Sununu rips Scott after Trump endorsement: ‘Nobody’ thinks he will unite the country

[KCfromNC]

And what about education? Let the parents decide.

Parents are free to decide. They can take advantage of public schools or decide to send their children to private schools which are more culturally correct. Or homeschool.

But just because they decide not to take advantage of an option doesn't mean they get government handouts. I mean, I'd look pretty silly if I said I didn't like the content of USPS postage stamps, therefore the government should pay for my use of FexEx to send mail. Same with demanding that the government pay for culturally correct private school educations.

 

[ralliann]

Then that negates the purpose of "school choice", which is predicated on the premise that "the school my kids are in isn't doing a good job, so I'm going to send them to a different one"

This is no different than you said about taxation, it is what it is. It is a way for parents to opt out of social engineering in the classroom.

Whether people like it or not, we live in a progressive taxation system in which people who make a lot of money pay taxes (above and beyond what they use) for the benefit of people who can't afford to do so.

I understand that people have mixed feelings about that, but it is what it is. Unless you have a proposal to radically transform the taxation system in the US (that's still able to satisfy the public need), then we need to come to grips with the fact that people who make more money will pay a little more.

For instance, I pay more in state taxes than a person who makes 40k or 80k despite the fact that I'm not "using up any more of the roads" than they are, nor am I requiring police/fire/EMT services anymore than they are.

We can have a conversation about the merits, pros, and cons of a progressive taxation system vs. a flat tax or pure percentage tax, but the latter aren't systems we have so that'd be a different conversation

Why would parents opting out of social teachings be any different than it is now?

That's fine, if a parent has one child who has aspirations that a specialized private school can accommodate and another for whom public school is adequate, there's nothing wrong with that.

This conversation is centered around the reality that public vs. private schooling decisions in this country are largely centered around parental income and not aptitude.

The reality in the US is, if a kid wants to be a NASA engineer one day and his parents are poor, he goes to a public school. If a kid has no aspirations whatsoever, but his parents have a 200k household income, he gets to go to the best private school in the area (despite having no plans to apply it to anything)

I would strongly disagree...

If you want to reduce the number of elective abortions taking place in this country and reduce the spread of STDs (which I would definitely want to), it's pretty important to teach kids that "when you insert Tab A into Slot B, these are the potential negative outcomes"

It is more than that.

That's fine. I'm okay with teaching that it was a reality of all nations.

However, in the current context of that conversation, the "all nations did it" and "well, you know, it was other Black tribes in Africa that were capturing their fellow Africans and selling them into slavery" factoids are often used as a deflection when more relevant issues (that are still impacting people in the present day) are being discussed.

Sure all that could be discussed. As also the various forms of slavery throughout history could be discussed.

For instance, when discussing the history of slavery, as a whole, it's perfectly reasonable to note that it's a problem that's plagues all parts of the globe.
However, when discussing the fact that some of the issues we're seeing till this day stem from the history of US slavery and Jim Crow, the "well, y'know, every country's had slavery" factoid is nothing more than a way to veer the conversation off in another direction rather than acknowledge the grievance.

Here is a problem, the assumption concerning motive. To avoid grievance. How about the notion of human nature? And the avoidance of bad aspects of it?
Also discussions of the corrections of it. Benefit vs harm in that? A more balanced view of the country as to good or bad, like other countries are the result of Human nature.
Our Constitution and bill of rights attempted to employ the best aspects of human nature, while we as humans failed in points of history to employ it. What is wrong with that? Avoiding a kid thinking their nature (generation) is higher than others, they can know they themselves are susceptible to the same, in thinking themselves higher than they ought.

 

[ralliann]

This is just blatant disregard for those who have no other options. already displayed in this thread. A "Just suck it up buttercup" mentality of the others irrelevance to you.

 

[Pommer]

A traditional market-oriented solution can't provide service to everybody because it's not profitable to provide service to everybody.

There are other ways to provide services to everybody that don't operate under typical market rules, but that gets us back to solutions that are, at a minimum, heavily regulated by the government (e.g. utilities) or outright owned by the government (e.g. public schools, law enforcement).

Vouchers are a market-oriented solution.


