Education

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

SVreX wrote: Those expenses are not being reported honestly.

I don't know what to say other than to respectfully disagree. Not likely to sway your opinion, and that's okay. We're just chatting.

You disagree with me, or you disagree with the referenced articles?

I've listened very carefully to you, and you've made some good points. But you are not acknowledging whether or not you are reading the information I am offering, so it is difficult to know if you are actually "chatting" or just spouting off your opinions without any effort to hear the other side.

Respect goes both ways.

Late to the party. Still a bit woozy from painkillers (hernia surgery).

Vouchers wouldn't necessarily automatically put kids in private schools. There are some being bandied about that could be used to put kids in better performing public schools. Everybody down here is hollering that it would kill the poorly performing schools. Well, duh. That's the whole point. Either bring them up to snuff or watch them die off.

About involved parents: I had my kid in an academic magnet school several miles from the house. No bus service, I dropped her off every morning. I kept her there as long as I could after her mom and I split up; I was about 40 minutes late to work every day (my boss was really good about that) but until the end of the last school year I at least had reliable trustworthy afternoon transportation arranged. Then that rug got yanked out from under me. There's no one else in my n'hood with kids in that school and no other family member (or anyone I really trust) who can pick her up 8 miles away and drop her off at home or keep her for the afternoon. I'd have to leave at 3 PM every day and I somehow don't think my boss will put up with that. He has a business to run, after all. I can't quit my job, we'd starve. I cannot trust her mother to be responsible enough to care for her in the afternoons. I do not care to go into the reasons for that here, just take my word for it. (in fact, she reinforced that the other morning BIG time.) I can't just leave my kid at school till 6:30 PM every night.

So I made the hard decision to put her in a school closer to the house which has bus service. Thankfully, it rates as high as the magnet school she was in; unfortunately the high school may not measure up. So in the meantime, I am making plans which will involve a massive upheaval in our lives so that I can get her into a better school. It involves moving to another city where I have a family support network I can trust and a highly rated high school.

So there it is; not everyone has the luxury of home schooling their kids or to be able to put them in a private school. That's life. It sucks but there it is and I toss and turn every night worrying about the whole thing. I have come to the conclusion that moving is the only answer if I want to keep up her education.

A voucher system would help me get her into the better high school (which is about as far from my house as the lesser performing school but it's a different district. I'm less than a mile from the boundary line.). There are people I know in a neighborhood closer to that school who would be happy to let her stay at their house in the afternoons. But no voucher, no school.

Then there is this:

http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/01/28/muscogee-plans-to-prosecute-parents-for-illegal-enrollment/?cxntfid=blogs_get_schooled_blog

Instead of helping parents whose kids need to get in better schools, we threaten them with jail. All the while building those fountains and E36 M3 that Mr Joshua mentioned. BTW, I know of one family here who have their daughter in another school, using a family member's address in the other school district. That whole thing in Ohio scared the E36 M3 out of them.

Also recently in my fair state the state Dept of Education had to threaten to cut off funding to some of the colleges in the state. Why? The money was being used for buildings rather than schooling. Can't find a hotlink at the moment.

Then there's the surpluses: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20110130/NEWS/301300039/State-lawmakers-take-aim-on-surpluses-held-by-universities-school-districts

SVreX wrote: It is absolutely 100% true that families pay taxes which support the public schools. Where else are you suggesting the funds come from? Those expenses which are not directly educational which you are unhappy with are ALSO paid for by families that pay taxes.

I don't dispute anything you say here. We may be in total agreement. What I take issue with is putting all of that cost on the "education funding" line if you're arguing that school costs have gone up and perfomance has gone down and then blaming the schools. I don't know if that's your opinion or not. If not, then we're in total agreement.

Again, you keep saying that everyone pays. I agree with that. But to say all that money goes to "education" I don't think is accurate and to use those figures and then to ask why private school does it cheaper is misleading. It's apples and oranges.

SVreX wrote: Don't you see why some folks are getting frustrated with your line of debate?

