U.S. government sues to block vouchers in some Louisiana school systems

[hadit]

IF that's the case then we better abolish welfare and Social Security since recipients might put some of the money in the collection basket.

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

Simple: It's just an excuse to shoot down vouchers. The Supreme Court has already ruled that vouchers given to religious schools do not violate the First Amendment. It's a bogus issue. Anyone who uses it simply doesn't like vouchers because he's a tool of the NEA and the ATF.

SCOTUS ruled in 2002 that school vouchers were legal if the school's program is secular.

Their academic programs are secular. The religious components can be separated out into separate classes that voucher students don't have to take.

For the record, I couldn't give a crap if vouchers are used to teach kids religion, so long as they get a good education in the basics. Only liberal get hysterical about vouchers being used in religious schools. Parents have the right to educate their kids the way they want, within reason.

The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the voucher program violates the Louisiana constitution. The court ruled that state educational funds could not be diverted to private schools. This means that the legislature must fund the voucher program separately from education funds.

It's distinction without a difference. If they a create a voucher program and a significant share of students take advantage of it, they they can reduce public school funding by an equivalent amount. The funds are simply entries in a ledger.

I'm always amused by liberals who think they're going to stamp out religious education by not allowing it in schools. Do they honestly think the parents who send their kids to school to get a religious education aren't going to teach them that stuff anyway?

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if government schools were safe places where kids really learned stuff.

 

[hadit]

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

Trust me, Floppy thinks religion should be stripped from everything.

I usually don't respond to posts such as this but I feel compelled to do so. I'm a Christian but that doesn't mean I believe government should have any part in religious education. I have no problem with private schools; I went to one but I believe that public education is better for most student. Yes, there are problems with public schools, but there are problems in private schools. You hear about the problems in public schools but not private schools so you assume they are better.

What an amazingly large amount of blather to agree with me.

The perception that public schools are a failure is based on the lack of progress in some public school systems. There are many good public schools which compare well both national and internationally. However, critics of public education prefer to concentrate on failing schools, making the illogical assumption that private schools must be better than public schools with no objective evidence to support their belief.

So your position is, "Parents should have no control over their children's educations because they're wrong that their public schools suck"? Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?

Much of the belief that private schools are better than public schools is based on the assumption that competition in private schools will produce better results. The fact is 85% of the private schools are non-profit schools and the majority are operated by religious organization, which is not really a competitive environment. Parents have no way of determining the quality of the programs in most private schools because the tests they give students are often not comparable to other private schools or public schools. The data they choose to provide always show their school is superior.

See above.

Read this very slowly so that perhaps the words will sink in: THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN. They have parents, and you are not them. It does not matter whether or not you think the public schools are spiffy. It does not matter what you think of the parents' reasons for choosing a school. THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN.

You say, "Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?"

Simple because it is my tax dollars that are supporting those schools. Most of the parents of students in those schools pay practically nothing in taxes to support them. The purpose the schools is not to serve just the students but the community. It is certainly my place to be concerned about how my tax dollars are being used.

I've always enjoyed how leftists deal themselves into other people lives by insisting that things be run and funded by the government, and then saying, "Well, I get to decide for you, because it's MY tax money."

It may be your place to be concerned about how tax money is used, but there's a large difference between that and deciding how OTHER people children should be educated and raised. Especially since it was the left's idea to take over education and make it public, anyway.

The answer to that argument, of course, is "I get to decide what your kids should learn about sex in schools because it's MY tax money". They don't like that.

 

[Flopper]

That does address an interesting point. Why do we insist that only education funding be completely stripped of any religious impact?

Trust me, Floppy thinks religion should be stripped from everything.

I usually don't respond to posts such as this but I feel compelled to do so. I'm a Christian but that doesn't mean I believe government should have any part in religious education. I have no problem with private schools; I went to one but I believe that public education is better for most student. Yes, there are problems with public schools, but there are problems in private schools. You hear about the problems in public schools but not private schools so you assume they are better.

What an amazingly large amount of blather to agree with me.

The perception that public schools are a failure is based on the lack of progress in some public school systems. There are many good public schools which compare well both national and internationally. However, critics of public education prefer to concentrate on failing schools, making the illogical assumption that private schools must be better than public schools with no objective evidence to support their belief.