That's kind of irrelevant. You want the abandonment of social issues. Perhaps another parent wants stronger math classes, maybe another wants a robust music and theater program. Whatever you and the other parents don't like about <The Current School>, you all want <The New School> to do <Something Different>, and you want school funding to follow your child to <The School That Does What You Want>.

What you're describing is a typical competitive market wherein suppliers offer a multitude of options and consumers decide for themselves which option(s) they prefer.

What I'm trying to say is that education isn't a very good example of a competitive market and that letting the funding follow the student doesn't get you the choices that you want.

Yes, the very funding-method that underpins our “healthcare system” is being touted as “the cure” to the present public school.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is just blatant disregard for those who have no other options. already displayed in this thread. A "Just suck it up buttercup" mentality of the others irrelevance to you.

As I noted before, these school choice programs haven't really give anyone any additional options that they didn't already have at their disposal before.

In the few states that have tried them, the vast majority of voucher moneys that ended up going to private/alternative schools were from people who were already sending their kids there before.


For a point of reference, I'll cite Arizona again to show how it worked out.

Each parent received a voucher that was worth around $7000 per pupil.

The average private school tuition in Arizona is $10,244. The private elementary school average tuition cost is $9,960 per year and the private high school average is $13,753 per year.


For a parent (or parent(s)) on a very fixed income (who happen to be the ones who live in districts that are struggling the most), a $7000 school voucher isn't opening any new doors.

A) It doesn't even cover the full cost of the private tuition

B) There's no guarantee that there's even a private school in the area that has openings

C) Many private schools are religious school, which creates a conflict because it equates to the state government giving moneys to a religious institution using parents as a proxy.

D) Even if they wanted to put it towards a different public school district in the region, that doesn't solve the issue of how to get them there, the other public district can't be expected to provide bussing to everyone in a 30 mile radius, and they may not have openings for additional students either.


Even if you look at states that have implemented school choice systems, but tried to address the problems that were present with the Arizona implementation...for example, Maryland. (under their Broadening Options and Opportunities for Students Today program; or BOOST)

It still wasn't "opening a lot of doors" for most people, by their own numbers, only 0.3% of public school students were able to successfully put that toward a private school, and only 2.1% were able to put it toward one of the states 50 public charter schools, the rest all had to stick with the traditional public school district they were in.



Financially and logistically speaking, if you see a school system 3 towns over that's performing better, it makes more sense to try to emulate them rather than concoct a plan to create a system in which all of the parents in your own town get to draw straws and see which 3% of your town's kids will get to take up the few additional openings at neighboring school districts. (leaving the other 97% kids to have to ride it out at the current district which now has even less funding)

There's a reason why school board membership is an elected position...if you feel they're not up to snuff and the majority of residents concur, vote them out and get some people in there that are likeminded with the better district that's 3 towns over.

 

[wing2000]

For a point of reference, I'll cite Arizona again to show how it worked out.

Each parent received a voucher that was worth around $7000 per pupil.

...as an aside, a recent analysis determined "52% of ESA (voucher) recipients live in the top quarter of affluent areas, with median incomes ranging from $81,0000 to $178,00."

It's nice to know my tax dollars are helping these "poor families" to send their kids to private schools.

Numbers don't lie: Republican lawmakers are utterly wrong about school vouchers

Opinion: Republicans assure us school vouchers save Arizona money, allowing legions of poor children to flee failing public schools. Neither is true.

www.azcentral.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

...as an aside, a recent analysis determined "52% of ESA (voucher) recipients live in the top quarter of affluent areas, with median incomes ranging from $81,0000 to $178,00."

It's nice to know my tax dollars are helping these "poor families" to send their kids to private schools.

Numbers don't lie: Republican lawmakers are utterly wrong about school vouchers

Opinion: Republicans assure us school vouchers save Arizona money, allowing legions of poor children to flee failing public schools. Neither is true.

www.azcentral.com

It's also been noted in other articles, in particular to the way AZ implemented it, that the dollar amount set for the voucher wasn't just pulled out of thin air.

Just high enough that it provided a healthy rebate on what the rich families were already paying for private schooling, but not so high that it would run the risk of too many of those "other kids" gaining access to their kids' private schools.