Absolutely not. I have made an enormous effort to respond as much and as often as I have the ability to in great detail, repeating myself again and again without complaint. I've tried to be respectful of other people's opinions and not make assumptions about their beliefs. I'll admit, I've posted a lot and I've had opinions. But how on earth anyone could find my "line of debate" frustrating, at least relative to others, is not something I can understand at all.

SVreX wrote: I've listened very carefully to you, and you've made some good points. But you are not acknowledging whether or not you are reading the information I am offering, so it is difficult to know if you are actually "chatting" or just spouting off your opinions without any effort to hear the other side. Respect goes both ways.

You have got to be kidding me. I've done my best. I do not believe I read whatever article you're talking about. It may well have gotten lost in the hundreds of posts. I've responded as well as I could. If I missed your post it was certainly no intended to disrespect you.

I really don't see how anyone could say I was "spouting off opinions without any effort to hear the other side" if they look at this thread. I've bent over backward to try to hear the other side while the courtesy has not always been returned.

Curmudgeon wrote: Vouchers wouldn't necessarily automatically put kids in private schools. There are some being bandied about that could be used to put kids in better performing public schools. Everybody down here is hollering that it would kill the poorly performing schools. Well, duh. That's the whole point. Either bring them up to snuff or watch them die off.

That sounds very much like something I was suggesting might be worth a shot. Glad to hear someone is trying it and I really hope it works. Absolutely- the goal should be to kill off the bad schools and expand the good ones.

Curmudgeon wrote: So in the meantime, I am making plans which will involve a massive upheaval in our lives so that I can get her into a better school. It involves moving to another city where I have a family support network I can trust and a highly rated high school.

That's a lucky kid and you're a hell of a dad. The education system should be set up to lend a hand, not make it tougher for you. But you're not letting that stop you and your kid will benefit from your effort.

That's really fantastic. Good on you.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: Vouchers wouldn't necessarily automatically put kids in private schools. There are some being bandied about that could be used to put kids in better performing public schools. Everybody down here is hollering that it would kill the poorly performing schools. Well, duh. That's the whole point. Either bring them up to snuff or watch them die off.

That sounds very much like something I was suggesting might be worth a shot. Glad to hear someone is trying it and I really hope it works. Absolutely- the goal should be to kill off the bad schools and expand the good ones.

But you said vouchers were bad.

DILYSI Dave wrote: But you said vouchers were bad.

Don't you start!

Two kids in public elementary school. The oldest just identified as "gifted" in the area of mathematics with the expectation that he will qualify in the area of language arts in a year or two. When I get a minute, I'm gonna read this thread, and then, hoo boy! you guys better watch out. LOL.

93EXCivic wrote:

wbjones wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: <b Show me a college which doesn't cost an arm and leg. I mean my college was ranked as one of the best colleges for value and it still cost $740 per a credit hour plus either $600 a month for dorms or $500+ a month for apartments plus books and other fees. It is still expensive and it is getting harder to get a job without a college degree.

here's a site that'll list a few...one of them even in Ky...... http://www.walletpop.com/2009/11/09/cheapest-colleges-13-standup-schools-that-cost-less-than-5-000/

Except that one offers no engineering program.

BYU does......Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art does....University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill does ('course you'd have to pay out of state tuition ), University of Virginia does (again out of state tuition), Rice does..... etc... etc ....

SVreX wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

SVreX wrote: Those expenses are not being reported honestly.

I don't know what to say other than to respectfully disagree. Not likely to sway your opinion, and that's okay. We're just chatting.

You disagree with me, or you disagree with the referenced articles? I've listened very carefully to you, and you've made some good points. But you are not acknowledging whether or not you are reading the information I am offering, so it is difficult to know if you are actually "chatting" or just spouting off your opinions without any effort to hear the other side. Respect goes both ways.

I posted links to the findings of both the CATO Institute and the Washington Post, both of which exhibited that the numbers are not being reported honestly.

You said you respectfully disagree, without comment on those studies.

My question was whether you disagreed with me, or with the findings of those studies. You didn't respond, and that's about when you lost me.

