| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Christopher A. Lee" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2003 10:12:35 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 03:11:58 -0800, "Dana" <yourname@example.com>
wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:1vb4iv8oih8rm32a0gpn6v0drknogh72u8@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Let me ask though, if I take my money and buy a church-school education
for
my kids, then get a federal tax credit, isn't there an issue that federal
dollars are flowing through me to the school?
To some there is, but since donations to your church are already tax
deductible, this is not something new.
A
voucher is you choosing which church that the government will pay
money to.
No, the parents make the choice, governemnt is left out of making the
choice, hence the government is not violating the Constitution.
Unless of course it means government money paid to religious schools
at the expense of public schools.
Why is their aim. As and such it is unconstitutional and intended to
reduce the money and quality of public education.
But then of you knew that, didn't you?
And, if I get a voucher, which
is essentially the tax break on the front instead of at the end,
Legally, it is not.
Keep dreaming.
Vouchers already have passed Constitutional muster.
In some places. And not in others. It depends on the intent, and even
in places where the intent has been hidden, people are aware of the
real reasons (not the stated ones) and when those surface the lawsuits
will surface again.
As you also also already knew.
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
28 Jul 2003 08:01:56 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:fkfbivkjn8tm2eolle81b5k3v4so2gjuap@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Unless of course it means government money paid to religious schools
at the expense of public schools.
Why is their aim. As and such it is unconstitutional and intended to
reduce the money and quality of public education.
But then of you knew that, didn't you?
Actually, this is false. It is rather complicated, and I recently
illustrated how the funding is intended to work. (The weakness that I
readily admit is that the funding model can change in a few years,
leaving
us with the very real danger that you are bringing up.) The assumption is
that if the state is funidng the classroom at the rate of $7500 per kid,
and
there are 30 kids, then 5 kids leave with a voucher for $6000, then there
will be an additional $7500 (1500 x 5) to spread over the remaining 25
kids.
No. It means that the funding has decreased by $30,000, but the costs
may not have dropped by even one cent.
No, it hasn't. Well, the funding is off 30,000, but the student population
is also reduced, so the remaining kids will get better attention. The idea
is that while we pull 30k from the classroom, the kids that took the money
cost the school 37500 to have in the classroom, so the classroom is better
off by 7500.
The dollars per kid
which is a meaningless after-the-fact calculation in this case.
If a public system has only one student, and the law requires that he
be taught in a "school", it might cost $200,000 per student to educate
that kid.
Why do you muddy the water with this absurd example? There is not a district
in the nation where this is a viable argument.
I have not heard of any voucher plan that has been approved, then shot
down
by the courts.
Then you are ignorant. Both Milwaukee and Cleveland were shot down at
one point, but later appeals allowed them to survive. Florida's is
currently in a state of "shot down" because it violates Florida's
constitution to give money to any church school even indirectly via
parents. I'm sure that it will face at least one more appeal before a
final decision.
They ultimately survived, right?
So, you assertion that vouchers have only been approved in
some places is only partly true.
It is completely true. There are a lot of places where vouchers have
not been approved, and only four places where they have been approved.
There will likely be multiple court cases on EVERY voucher proposal
that gets approved.
Are there any places where vouchers have been voted in favor, then shot down
by the court - and not reinstated by further cour action?
The court has ruled in every case that I am aware of in favor of the
voucher
plans before it.
The Supreme Court has ruled only once in favor of a voucher proposal.
Good point, I should have said State Supreme Courts have ruled in favor of
every case that I am aware of.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
28 Jul 2003 08:34:45 PM |
|
|
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307281816360.6058-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:fkfbivkjn8tm2eolle81b5k3v4so2gjuap@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Unless of course it means government money paid to religious
schools
at the expense of public schools.
Why is their aim. As and such it is unconstitutional and intended
to
reduce the money and quality of public education.
But then of you knew that, didn't you?
Actually, this is false. It is rather complicated, and I recently
illustrated how the funding is intended to work. (The weakness that I
readily admit is that the funding model can change in a few years,
leaving
us with the very real danger that you are bringing up.) The
assumption is
that if the state is funidng the classroom at the rate of $7500 per
kid,
and
there are 30 kids, then 5 kids leave with a voucher for $6000, then
there
will be an additional $7500 (1500 x 5) to spread over the remaining
25
kids.
No. It means that the funding has decreased by $30,000, but the costs
may not have dropped by even one cent.
No, it hasn't. Well, the funding is off 30,000, but the student
population
is also reduced, so the remaining kids will get better attention. The
idea
is that while we pull 30k from the classroom, the kids that took the
money
cost the school 37500 to have in the classroom, so the classroom is
better
off by 7500.
No, if the school loses 5 kids at $7500 each, it's income decreases
by $37,500. You and others assume that their expenses also went down
by $37,500 thus making it fair. But that's rarely going to be true.
If you remove 5 fourth graders from a class of 29 (average number
in our 4th grades) and are left with 22, how many teachers are you
going to need to teach that class of fourth graders? Hint: You're
going to need the same number (one) as you needed before the students
withdrew. How much did you save in personnel costs, the single biggest
expense? $-0-.
