House Bill 225 and the changes coming to the FHSAA

[Perspective]

5 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:

As Dr. D correctly pointed out, the intent is to provide opportunity for extracurricular activity to those that don't have it.  Be it football, band, religious beliefs or the debate team.  Whether we have negative unintended consequences remains to be seen as well as what tweaks can be made to correct them.   The general concept of "School Choice" is embraced by the vast majority of parents, particularly in minority families with only a single Mom raising her kids. 

I'm just wondering how many of these "unintended consequences" there will be before folks say "let's just go back to the way it was and unless a kid chooses to attend a private school, the kid must attend the school for which he/she is zoned."  And what will the high school sports world look like when that finally happens?

[Ray Icaza]

7 minutes ago, Perspective said:

I'm just wondering how many of these "unintended consequences" there will be before folks say "let's just go back to the way it was and unless a kid chooses to attend a private school, the kid must attend the school for which he/she is zoned."  And what will the high school sports world look like when that finally happens?

The athletic imbalances that seem to be the unintended consequences will not trump school choice in our current political environment, so if your question is directed at me "We Ain't Going Back".

[Nulli Secundus]

53 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:

As Dr. D correctly pointed out, the intent is to provide opportunity for extracurricular activity to those that don't have it.  Be it football, band, religious beliefs or the debate team.  Whether we have negative unintended consequences remains to be seen as well as what tweaks can be made to correct them.   The general concept of "School Choice" is embraced by the vast majority of parents, particularly in minority families with only a single Mom raising her kids. 

Now wait wait wait!  You mean to tell me that School Choice isn't about academics!  If Billy Ball, Sally Slugger, Fiona Flautist, Harry Holy or Tyler Talker wants to attend a different program for extra-curricular activities which could further their chances for advancement after graduation, that is certainly within their rights to do so.  However, education is (or should be) at the forefront of that conversation each and every time.  I'm envious of some of the educational opportunities this generation has access to, FOR FREE!  Even in little 'ole Polk County, but I digress.  

It's time for me to get my popcorn because the show is about tot start.

[Nulli Secundus]

1 hour ago, Perspective said:

I'm just wondering how many of these "unintended consequences" there will be before folks say "let's just go back to the way it was and unless a kid chooses to attend a private school, the kid must attend the school for which he/she is zoned."  And what will the high school sports world look like when that finally happens?

Who's going to be the score keeper? 

[Ray Icaza]

9 hours ago, Nulli Secundus said:

Now wait wait wait!  You mean to tell me that School Choice isn't about academics!  If Billy Ball, Sally Slugger, Fiona Flautist, Harry Holy or Tyler Talker wants to attend a different program for extra-curricular activities which could further their chances for advancement after graduation, that is certainly within their rights to do so.  However, education is (or should be) at the forefront of that conversation each and every time.  I'm envious of some of the educational opportunities this generation has access to, FOR FREE!  Even in little 'ole Polk County, but I digress.  

It's time for me to get my popcorn because the show is about tot start.

Sorry to disagree that even public schools are NOT FREE and more problematic is they aren't created equal either.  As an old retiree with no kids or grandkids (youngest just graduated) in HS, my ad valorem taxes haven't gone away rather keep creeping up and a big chunk is for schools.   My daughter and son-in-law moved out of Kissimmee to the east side of St. Cloud over a decade ago so their two daughters would attend the highest rated (academic) public HS in Osceola County, Harmony HS.  Both graduated at the top of their class, but if the programs in place today for school choice were available back then, they may have taken their voucher $$$ and put them in a private school requiring no move.  That is the difference between then and now.  More parents are taking advantage of this benefit mostly for academic and other reasons outside of sports, but if that choice involves a school with no sports program, they have an alternative .  Yes, lots do it for sports also, but I completely agree with you that EDUCATION should be at the forefront of this conversation and I believe it is the impetus for these changes. 