So your position is, "Parents should have no control over their children's educations because they're wrong that their public schools suck"? Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?

Much of the belief that private schools are better than public schools is based on the assumption that competition in private schools will produce better results. The fact is 85% of the private schools are non-profit schools and the majority are operated by religious organization, which is not really a competitive environment. Parents have no way of determining the quality of the programs in most private schools because the tests they give students are often not comparable to other private schools or public schools. The data they choose to provide always show their school is superior.

See above.

Read this very slowly so that perhaps the words will sink in: THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN. They have parents, and you are not them. It does not matter whether or not you think the public schools are spiffy. It does not matter what you think of the parents' reasons for choosing a school. THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN.

You say, "Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?"

Simple because it is my tax dollars that are supporting those schools. Most of the parents of students in those schools pay practically nothing in taxes to support them. The purpose the schools is not to serve just the students but the community. It is certainly my place to be concerned about how my tax dollars are being used.

I've always enjoyed how leftists deal themselves into other people lives by insisting that things be run and funded by the government, and then saying, "Well, I get to decide for you, because it's MY tax money."

It may be your place to be concerned about how tax money is used, but there's a large difference between that and deciding how OTHER people children should be educated and raised. Especially since it was the left's idea to take over education and make it public, anyway.

Liberals aren't making the decisions in Louisiana. If they were, there would be no voucher program.

What you're saying is equivalent to no accountability or monitoring the use of public funds.

 

[Flopper]

Trust me, Floppy thinks religion should be stripped from everything.

I usually don't respond to posts such as this but I feel compelled to do so. I'm a Christian but that doesn't mean I believe government should have any part in religious education. I have no problem with private schools; I went to one but I believe that public education is better for most student. Yes, there are problems with public schools, but there are problems in private schools. You hear about the problems in public schools but not private schools so you assume they are better.

What an amazingly large amount of blather to agree with me.

The perception that public schools are a failure is based on the lack of progress in some public school systems. There are many good public schools which compare well both national and internationally. However, critics of public education prefer to concentrate on failing schools, making the illogical assumption that private schools must be better than public schools with no objective evidence to support their belief.

So your position is, "Parents should have no control over their children's educations because they're wrong that their public schools suck"? Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?

Much of the belief that private schools are better than public schools is based on the assumption that competition in private schools will produce better results. The fact is 85% of the private schools are non-profit schools and the majority are operated by religious organization, which is not really a competitive environment. Parents have no way of determining the quality of the programs in most private schools because the tests they give students are often not comparable to other private schools or public schools. The data they choose to provide always show their school is superior.

See above.

Read this very slowly so that perhaps the words will sink in: THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN. They have parents, and you are not them. It does not matter whether or not you think the public schools are spiffy. It does not matter what you think of the parents' reasons for choosing a school. THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN.

You say, "Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?"

Simple because it is my tax dollars that are supporting those schools. Most of the parents of students in those schools pay practically nothing in taxes to support them. The purpose the schools is not to serve just the students but the community. It is certainly my place to be concerned about how my tax dollars are being used.

I've always enjoyed how leftists deal themselves into other people lives by insisting that things be run and funded by the government, and then saying, "Well, I get to decide for you, because it's MY tax money."

It may be your place to be concerned about how tax money is used, but there's a large difference between that and deciding how OTHER people children should be educated and raised. Especially since it was the left's idea to take over education and make it public, anyway.

The answer to that argument, of course, is "I get to decide what your kids should learn about sex in schools because it's MY tax money". They don't like that.

The other side of the coin is these low income families who pay practically no tax, get to decide how someone else's tax dollars are used. There's no monitoring or oversight other than what the parent may choose to do or not do.

 

[hadit]

I usually don't respond to posts such as this but I feel compelled to do so. I'm a Christian but that doesn't mean I believe government should have any part in religious education. I have no problem with private schools; I went to one but I believe that public education is better for most student. Yes, there are problems with public schools, but there are problems in private schools. You hear about the problems in public schools but not private schools so you assume they are better.

What an amazingly large amount of blather to agree with me.