You ignore the idea that the classroom funding will remain at the current
level, minus only the voucher dollars that have gone out of the system. To
be sure, I do not suggest that the current level of funding will remain for
more than a few years, if it remains at all. But, if there are 30 kids in
the classroom today, and 25 tomorrow, the 25 that remain will be better off
IF they continue to get the same funding they get today, even without the
surplus dollars that the voucher children will leave behind.
And, technically, if there are 29 in the class, and 5 are taken out, then 24
will remain, not 22. If you have 22 kids in a class, then you are going to
need a teacher. The teacher/student ratio will improve, which is the primary
benefit, and probably the only benefit that can not be argued against. The
money issues can be built up and torn down, and they can be built up to
survive for a few years, then crumble to nothing. But, if there are 24 kids
in the class instead of 29, the kids are better off.
You don't save anything in personnel costs, but that is not the goal. The
goal is to improve the educational experience.
WHen the school loses 5 kids who use $6000 ea, the school does NOT
get the missing $1500/7500. Schools receive money only for those students
who are enrolled, not for those who might have been enrolled. Why
would you even think such a thing?
The dollars per kid
which is a meaningless after-the-fact calculation in this case.
If a public system has only one student, and the law requires that he
be taught in a "school", it might cost $200,000 per student to educate
that kid.
Why do you muddy the water with this absurd example? There is not a
district
in the nation where this is a viable argument.
Apparently you're not well informed. Take a look at this:
http://www.wweek.com/flatfiles/allstories.lasso?xxin=2566
I have not heard of any voucher plan that has been approved, then
shot
down
by the courts.
Then you are ignorant. Both Milwaukee and Cleveland were shot down at
one point, but later appeals allowed them to survive. Florida's is
currently in a state of "shot down" because it violates Florida's
constitution to give money to any church school even indirectly via
parents. I'm sure that it will face at least one more appeal before a
final decision.
They ultimately survived, right?
Not yet.
So, you assertion that vouchers have only been approved in
some places is only partly true.
It is completely true. There are a lot of places where vouchers have
not been approved, and only four places where they have been approved.
There will likely be multiple court cases on EVERY voucher proposal
that gets approved.
Are there any places where vouchers have been voted in favor, then shot
down
by the court - and not reinstated by further cour action?
The court has ruled in every case that I am aware of in favor of the
voucher
plans before it.
The Supreme Court has ruled only once in favor of a voucher proposal.
Good point, I should have said State Supreme Courts have ruled in favor
of
every case that I am aware of.
Which ones?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
28 Jul 2003 11:01:41 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307281816360.6058-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
No, if the school loses 5 kids at $7500 each, it's income decreases
by $37,500. You and others assume that their expenses also went down
by $37,500 thus making it fair. But that's rarely going to be true.
If you remove 5 fourth graders from a class of 29 (average number
in our 4th grades) and are left with 22, how many teachers are you
going to need to teach that class of fourth graders? Hint: You're
going to need the same number (one) as you needed before the students
withdrew. How much did you save in personnel costs, the single biggest
expense? $-0-.
You ignore the idea that the classroom funding will remain at the current
level,
NO IT DOESN'T. The school is funded based on actual enrollment.
Remove the 5 kids from the school, and the school gets NO tax money
for those kids, it stays in the tax fund, in order cover the next tax
cut.
minus only the voucher dollars that have gone out of the system.
The dollars don't come into the system at all - the STATE pays the
voucher, not the district.
But, if there are 30 kids in
the classroom today, and 25 tomorrow, the 25 that remain will be better off
IF they continue to get the same funding they get today,
The school will lose the funding IMMEDIATELY. They get paid based on
enrollment, and in fact on attendance. A kid not in the classroom
means no money.
even without the surplus dollars that the voucher children will leave behind.
Those dollars are left in the state general fund - the school gets
none of it.
And, technically, if there are 29 in the class, and 5 are taken out, then 24
will remain, not 22. If you have 22 kids in a class, then you are going to
need a teacher. The teacher/student ratio will improve, which is the primary
benefit, and probably the only benefit that can not be argued against.
But if $37.5K is removed from the budget, SOMEONE will have to be laid
off. If it is the teacher, than there might instead by a teacher
covering almost two classfuls (24+29 kids), a class with 53 kids.
The
money issues can be built up and torn down, and they can be built up to
survive for a few years, then crumble to nothing. But, if there are 24 kids
in the class instead of 29, the kids are better off.
But that assumes that there will only be 24.
You don't save anything in personnel costs,
You have to, since 90% of school finances go for personnel costs, and
the school is losing the money that the taxpayers would have provided
for those 5 kids. ALL OF the money.
WHen the school loses 5 kids who use $6000 ea, the school does NOT
get the missing $1500/7500. Schools receive money only for those students
who are enrolled, not for those who might have been enrolled. Why
would you even think such a thing?
Ignorance, and it is stubborn ignorance, since I've explained this
dozens of times on the newsgroups.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alberto Moreira" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
30 Jul 2003 06:43:27 AM |
|
|
Said Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> :
NO IT DOESN'T. The school is funded based on actual enrollment.
Remove the 5 kids from the school, and the school gets NO tax money
for those kids, it stays in the tax fund, in order cover the next tax
cut.