[LakelandGator]

2 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

 The general concept of "School Choice" is embraced by the vast majority of parents, particularly in minority families with only a single Mom raising her kids. 

Show me the proof to back that claim up.

[Perspective]

So, I need someone to help me out:  as I understand it (from a bird's eye view), the government (state or county??) is going to provide vouchers for families who choose for their kids to attend a private school instead of a public school, right?  But there is a limited amount of money that can/will be spent on education.   County school boards try as hard as they can to stay ahead of the development and growth.  Developers are required to set aside land (or at least give the school board the opportunity to negotiate for the purchase of land) before single-family houses can be permitted.  OK.  That makes sense.  

But don't the schools have to be built with the assumption that every kid in the new neighborhood will be going to the public school (because that could happen)?  And the cost of the land and the cost of building a school (and all the facilities that go along with it, such as gyms, football fields, baseball and softball fields, etc.) are, for the most part, fixed costs.  If a school board buys the land and then builds a new high school with the expectation that 2,000 kids will attend (using the taxpayer money that is needed to build that facility), but then only 1,200 show up, will that same taxpayer-supported school board then have to provide vouchers so the other 800 can attend private school?   The government (i.e., the taxpayers) will then be paying for both the public school system and the private school system.   How is that economically feasible? 

I'm not looking for an argument; just an explanation. 

[Ray Icaza]

5 hours ago, LakelandGator said:

Show me the proof to back that claim up.

The American Federation for Children and Beck Research a Democratic polling firm recently released their latest poll showing the number increase this year from last to 67% supporting school choice.  Real Clear Politics poll shows that support at 72% in latest survey.  Those are two and I'm sure someone with your abilities can find several more.   Regarding minorities, analyst estimate the slim margin of victory for DeSantis campaign from roughly 6 years ago was due in large part to that exact demographic of single minority mothers voting for him when they otherwise would not have.  

[Ray Icaza]

4 hours ago, Perspective said:

So, I need someone to help me out:  as I understand it (from a bird's eye view), the government (state or county??) is going to provide vouchers for families who choose for their kids to attend a private school instead of a public school, right?  But there is a limited amount of money that can/will be spent on education.   County school boards try as hard as they can to stay ahead of the development and growth.  Developers are required to set aside land (or at least give the school board the opportunity to negotiate for the purchase of land) before single-family houses can be permitted.  OK.  That makes sense.  

But don't the schools have to be built with the assumption that every kid in the new neighborhood will be going to the public school (because that could happen)?  And the cost of the land and the cost of building a school (and all the facilities that go along with it, such as gyms, football fields, baseball and softball fields, etc.) are, for the most part, fixed costs.  If a school board buys the land and then builds a new high school with the expectation that 2,000 kids will attend (using the taxpayer money that is needed to build that facility), but then only 1,200 show up, will that same taxpayer-supported school board then have to provide vouchers so the other 800 can attend private school?   The government (i.e., the taxpayers) will then be paying for both the public school system and the private school system.   How is that economically feasible? 

I'm not looking for an argument; just an explanation. 

Studies estimate that public schools may lose up to 15% of population as opposed to the 40% number in your question.  In addition, they are funding the student, not the school.   Using your 2000 number when a new public school opens, that number quickly balloons beyond that as the community grows and the excess is moved from several adjoining schools to build a new one.  That seems to imply it was deemed productive at 2000, can handle 2500 so what difference does it make where that excess population goes?  Some leave to charter, Christian or private and the number goes back to the original estimate that it was designed for.  At least, that is the logic my simple mind tells me they are using.   Undoubtedly, there will be additional cost to fund this program.  But I harken back to your original question, why is the FDOE doing this?  Is it remotely possible that many public schools are failing us?