Logical question to them: "If it's a such a great plan that saves money and creates robust competition, why not make the voucher cover 100% of private tuition cost instead of just 90%?"
Them: "well...uh... no, we still want that additional $2,500/year per pupil barrier in the place to make sure that not too many riff-raff get into our kids' private schools"


But even when you look at a system that attempts to address (and correct for) some of those nefarious motives that have, let's call them, "purer intentions", like the Maryland voucher system, it was still by no means a game changer. Fewer than 3% of Maryland's public school student were able to make the jump from public -> private/charter with their implementation.

Even when you strip out biases and tax incentive motives, there's still a laundry list of logistics challenges. The most glaringly obvious one, the limitations on capacity.

There are roughly 75 million k-12 school aged kids in the US. 65 million go to public school. All non-public schools (private, religious, charter) combined accommodate roughly 10-12 million (depending on the estimate), and on any given year, have 2% in slots for new enrollment (or 240,000 students, nationally)

Even if you could give every kid in the country a voucher that would cover 100% of the cost of any private school they wanted to go to, and magically do it in a way that wouldn't take a dime away from any public school... 65 million public school kids competing for 240,000 openings still leaves the vast majority without a chair when the music stops.

 

[ralliann]

As I noted before, these school choice programs haven't really give anyone any additional options that they didn't already have at their disposal before.

In the few states that have tried them, the vast majority of voucher moneys that ended up going to private/alternative schools were from people who were already sending their kids there before.


For a point of reference, I'll cite Arizona again to show how it worked out.

Each parent received a voucher that was worth around $7000 per pupil.

The average private school tuition in Arizona is $10,244. The private elementary school average tuition cost is $9,960 per year and the private high school average is $13,753 per year.


For a parent (or parent(s)) on a very fixed income (who happen to be the ones who live in districts that are struggling the most), a $7000 school voucher isn't opening any new doors.

A) It doesn't even cover the full cost of the private tuition

B) There's no guarantee that there's even a private school in the area that has openings

C) Many private schools are religious school, which creates a conflict because it equates to the state government giving moneys to a religious institution using parents as a proxy.

D) Even if they wanted to put it towards a different public school district in the region, that doesn't solve the issue of how to get them there, the other public district can't be expected to provide bussing to everyone in a 30 mile radius, and they may not have openings for additional students either.


Even if you look at states that have implemented school choice systems, but tried to address the problems that were present with the Arizona implementation...for example, Maryland. (under their Broadening Options and Opportunities for Students Today program; or BOOST)

It still wasn't "opening a lot of doors" for most people, by their own numbers, only 0.3% of public school students were able to successfully put that toward a private school, and only 2.1% were able to put it toward one of the states 50 public charter schools, the rest all had to stick with the traditional public school district they were in.



Financially and logistically speaking, if you see a school system 3 towns over that's performing better, it makes more sense to try to emulate them rather than concoct a plan to create a system in which all of the parents in your own town get to draw straws and see which 3% of your town's kids will get to take up the few additional openings at neighboring school districts. (leaving the other 97% kids to have to ride it out at the current district which now has even less funding)

There's a reason why school board membership is an elected position...if you feel they're not up to snuff and the majority of residents concur, vote them out and get some people in there that are likeminded with the better district that's 3 towns over.

What you are doing is speaking outside of what I originally premised my comments concerning "social issues", of the modern kind. The academics end of the discussion is not different. Everything could be the same EXCEPT leave the social issues out. There would be no need to address religion and teaching it. Rather an absence of teaching that is in opposition to religion. Leaving freedom of religion intact.
Since that is the big question today, and the reality concerns teachings opposed to parental religious freedom is being violated by choice, allow for classes that opt out of that. There would not even necessarily need to be a change in schools. If half the parents said no "cultural issues" there could even be the same teacher, in the same classroom, that leaves it out. just smaller classes for each group. It could be done. Why should a parent have to pay to keep their religious freedom's intact, or adversely to protect their freedom of religion from being violated?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

In my experience, both as a student of public schools and a parent, I think public schools try to provide the best education they can. They can often be hampered by political pressures (from both sides) as well as funding limitations.

Cutting public school funds by funneling them to private schools (via vouchers or charter schools) doesn't help that problem.


I'd say both are important, for different reasons. Teaching social issues in addition to basic academics provides a better, more well-rounded education. Both are part of the society we live in.