But that's not quite the way it works, is it ? Projected enrollment
figures generate next year's budget, well, give or take. But right now
it looks like a lot of people are experiencing violent expansion in
enrollments, so much so that communities have to grapple with having
to constantly fork out money to build new schools. Maybe a little
moving of students out of the public system into private schools would
even alleviate the pressure: a good thing, not a bad one.
Alberto.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
30 Jul 2003 09:35:24 AM |
|
|
(Alberto Moreira) wrote:
Said Bob LeChevalier < > :
NO IT DOESN'T. The school is funded based on actual enrollment.
Remove the 5 kids from the school, and the school gets NO tax money
for those kids, it stays in the tax fund, in order cover the next tax
cut.
But that's not quite the way it works, is it ? Projected enrollment
figures generate next year's budget, well, give or take.
That generates the budget, but eventually there is an adjustment based
on the actual enrollment (which can seriously throw a budget out of
balance).
But right now
it looks like a lot of people are experiencing violent expansion in
enrollments, so much so that communities have to grapple with having
to constantly fork out money to build new schools. Maybe a little
moving of students out of the public system into private schools would
even alleviate the pressure: a good thing, not a bad one.
In some places this is true; in others, enrollment is shrinking.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberto Moreira" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
08 Aug 2003 09:26:08 AM |
|
|
Said Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> :
NO IT DOESN'T. The school is funded based on actual enrollment.
Remove the 5 kids from the school, and the school gets NO tax money
for those kids, it stays in the tax fund, in order cover the next tax
cut.
Up here budgets are done on the basis of projections for future
enrollment. I take then it ain't so down where you live ?
Alberto.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberto Moreira" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
08 Aug 2003 09:28:44 AM |
|
|
Said Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> :
But that idea is WRONG. It costs a certain amount to run a classroom,
and a certain amount more for special ed support and other special
services, and those amounts are largely fixed whether the class has 20
in it or 30 in it.
The jump from 20 to 30 may need an additional classroom, either for
space reasons or because of legal limitation on the upper number of
kids in a class. That will require an additional teacher, maybe
additional aides. If the room is not available, that may trigger the
move into a portable. Enough of these increases, triggered by surges
in enrollment, and a new school may be required.
So, no, those amounts may not be that fixed.
Alberto.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
28 Jul 2003 08:29:16 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Unless of course it means government money paid to religious schools
at the expense of public schools.
Why is their aim. As and such it is unconstitutional and intended to
reduce the money and quality of public education.
But then of you knew that, didn't you?
Actually, this is false. It is rather complicated, and I recently
illustrated how the funding is intended to work. (The weakness that I
readily admit is that the funding model can change in a few years, leaving
us with the very real danger that you are bringing up.) The assumption is
that if the state is funidng the classroom at the rate of $7500 per kid, and
there are 30 kids, then 5 kids leave with a voucher for $6000, then there
will be an additional $7500 (1500 x 5) to spread over the remaining 25 kids.
The dollars per kid will acutally go up IF you believe the propaganda from
the pro- side. I do believe the propaganda, but my faith that it will hold
up more than a few years is very weak, and THIS is the problem with the
plan.
This is only an assumption made by people who don't know much about school
funding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
28 Jul 2003 10:35:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307281827580.6058-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Unless of course it means government money paid to religious schools
at the expense of public schools.
Why is their aim. As and such it is unconstitutional and intended to
reduce the money and quality of public education.
But then of you knew that, didn't you?
Actually, this is false. It is rather complicated, and I recently
illustrated how the funding is intended to work. (The weakness that I
readily admit is that the funding model can change in a few years,
leaving
us with the very real danger that you are bringing up.) The assumption
is
that if the state is funidng the classroom at the rate of $7500 per kid,
and
there are 30 kids, then 5 kids leave with a voucher for $6000, then
there
will be an additional $7500 (1500 x 5) to spread over the remaining 25
kids.
The dollars per kid will acutally go up IF you believe the propaganda
from
the pro- side. I do believe the propaganda, but my faith that it will
hold
up more than a few years is very weak, and THIS is the problem with the
plan.
This is only an assumption made by people who don't know much about school
funding.
This was the model put forth by the superintendent of our local district, I
_think_ he probably has a clue about how his district is funded. I could be
wrong, but I am pretty sure he has a handle on how the system works. I did
use the word "propaganda" to describe the ruse, so it should be clear that I
harbor some skepticism on this topic.
He may know, it's you I'm worried about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
26 Jul 2003 07:05:07 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Dana wrote:
Wong
Now what's wrong with your wong?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 12:07:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Alberto Moreira wrote:
Said Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> :
Unless of course it means government money paid to religious schools
at the expense of public schools.
A citizen's choice is a citizen's choice. The government shouldn't
barge in.
Why is their aim. As and such it is unconstitutional and intended to
reduce the money and quality of public education.
If public education was that high quality, vouchers would be
unnecessary. How about putting more money in education ?
Vouchers are not putting more money into public education. They are
taking money away from public education.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ezekiel 13:20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your
pillows
"All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of
the few." -- Marie Henri Beyle (Stendhal)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 01:34:00 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030727120632.270C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Alberto Moreira wrote:
Said Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> :
Unless of course it means government money paid to religious schools
at the expense of public schools.
A citizen's choice is a citizen's choice. The government shouldn't
barge in.
Why is their aim. As and such it is unconstitutional and intended to
reduce the money and quality of public education.