I'm not trying to argue about money, but it's pretty difficult to find a solution if you don't know what the problem is.

You have made the point that you think vouchers take funds away from public schools, and made it reasonably well. I disagree based on the evidence I see in studies such as those I posted. You have only responded by saying you respectfully disagree. Unless you can demonstrate that your experiences and expertise are in excess of those studies, you're gonna have a hard time winning me over.

I can't offer suggestions to fix a problem you don't think exists, nor offer suggestions to fix a problem you think does if the evidence I see says it does not.

Therefore this is not a discussion of either the problem or solutions. It is a one-way shouting match of a specific philosophical mantra. The mantra happens to align pretty well with one political party, so some people have taken shots at you for the political position (which, by the way, I think were out of line).

You have options for school. I do not. I don't homeschool for religious reasons, or control reasons, or fear, or because we get some joy out of living on half the income we could. I homeschool because I HAVE to. It has enormous limitations, but it is the best educational opportunity we can give our children. So, like you, I am doing the best I can for my kids, nothing less. The war zone they locally call the school is not an option. Vouchers would open up other options, and completely align with the letter and intent of compulsory education laws as far as I can tell. Perhaps there are other solutions. But as long as the potential solutions are being limited by people who have other options, my family, among many, many others, has NO choice.

There are some good things we have learned from home schooling. One of them is a pretty good understanding of what a good education should cost, and what efforts and resources are required to give a good education. On those subjects, I respectfully submit that I have offered many good viable alternatives. They are based on my experiences as a homeschooler, yes, but they are still good input to the public debate.

Don't worry. You are not the first person who didn't want to hear the opinions of a home schooler, and you won't be the last.

SVreX, I have some anecdotal evidence from a few relatives that homeschooling works. Four cousins of mine were all homeschooled by their mom (my aunt), and all four have either graduated from college or in the process. If anything, homeschooling shows that the parents are involved in the education of their children, which seems to be so crucial in a successful education. There are plenty of opportunities for homeschooled kids to be involved with the community, either through sports or other activities, so they're not the introverts that many suspect.

SVreX wrote: I posted links to the findings of both the CATO Institute and the Washington Post, both of which exhibited that the numbers are not being reported honestly.

This one?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402921.html

Okay, I missed the link. But I addressed the points it mistakenly tires to make several times.

Look at this:

"To calculate total spending, we have to add up all sources of funding for education from kindergarten through 12th grade"

That does NOT tell you the total spending on education. I've supplied many links showing that much of that money never makes it to any education. It does not represent "per pupil" spending at all. It represents the cost of a system that has been saddled again and again with government intervention and regulation. It shows the cost of standardized testing, the cost of bilingual education, the cost of asbestos removal, the cost of painting over graffiti painted by kids who shouldn't be there in the first place, it includes the cost of mandated busing, it includes the cost of union mandated retirement programs, it shows the spending on special education programs... you get the idea. Look at that list. We haven't yet spent a DIME educating a regular "pupil" in a regular classroom. And that's just off the top of my head. I'm certain it's the tip of the iceberg.

Remove all the baggage, as is the case with private schools, and the cost will go down. But as I have said a few times, those costs are there. Today, right now, they are there. If people want to work to remove those costs, great. But until they are removed, they have to be paid for. You can't blame "the schools" for having to spend it. No one asked their opinion. Even if they did, it doesn't matter. Those costs are there.

AND... That doesn't have anything to do with vouchers taking what little bit might be left and giving it to a private school! Let's assume for a minute that the stated numbers for public education spending are inflated. So? When a kid goes to a private school on a voucher, it still is taking money that was going to the public school and sending it to a private school. And the kid is getting to the private school on a bus. A bus that is funded by tax payers. So when you look at the "sources of funding" and calling that the cost of public education, you're including the cost of that bus ride across town to the private school.

