"Religious Freedom" = Discrimination = Hate

If their attendance rate is going down, why do you think that is?

Because the parents who prefer religious education and can afford the extra money take the voucher.

NOT necessarily because the private school "provides a better education".

Funding is still equal per child, regardless.

Equally lean for poor areas and equally fat for rich areas.  Not what I normally call "equal".

what exactly is your option as the parent of this child? Take the handout and what, exactly?

Some neighborhoods will still only have one option.

But that one option may be miles and miles away and more expensive than the voucher and won't accept special needs kids.

They should literally get the same amount, or more if you would like.  This is ridiculous.

If their attendance rate is going down, why do you think that is?

Because the parents who prefer religious education and can afford the extra money take the voucher.

NOT necessarily because the private school "provides a better education".

Who determines what is better education?

Funding is still equal per child, regardless.

Equally lean for poor areas and equally fat for rich areas.  Not what I normally call "equal".

They should literally get the same amount, or more if you would like.  This is ridiculous.

I'm completely lost on what you are trying to accomplish: you started out with you don't want coercion, dependency on the state, abuse, bad schools, and you wanted to be able to opt out of paying taxes

and maybe have vouchers but you definitely don't care about special needs kids or poor children, because public education is advocating for idiocy or something,

and if public schools want your tax dollars, they can earn them through better results even though they have no textbooks, teachers or technology. Got it. Please let me know which state you plan to run for governor of as soon as possible :). 

If their attendance rate is going down, why do you think that is?

Because the parents who prefer religious education and can afford the extra money take the voucher.

NOT necessarily because the private school "provides a better education".

Who determines what is better education?

Test scores.  Test scores determine better education.

Wouldn't that be something.

Ok, (IFF) every child in the country actually gets the exact same voucher dollar value, (THEN) I'm on board 100%.

HowEVer, this is NOT the case and there are ZERO school districts where this EGALITARIAN OPTION is being seriously discussed.

The state should not be pressuring people into public schools to begin with. It should be enabling them, not holding them back.

When the state government takes money and dictates how people and their community account for their educational interest that is absolutely a coercive policy.  It undermines natural interest and causes dependency too.    If the people running the state want to help the poor and needy, they can do so in a manner that enables them to help themselves, not holding them back.

 the state should apportion what has already been set aside for people interested in other options.  If a mother doesn't want her son to attend their failing state subsidized inner city school, she should not be forced to rely on it. 

allotting the funding already apportioned for education in a manner which doesn't lend to coercion from whatever interests currently preoccupy the state government, whether they lend to neglect, standardized improvement, or intrusion.  Actually, give people back the money that the state uses to artificially prop up public education, for education. 

We are never going to improve our education systems until the people actually want to take the initiative themselves.

Again, refunding taxes for services not used...should I get a refund every year my house doesn't catch on fire because shit, I don't use the fire department! Or maybe if I never report a crime, should I get my portion of the police funding back? This is not how taxes work, nor am I being coerced by paying them. 

The state should not be pressuring people into public schools to begin with. It should be enabling them, not holding them back.

Sounds like "states shouldn't insist on public schools."

When the state government takes money and dictates how people and their community account for their educational interest that is absolutely a coercive policy.  It undermines natural interest and causes dependency too.    If the people running the state want to help the poor and needy, they can do so in a manner that enables them to help themselves, not holding them back.

Read it as "taxes [state government taking money and creating educational system for all to use = taxes] are coercive and cause dependency.

534:

 the state should apportion what has already been set aside for people interested in other options.  If a mother doesn't want her son to attend their failing state subsidized inner city school, she should not be forced to rely on it. 

Read as "State should tax then refund the portion for education to people who don't want to use public education." 

allotting the funding already apportioned for education in a manner which doesn't lend to coercion from whatever interests currently preoccupy the state government, whether they lend to neglect, standardized improvement, or intrusion.  Actually, give people back the money that the state uses to artificially prop up public education, for education. 

Again, refunding taxes for services not used...should I get a refund every year my house doesn't catch on fire because shit, I don't use the fire department! Or maybe if I never report a crime, should I get my portion of the police funding back? This is not how taxes work, nor am I being coerced by paying them. 

We are never going to improve our education systems until the people actually want to take the initiative themselves.

Sounds like "do your own education." Presumably with the money you paid then got refunded. 

Repeated requests for clarification were less than illuminating. Sorry if I read you wrong, I mean I can continue but...

Most of the private schools charge more than the voucher provides.

This leaves poor families and children with special needs with ZERO EDUCATION.

if the private schools want to take that amount or require the parents pay the difference, that's a choice

holding back better students to help special needs is wrong on many levels and imo is anti freedom and anti American, stifling potential for the sake of equality is counter productive.

there should be some kind of voucher system for gifted students at least and if that means they wish to attend a private school then they should have that option and whatever tax money is earmarked for that student that should follow them as well, it's going to be spent on them so let them decide how it should be spent.

it's funny how people say blacks are being held down which in reality is they are not being let out, which demographic makes up a majority in these shit hole schools, this could be a chance for some of them, with real promise, to escape and potentially give back to their very communities, how can that be a bad thing?

Read as "State should tax then refund the portion for education to people who don't want to use public education." 

Nope, no refund mentioned.

The problem with that to my way of thinking is that not everyone pays in the cost of education in any given year in taxes. I would call it a form of social security. 

I guess what I'm trying to explain and articulate is the charter school concept and technical schools but in a more comprehensive way.  If a child doesn't want to peruse science but excels at a trade then there shouldn't be barriers to that.  In some places that opinion exists, sort of, they won't provide transportation and may include additional costs which is why I would argue that student has money earmarked and they should be able to choose how it's spent.  A hybrid type system.  Not I want to go to school x because my friends are there or their food is better, nothing so chaotic but logical, rational arguments should be entertained and accommodated more than the current system allows.

Ok, (IFF) every child in the country actually gets the exact same voucher dollar value, (THEN) I'm on board 100%. 

Basically, an equal slice for each child

Ok, (IFF) every child in the country actually gets the exact same voucher dollar value, (THEN) I'm on board 100%. 

in the country wouldn't be possible or practical due to cost of living etc, but it should be as level a playing field as possible.  I don't think a school in a very affluent area where property prices are sky high deserve more than kids in the next town over, somehow that needs to be more fair.  Now if people want to donate then that's their choice.  But I generally believe the amount should be fairly standard, they are give x amount, you make the most with it.

I'm confused: how would giving rich kids and poor kids the exact same amount of 'funds' give the poor kids any advantage?

Perhaps someone can show how throwing more money at something like this will fix the system?