[Jambun82]

5 hours ago, Perspective said:

So, I need someone to help me out:  as I understand it (from a bird's eye view), the government (state or county??) is going to provide vouchers for families who choose for their kids to attend a private school instead of a public school, right?  But there is a limited amount of money that can/will be spent on education.   County school boards try as hard as they can to stay ahead of the development and growth.  Developers are required to set aside land (or at least give the school board the opportunity to negotiate for the purchase of land) before single-family houses can be permitted.  OK.  That makes sense.  

But don't the schools have to be built with the assumption that every kid in the new neighborhood will be going to the public school (because that could happen)?  And the cost of the land and the cost of building a school (and all the facilities that go along with it, such as gyms, football fields, baseball and softball fields, etc.) are, for the most part, fixed costs.  If a school board buys the land and then builds a new high school with the expectation that 2,000 kids will attend (using the taxpayer money that is needed to build that facility), but then only 1,200 show up, will that same taxpayer-supported school board then have to provide vouchers so the other 800 can attend private school?   The government (i.e., the taxpayers) will then be paying for both the public school system and the private school system.   How is that economically feasible? 

I'm not looking for an argument; just an explanation. 

Here is an explanation Pinstripes: California, New York, Illinois, and Minnesota are always looking for new residents, Big Shot. 

[Jambun82]

6 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

Sorry to disagree that even public schools are NOT FREE and more problematic is they aren't created equal either.  As an old retiree with no kids or grandkids (youngest just graduated) from HS, my ad valorem taxes haven't gone away rather keep creeping up and a big chunk is for schools.   My daughter and son-in-law moved out of Kissimmee to the east side of St. Cloud over a decade ago so their two daughters would attend the highest rated (academic) public HS in Osceola County, Harmony HS.  Both graduated at the top of their class, but if the programs in place today for school choice were available back then, they may have taken their voucher $$$ and put them in a private school requiring no move.  That is the difference between then and now.  More parents are taking advantage of this benefit mostly for academic and other reasons outside of sports, but if that choice involves a school with no sports program, they have an alternative .  Yes, lots do it for sports also, but I completely agree with you that EDUCATION should be at the forefront of this conversation and I believe it is the impetus for these changes. 

Ray, I know that you have a deep hatred for me, but I really appreciate you contributions to this message board. 

[Ray Icaza]

2 hours ago, Jambun82 said:

Ray, I know that you have a deep hatred for me, but I really appreciate you contributions to this message board. 

Hate is a strong sentiment and definitely not my feelings towards anyone on this forum.  I am just of the mindset that difference of opinion is healthy and mocking, name calling, ridiculing and yes even hate doesn't help move your point of view forward.  When it descends to that level, it becomes a waste of time to continue to engage that person.  Regarding some of your post, I find it difficult to see some of your attempts at humor to be humorous that's all. 

[LakelandGator]

3 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

The American Federation for Children and Beck Research a Democratic polling firm recently released their latest poll showing the number increase this year from last to 67% supporting school choice.  Real Clear Politics poll shows that support at 72% in latest survey.  Those are two and I'm sure someone with your abilities can find several more.   Regarding minorities, analyst estimate the slim margin of victory for DeSantis campaign from roughly 6 years ago was due in large part to that exact demographic of single minority mothers voting for him when they otherwise would not have.  

My question was regarding the bold statement you made that "School Choice" is embraced by the vast majority of parents, particularly in minority families with only a single Mom raising her kids. 

And I intentionally highlighted the part that says " particularly in minority families with only a single Mom raising her kids".  You cite some poll B.S about single minority mothers voting him for but gave no concrete reason nor concrete proof why they voted for him, if indeed that truly happened.

Were those poll numbers broken down by the various demographics? White, Latino, Black, Asian, rich, poor, middle, straight, gay, etc? Did it show that school choice was the reason single minority mothers voted for him?

It could have been any reason, but you choose to draw a strong correlation between school choice/single minority voters as the reason that demographic group voted for him.

Of course someone with your abilities you know exactly what they are doing by throwing that out there.

