Your children are not yours

[88GT]

Vouchers.

This was the claim made:

The state, at the moment, will even pay for you to send your child to the private school of your choice.

Voucher recipients must meet eligibility requirements. Schools that qualify to receive voucher money must meet eligibility requirements. Families that take part in the School Choice Scholarship Program receive tax money to help pay the cost of private school. Under the program, vouchers can cover up to 90 percent of the cost of tuition, depending on a family's income. The actual value of the vouchers is less than the amount of tax money a public school would have received for that student. The maximum value for students in grades one through eight is $4,500.

That's hardly "pay for you to send your child to the private school of your choice."

Also,

The actual value of the vouchers is less than the amount of tax money a public school would have received for that student.

Better education, less money spent getting it. What's the problem?

I'm glad to hear that when your children are sitting in a private school, your kids are out of control. What a relief!

Wrong context for control.

 

[Pooty22]

Better education, less money spent getting it. What's the problem?

Those are public education dollars paying for those vouchers. So what's the difference between the state spending your money on public schools and the state spending your money to send kids to private school?

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Tagged and subscribed! I'll be watching this pretty close since it hits so close to home.


Another thing we may wish to consider is what a marriage contract entails there, here it makes your children wards of the state in the case of dissolution and even a few other circumstances.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Those are public education dollars paying for those vouchers. So what's the difference between the state spending your money on public schools and the state spending your money to send kids to private school?

I can only speak for myself, but it seems that while having the state out of the picture completely would be ideal, having the state spend my tax money to my specification rather than spending it doing things that make my blood boil is a major leap forward.

Personally, I believe that putting restrictions on it as is done and limiting the amount of money based on income should stop immediately. A certain amount per student is collected per years and even the overhead costs are apportioned per student and if the public schools can't support their bureaucracy with the income from the students who stay, then they can trim like anyone else.

It seems to me that the entire voucher program is engineered to say that they have done it while making it as difficult as possible to actually use. In the end, cutting the state as middle man out of the equation would be ideal, but I don't see it happening. The people who brought you mass indoctrination of children aren't likely to relinquish any more grasp on them than they absolutely have to under the most adverse circumstances.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

The schools do a wonderful job of managing our money too. Teacher needs copy paper
Saw this today and let them have it via email! I wonder how much of that paper went home with teachers or was used for personal crap?

 

[88GT]

Those are public education dollars paying for those vouchers. So what's the difference between the state spending your money on public schools and the state spending your money to send kids to private school?

Nothing if we're talking about the use of my money for someone else's responsibilities. And if that's the tack you wanna take, let's go there. If you're trying to catch me in a "gotcha question," you'll have to do better than that.

But since I have very little say in the matter, and my money will be confiscated to pay for others' parental responsibilities, I have very little problem knowing that those monies are being spent efficiently and with better outcomes than sinking them in a bureaucratic hell-hole of government education.

Tagged and subscribed! I'll be watching this pretty close since it hits so close to home.


Another thing we may wish to consider is what a marriage contract entails there, here it makes your children wards of the state in the case of dissolution and even a few other circumstances.

I've seen this claim before, but aside from a single internet source, I am aware of nothing that backs it up. Do you have any sources for this? The biggest problem I see with it is that the state isn't a party to the marriage contract. A contract requires a pre-determiend set of required behaviors in exchange for a particular consideration (monetary or otherwise). The state has no obligations and receives no compensation from the act of union.

I'm not calling you out. I'd really like to get a better understanding where this stands. My sense of it is that if there were any truth/substance to it, there would be a lot more kids in the system than there are.

 

[Yes]

This is why I'll never have kids unless I hit the lottery and can afford a 900ft tungsten wall around my compound and a heavily armed private security force.

Nothing good ever happens in a school. When I was a kid, I went to both public and private schools in NYC, and the only things I ever learned were how to gamble, fight, and buy and sell drugs.

Once you pass the 5th grade, everything can be easily and readily learned from the internet or books. (books! what a novel concept!)

If I ever have a kid (I won't), and someone tries to force him to go to school, there will be excessive blood.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I've seen this claim before, but aside from a single internet source, I am aware of nothing that backs it up. Do you have any sources for this? The biggest problem I see with it is that the state isn't a party to the marriage contract. A contract requires a pre-determiend set of required behaviors in exchange for a particular consideration (monetary or otherwise). The state has no obligations and receives no compensation from the act of union.

I'm not calling you out. I'd really like to get a better understanding where this stands. My sense of it is that if there were any truth/substance to it, there would be a lot more kids in the system than there are.

The only thing I have seen is that a while back someone posted a portion of the Arizona law which explicitly made this assertion. May have been a direct link or another link I found after checking the first one. It does happen, but apparently it varies by state and by each state's inclination to actually follow its own law both in terms of doing what it says and in not doing what it doesn't say.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Nothing if we're talking about the use of my money for someone else's responsibilities. And if that's the tack you wanna take, let's go there. If you're trying to catch me in a "gotcha question," you'll have to do better than that.