The perception that public schools are a failure is based on the lack of progress in some public school systems. There are many good public schools which compare well both national and internationally. However, critics of public education prefer to concentrate on failing schools, making the illogical assumption that private schools must be better than public schools with no objective evidence to support their belief.

So your position is, "Parents should have no control over their children's educations because they're wrong that their public schools suck"? Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?

Much of the belief that private schools are better than public schools is based on the assumption that competition in private schools will produce better results. The fact is 85% of the private schools are non-profit schools and the majority are operated by religious organization, which is not really a competitive environment. Parents have no way of determining the quality of the programs in most private schools because the tests they give students are often not comparable to other private schools or public schools. The data they choose to provide always show their school is superior.

See above.

Read this very slowly so that perhaps the words will sink in: THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN. They have parents, and you are not them. It does not matter whether or not you think the public schools are spiffy. It does not matter what you think of the parents' reasons for choosing a school. THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN.

You say, "Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?"

Simple because it is my tax dollars that are supporting those schools. Most of the parents of students in those schools pay practically nothing in taxes to support them. The purpose the schools is not to serve just the students but the community. It is certainly my place to be concerned about how my tax dollars are being used.

I've always enjoyed how leftists deal themselves into other people lives by insisting that things be run and funded by the government, and then saying, "Well, I get to decide for you, because it's MY tax money."

It may be your place to be concerned about how tax money is used, but there's a large difference between that and deciding how OTHER people children should be educated and raised. Especially since it was the left's idea to take over education and make it public, anyway.

The answer to that argument, of course, is "I get to decide what your kids should learn about sex in schools because it's MY tax money". They don't like that.

The other side of the coin is these low income families who pay practically no tax, get to decide how someone else's tax dollars are used. There's no monitoring or oversight other than what the parent may choose to do or not do.

So, does he who has the gold make the rules or not? If you paying tax money gives you the right to prevent parents from accessing a quality education on the basis that a teacher might have a Bible on his/her desk, I should also have the right to control what schools teach 8 year old kids about sex.

 

[hadit]

I usually don't respond to posts such as this but I feel compelled to do so. I'm a Christian but that doesn't mean I believe government should have any part in religious education. I have no problem with private schools; I went to one but I believe that public education is better for most student. Yes, there are problems with public schools, but there are problems in private schools. You hear about the problems in public schools but not private schools so you assume they are better.

What an amazingly large amount of blather to agree with me.

The perception that public schools are a failure is based on the lack of progress in some public school systems. There are many good public schools which compare well both national and internationally. However, critics of public education prefer to concentrate on failing schools, making the illogical assumption that private schools must be better than public schools with no objective evidence to support their belief.

So your position is, "Parents should have no control over their children's educations because they're wrong that their public schools suck"? Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?

Much of the belief that private schools are better than public schools is based on the assumption that competition in private schools will produce better results. The fact is 85% of the private schools are non-profit schools and the majority are operated by religious organization, which is not really a competitive environment. Parents have no way of determining the quality of the programs in most private schools because the tests they give students are often not comparable to other private schools or public schools. The data they choose to provide always show their school is superior.

See above.

Read this very slowly so that perhaps the words will sink in: THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN. They have parents, and you are not them. It does not matter whether or not you think the public schools are spiffy. It does not matter what you think of the parents' reasons for choosing a school. THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN.

You say, "Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?"

Simple because it is my tax dollars that are supporting those schools. Most of the parents of students in those schools pay practically nothing in taxes to support them. The purpose the schools is not to serve just the students but the community. It is certainly my place to be concerned about how my tax dollars are being used.

I've always enjoyed how leftists deal themselves into other people lives by insisting that things be run and funded by the government, and then saying, "Well, I get to decide for you, because it's MY tax money."

It may be your place to be concerned about how tax money is used, but there's a large difference between that and deciding how OTHER people children should be educated and raised. Especially since it was the left's idea to take over education and make it public, anyway.

The answer to that argument, of course, is "I get to decide what your kids should learn about sex in schools because it's MY tax money". They don't like that.

The other side of the coin is these low income families who pay practically no tax, get to decide how someone else's tax dollars are used. There's no monitoring or oversight other than what the parent may choose to do or not do.