If public education was that high quality, vouchers would be
unnecessary. How about putting more money in education ?
Vouchers are not putting more money into public education. They are
taking money away from public education.
No they are not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "toto" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 01:35:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:34:00 -0800, "Dana" <yourname@example.com>
wrote:
Vouchers are not putting more money into public education. They are
taking money away from public education.
No they are not.
Could both of you back up your positions instead of just going
Yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't?
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 03:40:14 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030727145715.2008B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, toto wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:34:00 -0800, "Dana" <yourname@example.com>
wrote:
Vouchers are not putting more money into public education. They are
taking money away from public education.
No they are not.
Could both of you back up your positions instead of just going
Yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't?
Others present the economic implications much better than I could.
And the actual wording of the legislation for the Ohio voucher program shows
it even better. Public schools do not lose any money, in fact if the public
schools are good, then can actually receive even more money under the
voucher plan.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1751.ZO.html
The tuition aid portion of the program is designed to provide educational
choices to parents who reside in a covered district. Any private school,
whether religious or nonreligious, may participate in the program and accept
program students so long as the school is located within the boundaries of a
covered district and meets statewide educational standards. §313.976(A)(3).
Participating private schools must agree not to discriminate on the basis of
race, religion, or ethnic background, or to "advocate or foster unlawful
behavior or teach hatred of any person or group on the basis of race,
ethnicity, national origin, or religion." §3313.976(A)(6). Any public school
located in a school district adjacent to the covered district may also
participate in the program. §3313.976(C). Adjacent public schools are
eligible to receive a $2,250 tuition grant for each program student accepted
in addition to the full amount of per-pupil state funding attributable to
each additional student. §§3313.976(C), 3317.03(I)(1).1 All participating
schools, whether public or private, are required to accept students in
accordance with rules and procedures established by the state
superintendent. §§3313.977(A)(1)(a)-(c).
And this also destroys Carols claim that the private schools will be allowed
to discriminate, which clearly the way the law is written says they cannot
discriminate and receive any voucher students.
But that is why Carol is upset, she is upset that children will be taken
away from the forced indoctrination centers for secular humanism our public
schools have become. Why else would Carol be so concerned where other
parents send their kids to school.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "toto" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 06:23:31 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:06:25 -0800, "Dana" <yourname@example.com>
wrote:
Next time be aware of the issue before you make a fool of your self.
I am aware of the issues. Unfortunately, though I am reading here
and it appears that the argument is degenerating into a I say this
and you say that with no cites.
Usenet is a forum where I want to read what people have to say
about the issues, but only if they have some idea of how to back
up their opinions with facts.
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 06:56:52 PM |
|
|
"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
news:vkn8ivkc3as8vq9ai80ckdvu8urm4purme@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:06:25 -0800, "Dana" <yourname@example.com>
wrote:
Next time be aware of the issue before you make a fool of your self.
I am aware of the issues. Unfortunately, though I am reading here
and it appears that the argument is degenerating into a I say this
and you say that with no cites.
I have already posted the legislation of the Ohio Voucher plan, That you
chose to ignore it because it proves you wrong is your own fault.
.
|
|
|
| User: "toto" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 07:37:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:56:52 -0800, "Dana" <yourname@example.com>
wrote:
I have already posted the legislation of the Ohio Voucher plan, That you
chose to ignore it because it proves you wrong is your own fault.
As others have already pointed out it does not prove anything like
what you think it proves.
And I didn't ignore it, though *I* did not answer it. It was answered
by someone else with cites that oppose it. I tend to *try* not to
duplicate others posts on these matters.
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 05:20:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana wrote:
"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
news:0p68ivcljk5hu2puulpu7kvd5j49hs2kkk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:34:00 -0800, "Dana" <yourname@example.com>
wrote:
Vouchers are not putting more money into public education. They are
taking money away from public education.
No they are not.
Could both of you back up your positions instead of just going
Yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't?
The tuition aid portion of the program is designed to provide educationa=
l
choices to parents who reside in a covered district. Any private school,
whether religious or nonreligious, may participate in the program and acc=
ept
program students so long as the school is located within the boundaries o=
f a
covered district and meets statewide educational standards. =A7313.976(A)=
(3).
Participating private schools must agree not to discriminate on the basis=
of
race, religion, or ethnic background, or to "advocate or foster unlawful
behavior or teach hatred of any person or group on the basis of race,
ethnicity, national origin, or religion." =A73313.976(A)(6). Any public s=
chool
located in a school district adjacent to the covered district may also
participate in the program. =A73313.976(C). Adjacent public schools are
eligible to receive a $2,250 tuition grant for each program student accep=
ted
in addition to the full amount of per-pupil state funding attributable to
each additional student. =A7=A73313.976(C), 3317.03(I)(1).1 All participa=
ting
schools, whether public or private, are required to accept students in
accordance with rules and procedures established by the state
superintendent. =A7=A73313.977(A)(1)(a)-(c).
Next time be aware of the issue before you make a fool of your self.
The money from vouchers follows the student weather the student goes to a
public or private school. If the student decides to go to the private
school, the public school only sees a reduction in the amount of that one
student. Since the public school is no longer teaching that student, that
money allocated for that student is not needed at that public school.