-- A2SG, and critical thinking is vitally important for both of them....

Teaching social issues in context of history is fine (slavery in 1860s, causes of Civil War, etc). Teaching current indoctrination on issues in lieu of academics is catastrophic.

 

[iluvatar5150]

If half the parents said no "cultural issues" there could even be the same teacher, in the same classroom, that leaves it out. just smaller classes for each group. It could be done. Why should a parent have to pay to keep their religious freedom's intact, or adversely to protect their freedom of religion from being violated?

What cultural issues do we skip?
Slavery? Jim Crow? Discrimination against women and LGBTQ people? Sex ed? Literature that touches on mature themes like violence, suicide, and sex? America's role in propping up bad actors in history? The existence and history of other religions?

 

[ralliann]

What cultural issues do we skip?
Slavery? Jim Crow? Discrimination against women and LGBTQ people? Sex ed? Literature that touches on mature themes like violence, suicide, and sex? America's role in propping up bad actors in history? The existence and history of other religions?

You are not even willing. This is the problem. You want to force your views on issues of religion onto people's kids. Violating parental rights of their freedom of religion in our public schools. School choice asks to stop this violation.

 

[comana]

You are not even willing. This is the problem. You want to force your views on issues of religion onto people's kids. Violating parental rights of their freedom of religion in our public schools. School choice asks to stop this violation.

All parents already have school choice. Leave public schools alone.

 

[ralliann]

All parents already have school choice. Leave public schools alone.

The ol suck it up buttercup attitude. Right now religious freedom is being infringed in Public schools. Nobody is asking you to teach religion, just not violate constitutional rights in Public schools. All that would need to change is offering classes that leave that out.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What you are doing is speaking outside of what I originally premised my comments concerning "social issues", of the modern kind. The academics end of the discussion is not different. Everything could be the same EXCEPT leave the social issues out. There would be no need to address religion and teaching it. Rather an absence of teaching that is in opposition to religion. Leaving freedom of religion intact.
Since that is the big question today, and the reality concerns teachings opposed to parental religious freedom is being violated by choice, allow for classes that opt out of that. There would not even necessarily need to be a change in schools. If half the parents said no "cultural issues" there could even be the same teacher, in the same classroom, that leaves it out. just smaller classes for each group. It could be done. Why should a parent have to pay to keep their religious freedom's intact, or adversely to protect their freedom of religion from being violated?

Okay, so then who gets designated to be the arbiter of determining what is and isn't a "social issue" or "cultural issue" to begin with?

As I noted, there are some subjects for which social and cultural connotations can't be removed. (like history and sociology classes)

Reading/Literature classes are going to be another mine field for teachers to navigate if the standard is "if 1% of people are offended by this, you can't use it in your class"

There are also subjects for which a teacher's not going to be able to tip toe around everyone else's individual religious sensibilities (like a science class or a health class) where things will most certainly be conflated for a "cultural issue"

And I don't think the "opt out" method is a viable one either.
A) it defeats the purpose of comprehensive education if one can still get a passing grade while only learning a subset of the material based on their parents' sensibilities
B) it would also be one that would be prone to abuse as kids who may not do so well on a particular lesson/test/etc... can just optout of it on "moral objections" in order to preserve GPAs without get ding'd. (we actually had that happen at my high school, and this is going back some years... there was a handful of kids who decided they were really religious in order to get out of a science class for two weeks while they were teaching about evolution, and get a free study hall period -- if kids thought of that idea back in the late 90's, they'd certainly think of it now)

 

[iluvatar5150]

You are not even willing.

I'm not even willing to what? You're talking about an idea. I'm asking what the scope of that idea is. Offering the sort of variety you're proposing has the potential to grow the number of classes offered (and thus, the number of teachers required) by a lot. A big part of my job entails making a <thing> and then making a bunch of difference variations of that <thing>. Depending on what particular kind of asset we're talking about and how it's set up, variations can be pretty easy to make (or fake), or they can be incredibly time consuming. So, when I see people talking about adding variety to a system, my spidey senses start tingling, because I know that doing so can make the workload explode very quickly.

This is the problem. You want to force your views on issues of religion onto people's kids. Violating parental rights of their freedom of religion in our public schools. School choice asks to stop this violation.