So, does he who has the gold make the rules or not? If you paying tax money gives you the right to prevent parents from accessing a quality education on the basis that a teacher might have a Bible on his/her desk, I should also have the right to control what schools teach 8 year old kids about sex.

 

[Flopper]

What an amazingly large amount of blather to agree with me.

So your position is, "Parents should have no control over their children's educations because they're wrong that their public schools suck"? Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?

See above.

Read this very slowly so that perhaps the words will sink in: THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN. They have parents, and you are not them. It does not matter whether or not you think the public schools are spiffy. It does not matter what you think of the parents' reasons for choosing a school. THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN.

You say, "Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?"

Simple because it is my tax dollars that are supporting those schools. Most of the parents of students in those schools pay practically nothing in taxes to support them. The purpose the schools is not to serve just the students but the community. It is certainly my place to be concerned about how my tax dollars are being used.

I've always enjoyed how leftists deal themselves into other people lives by insisting that things be run and funded by the government, and then saying, "Well, I get to decide for you, because it's MY tax money."

It may be your place to be concerned about how tax money is used, but there's a large difference between that and deciding how OTHER people children should be educated and raised. Especially since it was the left's idea to take over education and make it public, anyway.

The answer to that argument, of course, is "I get to decide what your kids should learn about sex in schools because it's MY tax money". They don't like that.

The other side of the coin is these low income families who pay practically no tax, get to decide how someone else's tax dollars are used. There's no monitoring or oversight other than what the parent may choose to do or not do.

So, does he who has the gold make the rules or not? If you paying tax money gives you the right to prevent parents from accessing a quality education on the basis that a teacher might have a Bible on his/her desk, I should also have the right to control what schools teach 8 year old kids about sex.

He who has the goal has right to ask government who is taking it away to insure it's property spent. Passing the responsibility to parents is not acceptable. It is government's responsibility to see that taxes are spent property, not parents.

 

[hadit]

You say, "Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?"

Simple because it is my tax dollars that are supporting those schools. Most of the parents of students in those schools pay practically nothing in taxes to support them. The purpose the schools is not to serve just the students but the community. It is certainly my place to be concerned about how my tax dollars are being used.

I've always enjoyed how leftists deal themselves into other people lives by insisting that things be run and funded by the government, and then saying, "Well, I get to decide for you, because it's MY tax money."

It may be your place to be concerned about how tax money is used, but there's a large difference between that and deciding how OTHER people children should be educated and raised. Especially since it was the left's idea to take over education and make it public, anyway.

The answer to that argument, of course, is "I get to decide what your kids should learn about sex in schools because it's MY tax money". They don't like that.

The other side of the coin is these low income families who pay practically no tax, get to decide how someone else's tax dollars are used. There's no monitoring or oversight other than what the parent may choose to do or not do.

So, does he who has the gold make the rules or not? If you paying tax money gives you the right to prevent parents from accessing a quality education on the basis that a teacher might have a Bible on his/her desk, I should also have the right to control what schools teach 8 year old kids about sex.

He who has the goal has right to ask government who is taking it away to insure it's property spent. Passing the responsibility to parents is not acceptable. It is government's responsibility to see that taxes are spent property, not parents.

Sounds like you're agreeing with me then that parents have the right to control what schools teach 8 year old kids about sex. It's done with resources that were forcefully taken from them, after all.

Parents are best at knowing what's best for their children, not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats with an agenda.

 

[Flopper]

I've always enjoyed how leftists deal themselves into other people lives by insisting that things be run and funded by the government, and then saying, "Well, I get to decide for you, because it's MY tax money."

It may be your place to be concerned about how tax money is used, but there's a large difference between that and deciding how OTHER people children should be educated and raised. Especially since it was the left's idea to take over education and make it public, anyway.

The answer to that argument, of course, is "I get to decide what your kids should learn about sex in schools because it's MY tax money". They don't like that.

The other side of the coin is these low income families who pay practically no tax, get to decide how someone else's tax dollars are used. There's no monitoring or oversight other than what the parent may choose to do or not do.

So, does he who has the gold make the rules or not? If you paying tax money gives you the right to prevent parents from accessing a quality education on the basis that a teacher might have a Bible on his/her desk, I should also have the right to control what schools teach 8 year old kids about sex.