 

 

 

[Ray Icaza]

On 6/9/2023 at 11:30 PM, LakelandGator said:

My question was regarding the bold statement you made that "School Choice" is embraced by the vast majority of parents, particularly in minority families with only a single Mom raising her kids. 

And I intentionally highlighted the part that says " particularly in minority families with only a single Mom raising her kids".  You cite some poll B.S about single minority mothers voting him for but gave no concrete reason nor concrete proof why they voted for him, if indeed that truly happened.

Were those poll numbers broken down by the various demographics? White, Latino, Black, Asian, rich, poor, middle, straight, gay, etc? Did it show that school choice was the reason single minority mothers voted for him?

It could have been any reason, but you choose to draw a strong correlation between school choice/single minority voters as the reason that demographic group voted for him.

Of course someone with your abilities you know exactly what they are doing by throwing that out there.

 

 

 

This fact appeared in an article in the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 20, 2018 where exit polling determined that about 100,000 African-American women voted for him exclusively for that reason.  Polling from CNN came to the same conclusion, so maybe I was incorrect in determining that was the majority of African-American women.  Point being, it was a significant enough issue that although Gillum was predicted to win by 3-4% points, he lost by the slimmest of margins slightly more the 30,000 votes.  It's obvious that this probably won't convince you the importance of education "School Choice" for some that have nothing to do with sports as the tenor and tone of your questions show you have made your mind up due to hatred of a particular person.  I will leave it at that. 

[LakelandGator]

3 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

This fact appeared in an article in the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 20, 2018 where exit polling determined that about 100,000 African-American women voted for him exclusively for that reason.  Polling from CNN came to the same conclusion, so maybe I was incorrect in determining that was the majority of African-American women.  Point being, it was a significant enough issue that although Gillum was predicted to win by 3-4% points, he lost by the slimmest of margins slightly more the 30,000 votes.  It's obvious that this probably won't convince you the importance of education "School Choice" for some that have nothing to do with sports as the tenor and tone of your questions show you have made your mind up do to hatred of a particular person.  I will leave it at that. 

I have hatred for no one person, but I do have a strong dislike for a particular agenda or ideology.

Now if those poll numbers really show that many African-American woman voted for him, for that particular reason, I agree with you it's a significant number. Not a majority as you stated in your original post, but surely enough to put him in office.

[Perspective]

On 6/9/2023 at 8:23 PM, Ray Icaza said:

Studies estimate that public schools may lose up to 15% of population as opposed to the 40% number in your question.  In addition, they are funding the student, not the school.   Using your 2000 number when a new public school opens, that number quickly balloons beyond that as the community grows and the excess is moved from several adjoining schools to build a new one.  That seems to imply it was deemed productive at 2000, can handle 2500 so what difference does it make where that excess population goes?  Some leave to charter, Christian or private and the number goes back to the original estimate that it was designed for.  At least, that is the logic my simple mind tells me they are using.   Undoubtedly, there will be additional cost to fund this program.  But I harken back to your original question, why is the FDOE doing this?  Is it remotely possible that many public schools are failing us?

Thank you, Ray.  That's helpful. 

Generally speaking, I think I understand the idea of "school choice."  In simple terms, it means that any kid can attend any school that he wants to, regardless of what district he lives in.  I'm sure there are some limitations, but that's it in a nutshell, right?  And, as I understand it, while a kid can attend any school he wants to, the school district is only responsible for transportation if the student attends the school in his district.  And, while the law of unintended consequences may come into play, the concept of school choice appears to be a general concept and not some nefarious creation developed so that certain high schools in the state can obtain or maintain dominance in sports such as football. 

So how do "vouchers" fit into the school choice equation?  If I have a kid zoned for a particular public school and I "choose" to send him elsewhere, for whatever reasons, I would receive a voucher (i.e, money) from the state/county (which one?).  Does this apply if I send him to another public school in the district or only a private/charter school?  If I send him to a private school, I then have to turn around and use the voucher money to pay tuition.  What about charter schools?  How are they funded?   Tuition?  Or do parents have to sign over their voucher money to the charter schools? 