If the student decides that a different public school is better and goes
there, that public school gets the money, because they now have this stud=
ent
on their roles.
This makes a couple faulty assumptions. One is that the average $ per
student is somehow reflective of reality. But you see, some students cost
$2500 to educate. Some cost $10,000 to educate. The private schools
generally do not take the $10,000 students. The public school will be left
with those. This amounts to taking money away from the public schools.
The other is that costs/expenses are aligned with $ allocated per student.
But, for example, let's say School A has a fourth grade classroom with
28 children in it. Four of those children go to a private school via
vouchers. You're telling us the expenses at School A will go down
proportionately but that's not true. School A, for example, will still
need a whole fourth grade teacher thus saving not one dime on personnel
expenses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 05:53:18 PM |
|
|
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307271515070.19571-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana wrote:
"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
news:0p68ivcljk5hu2puulpu7kvd5j49hs2kkk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:34:00 -0800, "Dana" <yourname@example.com>
wrote:
Vouchers are not putting more money into public education. They are
taking money away from public education.
No they are not.
Could both of you back up your positions instead of just going
Yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't?
The tuition aid portion of the program is designed to provide educational
choices to parents who reside in a covered district. Any private school,
whether religious or nonreligious, may participate in the program and
accept
program students so long as the school is located within the boundaries of
a
covered district and meets statewide educational standards.
§313.976(A)(3).
Participating private schools must agree not to discriminate on the basis
of
race, religion, or ethnic background, or to "advocate or foster unlawful
behavior or teach hatred of any person or group on the basis of race,
ethnicity, national origin, or religion." §3313.976(A)(6). Any public
school
located in a school district adjacent to the covered district may also
participate in the program. §3313.976(C). Adjacent public schools are
eligible to receive a $2,250 tuition grant for each program student
accepted
in addition to the full amount of per-pupil state funding attributable to
each additional student. §§3313.976(C), 3317.03(I)(1).1 All participating
schools, whether public or private, are required to accept students in
accordance with rules and procedures established by the state
superintendent. §§3313.977(A)(1)(a)-(c).
Next time be aware of the issue before you make a fool of your self.
The money from vouchers follows the student weather the student goes to a
public or private school. If the student decides to go to the private
school, the public school only sees a reduction in the amount of that one
student. Since the public school is no longer teaching that student, that
money allocated for that student is not needed at that public school.
If the student decides that a different public school is better and goes
there, that public school gets the money, because they now have this
student
on their roles.
This makes a couple faulty assumptions.
No, this is the legislation as written in Ohio.
The public schools that attract voucher students actually come out ahead as
they get an additional $2000 on top of the funds the state would provide to
educate that student anyway.
Kind of a very big incentive for the public schools to clean up their act.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 03:11:48 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana wrote:
Next time be aware of the issue before you make a fool of your self.
where has the issue of vouchers been voted upon by the electorate?
what was the outcome?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 06:11:21 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030727151110.2008C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana wrote:
Next time be aware of the issue before you make a fool of your self.
Carol it is none of your business where parents send their kids to school.
It is the taxpayers' business, if they are spending taxpayer money.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 06:50:38 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:hvm8iv0jsjlrcjab101e39npuiaabvparq@4ax.com...
"Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030727151110.2008C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana wrote:
Next time be aware of the issue before you make a fool of your self.
Carol it is none of your business where parents send their kids to
school.
It is the taxpayers' business, if they are spending taxpayer money.
Wrong again. It is none of their business.
See here Bob goes again thinking he can peer into other people's business.
lojbab
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 08:55:55 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:hvm8iv0jsjlrcjab101e39npuiaabvparq@4ax.com...
"Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030727151110.2008C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana wrote:
Next time be aware of the issue before you make a fool of your self.
Carol it is none of your business where parents send their kids to
school.
It is the taxpayers' business, if they are spending taxpayer money.
Wrong again. It is none of their business.
See here Bob goes again thinking he can peer into other people's business.
Taxpayers can peer into the taxpayers' business.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 11:27:09 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:ek09ivo34hodepp3ug6ljneqf741k2sf5g@4ax.com...
"Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:hvm8iv0jsjlrcjab101e39npuiaabvparq@4ax.com...
"Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030727151110.2008C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana wrote:
Next time be aware of the issue before you make a fool of your
self.
Carol it is none of your business where parents send their kids to
school.
It is the taxpayers' business, if they are spending taxpayer money.
Wrong again. It is none of their business.
See here Bob goes again thinking he can peer into other people's
business.
Taxpayers can peer into the taxpayers' business.
Wrong, not in a Republic like we have here. Maybe in your socialist secular
humanist utopia where people have no rights.
lojbab
--
"[Liberty] considers religion as the safeguard of morality, and morality as
the best security of law and the surest pledge of the duration of freedom."
--Alexis de Toqueville
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "toto" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 06:39:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:42:23 -0800, "Dana" <yourname@example.com>
wrote:
Every place that vouchers are being implemented at the behest of the people
via legislation from their state legislators, the people love them.
Really?