I'm not looking to force my views on anybody. I asked you what things ought to be available for opt out. Can you even answer that?

 

[ralliann]

Okay, so then who gets designated to be the arbiter of determining what is and isn't a "social issue" or "cultural issue" to begin with?

As I noted, there are some subjects for which social and cultural connotations can't be removed. (like history and sociology classes)

Reading/Literature classes are going to be another mine field for teachers to navigate if the standard is "if 1% of people are offended by this, you can't use it in your class"

There are also subjects for which a teacher's not going to be able to tip toe around everyone else's individual religious sensibilities (like a science class or a health class) where things will most certainly be conflated for a "cultural issue"

And I don't think the "opt out" method is a viable one either.
A) it defeats the purpose of comprehensive education if one can still get a passing grade while only learning a subset of the material based on their parents' sensibilities
B) it would also be one that would be prone to abuse as kids who may not do so well on a particular lesson/test/etc... can just optout of it on "moral objections" in order to preserve GPAs and get ding'd. (we actually had that happen at my high school, and this is going back some years... there was a handful of kids who decided they were really religious in order to get out of a science class for two weeks while they were teaching about evolution, and get a free study hall period -- if kids thought of that idea back in the late 90's, they'd certainly think of it now)

You have the power to violate my parental rights to freedom of religion. And you don't want to give that up. Those who cannot afford private school are under your control. People should not have to pay to keep their constitutional rights intact. Most of what we are talking about is for older kids anyway. But it is being forced on grade schoolers. You are not willing to give up the power you have currently. Some are even gleefully laughing about it. So, I guess parents and politicians are simply going to have to continue in in the fight in the public arena of law, concerning our tax money for education, and constitutional rights in the face of those who could care less.

 

[comana]

The ol suck it up buttercup attitude. Right now religious freedom is being infringed in Public schools. Nobody is asking you to teach religion, just not violate constitutional rights in Public schools. All that would need to change is offering classes that leave that out.

You are not making sense. The schools are not teaching religion yet somehow infringing on your religious beliefs?

It’s always been take the “free” school or pay for your choice of school.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You are not even willing. This is the problem. You want to force your views on issues of religion onto people's kids. Violating parental rights of their freedom of religion in our public schools. School choice asks to stop this violation.

How is a child hearing about something that may be at odds with their parents' religious viewpoint a violation of the parents' freedom of religion?

Freedom of religion is an enumerated individual right.

There's no such thing as "the right not to have my offspring hear something that could make them question my religious viewpoint"... in fact, that's the opposite of freedom of religion.

Nor is there "exclusive indoctrination rights" to another human being, even if it's your offspring.

You, as an individual, have the right to practice the religion of your choice, there's no such guarantees that ensure that your views won't be examined critically in the eyes of other people.

 

[ralliann]

How is a child hearing about something that may be at odds with their parents' religious viewpoint a violation of the parents' freedom of religion?

Freedom of religion is an enumerated individual right.

There's no such thing as "the right not to have my offspring hear something that could make them question my religious viewpoint"... in fact, that's the opposite of freedom of religion.

Nor is there "exclusive indoctrination rights" to another human being, even if it's your offspring.

You, as an individual, have the right to practice the religion of your choice, there's no such guarantees that ensure that your views won't be examined critically in the eyes of other people.

Infringing on my parental right of parenting IN THE LORD.

Pr 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Eph 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
We are commanded concerning our household.
And public schools getting into issues of sex, are violating that. As your post displays you believe you have every right to indoctrinate my child/ house otherwise. As you believe it is not my religious right at all, though it is my responsibility in the LORD.
All adults will choose concerning "religion" when they are grown, before that it is my religious freedom in fact a responsibility over my household you boldly infringe.

 

[Belk]

You have the power to violate my parental rights to freedom of religion. And you don't want to give that up. Those who cannot afford private school are under your control. People should not have to pay to keep their constitutional rights intact. Most of what we are talking about is for older kids anyway. But it is being forced on grade schoolers. You are not willing to give up the power you have currently. Some are even gleefully laughing about it. So, I guess parents and politicians are simply going to have to continue in in the fight in the public arena of law, concerning our tax money for education, and constitutional rights in the face of those who could care less.

What is a "parental right to freedom of religion"?