpayer money to open a school. Businesses will do that. I'm talking about the idea of giving money to poor families so they can pay for a private education, which will become much more affordable once we break the back of the government near-monopoly on education. If a state feels all its citizens are entitled to an education, they can give their money to poor families. That does NOT require the state to run the actual school, which we know produces inferior results at elevated prices...just like all monopolies. Stated differently, a free market in education does not mean we can't help the poor get educated.
Studies show Republicans privatizing of public schools a costly failure
And that is exactly why private schools can never replace public schools. For private schools to replace public schools, public funds would be required to provide an education for poor children and with those funds would come all the requirements that must accompany public funds. Private schools have said no to the charter school movement because they want autonomy.
The only answer to improving education is to improve our public schools, not destroying.
The desire to abandon public schools is based on the assumption that most students will get a better education in a private school.
Vouchers have their own set of problems aside from the constitutionality issue of providing vouchers for students going to sectarian schools. This is not a trivial issue since a large percentage of private schools are religious schools.The government can not just hand money out to anybody who wants to open a school. They would be in federal or state court before the first dollar was spent. Even thou we may hate the bureaucracy, government must protect the tax payer by regulating the use government funds, if not, they will suffer the wrath of taxpayers and voters. When abuses and misuse of funds occur, the first question asked is where are the government regulations and safeguards? If they don't exist political pressure will kill the program.
I'm not talking about giving taxpayer money to open a school. Businesses will do that. I'm talking about the idea of giving money to poor families so they can pay for a private education, which will become much more affordable once we break the back of the government near-monopoly on education. If a state feels all its citizens are entitled to an education, they can give their money to poor families. That does NOT require the state to run the actual school, which we know produces inferior results at elevated prices...just like all monopolies. Stated differently, a free market in education does not mean we can't help the poor get educated.
The desire to abandon public schools is based on the assumption that most students will get a better education in a private school. But is this really so? Given that private schools can pick and choose students, and thus enroll students whose socio-economic backgrounds and parent education levels are generally higher that those of public school students, it would not be surprising if they were to outperform public schools significantly.
When we dump mediocre to low performing students into private schools, test scores will not be any better than public schools.