Great questions that will need to be worked out.

 

 

But will go ahead and accept it in the meantime?! Perhaps a better approach to having the arguement made vs. sound bite points? It just sounds so easy to say "for vouchers/for choice" instead of addressing the very issues and problems presented. Something the Republican proposal(s) have never addressed.

I had this discussion with my father today.

 

He was buying into the NEA/Democrat line that this would benefit the rich.

I told him that was ridiculous.

 

The rich NOW send their children anywhere they want. There is no boundaries because they ARE RICH!!!! They can afford the tuition to whereever they want.

 

It is the middle class and poor that do not have choice as it stands now.

 

Vouchers would mostly bring the same opportunities that the rich HAVE NOW to all.

 

Is that a bad thing?

So what you are saying is that an underscoring schools should lose its best and brightest students leaving only the kids who don't appreciate an education to make it even harder on hard working teachers who are putting everything they have into their jobs. It is a rich poor discussion because their is such a disparity in what is considered middle class in this country. A few kids might be able to move but not many. It Gripes my butt when people act like their kids are getting a much better education at a private school that you don't have to have a teaching degree to teach at as compared to a public school where 80% of the teachers have masters degrees. It seems funny to me that Republicans bring up ideas to help themselves then try to make everyone believe it is best for them. In McCain's speech he said let the students and parents take back their schools when in reality that is a big part of the problem. Let teachers teach and students learn if the teacher is bad they can be replaced but let the child be a bad student and good teachers are supposed to reach these kids when their parents are telling them that their teachers don't know what they are doing.

I do not accept or buy into your stereotype propositions. I know some extremely wealthy people who send their children to public schools. I know many middle and lower class who send their children to private schools. By the way, not all private schools have a religion class. I guess you never heard of private, military schools. You also hold onto some point of a firing over a sport vs. a teacher. Like that could not be a major lawsuit if that actually happened. As with all things called a teacher firing, there is always more to the story the teacher does not always tell, like the truth.

 

In general, do middle income and poorer families have the same educational opportunities to send their child to as do rich folks?

 

Military schools are the vast minority of private schools. But for your sake let me add....

I would have thought it might have been the stricter discipline at a private military school than at a public school.

 

Happy?

 

 

I will give you another one that is not so prevalent in KY since the nepotism laws went into effect.

 

Principal wants family member/family friend/political cronies' son/daughter/wife/girlfriend to have job.

Teacher fired.

 

My wife's biological father who is a piece of trash and wanted nothing to do with her since she was about 8 made a call from the central office to the principal of the elementary school when she applied for the job.

 

Principal who did not like the piece of trash, asked her why Asst Super so and so would call him and tell him that he shouldn't hire her.

 

After visit with Super, she got offered the job.

 

There is a lot of POLITICS that used to go on in school districts. And tenure was a way for teachers to be not the collateral damage of those politics.

But will go ahead and accept it in the meantime?! Perhaps a better approach to having the arguement made vs. sound bite points? It just sounds so easy to say "for vouchers/for choice" instead of addressing the very issues and problems presented. Something the Republican proposal(s) have never addressed.

 

I don't understand your point.

 

Most political issues are promoted in a campaign but the actual putting them into place comes from negotiating with the legislature to nail down the final points.

 

That is what I would expect with the voucher system.

So what you are saying is that an underscoring schools should lose its best and brightest students leaving only the kids who don't appreciate an education to make it even harder on hard working teachers who are putting everything they have into their jobs. It is a rich poor discussion because their is such a disparity in what is considered middle class in this country. A few kids might be able to move but not many. It Gripes my butt when people act like their kids are getting a much better education at a private school that you don't have to have a teaching degree to teach at as compared to a public school where 80% of the teachers have masters degrees. It seems funny to me that Republicans bring up ideas to help themselves then try to make everyone believe it is best for them. In McCain's speech he said let the students and parents take back their schools when in reality that is a big part of the problem. Let teachers teach and students learn if the teacher is bad they can be replaced but let the child be a bad student and good teachers are supposed to reach these kids when their parents are telling them that their teachers don't know what they are doing.

