why should they have to pay taxes for something they don't use?

There are many of us who are all for use taxes.

If you don't know, just admit you don't know.

thanks for not answering the question.

So what you are saying is that you (or others) will decide for the rest of us what choice we need. Thanks, but no thanks. I've got an idea, lets put it to a vote.

 

You have that right now. Tell you what, you think there is that kind of support, go out and file to run for Jefferson County School Board and use this position as a reason to run and campaign for vouchers as a Jefferson Board member. If this support is as strong as you believe you should have no problem in winning. But, I be willing to bet you would not have success with such an election strategy.

There are many of us who are all for use taxes.

Please start that thread in P & R and let's take that discussion there. Because that discussion has some merit.

Oh really? Vouchers are not to pay for private education for kids who "opt out" of the publicly-provided school system? That's not the way voucher proponents have tried to sell their idea. The main thrust of the pro-voucher movement has been to give kids an alternative to failing public schools by allowing them to pay for private schools with public-sourced (i.e. tax based) funds. If you think we should pay parents back because they didn't send their kids to public schools, maybe we should give a tax break to people who don't visit national parks, or to people who choose to walk rather than drive cars on public roads, or to people who choose not to attend a state-supported university. After all, why should they have to pay taxes for something they don't use?

 

 

Yeah, lets draw the line. I have no faith in Social Security. Why should I have to pay into it. To heck with my parents and grandparents, they had their chance. Also, I live in a gated community (not really) so why should I have to pay for police as much as I do. I have never been to a military post so maybe I get a break on that. Roads, I never really go west, why should my dollars go to that and as for that why pay for another part of the county, city road improvement efforts. I join a country club and I pay taxes too, why should I not get part of my taxes back for not using public courses. I should be able to use my tax dollars to pay for my private club membership

 

How is this last point in bold any different than what is being asked for with education vouchers?

Does every kid that applies to get into Manual get in?

 

Does every kid whose parents want their kids in the traditional program get into Male?

 

As long as the answer to either question is no then there is a need for options because after those two schools the quality drops off dramatically. Those are probably the only two public schools that I would consider sending my kids to (if they existed).

 

Butler offers the same exact program that Male does and has capacity to allow admission to incoming freshmen. Male just admitted its largest freshman class in history and may well have a larger overall enrollment in a few years. Ballard, Eastern, and Seneca all offer high performing Advanced Program curriculums.

 

And if capacity at the highest performing schools in inadequate to meet the demand, why not expand them rather than siphoning off resources from an education system that is clearly successful? I'm afraid the private school voucher crowd has not made much of a case for their ideas. Do I need to remind you of the U.S. Dept of Education study released last summer showing kids from public schools performed as well as or better than kids from private schools when factors such as economic and social backgrounds were controlled for?

So what you are saying is that you (or others) will decide for the rest of us what choice we need. Thanks, but no thanks. I've got an idea, lets put it to a vote.

 

 

I believe you can put it to a vote whenever you can muster the political support. That's the great part about our country--representative government. Of course, you'll have to make a persuasive case for changing a system that has served this country well for over 100 years (after all, we have one of the highest standards of living anywhere and our economy is the envy of the world).

And what about the Iroquois' and Central's of the world?

 

Are kids that live in their resides district and unable for one reason or another to get into one of the "better" schools just supposed to accept a substandard education for themselves?

:thumb:

I believe you can put it to a vote whenever you can muster the political support. That's the great part about our country--representative government. Of course, you'll have to make a persuasive case for changing a system that has served this country well for over 100 years (after all, we have one of the highest standards of living anywhere and our economy is the envy of the world).

It is not likely that there will ever be a lot of agreement on this subject. In my opinion it is not a question of who pays the taxes or even the quality of the public schools. As a society, we have determined that it is appropriate to use tax dollars to pay for the education of our young people. Private schools provide that service, therefore it seems reasonable to allow the money to follow the kid. As in most areas of society, competition would only strengthen all involved. We use that same logic to allow tax supported grants (i.e. KEYS) to follow the student to a public or private college. Bellarmine, as an example, does not need to be set up as a mirror of the University of Louisville in order for students to receive KEYS, Pell Grants, student loans etc. I would also point out that a voucher system would require an amendment of the Kentucky constitution, since payments to non public schools are specifically prohibited in the KY constitution.

 

Unfortunately, any conversation regarding public and private schools usually turns into a "you're bad" discussion. I didn't send my kids to Catholic schools because the public schools were bad. I sent them because I thought that they were the best for my kids. Other people come to a different decision for their family and I respect their decision process. A voucher system would allow every family, regardless of financial circumstances, to make that same determination.

We have heard over and over that it is the parent's choice to send their child to a private school. So obviously, choice presently exists.

As it should always be....because of where I CHOOSE to live, does not allow for a school to feel that they own my child....I DO.

And what about the Iroquois' and Central's of the world?

 

Are kids that live in their resides district and unable for one reason or another to get into one of the "better" schools just supposed to accept a substandard education for themselves?

 

I named six different high schools in the JCPS that offer very good academics. According to Louisville magazine's 2006-7 school guide, Ballard is under its capacity by nearly 100 students. Ballard, by the way, sends 91% of its graduates to college and 34% of its students are in the Advanced Program. Try again.

Why don't we have seperation?

[/b] I would also point out that a voucher system would require an amendment of the Kentucky constitution, since payments to non public schools are specifically prohibited in the KY constitution.QUOTE]

 

That is why it will not be happening any time soon, as opposed to LSURock contention it will.

I named six different high schools in the JCPS that offer very good academics. According to Louisville magazine's 2006-7 school guide, Ballard is under its capacity by nearly 100 students. Ballard, by the way, sends 91% of its graduates to college and 34% of its students are in the Advanced Program. Try again.

So it's your contention that EVERY kid in Jefferson County that wants to be in a better school get in, correct? Why then did that bothersome lawsuit go to the Supreme Court. Obviously someone didn't get to go to the school they want to go to.