Finally, the way government has mandated the schools currently be run, removing one kid, or two kids, or ten kids or twenty doesn't reduce the cost to run the public school in any significant way. If you move enough of them it may. But until then, you still need to run a third grade. You still need a third grade teacher. You still need a third grade class room. It doesn't cost any less to heat a room with 20 kids in it than it does to heat one with 25. It doesn't cost any less to run a bus with 15 kids on it than it does to run one with 20. The kitchen staff, required by state law, doesn't earn any less if they feed fewer kids. You still have to buy enough books to educate as many kids as you may have had in the past or may have in the future. You're not allowed to say "we're full" as the private schools do all the time. You can't say "we aren't equipped to serve your special needs child". You can't say "you're welcome to come but you'll have to provide your own transportation and buy your own books". You can't say "your child will have to learn English before they can come to school here". As I said, public school doesn't work like private school because it's illegal for them to do so. And you don't get to ignore the additional costs just because you don't agree with the law. As I said, I wasn't in favor of the war in Iraq, but I still have to pay my taxes, and I don't complain about it.

And, seriously. I'm sorry I missed your article. But man, really? It wasn't some kind of personal attack on you. If someone misses something and you'd like to hear their opinion, just post it again and say "I didn't see you respond to this. I think it makes a good point that you're avoiding" or something like that. If it's something I have no good answer for, I'll say "that's a good point". If it makes my previous position seem wrong, I may well even change my mind and say "that makes a lot of sense". Look at the totality of what I've had to say in this thread. Can you honestly say I'm preaching from left or right point of view? How many liberals do you know who say the union, or busing is part of the problem? How many conservatives would say the schools need more money? I make up my mind based on the facts, not on propaganda. I have no reason to avoid any information from a reasonable source.

SVreX wrote: The mantra happens to align pretty well with one political party, so some people have taken shots at you for the political position (which, by the way, I think were out of line).

I'm glad you agree that some of the shots were out of line. But how ANYONE who has read this thread can say my posts align with one political party is beyond me. I really think several people here made up their mind which pidgin hole they decided I fit in and only read the parts that fit that preconceived idea.

I've advocated kicking kids out of school, ending busing, breaking unions, not spending tax dollars on private industry, less government intervention and eliminating bilingual education. So tell me. What "one party" do those ideas align pretty well with? And let me ask you this- what party have the ideas you have suggested align pretty well with? And what ideas have you posted that didn't align perfectly with that party? How's the view from that glass house? I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who has posted in this thread who's ideas do NOT align with one party.

And what does anything I've said have to do with "not wanting to hear the opinions of a home schooler?" What the? Home school is great. But I, like many people, don't have the ability to do that if I wanted to. Just as you say you don't have any other option, I don't have that option. Can't afford it. If I've avoided the issue of home schooling at all, it's simply because home schooling isn't what I've been talking about. I've been talking about public schools. This thread is about publicly funded education. The first post was "why do they cut it". Home schools aren't publicly funded. No one can cut it's budget. Home schooling is great, but it's not a public school. You're offended because you want to talk about something else and I don't happen to be talking about that.

Typical debating tactic of a home schooler. Until you recognize that you're all Communists and hate America.... just kidding.

1. You correctly identify that the majority of the problems in our public schools come from overintrusive Government and the cost of feeding an enromous bureacracy.
2. None of your proposed solutions touch either of these major problems. Rather they try to come up with ways to improve the situation taken these bureacracies as "given".
3. You reject solutions that do because they increase inequality.

I was not taking shots at you for your alignment with a political party position, I was pointing out that your "out of hand" rejection of any market solutions that have the potential to actually cause significant change was due to bias caused by your economic philosophy... while admitting that my preference for an even more radical market solution was was due to bias caused by my liberal/capitalist economic philosophy.

Your position isn't wrong due to your political/economic alignment... your position is what it is because of your political/economic alignment... and once people can recognize their own bias it sometimes opens them up to widening their consideration of other ideas.

I apologize for calling your argument intellectually dishonest, but from my perspective your claim that by opening up some limited parental choice within the current bureacracy would result in a higher median improvements than opening up much wider parental choice (in addition to allowing your parental choice within the public system) and letting large swaths of students attend higher performing, less bureacracy-handicapped schools was so clearly illogical that it's impossible to continue debate while accepting it.