Ray, I know that sometimes, in a forum like this, asking questions is a way to make an argument.  However, in this case, for each questions asked above, I am truly interested in getting an answer.

With regard to your question at the end, I will accept your premise that there are public schools that are indeed failing us.  To that end, people need to be held accountable and if the failure persists, changes need to be made.  Administrators and teachers need to be replaced if they can't do their jobs.  I'm not sure I buy into the idea that whenever a government-operated system like the education system is failing, the answer is to immediately privatize it (especially if the government is still going to be paying for it indirectly instead of directly).  Would this also apply to police services?  Fire services?  Trash collection and disposal?  Water? Libraries?  Road maintenance?

Ray, I appreciate your willingness to engage in constructive dialogue on this issue. 

[Ray Icaza]

1 hour ago, Perspective said:

Thank you, Ray.  That's helpful. 

Generally speaking, I think I understand the idea of "school choice."  In simple terms, it means that any kid can attend any school that he wants to, regardless of what district he lives in.  I'm sure there are some limitations, but that's it in a nutshell, right?  And, as I understand it, while a kid can attend any school he wants to, the school district is only responsible for transportation if the student attends the school in his district.  And, while the law of unintended consequences may come into play, the concept of school choice appears to be a general concept and not some nefarious creation developed so that certain high schools in the state can obtain or maintain dominance in sports such as football. 

So how do "vouchers" fit into the school choice equation?  If I have a kid zoned for a particular public school and I "choose" to send him elsewhere, for whatever reasons, I would receive a voucher (i.e, money) from the state/county (which one?).  Does this apply if I send him to another public school in the district or only a private/charter school?  If I send him to a private school, I then have to turn around and use the voucher money to pay tuition.  What about charter schools?  How are they funded?   Tuition?  Or do parents have to sign over their voucher money to the charter schools? 

Ray, I know that sometimes, in a forum like this, asking questions is a way to make an argument.  However, in this case, for each questions asked above, I am truly interested in getting an answer.

With regard to your question at the end, I will accept your premise that there are public schools that are indeed failing us.  To that end, people need to be held accountable and if the failure persists, changes need to be made.  Administrators and teachers need to be replaced if they can't do their jobs.  I'm not sure I buy into the idea that whenever a government-operated system like the education system is failing, the answer is to immediately privatize it (especially if the government is still going to be paying for it indirectly instead of directly).  Would this also apply to police services?  Fire services?  Trash collection and disposal?  Water? Libraries?  Road maintenance?

Ray, I appreciate your willingness to engage in constructive dialogue on this issue. 

I am not an expert at all the requirements, provisions, policies regarding school choice.  I am just a big believer in it for the sake of those kids destined to attend failing public schools in urban areas with no future in front of them; for others as well.  I make this judgement only after 30+ years in my career in the private sector then retiring where I decided to work a couple of days a week at OHS as Sub as I had grandkids attending there.  Mainly to evaluate the situation since I went there. "School Choice" wasn't the impetus back in 2011, also 2016 in my view with legislation enacted it seems for nefarious reasons.  This concept has really taken hold for parents that really want better education for their children since the pandemic (nothing political) forcing online learning.  Many have since discovered the realities of public education and are not happy with what they have found.   This latest legislation allows "ANY" child for any reason to receive a voucher (I assume it's from the state) in the sum of $7-9 K to use for charter, private, etc... the amount is determined by what the state allocates per student to public schools.  I read yesterday in a report from WFTV (local TV station) that parents are applying in record numbers to the point they are overwhelming the system with the demand as they estimate we will have upwards of 350,000 on the program.  Obviously, this will not eliminate public schools as many are doing a good job and as I previously stated it will hopefully lift up those that aren't.  Competition is good, RIGHT?  Our municipal, state and federal government hire many private companies to help deliver some of the services you asked about.  Even one of the most respected federal agencies, our military does the same; whether building weapons, supplying meals and yes even fighting wars.   Again, I credit Dr. D for pointing out this is probably the main reason the state has gotten involved with the FHSAA as it is entangled with state run schools.  Yup, some of the things others have pointed out may be questionable and merit debate but I think it all is a response to parents demanding better for their own kids future.  I used to be a teacher/coach and cared terribly for my students but left the profession to focus more on my own kids.  Any coach on this forum knows the time spent with other people's kids, the sacrifice his family has to make and potential long term effects it could have.   I respect that sacrifice, but make no mistake that is exactly what it is.  I chose a different path because my kids, now grandkids are my most cherished possession and no educator has greater love for them than their immediate family though many kids aren't fortunate enough to have that thus the important role of that teacher.  In summary, the SCHOOL CHOICE battle is a win for many parents (especially single) that fall into the second category and want the best environment for their child regardless of the sports angle which is and should always be secondary. 

