'Intelligent-design' school board ousted in Penn

That's totally wrong. The tax collector already has more money, not less, due to vouchers. That extra money can either be passed to the schools, or back to you as a tax cut, but either way, it's cheaper to educate a child via vouchers than via public schools so every student that picks a voucher, saves you, the taxpayer, more money.As far as what kind of private schools the kids go to, of course I am not favor of religious discrimination. The parents can send their kids to atheist schools, liberal schools, Christian schools, Moslem schools, art schools, science heavy schools, communist schools, outback schools, or any sort of school they want to, as long as the kids pass their standardized tests at those schools or as long as the school qualifies by the kids at the school passing those tests.

Where are you getting this? Where does the money for vouchers come from randman? But you forgot to add "as long as they can afford the tuition".

Where does that extra money come from? Is that one of those poofs?

---

said by a creationist
I am saying we always only witness "poofs." Poofs are basic to what consitutes physical reality.

nwr, vouchers are usually for far less than the school district would have to spend if the same student stayed in school.For example, let's say the school district is spending 10K per student annually, and keep in mind that more students also cause additional capital costs for new buildings down the road.So they offer a $4000 a year voucher for students, or per student for charter schools, or whatever.That's a savings of $6000 per year. Now, to fine-tune all the costs per school district can result in that 6K being more or less per savings. If only a handful of students go voucher, then the savings may not be as much because the same amount of teachers would be still be needed, for example, though experience with these programs shows more than a handful decide to use vouchers or attend charter schools.On the other hand, if vouchers solve an overcrowding issue, the vouchers can save a whole lot more than 6K per year per student because they can save tens of millions required for new faciliites.Either way you look at it. A good voucher and/or voucher charter school program saves the school district tons of money and improves the level of education.

vouchers are usually for far less than the school district would have to spend if the same student stayed in school.
For example, let's say the school district is spending 10K per student annually, and keep in mind that more students also cause additional capital costs for new buildings down the road.So they offer a $4000 a year voucher for students, or per student for charter schools, or whatever.That's a savings of $6000 per year. Now, to fine-tune all the costs per school district can result in that 6K being more or less per savings. If only a handful of students go voucher, then the savings may not be as much because the same amount of teachers would be still be needed, for example, though experience with these programs shows more than a handful decide to use vouchers or attend charter schools.On the other hand, if vouchers solve an overcrowding issue, the vouchers can save a whole lot more than 6K per year per student because they can save tens of millions required for new faciliites.Either way you look at it. A good voucher and/or voucher charter school program saves the school district tons of money and improves the level of education.

Sure. And Santa is real. And they paid for those vouchers with the money that the tooth fairy left under their pillows.Dream on. You have to consider the incremental cost per student, not the total cost divided by the number of students.

---

said by a creationist
I am saying we always only witness "poofs." Poofs are basic to what consitutes physical reality.

randman,In my post I showed that whether vouchers produce more money or less money for schools to use depends on a number of factors. Furthermore, even if a voucher system produces more money (which seems unlikely, given my calculations), either the money would be spent on better education or on a tax break--not both.Your math is still ignoring the diffrence between per-student costs and community costs.And are you getting your numbers here from anywhere, or are they made up like mine? 'Cause if they're made up, you probably should mention it explicitly to be careful.Anybody know where we can get real numbers to work with?Probably want to get some real numbers to play with before coming to conclusions, like: Don't see how you can agree with the points I brought up in my original post, provide no real numbers, and then come to this conclusion.Ben

Randman, would you want your taxpayer dollars funding a lot of radical muslim schools? What about Pagan or Satanist schools? Wicca?Do you see any issue with separation of Church and State in this scenario?...tax money being used to promote religious views?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-11-2005 04:39 PM

quote:

---

It boils down to money.

---

It also boils down to Christian conservatives wanting to get their grubby mits on public funds for their religious schools.Seriously, if there were to be an assurance that under NO circumstances would public education funds be used to fund any religious indoctrination of children, it wouldn't be such a problem in my mind....but that's not something the religious conservatives have ever conceded on or even brought up as a possibility, is it?...which leads us back to my first statement above.

What's wrong with religious schooling? Catholic schools have done a great job over the years, often with non-Catholics, and it's not the like their graduates are the worse off for it. If anything, religious schools can provide a more complete education because they can freely teach theology and religious history, or just be more free to discuss religion's role in history.It's not like people are so indoctrinated. Frankly, they need to hear more of the conservative religious take because most public colleges are going to do the exact opposite and they are just not getting a complete education.I would argue that an atheist is not educated very well if he or she does not know and understand the Bible, the major theologies and history of theological ideas that have influenced Western and American history and literature. Heck, even Hindus have their kids study the Bible to be educated about it.Public schools, in the name of secularism, are really just not properly educating people about a wide area of things. Maybe they do OK in science. I doubt it, but if you want to claim that fine, but you cannot possibly understand Western history and literature without an in-depth understanding of various biblical doctrines and Christian beliefs, specifically the various theological camps between the years 1200-1920 AD.