 

Got a lot of rambling thoughts in there. Paragraphs would be good to make your post easier to read.:thumb:

 

On the first bolded, in an urban setting why would only a few kids be able to move.

 

On only the brightest and best, I counter that it is just the opposite. Those who feel that the schools are the reason why their child is always in trouble and not learning would be the ones to pull their children first. They are always looking for someone else to blame and would quickly blame the school and pull their kid to send to another school.

 

How is this a program to only help the Republicans?

 

I made this point to my dad and he agreed even though he thinks vouchers are a bad idea.

 

In our rural school, we have ONE HS. If he wanted to send me to Highlands, it was NEVER an option because he could not afford the tuition for me to attend Highlands.

 

So, in reality, I had one choice to attend HS.

Got a lot of rambling thoughts in there. Paragraphs would be good to make your post easier to read.:thumb:

 

On the first bolded, in an urban setting why would only a few kids be able to move.

 

On only the brightest and best, I counter that it is just the opposite. Those who feel that the schools are the reason why their child is always in trouble and not learning would be the ones to pull their children first. They are always looking for someone else to blame and would quickly blame the school and pull their kid to send to another school.

 

How is this a program to only help the Republicans?

 

I made this point to my dad and he agreed even though he thinks vouchers are a bad idea.

 

In our rural school, we have ONE HS. If he wanted to send me to Highlands, it was NEVER an option because he could not afford the tuition for me to attend Highlands.

 

So, in reality, I had one choice to attend HS.

 

I know I rambled on but that is life. It seems like your HS did a good job teaching language arts though.:dancingpa You get out of education what you put in it. Those people I talked of would never move because their children would not have a way to get to a private school, their parents would not drive them and I don't think the other school would send a special bus to pick them up. Thus it only helps the people who can afford to get their kids to these supposed better schools.

I know I rambled on but that is life. It seems like your HS did a good job teaching language arts though.:dancingpa You get out of education what you put in it. Those people I talked of would never move because their children would not have a way to get to a private school, their parents would not drive them and I don't think the other school would send a special bus to pick them up. Thus it only helps the people who can afford to get their kids to these supposed better schools.

 

1)I mention the paragraphs cause he helps me read your points which are good. I really struggle on losing my focus with one big paragraph.

 

2) I totally agree that you get out what you put in.

 

3) Fine, that would be their choice on moving. We had a great drama teacher here. When they left to go to a neighboring school and our school made the decision to deemphasize our big school musicals, we had some students who wanted to major in drama at college that left to follow that teacher. What is wrong with that? Vouchers would have allowed the family of that student to a) not have to move; b) offset the cost of education.

 

4) So, one person chooses to not participate and others should not have the choice?

1)I mention the paragraphs cause he helps me read your points which are good. I really struggle on losing my focus with one big paragraph.

 

2) I totally agree that you get out what you put in.

 

3) Fine, that would be their choice on moving. We had a great drama teacher here. When they left to go to a neighboring school and our school made the decision to deemphasize our big school musicals, we had some students who wanted to major in drama at college that left to follow that teacher. What is wrong with that? Vouchers would have allowed the family of that student to a) not have to move; b) offset the cost of education.

 

4) So, one person chooses to not participate and others should not have the choice?

 

I'm just going on your screen name but should students be allowed to move schools for a better Drama program, but not a better basketball team. It seems hypocritical to say it is ok to move for drama or academic reasons, but not to get a better opportunity to play for a better sports team increasing your odds of getting a college scholarship.

Vouchers for Kentucky. Question to this premise, would the dollar amount be what the state provides to the local school district? If so, how would that work given the difference of what Jefferson County gets vs. Cumberland? Would you also suggest a local generated tax would have to be voucher qualified as well?

 

What do you mean when you say dollar amount provided by the state?

 

The school vouchers would be worth something, and they would be in the hands of the families with children. The parents would choose which school their child is going to attend, and the school gets the money from the vouchers. They have to use that money to run their school in the most efficient manner, or they lose students.