[Perspective]

2 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

I am not an expert at all the requirements, provisions, policies regarding school choice.  I am just a big believer in it for the sake of those kids destined to attend failing public schools in urban areas with no future in front of them; for others as well.  I make this judgement only after 30+ years in my career in the private sector then retiring where I decided to work a couple of days a week at OHS as Sub as I had grandkids attending there.  Mainly to evaluate the situation since I went there. "School Choice" wasn't the impetus back in 2011, also 2016 in my view with legislation enacted it seems for nefarious reasons.  This concept has really taken hold for parents that really want better education for their children since the pandemic (nothing political) forcing online learning.  Many have since discovered the realities of public education and are not happy with what they have found.   This latest legislation allows "ANY" child for any reason to receive a voucher (I assume it's from the state) in the sum of $7-9 K to use for charter, private, etc... the amount is determined by what the state allocates per student to public schools.  I read yesterday in a report from WFTV (local TV station) that parents are applying in record numbers to the point they are overwhelming the system with the demand as they estimate we will have upwards of 350,000 on the program.  Obviously, this will not eliminate public schools as many are doing a good job and as I previously stated it will hopefully lift up those that aren't.  Competition is good, RIGHT?  Our municipal, state and federal government hire many private companies to help deliver some of the services you asked about.  Even one of the most respected federal agencies, our military does the same; whether building weapons, supplying meals and yes even fighting wars.   Again, I credit Dr. D for pointing out this is probably the main reason the state has gotten involved with the FHSAA as it is entangled with state run schools.  Yup, some of the things others have pointed out may be questionable and merit debate but I think it all is a response to parents demanding better for their own kids future.  I used to be a teacher/coach and cared terribly for my students but left the profession to focus more on my own kids.  Any coach on this forum knows the time spent with other people's kids, the sacrifice his family has to make and potential long term effects it could have.   I respect that sacrifice, but make no mistake that is exactly what it is.  I chose a different path because my kids, now grandkids are my most cherished possession and no educator has greater love for them than their immediate family though many kids aren't fortunate enough to have that thus the important role of that teacher.  In summary, the SCHOOL CHOICE battle is a win for many parents (especially single) that fall into the second category and want the best environment for their child regardless of the sports angle which is and should always be secondary. 

Thank you, Ray.  I appreciate your point of view. 

So, to a certain extent, I guess my question still remains:  The government (using the broad term "government" instead of state or county, as I'm really not sure who pays for what) presumably has a budget in place for next school year (for buildings, books, equipment, administrative and teacher salaries, etc.).  Now, school choice and vouchers come along.  Using the midpoint of your range for vouchers ($8,000) and the number of parents that are projected to apply (350K), someone's going to have to shell out $2.8 billion (yes, billion with a "B"), and still have the funds left over to cover the public school costs.   Where is all that money going to come from?   I fear this is just a long-term play to completely privatize the K-12 education system, in which case we won't be solving the bad school problem, we'll just be dressing it up in a private school uniform. 