No, I don't see an issue of violating any separation clause, and frankly it's not an issue of what I want. A Wicca parent should be allowed to send their kids to a Wicca school, and if there is such a school, well, it's up to the parents what school to send their kids to with the voucher money.The truth is the current approach is a violation, imo, because it forces the State to adopt an official ideology, which was what the separation idea was trying to end. Right now, there is an official religion in the public schools, and it is secularism.By removing the state's coercion and allowing parents to decide, the State would then be truly not establishing any official religion or ideology.

It's simple. Vouchers are far less per student than what they spend currently. Over the long haul, even if some scenarious work as you describe, the simple fact of spending less per student is going to save the state money.Let's take capital costs. Suppose a school district just spent more money on a new school and so there is not an over-crowding issue. By the way, my experience has been it's the other way around. There is a constant need for more schools, not less, and overcrowding is an issue.But for sake of argument, let's say that because of the high capital costs, the school district does not save money in that arena per student in the short term.They will still save that money eventually because the schools taking the voucher money have to spend on the same things as public schools. They have to provide a building as well. What happens is then is there will be delay, perhaps forever, of the school district having to build an expensive new school down the road at some point.In other words, over the long term, all costs are factored into per student spending, and so any way to lower per student spending via vouchers for example, means there is more money available per student for the public school and that includes all costs, buildings, administrators, teachers, etc,...A short-term analysis such as your's is inconsequential in the long run. That doesn't mean vouchers should not be implemented in a manner to help in the short-term first, such as introducing vouchers and charter schools first in overcrowed school districts, and gradually implementing it everywhere else so school districts can plan accordingly, but in the long run, it all evens out, and spending less per student via vouchers adds more money available per public schools.This message has been edited by randman, 11-11-2005 05:35 PM

All costs are factored into the cost per student spending. Any lowering of that costs, in the long run and usually the short run as well, create a pool of more money per student available for public schools. It's just that simple.Vouchers add more money per student back into public schools.

quote:

---

What's wrong with religious schooling? Catholic schools have done a great job over the years, often with non-Catholics, and it's not the like their graduates are the worse off for it.

---

There's nothing wrong with Cathoclic schools.There is something wrong with taxpayer money being used to fund religious indoctrination.If you want to spend your own money sending your kid to a religious school, be my guest.

quote:

---

If anything, religious schools can provide a more complete education because they can freely teach theology and religious history, or just be more free to discuss religion's role in history.

---

Public schools are free to teach religious history. I learned all about the role of the church in AP European History in 11th grade.Public funds should not be used to fund religious indoctrination. It's unconstitutional. If you choose to send your kid to private school, then go right ahead.Just use your own money, not mine.

quote:

---

It's not like people are so indoctrinated.

---

Of course they are.

quote:

---

Frankly, they need to hear more of the conservative religious take because most public colleges are going to do the exact opposite and they are just not getting a complete education.

---

Um, I learned more about world religions in a secular high school and College than I ever did in 12 years of Catholic catechism.

quote:

---

I would argue that an atheist is not educated very well if he or she does not know and understand the Bible, the major theologies and history of theological ideas that have influenced Western and American history and literature. Heck, even Hindus have their kids study the Bible to be educated about it.

---

I agree. And I would say that a Christian is not educated very well if he or she does not know and understand the Deist and Humanist and Athiest predelections of our Founding Fathers and remain ignorant of the anti-religion and Freethought underpinnings of our government.

quote:

---

Public schools, in the name of secularism, are really just not properly educating people about a wide area of things.

---

Not in the name of secularism do we not educate about these things.The reason we do not teach about religion in public school is because people like you object to it being taught in a secular way.Can you believe the outrage among some parents if Jesus was referred to as a mythical character in World Religions class, just like Vishnu or Zeus?

quote:

---

Maybe they do OK in science. I doubt it, but if you want to claim that fine, but you cannot possibly understand Western history and literature without an in-depth understanding of various biblical doctrines and Christian beliefs, specifically the various theological camps between the years 1200-1920 AD.

---

Like I said, I got a decent background in the machinisations of the Papacy in a high school AP history class.

OK, let's do a hypothetical and say the voucher is 4K and the school district spends 10K per student. There are 10K students.10K students currently x 10K equals 100 million per year.A voucher program causes half of those students to leave.5000 students x 10K equals 50 million per year.
5000 students x 4K equals 20 million a year.50 million plus 20 million per year equals 70 million.100 million minus 70 million equals 30 million.That means the school district has 30 million more dollars to spend on less students. Let's assume all the money is spent on the remaining students.5K x 10K (current spending) equals 50 Million.
50 million plus 30 million equals 80 million.80 million divided by 5000 students equals $16,000 per year.So the voucher program would thus increase the amount of available money by a whopping 60% for the public schools.Why are you oppossed to such massive increases in funding for public schools?
Is it just because you cannot bear the thought of children attending religious schools or schools their parents choose for them?