would you support giving parents the full dollar amount of the vouchers to pay them to home school their own children?
aLSo, as a point of curiosity, would you support giving parents the full dollar amount of the vouchers to pay them to home school their own children?
Vermont ($20,795 per pupil) is ranked #5 and Utah ($7,207 per pupil) is ranked #30.
The problem here is we can't get anywhere until we get the rich kids onboard.I don't think "throwing money" at the problem is a great idea. I think using research to figure out how to get the most out of what money you can use, applying it to the places where it's needed, is probably a start. I can't imagine a material advantage in the purchasing power argument for the poorer districts because you're talking about a percentage point difference, i.e. 1000 bucks in a rich district spends like 1000 bucks, in a poor district it spends like 1200, the advantage is only $200, just to use round numbers. If the rich areas don't need that assistance, I don't get why it would be given, just for the appearance of fairness? To kids who are born into a great advantage through absolutely nothing but their own luck? I'd rather take the 2000 bucks that spends like 2200 altogether, 1000 of which is probably going to go to getting a new barista in the fancy schmancy teachers lounge and give it to the poor district where it can spend like a $2400 advantage, not a $200 one. Seems a better investment.
would you support giving parents the full dollar amount of the vouchers to pay them to home school their own children?Wouldn't that also require paying the parent to do so, a salary? Otherwise their income becomes a problem: you can have $20K a year to home school your child, but you have to give up your $30K a year job to do it?
aLSo, as a point of curiosity, would you support giving parents the full dollar amount of the vouchers to pay them to home school their own children?no because the amount goes for a variety of things not just direct teaching.
My mother taught me more than I learned from school while working full time, partly because she is a good mom, and partly because my educational system didn't afford very efficient use of my time. Music is encouraged in my family traditionally, but we usually work and learn something that is naturally of interest over sport.
a parent would provide a sports team? marching band or even music lessons etc huh don't know anyone who home schools that provides those things, do you?
Citation please.Even here locally there are good and bad schools. The bad ones aren't because of funding but are bad because the students are violent.
The most vocal proponents of home schooling (and school vouchers) are Christians.Also what happened to Jesus in this debate? :)
There are community sports leagues that are not school sponsored. Parents could use part of their "school budget" to hire a music teacher or teach music themselves. I don't see either one of these as insurmountable "problems". There are also home-school clubs that offer group activities and competitions for members.
If you're making $30,000 a year and you're offered $24,000 a year to stay home and teach your two kids, that seems like an attractive trade-off.I suppose, but isn't the choice between "work to pay your bills and send your kid to a crappy public school" or "quit your job at tremendous personal cost to perform a job that is, in many other places, performed by the state instead" not exactly a choice at all? At least not one we should be facing in America today, as far as I can see.
the violence, fights and drugs in schools will be solved by giving the schools more money?
you want a citation for my observation and opinion? If I give you specifics I would be doxing myself.
do you think parental support like that at home makes students better? I mean I certainly would think so and that is probably more likely to be the case from people with wealth. Wealthy people tend to be more educated, more intelligent therefore place a higher priority on education for their children compared to others who didn't grow up that way.
BY percentage of population of the US, though, wouldn't that make sense probablistically? All I'm saying is that information doesn't give us the WHY, just the THAT. Not insight into why that is.
What if you make 60K a year? I presume the state would also offer the teacher's benefits package for medical coverage?
Christians want to defund public schools because they don't want their kids to learn about evolution.If you look at a lot of the curriculum designed specifically for home schoolers, it is clearly creationist propaganda.
I agree, this is the conclusion I reach too (evolution or substandard and unsound sex ed programs), but just the numbers don't indicate that, that's what I meant. The unregulated curriculum is a big issue.
If you want an abortion, you should join a religion that makes it mandatory in some way so you can claim "religious freedom".
If you want an abortion, you should join a religion that makes it mandatory in some way so you can claim "religious freedom".I am pretty sure that sacrificing children to Baal or Molech is not something that someone can claim religious freedom for.But to use another less extreme example, I don't believe that a religious conviction that property rights do not exist will fly before the judge when you get caught for theft.
I don't think religious sincerity has much to do with it. Society will not tolerate thieves and murderers running about with no consequence. If the secular authorities were to make such an obvious error of justice, I predict that you are going to find a rise in people with the religious conviction that murderers be put to death.
Really, and this is the truth, if a certain segment of the LGBT crowd doesn't stop marketing their lifestyle towards children, they might in fact be working towards.