[Ray Icaza]

12 minutes ago, Perspective said:

Thank you, Ray.  I appreciate your point of view. 

So, to a certain extent, I guess my question still remains:  The government (using the broad term "government" instead of state or county, as I'm really not sure who pays for what) presumably has a budget in place for next school year (for buildings, books, equipment, administrative and teacher salaries, etc.).  Now, school choice and vouchers come along.  Using the midpoint of your range for vouchers ($8,000) and the number of parents that are projected to apply (350K), someone's going to have to shell out $2.8 billion (yes, billion with a "B"), and still have the funds left over to cover the public school costs.   Where is all that money going to come from?   I fear this is just a long-term play to completely privatize the K-12 education system, in which case we won't be solving the bad school problem, we'll just be dressing it up in a private school uniform. 

I did say there will be additional cost, but I also pointed out the thinking is the money goes with the student not the school.   Thus OHS receives $8K a year per student, but if the family opts to go somewhere else the money follows.  So the public school would lose that allocation and it would be given to the new school.  Mind you, it could be another public if as you rightly pointed out with Plant HS, they are not overcapacity.  Just like the example I gave of two of my grandkids moving to attend Harmony HS years ago.  Don't want to drift out of the education arena when you ask, "Where does the money come from?"  to fund any and all government programs good or bad.  We spend more per child than other countries and the stats are clear on how that has worked out over the last decade or two as we have steadily lost ground.  I guess it boils down to the old adage of INSANITY and as well versed as you are I don't think I need to explain the rest.

[Ray Icaza]

19 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:

I did say there will be additional cost, but I also pointed out the thinking is the money goes with the student not the school.   Thus OHS receives $8K a year per student, but if the family opts to go somewhere else the money follows.  So the public school would lose that allocation and it would be given to the new school.  Mind you, it could be another public if as you rightly pointed out with Plant HS, they are not overcapacity.  Just like the example I gave of two of my grandkids moving to attend Harmony HS years ago.  Don't want to drift out of the education arena when you ask, "Where does the money come from?"  to fund any and all government programs good or bad.  We spend more per child than other countries and the stats are clear on how that has worked out over the last decade or two as we have steadily lost ground.  I guess it boils down to the old adage of INSANITY and as well versed as you are I don't think I need to explain the rest.

Examine the example of the state of NC.  Governor Cooper's own government has laid out the case of failing public schools, yet he resists the model of School Choice.  The legislature has passed laws with bipartisan support, yet he has vetoed it.  WHY?  Most say follow the money and who are his big supporters?  I'll leave it at that but the nail in the coffin is where does he send his kids to school.  

[LakelandGator]

5 hours ago, Perspective said:

 

With regard to your question at the end, I will accept your premise that there are public schools that are indeed failing us.  To that end, people need to be held accountable and if the failure persists, changes need to be made.  Administrators and teachers need to be replaced if they can't do their jobs.  I'm not sure I buy into the idea that whenever a government-operated system like the education system is failing, the answer is to immediately privatize it (especially if the government is still going to be paying for it indirectly instead of directly).  Would this also apply to police services?  Fire services?  Trash collection and disposal?  Water? Libraries?  Road maintenance?

As someone who has worked/coached in both the public and private arena let me tell you the real deal.

There is  VERY little difference between public/private school educators overall. The kids that are "rocket scientist" and/or great students at public schools would still be "rocket scientist" and/or great students in private schools, and visa versa. Now granted the environment would be different as many publics are overcrowded, lack discipline and are losing funding every day, but the quality teaching isn't much different. Some private/charter systems maybe more "selective" in who they hire, but those educators are not somehow smarter than their colleagues in the public domain.

If anyone tells you they are, trust me you are being taken to the wood shed. I've seen it with my own 2 very good eyes. 