Again you are uninformed. Some people love them. Others
have had horrible experiences with them. The beginning of
this article speaks of a good voucher school (but one which
was already an established parochial school, so I am not
quoting that part - no doubt there are students who do go to
good schools, but the important part is that that is a very
small school graduating only 20 8th graders each year, so
not many voucher slots are available there anyway. OTOH,
the new schools that open with voucher students in mind,
well.. this is one that failed and it is not insignificant that
there were two marginal voucher schools that were
hanging on and will affect even more students.
http://www.weac.org/news/sept96/vouchers.htm
Many lost voucher gamble
Last year's expansion of the program – and the subsequent
opening of several new schools explicitly for the purpose of
collecting voucher dollars – was a gamble that many
participants lost.
The most obvious signs of trouble in the program came last
winter, when two schools shut down unexpectedly, prompting a
still-pending investigation by the Milwaukee County District
Attorney's office.
Both Exito Education Center and Milwaukee Preparatory
School closed suddenly in February after the DPI told officials
that the schools had been overpaid under the voucher program
and owed the state money: Exito $88,008, and Milwaukee Prep
$111,843. The Exito shutdown forced parents of 61 children to
find mid-year alternatives for their children; Milwaukee Prep's
closure stranded another 111 children.
It didn't take a shutdown to convince 7th-grader Wynette
McClelland and her grandmother, Johnnie Rogers, to realize
something was amiss at Milwaukee Prep.
Rogers initially had had high hopes for the brand new school.
"I felt like if it was a 'choice' school, there would be something
more than the public school was offering," Rogers said. With a
class in Japanese, the school at first appeared to live up to its
promise. Rogers soon lost faith, however. The first shock was
the cost of a required uniform, two required gym outfits and
book bag – $33.50 total . Then came the discovery that the
only classes were Japanese, math, science and gym. Wynette
said there were no literature, reading or English classes, and
no social studies at her grade level.
Even her math course merely repeated what she had learned
the year before, Wynette said. The kicker was a science project
that required her to buy various electrical parts and a chemical
solution. Rogers said when she asked a store about the
chemical, she was told it was highly dangerous. She didn't
buy any.
Despite having so few courses, Wynette had a long school day
– getting to school at 7:20 a.m. and spending much of the day
in a study hall, until the school day ended at 4:45 p.m.
"I kept saying, 'What are you all studying?' " Rogers said.
"She wasn't taking enough subjects to have an extra hour
of homework."
"They didn't have any books," Wynette said. "We learned off
of worksheets." And there were no desks. "We had to sit in
chairs and write on our laps."
Happy to be back in public school
Wynette said a school official kicked her out for the surprising
infraction of chewing gum in mid-October, but by then she and
Rogers had already soured on the program. Back at John Muir
Middle School, she took an advanced math class last year and
pronounced herself satisfied with her MPS experience.
But even as Milwaukee Prep and Exito – and now Waldorf –
closed, two other marginal schools hung on through the rest of
the year, and are poised to continue with the voucher program.
One is Woodson Academy, with 59 students, which collected
more than $216,000 in voucher money for the 1995-'96 school
year. Even so, state officials ordered the school to pay up to
$4,483 to five Woodson employees who reported they had not
been paid back wages. (All but one of the claims had been
settled by early August.) Dissatisfaction prompted some
Woodson parents and employees to picket the school last
spring.
Another was Medgar Evers Academy, housed inside facilities
it rented from the Boys & Girls Club Mary Ryan Branch at 3000
N. Sherman Blvd.
After seven years teaching in Ellsworth, Wis., public schools,
Joan Peterson, who grew up in Racine, returned to Southeastern
Wisconsin to teach at Medgar Evers Academy last fall. Peterson,
who is white, enrolled her 8th-grade son in the school as a sign
of her faith in Medgar Evers and in the vision of its founder and
director, Avis Wright.
When this reporter visited the school in early April, Peterson
was still on the job – even though she hadn't been paid for more
than three months. At the time, Wright and Peterson blamed the
lack of paychecks on last fall's State Supreme Court injunction
that blocked the 1995 revisions to the voucher law. Those
revisions had opened the program to religious schools and also
had abolished a provision in the original law limiting
participation to no more than 65% of a school's enrollment.
Medgar Evers had been founded on the assumption that it
would be able to enroll 100% voucher students under the new
law. (A Dane County court has lifted the 65% restriction for
this year.)
Disenchanted teachers resign
On April 23, Peterson and her colleague, Janice Kearney,
went to Wright and asked her to sign a letter promising to
pay them their past-due earnings. Peterson said Wright
refused and berated the teachers in front of their students.
Peterson and Kearney resigned.
In wage claims filed with the Equal Rights Division at the
state Department of Workforce Development (formerly the
Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations),
Kearney charged that the school owed her $8,826 in back
wages since last November. Peterson, meanwhile, charged
she was owed $7,262 since January. Both wage claims were
in settlement negotiations in August.
Parent Dorothy Bell had had high hopes for Medgar Evers
when she sent her 7-year-old daughter there for 1st grade
last year under the voucher program.
"My children's teacher stressed homework and reading, which
I thought was very good," Bell said. "The teachers, I found, were
very dedicated."
Those hopes were dashed when Peterson was forced to leave,
Bell said. With no teachers, she pulled her daughter out and
transferred her to Carter Development Center, a central city
alternative school that teaches urban Milwaukee children under
contract with Milwaukee Public Schools. Bell now regrets there
wasn't more oversight.
