The federal government does not spend 9000.00 per student. Local public schools are lucky to spend close to that number and most of that money comes from local taxpayers, then the next biggest contributor is the state, and finally the federal government.

You are right. I misstated what I was trying to.

 

According to Table 8 of this chart (from the 2006 U.S. census bureau), the average amount for a that a state spends per pupil is $9,138. The amount per pupil in Kentucky is $7,662.

 

I am no expert on the schools. All I know is that competition breeds efficiency. It eliminates waste. And, I am sorry to you teachers out there- and I am not one to claim that teachers are overpaid- if that means lower salaries, then so be it. (FWIW, I do not believe it would lead to lower salaries- in fact, possibly higher salaries, because good teachers would be necessary to create a good learning environment). Either way, I feel that pitting the schools against each other in pursuit of a scarce resource (students), rather than giving schools (not teachers) minimal incentive to excel.

Why would vouchers further the wealth divide, looks to me like they would provide a chance for students from poor families the ability to have a top notch private school education. I don't believe all private schools are better than all public schools, but in some areas they are. Looks to me like vouchers would give every child a chance to attend the best school and ability to afford tuition would be a much smaller issue.

 

How are the poor families going to get their kids to the private school?

How are the poor families going to get their kids to the private school?

As in like, physically transport them?

 

Well schools would enact bus systems for themselves (or in conjunction with other schools)- to earn themselves more vouchers earned, and therefore more "revenue".

thewaterboy,

 

Please explain more about your opposition to vouchers so that I can accurately address them

 

IMO

 

School vouchers will give parents the right to open enroll their kids in any public or private school they want. This would mean that all schools are open enrollment, the schools with a high level of students from low economic backgrounds will inturn lose all the students that parents are able to take them to a better preforming school, while in the meantime the school they leave will still have the low economic background students except now with less funding from the state, so IMO the rich schools get more rich/high preforming kids and the poor schools get left in their dust.

As in like, physically transport them?

 

Well schools would enact bus systems for themselves (or in conjunction with other schools)- to earn themselves more vouchers earned, and therefore more "revenue".

 

 

Or the family provides the transportation.

As in like, physically transport them?

 

Well schools would enact bus systems for themselves (or in conjunction with other schools)- to earn themselves more vouchers earned, and therefore more "revenue".

 

So for example in Georgetown if I wanted to send my kids to Lexington Catholic they are going to have a bus come and pick them up.....? That doesnt seem possible.

Or the family provides the transportation.

 

Keep in mind Poor families have to work, they cant provide transportation.....

IMO

 

School vouchers will give parents the right to open enroll their kids in any public or private school they want. This would mean that all schools are open enrollment, the schools with a high level of students from low economic backgrounds will inturn lose all the students that parents are able to take them to a better preforming school, while in the meantime the school they leave will still have the low economic background students except now with less funding from the state, so IMO the rich schools get more rich/high preforming kids and the poor schools get left in their dust.

 

If by poor schools you mean schools that are inefficiently run, then yes, they will get left in the dust. A school will only have money if they perform well.

Keep in mind Poor families have to work, they cant provide transportation.....

 

 

I worked two jobs, and I drove my kids to and from school. If it's what the family wants they'll make it happen.

Or the family provides the transportation.

If they can, of course.

So for example in Georgetown if I wanted to send my kids to Lexington Catholic they are going to have a bus come and pick them up.....? That doesnt seem possible.

They don't have to, but if they wanted your school voucher, then they would. It would be a decision that whoever runs the school would have to make, based on whether or not it was a good business decision.

Keep in mind Poor families have to work, they cant provide transportation.....

Rich families have to work as well- and sometimes many, many long hours.

I pay about $12,000 a year in real estate taxes, most of which goes to the local school districts. I pay roughly $30,000 a year in private school tuition for 4 children.

 

I am all for school vouchers not only because it would help me personally, but I think it would promote the beneficial schools while causing the closure of the non-performing schools.

 

I am talking about school performance, not student performance. Parents know which schools are good and which are not. The schools that are not good will not have any students and will be forced to close.

 

That solves the problems between the "have" and "have-not" school districts. At least in theory.

 

The only problem with this statement as of today is that school performance is based on testing a school every year that has a constant rotation of students (none of which have the same education genetics)....schools should be assessed on student preformance upon entrance and exit to see how they are preforming.....as if today that is not happening.

If by poor schools you mean schools that are inefficiently run, then yes, they will get left in the dust. A school will only have money if they perform well.

 

...so I take it you are not a fan of No Child Left Behind?

...so I take it you are not a fan of No Child Left Behind?

 

To be honest, I am very, very unfamiliar with No Child Left Behind. But I can tell you this- just because it was pushed by Bush, means nothing to me. You tell me more about it, if you wish.

To be honest, I am very, very unfamiliar with No Child Left Behind. But I can tell you this- just because it was pushed by Bush, means nothing to me. You tell me more about it, if you wish.

 

Its kind of self explainatory (hence the name)

IMO, the fact that people are worried that schools will be decimated by a huge departure of "good" students makes me feel even more strongly that there is something seriously wrong with the state of public education as a whole. Schools should work to be a school students and families are committed to, not one that they want to flee.