Private/charter schools were started and continue today with an "agenda", and it's wasn't because they magically provide a superior education. MANY other factors go into it and society is being lied to at the expense of the public school environment getting worse.

That's the real problem as more and more charter/privates being born and letting those LEFT BEHIND to basically choke to death. Just be careful not to say that too loud, they might label you as "woke".

 

 

 

 

[Perspective]

57 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:

Examine the example of the state of NC.  Governor Cooper's own government has laid out the case of failing public schools, yet he resists the model of School Choice.  The legislature has passed laws with bipartisan support, yet he has vetoed it.  WHY?  Most say follow the money and who are his big supporters?  I'll leave it at that but the nail in the coffin is where does he send his kids to school.  

Ray, it appears the "follow the money" argument goes both ways.   Here's a link to a Florida Times Union article that discusses the amount of 'charter school money' that was flowing into political campaigns and PACs seven years ago:

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/2016/08/02/charter-school-industry-donations-prompt-questions-millions-flow-pacs/15719280007/

I'm out of time for today, but I'm guessing the trend has continued over the last seven years. 

 

[Ray Icaza]

5 hours ago, Perspective said:

Ray, it appears the "follow the money" argument goes both ways.   Here's a link to a Florida Times Union article that discusses the amount of 'charter school money' that was flowing into political campaigns and PACs seven years ago:

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/2016/08/02/charter-school-industry-donations-prompt-questions-millions-flow-pacs/15719280007/

I'm out of time for today, but I'm guessing the trend has continued over the last seven years. 

 

True with regards to what drives advocacy, but one side has a cannon while the other is fighting with a knife.

[Jambun82]

10 hours ago, Perspective said:

Thank you, Ray.  That's helpful. 

Generally speaking, I think I understand the idea of "school choice."  In simple terms, it means that any kid can attend any school that he wants to, regardless of what district he lives in.  I'm sure there are some limitations, but that's it in a nutshell, right?  And, as I understand it, while a kid can attend any school he wants to, the school district is only responsible for transportation if the student attends the school in his district.  And, while the law of unintended consequences may come into play, the concept of school choice appears to be a general concept and not some nefarious creation developed so that certain high schools in the state can obtain or maintain dominance in sports such as football. 

So how do "vouchers" fit into the school choice equation?  If I have a kid zoned for a particular public school and I "choose" to send him elsewhere, for whatever reasons, I would receive a voucher (i.e, money) from the state/county (which one?).  Does this apply if I send him to another public school in the district or only a private/charter school?  If I send him to a private school, I then have to turn around and use the voucher money to pay tuition.  What about charter schools?  How are they funded?   Tuition?  Or do parents have to sign over their voucher money to the charter schools? 

Ray, I know that sometimes, in a forum like this, asking questions is a way to make an argument.  However, in this case, for each questions asked above, I am truly interested in getting an answer.

With regard to your question at the end, I will accept your premise that there are public schools that are indeed failing us.  To that end, people need to be held accountable and if the failure persists, changes need to be made.  Administrators and teachers need to be replaced if they can't do their jobs.  I'm not sure I buy into the idea that whenever a government-operated system like the education system is failing, the answer is to immediately privatize it (especially if the government is still going to be paying for it indirectly instead of directly).  Would this also apply to police services?  Fire services?  Trash collection and disposal?  Water? Libraries?  Road maintenance?

Ray, I appreciate your willingness to engage in constructive dialogue on this issue. 

Pinstripes: Colorado, Oregon, Washington, (State and D.C.) Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and the "dementia" state of Delaware are all excepting new residents, Big Shot.  

[Perspective]

12 hours ago, Jambun82 said:

Pinstripes: Colorado, Oregon, Washington, (State and D.C.) Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and the "dementia" state of Delaware are all excepting new residents, Big Shot.  

Why would I want to move somewhere else when I can live rent-free in your head?