"I believe the state ought to be more strict with people starting
'choice' schools," she said. State authorities "should be able
to look at the books."
Mother loses trust in voucher program
For Lynda Carter, the failure to pay the two teachers was
particularly disturbing because of the time she had spent
helping the school to raise money.
Carter, the mother of a 6-year-old kindergarten student at
Medgar Evers, was making too much money as an assembler
at Briggs & Stratton Corp. to qualify for the voucher program.
But she decided to enroll her daughter at Medgar Evers in the
belief that children "do not get educated as well in a public
school as they would in the private schools."
Carter was pleased with Peterson, her daughter's teacher. And
she understood the school's financial needs, and demonstrated
her loyalty by helping with fund-raising during her off hours.
So when she learned that Peterson and Kearney couldn't get
paid, and had finally decided to call it quits, she sympathized
with them and grew angry at the school and Wright.
"I'm a third-shift worker and would come home just in time to
take a shower and do fund-raising," Carter said in an interview.
"I sold quite a few pizzas and pies for my little girl."
Carter's daughter followed Peterson and Kearney to the Carter
Development Center. Because Carter has since been laid off from her
factory job, she believes she might qualify for vouchers in the coming
year. But with last year under her belt, "it would be hard for me to
trust any of the 'choice' schools now," she acknowledged.
Forceful criticism of Medgar Evers comes as well from Robert Harris,
the school's former educational consultant who said he plans to sue in
small claims court for his fee.
Harris, who has worked for the Milwaukee Public School system and
also served as an administrator in private Milwaukee-area schools,
said he believed in vouchers as a way of expanding options for poor
Milwaukeeans. "Economics has a lot to do with the choices that we
have in society," Harris said in an interview. He saw state-funded
vouchers as a way of giving low-income city residents the same
opportunities that wealthy members of the community had to opt
for private school education.
'We've got to be very careful'
But while he still holds that view, Harris said the story of
Medgar Evers and other schools shows the need for strict
accountability even by private schools if they're going to
receive public money.
"We've got to be very careful about who starts schools," he
said. "Too many people have been used as political pawns
for other reasons."
Harris said the signs of problems to come at Medgar Evers
were visible at his first meeting with the school's founder,
Avis Wright. Wright had assembled an advisory board with
members from the community, primarily local clergy, Harris
said. But "there were no organized meetings, no minutes, no
secretary, no officers," he said. "It wasn't an official board that
could set policy. They had no power. She was telling the
board what to do."
Harris said he began urging Wright to put off opening the
school for another year. He questioned as well the school's
decision to enroll a full kindergarten through 8th grade
student body in its first year, instead of phasing in its
enrollment. Wright ignored his advice and started up the
school at full strength as scheduled. But by the following
March, Harris terminated his consulting agreement. He
originally had sought the $3,000 he says he was owed by
filing a wage claim with the state. Investigators ruled he
was an independent contractor, however, making the issue
a business dispute and leading him to pursue a case in
small claims court.
By the end of the school year, parents familiar with Medgar
Evers say, only a handful of students remained.
Peterson, who has a contract with MPS to teach in the
alternative kindergarten program at Carter beginning in the
fall, said she still believes in the voucher program. But she is
disturbed by what happened at Medgar Evers to her, her
pupils and their parents. She is convinced that the state
could act more forcefully to ensure that Medgar Evers –
which along with Woodson Academy is on the list of schools
likely to be approved for vouchers in the 1996-'97 school
year – doesn't stay in the program.
State's hands are tied
In fact, however, state officials say their hands are tied.
"How can we guarantee that the schools offer a quality
program, that they are robust and well-organized, and
that employees of the schools have some assurances
they will be treated fairly?" asked Steve Dold, assistant
state superintendent of schools at the DPI. "Under the
original law, we can make no such assurances."
So long as a school complies with the minimal requirement
of meeting one of four performance standards and can verify
the number of students enrolled, "the state is required to pay
them money." Dold said. "There continues to be an element
of risk."
"This continues to be as the legislature intended – an
unregulated free-market situation," he said. "The guarantees
for stability – some assurances of quality – that exist within
the public schools simply are not required in this
free-market experiment."
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
08 Aug 2003 10:20:43 AM |
|
|
(Alberto Moreira) wrote:
:|Said toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch> :
:|
:|
:|>http://www.weac.org/news/sept96/vouchers.htm
:|
:|I'm not too sure I grasp the essence of the problem, but looks to me
:|that they're hitting the core of the voucher issue.
:|
:|And it has nothing to do with religion or with the First Amendment !
There are two issues, if you will.
Regardless of your personal opinion, your personal beliefs, there is a
constitutional issue, i.e. religious, 1st Amendment, Establishment Clause,
if private religious schools are involved.
Hint: if that was all a smoke screen, all the time and effort wouldn't have
been spent on it for the past 30 + years in various courts.
Like it or not, the following is a fact:
Despite Rehnquist and his cohorts, the taxing of citizens to support
religion, their own religion or any other religion was one of the evils the
founders of this nation wanted to put a stop to.
That meant religion as in religious institutions, or the teaching of
religion in general or a specific religion, the spreading of religion,
etc.
That included the support of teachers of religion, support of ministers of
religion, building or maintenance of buildings used for religion , etc.