In the post where I was asked to leave the thread because I was not adding to the thread, I had posted that there would not be any significant change in the education system as long as the entrenched bureacracies were allowed to remain in control without any competitve threat from the outside to force change.

That's likely the key point in this entire discussion.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: When a kid goes to a private school on a voucher, it still is taking money that was going to the public school and sending it to a private school. And the kid is getting to the private school on a bus. A bus that is funded by tax payers. So when you look at the "sources of funding" and calling that the cost of public education, you're including the cost of that bus ride across town to the *private* school.

Huh? Evidence? In GA, nobody is allowed on the bus who is not attending the destination school. Private school = the parents drive.

I guess one thing I still don't get is how you are comfortable taking advantage of school choice that is available to you, while at the same time wanting to deny that same choice to others.

When you sent your kid to the good, but out of district school, that new school got more money, and the home district school got less. The same problem you site with vouchers.

When you sent your kid to the good, but out of district school, that new school got two more involved parents, and the home district school got two fewer. The same problem you site with vouchers.

When you sent your kid to the good, but out of district school, that new school got a higher achieving student, and the home district school got one less. The same problem you site with vouchers.

The home district school still has to run the bus, buy the books, heat the building, hire the teachers, etc. on less money because you sent your kid to the good school. The same problem you site with vouchers.

So why is it OK for your kid to get to go to the good school, but not OK for my kid?

wcelliot wrote: I was not taking shots at you for your alignment with a political party position,

You specifically, in so many words, with detailed description of your labels have done exactly that.

Your continual name calling and gross oversimplification display little understanding of issues or ability to express ideas. You're a school yard bully who hides behind rhetoric that sounds logical but holds up to little investigation. Others here have disagreed with me, even passionately. But you're the only one who, time and again, resorts to thinly veiled personal attacks as your rhetorical style.

wcelliot wrote: None of your proposed solutions touch either of these major problems. Rather they try to come up with ways to improve the situation taken these bureacracies as "given".

If busing is a problem, how is eliminating busing not a solution? If bi-lingual education is a problem, how is eliminating bi-lingual education not a solution? I ask these questions rhetorically as I have no interest in hearing you call me a "leftist" again as an answer.

wcelliot wrote: You reject solutions that do because they increase inequality.

I have called for things that would, in fact, result in inequality for some. I have said so when you have offered this commentary before. If poor performing students who are making education difficult for others are made to leave the school, they no longer have an equal opportunity. I have, indeed, suggested that I would like to see some other services made available to them. But with or without that, they need to go.

You can make these same assertions again as you have over and over. You can come up with new and more creative names to call me if you like as well. You can find other groups to try to associate me with if you like. It won't make you any more right. If you want to change my opinion on anything, you should start by taking a very hard look at how you conduct yourself. I don't think much of you manner of debate. And have you offered any solution other than vouchers- a "solution" I have discredited logically again and again? Oh, yes. You did. You suggested that eliminating all funding would result in better schools. Certainly a reasonable position. I'm sure the paid teachers would be replaced by much better volunteer teachers.

DILYSI Dave wrote: When you sent your kid to the good, but out of district school, that new school got more money, and the home district school got less. The same problem you site with vouchers.

Neither of my kids are out of district. We live in Denver and they both attend Denver Public Schools.

I need more time to respond to the rest of your post. I do NOT want to deny choice to anyone and have said that.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: When you sent your kid to the good, but out of district school, that new school got more money, and the home district school got less. The same problem you site with vouchers.

Neither of my kids are out of district. We live in Denver and they both attend Denver Public Schools. I need more time to respond to the rest of your post. I do NOT want to deny choice to anyone and have said that.

Same district, but different school. Fact remains that the school they are supposed to be going to is getting less money, etc. Kids in GA schools cannot go to any school but the one they are assigned to by virtue of their address.

