pobod

Ending religious discrimination. ??

After the John Tory fisaco, there is no desire to go in this direction. JT chose religious schools instead of “all schools” because he believed and was encouraged to believe that it was the “more popular” route. He hoped to GAIN the Muslim, Jewish and Christian vote, in fact he lost everybody else.

One thing vouncher types dont understand is that those who oppose this direction do not oppose it just for themselves. They don’t want it AND they don’t want anybody else to have it either.

There is a BIG struggle within public education, that the new TDSB dirctor is determined to close, that the affluent have much more access to French Immersion, gifted and IB type programs.

They are attacked at bastions of the affluent.

I would be very happy to put any proposals from the reform community to a referrendum vote any time, they will all be voted down strongly. Vouchers never passed one referrendum vote in the USA so they took to charters and pressure on Republican governors.

Face the facts. These proposals are unpopular.

pobod

There are still savings to be made due to duplication. There are cities all over Ontario with 4 schools all too small that need to be consolodated.

The fairness argument was dealt with in the John Tory election. Ontarians totally reject public money for religious education.

Why not a minimum of 1 student, assuming all the standards are met?  Why shouldn’t a homeschooled student get some funding?  Why wouldn’t we fund four like-minded moms who want to share the load?

pobod

Why would a home schooled kid get any money? 70% of education cost is the teacher, another 10% is support staff, another 10% is heat, light, repairs, another 5% is paper chalk etc. The home school kid needs none of this.

You want them to get money for supplies? OK in the area of $500-1000/year.

Gosh Doug - Why should a home schooled kid get any money?  That’s a question only a bureaucrat in a school monopoly would ask.

For taxpayers, a child is going to cost whatever the per-head subsidy is, regardless of whom that funding goes to.  If mom decides that amount makes it worth while to home-school, then let her knock herself out. 

In BC, the government gives half the standard subsidy to anyone who pulls their child out - to homeschools, to private schools whatever.  If EVERYONE did this, provincial education costs would be drop in half.  http://www.bcedplan.ca/assets/pdf/bc_edu_plan.pdf

For parents, a voucher empowers a ‘better’ education for their child.  For some, ‘better’ means more rigourous academics, for others it means support for a learning disability, or escape from bullying.  And of course, some will simply stick with the public school in their neighbourhood.

For poverty activists, vouchers fund charter schools, helping poor kids escape the gloomy correlation between income and public education outcomes.  http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/a-tale-of-two-schools-the-correlation-between-income-and-education/article15463950

And for everyone who looks forward to a government pension to fund their old age, a better-educated workforce is the best possible investment.  Almost every country (including Canada) has publicly funded ‘charter schools’, ‘independent schools’, ‘free schools’, or whatever.  And the evidence is that these schools improve educational outcomes - not just for the kids who enroll, but for all students.

pobod

Tom,

The majority in BC opposed funding for private schools.

The NAACP opposed vouchers, the segregate but add nothing to education.The Milwaukee voucher kids did worse than PS kids after 20 years of vouchers.

None of your arguments hold any water.

Doug: You are right about the NAACP opposition, a position that even their supporters describe as ‘shameful’. 

The NAACP is closely allied to the teachers union and to the Democratic Party;  opposing charters is a business decision for them (in the bureaucrat / monopoly sense of business).  But it clearly isn’t in the interests of black children.

The NY Times is about as liberal and Democratic-leaning as can be, and here is their commentary on the NAACP’s position. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/nyregion/naacp-on-defensive-for-suit-against-charter-schools.html

Conservative blacks are incandescent in denunciations of the NAACP.  But when poor black parents are also organizing street protests against the NAACP, it is clear that this once-proud organization has lost sight of its mission.

And by the way, if opposing better education for poor blacks is shameful for the NAACP, isn’t it also shameful for the teachers’ union?  Just saying.

pobod

Tom are you kidding? It cost $10 000 to educate a child in public school. Are you really suggesting we give a homeschooling parent $10 000 to keep their child at home? They don’t have any of the costs I outlines above. That is a joke.

pobod

Tom, the evidence does NOT show that charters do better than public schools. Vouchers either.

There are only a few ways anybody can get higher achievement than public schools.

1) Draw from a richer crowd but you will only do better than the public school average, not better than rich public school kids.

2) Use either obtuse or subtle selection methods, entry tests or refusal to allow SE, ELL or behavioural kids and “council out” all those not doing well.

3) Teach for longer hours, more days, longer year. This, however is not an apples to apples comparison then and students do not learn more they just learn faster.

In the end it all comes down to selection. On straight apples to apples comparisons, private schools, vouchers, charter schools religious schools have nothing to add from an achievement POV.

If you want the state to support your own family religious indoctrination, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Tom you keep operating on this thesis that charter education is better. There is no credible evidence that it is better.

The NAACP considers that charters made the situation of black children worse. Do you know more than they do about what is best for black children? I very much doubt that.

Quite serious Doug.  Every child has a valid and fair call on the public purse for education services.  Doesn’t matter whether funds go to buying an education from the public schools, private schools, virtual schools, home schooling, foreign schooling, etc, or even saving up for university - that should be the parent’s choice.

In BC, they ask parents who select an option other than ‘public school’ to settle for half the ‘standard’ amount, presumably giving the remainder back to taxpayers.  That’s probably an interim step, since it is so transparently unfair.

pobod

Could not disagree more Tom. Why does BC not give full value?

Taxes are raised to pay for public education only.

You cannot ask for your library taxes back backside you buy your own books, your police taxes back because you hire your own security, your DND taxes back because you are antiwar.

We ask the elderly and childless to pay education taxes because the system is not for those with children in the system, it is for the general uplift of the society.

Your entire operating premise is always wrong from the get go each time. Your basis assumptions are almost always wrong which is why, in the end you end up with foolish conclusions.

Doug:  Many government services are provided on the ‘voucher’ model.  Old Age Security is the obvious example, all qualified citizens get it and spend on whatever they need or want.

Health insurance is another example.  We usually look at the day-to-day claims side, but the financing side is more important to this discussion.  Every eligible person has their ‘insurance premium’ paid by the single-payer (government), and then can use it with very few restrictions - very much like a voucher system.

Some individuals and groups ‘top up’ their insurance for extra services like drug coverage, private hospital rooms, and eye-glasses - similar to a parent that tops up their child’s voucher for private school. 

On the claims side, no one is restricted to ‘public doctors’ or ‘public clinics’, we pick the providers we want.  Like-minded doctors form groups to offer services, and those that cannot attract enough business will fail. 

The health care system isn’t perfect, but it continues to improve. 

You are correct that some services are natural monopolies of the state, like the police and army.  But you invite ridicule by arguing that education should be treated like law enforcement.

pobod

The people have spoken. They reject this model in its entirety. Ask John Tory.

It has been on many ballots in the USA and never come close to being accepted. It only exists where RW governments shoved it down people’s throats without a vote.

It has also failed. Read some recent literature anout voucher kids in Milwaukee in math, way behind the PS kids.