He who has the goal has right to ask government who is taking it away to insure it's property spent. Passing the responsibility to parents is not acceptable. It is government's responsibility to see that taxes are spent property, not parents.

Sounds like you're agreeing with me then that parents have the right to control what schools teach 8 year old kids about sex. It's done with resources that were forcefully taken from them, after all.

Parents are best at knowing what's best for their children, not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats with an agenda.

No, you're missing the point. It's government's responsibility to see that our kids are educated and funds are properly spent. Vouchers are just a way of passing the buck to the parents. Rather than fix education, governments like Louisiana are giving up on public education and turning it over to parents.

Vouchers are doomed to failure. The support for vouchers comes primarily from upper middle class parents, mostly those who are already in private schools. They see vouchers as a way of reducing their cost of educating their kids. However instead of seeing a reduction in their costs they will see low income black students in their schools along with increased government restrictions, which is one of the main reason many of them choose private schools. The result is few private schools will take voucher students.

Financing vouchers with the reduction in public school funding doesn't work because the cost of public schools doesn't go down proportionally to decreases in enrollment. The schools that loose students to vouchers loose their better students leaving the more difficult students to educate and with less money. The state ends up spending more money on these schools not less plus they are paying for the vouchers. Louisiana is now facing a whopping 1.6 billion dollar deficit.

 

[Unkotare]

You say, "Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it's not your place to decide that schools are or aren't good enough for other people's children?"

Simple because it is my tax dollars that are supporting those schools. Most of the parents of students in those schools pay practically nothing in taxes to support them. The purpose the schools is not to serve just the students but the community. It is certainly my place to be concerned about how my tax dollars are being used.

I've always enjoyed how leftists deal themselves into other people lives by insisting that things be run and funded by the government, and then saying, "Well, I get to decide for you, because it's MY tax money."

It may be your place to be concerned about how tax money is used, but there's a large difference between that and deciding how OTHER people children should be educated and raised. Especially since it was the left's idea to take over education and make it public, anyway.

The answer to that argument, of course, is "I get to decide what your kids should learn about sex in schools because it's MY tax money". They don't like that.

The other side of the coin is these low income families who pay practically no tax, get to decide how someone else's tax dollars are used. There's no monitoring or oversight other than what the parent may choose to do or not do.

So, does he who has the gold make the rules or not? If you paying tax money gives you the right to prevent parents from accessing a quality education on the basis that a teacher might have a Bible on his/her desk, I should also have the right to control what schools teach 8 year old kids about sex.

He who has the goal has right to ask government who is taking it away to insure it's property spent. Passing the responsibility to parents is not acceptable. It is government's responsibility to see that taxes are spent property, not parents.

Marxist douchebag.

 

[hadit]

The answer to that argument, of course, is "I get to decide what your kids should learn about sex in schools because it's MY tax money". They don't like that.

The other side of the coin is these low income families who pay practically no tax, get to decide how someone else's tax dollars are used. There's no monitoring or oversight other than what the parent may choose to do or not do.

So, does he who has the gold make the rules or not? If you paying tax money gives you the right to prevent parents from accessing a quality education on the basis that a teacher might have a Bible on his/her desk, I should also have the right to control what schools teach 8 year old kids about sex.

He who has the goal has right to ask government who is taking it away to insure it's property spent. Passing the responsibility to parents is not acceptable. It is government's responsibility to see that taxes are spent property, not parents.

Sounds like you're agreeing with me then that parents have the right to control what schools teach 8 year old kids about sex. It's done with resources that were forcefully taken from them, after all.

Parents are best at knowing what's best for their children, not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats with an agenda.

No, you're missing the point. It's government's responsibility to see that our kids are educated and funds are properly spent. Vouchers are just a way of passing the buck to the parents. Rather than fix education, governments like Louisiana are giving up on public education and turning it over to parents.

Vouchers are doomed to failure. The support for vouchers comes primarily from upper middle class parents, mostly those who are already in private schools. They see vouchers as a way of reducing their cost of educating their kids. However instead of seeing a reduction in their costs they will see low income black students in their schools along with increased government restrictions, which is one of the main reason many of them choose private schools. The result is few private schools will take voucher students.