But since I have very little say in the matter, and my money will be confiscated to pay for others' parental responsibilities, I have very little problem knowing that those monies are being spent efficiently and with better outcomes than sinking them in a bureaucratic hell-hole of government education.



I've seen this claim before, but aside from a single internet source, I am aware of nothing that backs it up. Do you have any sources for this? The biggest problem I see with it is that the state isn't a party to the marriage contract. A contract requires a pre-determiend set of required behaviors in exchange for a particular consideration (monetary or otherwise). The state has no obligations and receives no compensation from the act of union.

I'm not calling you out. I'd really like to get a better understanding where this stands. My sense of it is that if there were any truth/substance to it, there would be a lot more kids in the system than there are.

A marriage license is a 3 party contract between two people and the state. In the event of dissolution, the state takes control of the "fruit" of the partnership. I'm going to have to do a bit of searching, but there was a thread on THR (before it was stolen from Oleg) about this. I asked some of the nations leading experts in marital law and there was a really good write up explaining it in great detail. I'll PM you with a link when I find it. It could be a day or two though.

 

[88GT]

A marriage license is a 3 party contract between two people and the state. In the event of dissolution, the state takes control of the "fruit" of the partnership. I'm going to have to do a bit of searching, but there was a thread on THR (before it was stolen from Oleg) about this. I asked some of the nations leading experts in marital law and there was a really good write up explaining it in great detail. I'll PM you with a link when I find it. It could be a day or two though.

If it's this, I'm not convinced.

I've seen it before, but I don't believe there's any legal or judicial support to the claim.



If the marriage license is a contract with the state, then so is a DLs and the state should have claim to all property resulting from the use of that DL. Suspension of the DL should give the state claim to the vehicle owned by the DL holder, no?

An even better example: If the marriage license is a contract with the state and such a license makes it a de facto for-profit private business, then the property of any and all businesses who close their doors belongs to the state as well.

Taking it a step farther, why doesn't the state have any claim to the personal property of the soon-to-be-divorced married couple? Is that not also "fruit of the contract?"

And farther still, why wait until the marriage is dissolved? If the state is in fact a party to the contract then why does it have no say during the marriage?

What of children born out of wedlock? To whom do they belong? Where does the principle of Parental Rights come into play? How can it only apply to the parents of bastard children?


States may have ruled as such, but to date SCOTUS has routinely put to bed the idea that the state has any interest in the children beyond its role as protector of person and liberties when such responsibilities have been abdicated by the parents/guardians.

 

[Vlad the Impaler]

Don't kid yourself on the current voucher system. You have to meet eligibility requirements, which includes maximum income levels, and they are very low.

On the flip side, you don't get to go anywhere you want. The school has to have openings, and they are limited to voucher holders.

I'm with 88GT on this one. If you desire to send your childern to private school you can find a way. It's all about concessions if you don't have the disposable income to do it.

The real pisser is, if I didn't have to pay for everyone elses kid in my crappy school district, I'd be in fine financial shape and making few consessions to send my kids to private school. Snowball's chance in hell, but what would be really cool is free market schooling. You pay for your kid to go to the best school you can afford, and everyone pays for thier own kids. Can't afford what you want? You should have though harder before having 5 kids. There is no debt owed you because you choose to have children, or are too ill informed to know what it costs to raise them.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Don't kid yourself on the current voucher system. You have to meet eligibility requirements, which includes maximum income levels, and they are very low.

On the flip side, you don't get to go anywhere you want. The school has to have openings, and they are limited to voucher holders.

I'm with 88GT on this one. If you desire to send your childern to private school you can find a way. It's all about concessions if you don't have the disposable income to do it.

The real pisser is, if I didn't have to pay for everyone elses kid in my crappy school district, I'd be in fine financial shape and making few consessions to send my kids to private school. Snowball's chance in hell, but what would be really cool is free market schooling. You pay for your kid to go to the best school you can afford, and everyone pays for thier own kids. Can't afford what you want? You should have though harder before having 5 kids. There is no debt owed you because you choose to have children, or are too ill informed to know what it costs to raise them.

I agree, private/charter schools seem to work better. The problem is that the IN state constitution guarantees a public education for all children in the state at no cost. Try to change it in any way and guess where that gets you. Guess what label you wear then. Too many sheeple...... We desperately need a culling of society and I'm almost certain one is in the works, but WE are the ones tagged for auction if you know what I mean.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I agree, private/charter schools seem to work better. The problem is that the IN state constitution guarantees a public education for all children in the state at no cost. Try to change it in any way and guess where that gets you. Guess what label you wear then. Too many sheeple...... We desperately need a culling of society and I'm almost certain one is in the works, but WE are the ones tagged for auction if you know what I mean.