Eddie, I apologize for attempting to engage you in intellecutal debate. I'm out, the thread is yours.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Same district, but different school. Fact remains that the school they are supposed to be going to is getting less money, etc. Kids in GA schools cannot go to any school but the one they are assigned to by virtue of their address.

Indeed! The POS school in my neighborhood gets less money and I hope it fails and shuts its doors. No one should have to go to that school. It’s unfortunate that as everyone in the neighborhood has pulled their kid out of it, the district has bused more kids in. Otherwise it would be an empty building.

As for Georgia, that isn't so. I don't know what city you're in, but in Atlanta, here is a list of charter schools:

http://www.atlantapublicschools.us/186110108171219307/blank/browse.asp?A=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=55088

My daughter goes to a charter school. Kids in Atlanta can try to get into one of them just as we did. My son is in a "magnet" program. I'll save the time of looking for a list of those in GA because it's not the point.

This is. I absolutely want choice for students. But here's the thing. We have choice. We can say we don't, but it's not true. There is a world of education options. Home schooling is one. Ironic that the advocate of home schooling is denouncing his ability to make a choice. But there are many other choices. We all have a choice of private education. The fact that you’re not in a financial position to take advantage of it does not make it any less of a choice. You have other choices- you could take a second job. You could try to get a better paying job. You could move into a cheaper house and drive a less expensive car. Those are choices. They may be choices you don’t like, but they are choices all the same. There are some areas in Colorado with amazing public schools. I can't send my kid to them because I can't afford a reasonable house there and I don't want a two hour commute to work. But that's my choice. I could live in a mobile home and drive four hours a day. It's a bad choice, but it's a choice.

What some here are calling for is a government subsidy for the choice they want to make. They want to send their kids to the same school rich kids go to but they want the government to pay for it. I don't think more government subsidies of private industry are a good idea. If the private schools are so much better, then they should be able to operate themselves in a way that doesn't need government funding to succeed. If you're an advocate of private education, you should want to keep it private. If more and more kids start going there on the public dime, the same BS regulation that is killing public schools will creep into private schools. The irony is, if we're talking politics, which seems to be all anyone is capable of talking about, the politicians who advocate vouchers, more accurately "government subsidies" for private schools are the same ones who want to mandate at the federal level what and how the classroom teacher in my neighborhood teaches and tie their pay to student's performance on standardized tests. The same politicians who want to eliminate government subsidies for food, or housing, or bank bailouts are the ones who are calling for more government subsidies for education. That’s what bugs me about the political parties. On the other side of the coin, the party that just passed a massive health care subsidy of the private insurance industry is the one that doesn’t want to subsidies private schools. That’s why the left is so angry about the health care bill. That’s a whole different subject that, you’ll be surprised to hear, I have some opinions on. But my point being both parties are schizophrenic about these issues. The people calling for government subsidies of private schools are calling the health care bill unconstitutional because we A. have to participate and B. pay private insurance with tax money. Sound familiar? It’s crazy!

Real choice for everyone would be a choice of public schools that anyone can go to. Real competition would be competition between schools on a level playing field. This is an idea we’ve talked about in detail several pages ago. You made a good point (I think it was you. It was a reasonable point, so I assume it was you) that in less populated areas there are fewer schools. It does seem a lot less practical in those areas. Shoot, driving from my son’s school to the office, I go through FOUR school zones. Can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a school in Denver.

Point being, and this is what I’m getting tired of, I don’t have the answer. My hope was that we could talk about ideas. But that isn’t what’s happened. If someone suggests an idea, someone swoops in and makes it some BS political talking point. Then we end up defending some idea. Well, hell. I don’t know if I like the idea. I just wanted to talk about it. But look what I’m saying on this very page. Even I say I’m “calling for” this and that. I’m not calling for anything. I just want to explore the ideas- all the ideas- and see if we can come up with something that looks like a way forward. No one else seems interested in that discussion. Actually, Dave, you have been. And SVreX, I think you may want to as well. Actually, if I’m honest, I’ve let myself get pissed off and it can be almost entirely attributed to one pompous ass hole. I’m not blaming him. That’s on me. I know better than to let bullies get under my skin.