Financing vouchers with the reduction in public school funding doesn't work because the cost of public schools doesn't go down proportionally to decreases in enrollment. The schools that loose students to vouchers loose their better students leaving the more difficult students to educate and with less money. The state ends up spending more money on these schools not less plus they are paying for the vouchers. Louisiana is now facing a whopping 1.6 billion dollar deficit.

1. It is the parents' responsibility to educate their children, not the state's.
2. Why do you automatically assume that poor black parents won't take every opportunity to get their children into better schools? That seems a little racist to me.
3. I'd like to see documentation that shows "support for vouchers comes primarily from upper middle class parents, mostly those who are already in private schools". Also, I'd like to see documentation that shows "They see vouchers as a way of reducing their cost of educating their kids". Do you seriously think lower income people don't care about their kids getting into better schools?
4. School choice, including vouchers, is not only about making quality private education available to more students. It is also about making the better government schools available to more students, and democrats oppose even that.

 

[Flopper]

The other side of the coin is these low income families who pay practically no tax, get to decide how someone else's tax dollars are used. There's no monitoring or oversight other than what the parent may choose to do or not do.

So, does he who has the gold make the rules or not? If you paying tax money gives you the right to prevent parents from accessing a quality education on the basis that a teacher might have a Bible on his/her desk, I should also have the right to control what schools teach 8 year old kids about sex.

He who has the goal has right to ask government who is taking it away to insure it's property spent. Passing the responsibility to parents is not acceptable. It is government's responsibility to see that taxes are spent property, not parents.

Sounds like you're agreeing with me then that parents have the right to control what schools teach 8 year old kids about sex. It's done with resources that were forcefully taken from them, after all.

Parents are best at knowing what's best for their children, not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats with an agenda.

No, you're missing the point. It's government's responsibility to see that our kids are educated and funds are properly spent. Vouchers are just a way of passing the buck to the parents. Rather than fix education, governments like Louisiana are giving up on public education and turning it over to parents.

Vouchers are doomed to failure. The support for vouchers comes primarily from upper middle class parents, mostly those who are already in private schools. They see vouchers as a way of reducing their cost of educating their kids. However instead of seeing a reduction in their costs they will see low income black students in their schools along with increased government restrictions, which is one of the main reason many of them choose private schools. The result is few private schools will take voucher students.

Financing vouchers with the reduction in public school funding doesn't work because the cost of public schools doesn't go down proportionally to decreases in enrollment. The schools that loose students to vouchers loose their better students leaving the more difficult students to educate and with less money. The state ends up spending more money on these schools not less plus they are paying for the vouchers. Louisiana is now facing a whopping 1.6 billion dollar deficit.

1. It is the parents' responsibility to educate their children, not the state's.
2. Why do you automatically assume that poor black parents won't take every opportunity to get their children into better schools? That seems a little racist to me.
3. I'd like to see documentation that shows "support for vouchers comes primarily from upper middle class parents, mostly those who are already in private schools". Also, I'd like to see documentation that shows "They see vouchers as a way of reducing their cost of educating their kids". Do you seriously think lower income people don't care about their kids getting into better schools?
4. School choice, including vouchers, is not only about making quality private education available to more students. It is also about making the better government schools available to more students, and democrats oppose even that.

Legally, the state is responsible for the education of children, not the parents. That fact is it's enshrined in the laws of every state and in many state constitutions such as Louisiana.

I do not assume nor did I write that poor black parents won't take every opportunity to get their children into better schools. In fact, 90 percent of the participants in the Louisiana voucher programs are black or Hispanic. My point was that extending vouchers to more private schools would create a backlash from parents in those schools which are predominately white. Parents in these school do not want to see their children's classroom filled with poor black or white students who lack the educational skills to keep up with the class. This is one of the primary reasons why parents send their kids to private schools. They trust that the private school will select the kind of students that they want to see in their kids classroom. Under voucher programs, the capability of private schools to pick and choose their students disappears.

Yes, the voucher program allows students a choice between public and private schools. About 1/3 of the students choose public schools. Many public school systems allow students in failing public schools to choose better public schools.