I have stated this hundreds of time and each time the person I state it to
pretends it isn't there, because they have to way of addressing it, no way
of rebutting it.
Here it is again.
Nine out of the eleven states that ratified the BORs in 1789-91 considered
the use of public funds for any form of supporting religion to be an
establishment of religion.
You can call that discrimination if you want, but if it is, it is a form
of discrimination that founders felt was far less evil and threatening than
supporting religion with public funds and were okay with.
:|
:|Let me put it this way, it seems to me that the public system is
:|spoiling to take over the reins of those private schools. But then,
:|why bother with vouchers ? If the reasoning is, "they get public money
:|therefore they must do it the public way", then the voucher
:|proposition is a self-defeating one.
A second issue can be control.
It is a fact of life and in most cases rightfully so, that where public
money goes so goes the government keeping a watch on how that money is
spend etc.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 06:15:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana in replying to himself wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
What. What did I write? Are you replying to something I wrote? Perhaps
to my question about whether vouchers had every been voted upon by the
electorate?
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana wrote:
Next time be aware of the issue before you make a fool of your self.
Carol it is none of your business where parents send their kids to school.
I don't claim to make it my business where parents send their kids to
school or whether they send them at all. 80% of voucher monies are going
to religious education. I don't think my tax money should go toward
paying for religious education.
Get over it, you people will no longer be able to force your views on every
child.
You people?
What people?
How about the electorate? Have vouchers been on the ballot?
Every place that vouchers are being implemented at the behest of the people
via legislation from their state legislators, the people love them.
No, Voucher bills have been introduced in over half of the states. They
have all been voted down.
Yet every time they have been on the ballot, they have been voted down,
according to a Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll. It cites this having happened in 20 states.
There may be some upsides which haven't been mentioned.
Some private religious schools require attendance at religious classes.
This may have to come to an end if they receive public monies.
Some private religious schools have discriminatory hiring policies.
Through the acceptance of voucher money it is very likely this will be
stopped.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 06:55:41 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030727174557.10643A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
What. What did I write? Are you replying to something I wrote? Perhaps
to my question about whether vouchers had every been voted upon by the
electorate?
And where they are being used the people are quite satisfied with them.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana wrote:
Next time be aware of the issue before you make a fool of your self.
Carol it is none of your business where parents send their kids to
school.
I don't claim to make it my business where parents send their kids to
school
Yes you are. Look at your opposition to Vouchers. Since you have failed to
present any reasonable reaso why vouchers are bad, it can only mean that you
want all the kids to be forced into the public indoctrination schools.
or whether they send them at all. 80% of voucher monies are going
to religious education.
So, it is none of your business.
I don't think my tax money should go toward
paying for religious education.
It is none of your business, nor is it just your tax money, it is the tax
money of the parents of those kids. They are using their share to send their
kid to a school of their choice, and it is none of your business.
Get over it, you people will no longer be able to force your views on
every
child.
You people?
What people?
You, Joni, Bob and other secular humanists.
How about the electorate? Have vouchers been on the ballot?
Where they are being used the electorate is very pleased with the results.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 09:02:58 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030727174557.10643A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
What. What did I write? Are you replying to something I wrote? Perhaps
to my question about whether vouchers had every been voted upon by the
electorate?
And where they are being used the people are quite satisfied with them.
Actually not. In Milwaukee, significantly more students are attending
public school than were attending before vouchers, while the private
school enrollment has been flat. Since there are now 10,000 voucher
students, that means that 10,000 voucher kids have replaced 10,000
kids whose parents would have been paying the bills.
I don't claim to make it my business where parents send their kids to
school
Yes you are. Look at your opposition to Vouchers. Since you have failed to
present any reasonable reaso why vouchers are bad,
Your opinion as to what is "reasonable" has nothing to do with what
she thinks is reasonable.
or whether they send them at all. 80% of voucher monies are going
to religious education.
So, it is none of your business.
We disagree, and our opinion (2 of us) outvotes yours. You lose.
I don't think my tax money should go toward
paying for religious education.
It is none of your business, nor is it just your tax money, it is the tax
money of the parents of those kids.
Not necessarily. In Milwaukee and Cleveland it is supposed to be low
income families, families whose parents probably don't pay much if any
taxes, and certainly not as much as they are getting in voucher money.
They are using their share
Taxpayer money is not equally shared, unless the taxpayers choose to.
That is income redistribution by government , which is "socialism".
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Court approves gov. religious expression |
27 Jul 2003 11:28:36 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:rm09iv4qdtv0dui1tn4t9117huhrhr3e0a@4ax.com...
"Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030727174557.10643A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
What. What did I write? Are you replying to something I wrote?
Perhaps
to my question about whether vouchers had every been voted upon by the
electorate?
And where they are being used the people are quite satisfied with them.
Actually not.
Wrong again bobie
..
I don't claim to make it my business where parents send their kids to
school
Yes you are. Look at your opposition to Vouchers. Since you have failed
to
present any reasonable reaso why vouchers are bad,
So, it is none of your business.
I don't think my tax money should go toward
paying for religious education.
It is none of your business, nor is it just your tax money, it is the tax
money of the parents of those kids.
Not necessarily.
Yes, it is none of your business.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