Okay, at this point, I’m rehashing the same things I’ve talked about in detail. I’d be happy to continue to do so, but for two reasons. I run a department and we’re entering a very critical and stressful time. No, it’s not that I couldn’t make time to post on this subject. I get stressed when we’re really busy (60+ hours a week busy for about a month) When I get stressed I get angry. When I’m angry I start to sound like some people who have posted in this thread, and after seeing how ugly and petty that looks, I don’t want to end up there again. I’ve done that and I hate when I do. So I am going to try to move on. We’ve explored this subject in some detail and there has been some reasonable discussion of ideas.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Huh? Evidence? In GA, nobody is allowed on the bus who is not attending the destination school. Private school = the parents drive.

Boston

http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2009/03/27/hub_must_fund_private_school_busing_citys_counsel_says/

"Boston school Superintendent Carol R. Johnson was planning a bold but controversial cost-saving step for next year: halting a decades-long practice of busing students to parochial and private schools, a quietly treasured perk among the families involved."

New Jersey

http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/112648099_Letter__End_public_busing_for_private_schools.html

"I am a trustee of the Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education. This school year alone, 2010–2011, the RIH district will pay in excess of $260,000 in transportation costs for students who could have attended one of our schools, but elected to attend school elsewhere."

Sounds like a choice.

Cleveland

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/10/13/districts-to-carpool-for-busing-private-school-students.html

"It takes 43 school buses to drive roughly 400 Franklin County students to two private schools."

You can google more if you like. It happens every day, across the country, costs a forturne, and ends up putting buses on the road for many miles that are almost empty. Yet the cost to bus those children to private schools is part of the "cost of public education". It's another government subsidy of private industry.

You are right when you say it doesn't happen in Gerogia. More laws like this are a good idea. Specifically outlaw public funds for private schools.

"Public Aid for Private Schools/Private School Students: The Georgia Constitution prohibits any money from the public treasury to be used directly or indirectly in aid of any sectarian institution. Georgia Constitution Article I, § II, Paragraph VII. The Attorney General's Office has interpreted this prohibition to apply to transportation services, 1945-47 Op. Attorney General p. 222 and to contracts for goods and services, 1969 Op. Attorney General Number 69-125. Programs wholly financed by the federal government are lawful even though it contemplates the provision of library resources, textbooks and instructional materials. 1965-66 Op. attorney General Number 65-4."

http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/RegPrivSchl/georgia.html

I'm not making any of this stuff up. It's all true and can be easily found on the internet. 43 busses to take kids from all over the place to two schools. What's the "per pupil" cost for that? And private school is less expensive and more efficent? Sure it is- if the public school picks up the tab for crap like this.

We are in agreement then that that is BS.

I do caution you about using the Atlanta Public Schools as an example for ANYTHING. They are so berkeleyed up that they are on the verge of losing their accreditation.

DILYSI Dave wrote: We are in agreement then that that is BS.

Damn you're refreshing. We should get together for a beer and figure this all out. Sorry I'm so defensive and I really am trying to leave this thread alone, but it's like crack.

I think it's the more "messed up" school districts that offer more choices- by demand. Denver Public is a mess too. That's why there are at least some choices for people willing to jump through enough hoops to find them. Sure should be a lot easier for parents to get their kids in a decent school, though.

wcelliot wrote: Eddie, I apologize for attempting to engage you in intellecutal debate. I'm out, the thread is yours.

Let's have an intellectual debate. What about the busing issue above. Do you agree that it is an enormous waste of taxpayer money to use 43 buses to get kids from all over an Ohio county to two schools?

Do you agree that it would save a huge amount of money and lower the "per pupil" cost of public education if they stopped paying for this service for students at private schools?

Do you agree that the cost for that is included in figures that add up all the sources of education funding and therefore, those numbers are not an accurate reflection of public school costs?

I'm happy to hear your opinion on the subject of these govenment sbusidies and if I'm wrong about them I will change my opinion.