Don't you just hate being right sometimes?

 

[88GT]

I agree, private/charter schools seem to work better. The problem is that the IN state constitution guarantees a public education for all children in the state at no cost. Try to change it in any way and guess where that gets you. Guess what label you wear then. Too many sheeple...... We desperately need a culling of society and I'm almost certain one is in the works, but WE are the ones tagged for auction if you know what I mean.

In light of the rest of your post, those arguing against them have something other than the education of children foremost in their minds.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Barring the impossible solution of getting the .gov out of education completely, the acceptable solution would be the availability of vouchers with no strings attached for the average cost of educating one student at the applicable grade level. No income requirements, not limits on which accredited school, and I would throw in covering costs for home-school material if that is the case.

Problems to be solved:

1. Public schools are too top-heavy and are not going to peacefully give up the portion of the cost per student that goes to administrative expenses although this should reduce more or less proportionate to the number of students. Their self-interest also fails to account for the fact that the other schools have increased administrative costs (albeit far more reasonable in most cases) and the public schools are neither willing to trim nor to provide those same services per student regardless of whose school they attend.

2. The income restrictions on vouchers would seem to be as much a vehicle of shedding students who are often the most difficult to work with creating a way for public schools to do a form of cherry-picking that used to be the exclusive venue of private schools.

3. Any time the .gov is involved in collecting the money, far too much of it will be bled of on the way to the destination and the .gov won't have it any other way.

4. In the end, what was presented as a huge concession to educational choice and freedom is in fact engineered for the benefit of the public schools, again to the detriment of the children who would stand to gain the most from a nominally similar system which was actually designed to work for its ostensible purpose.

 

[88GT]

2. The income restrictions on vouchers would seem to be as much a vehicle of shedding students who are often the most difficult to work with creating a way for public schools to do a form of cherry-picking that used to be the exclusive venue of private schools.

Since schools lose money for each student that leaves, I have my suspicions that it would be worth it to them to forego the money just for the sake of eliminating "problem" children. And the breakdown of voucher use based on the school that lost the children doesn't support this at all. It's heavily skewed towards schools/districts in areas that have higher rates of poverty-esque symptoms AND heavily liberal/Democratic governments. Seems people are fleeing the politics of schools rather than schools using vouchers to eject their statistical outliers and curve-wreckers.

4. In the end, what was presented as a huge concession to educational choice and freedom is in fact engineered for the benefit of the public schools, again to the detriment of the children who would stand to gain the most from a nominally similar system which was actually designed to work for its ostensible purpose.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't see how government schools--individually or as a system--benefit at all from vouchers. In fact, I see the opposite.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

In light of the rest of your post, those arguing against them have something other than the education of children foremost in their minds.

Correct, they're still less than ideal, but let's take it one step at a time and at least get an education out of the deal.

 

[88GT]

Correct, they're still less than ideal, but let's take it one step at a time and at least get an education out of the deal.

Who can argue against that?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Since schools lose money for each student that leaves, I have my suspicions that it would be worth it to them to forego the money just for the sake of eliminating "problem" children. And the breakdown of voucher use based on the school that lost the children doesn't support this at all. It's heavily skewed towards schools/districts in areas that have higher rates of poverty-esque symptoms AND heavily liberal/Democratic governments. Seems people are fleeing the politics of schools rather than schools using vouchers to eject their statistical outliers and curve-wreckers.



I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't see how government schools--individually or as a system--benefit at all from vouchers. In fact, I see the opposite.

My dad got all fired up--let me think--10 or 15 years ago when the local public schools were collecting something on the order of $6,000 per student. Assuming that this represented total intake and not just property tax assessments since I don't remember for sure, and assuming that this has not increased in the intervening time, paying out a maximum of $4500 per student who leaves which I understand to be a maximum not a set standard, the school system is still making at least $1500 per student who has been palmed off on someone else (particularly in the case of the problem students who tend to congregate in the demographics most likely to receive the first priority and maximum allotments of money under this system).

Historically, private schools were able to attract their choice of students through selective admission and the cost of tuition limiting the demographics to which the option was available. Now the public schools can turn the tables by being able to export problem children, still make a handsome profit on children they do not have to deal with and have no expense in, and can make themselves look better academically by being able to shuck problem students and keep better ones who are not poor enough to take full advantage of vouchers and not rich enough to write a check for tuition.

I also recall that a student has to attend at least one year in a public school before becoming eligible for a voucher. This shuts the door to those who would make the most of the opportunity and creates a vehicle for weeding out students the PS would like to export.

 

[rambone]

A British family loses 3 foster children, this time because of political affiliation.

Government Snatches Kids From Couple Over Support for "Independence" From European Union