Louisiana makes it law that 10 commandments be displayed in public classrooms

no, vouchers are a finite resource, tied to a school budget and/or school taxes, which in many states come out of property taxes. If your public school spends on average $26,000 per student (the New York State average: https://www.empirecenter.org/public...ing-again-led-us-hitting-all-time-in-2020-21/ ), you would get a voucher for roughly the same amount ($26,000) to be applied to a school of your choice if you believe you are not getting your money's worth--or if you are unhappy that your child is bullied, or ignored, or being dumb-tracked, or being values-indoctrinated, or unhappy about any other of a number of things that parents might be unhappy with. That's the idea behind "choice." Rather than coercion.

If you're in New York City, the average amount spent per student is $29,000+ annually. There you would get something approximating that amount in voucher form. I suspect that many NYC parents (parents anywhere, actually) would supplement that $29,000 with money from their own pockets--which is in fact what people who send their kids to private schools are doing anyway, without the benefit of getting the voucher amount back out of tax monies they have paid the local government/school district.

sure, why not? the option would be democratically available to all. If you're happy with your child's school, you and your child can stay put. If you are unhappy with your child's school, you apply your voucher to a school you think will be better for your child.

 

Education is education. If there is a poorly run school, why wouldn't every parent want a voucher to move to the better school? In that situation does every child have that right to go to said school that doesn't violate their first amendment rights?

I'm assuming there is limited seats in the good school.

So the solution here is to reshuffle kids to where the parents that care more get dibs for their kid to go to a competent school and the children born to parents who either don't care or are working hours per week that are too long to have time to care I guess just get the **** luck?

Seems like there isn't a solution here? Just a reshuffling.

 

they will. and then the terrible school will close. The terrible teachers and terrible administrators from that school will likely not be fired but instead, transferred. In which case the process repeats itself until every terrible public school is closed, and only good public schools remain. With any luck terrible teachers who do not want to move dozens if not hundreds of miles to pollute new schools will retire from teaching and take up working fast food, where in California they will soon be able to make $50/hour flipping burgers. Better than being a terrible teacher.

 

So they add like trailer homes to extend the good schools to increase capacity?

How long does this process take?

Have you actually thought this through...like logistically? Pragmatically?

 

Do the parents get stipends for commute? If all the bad schools close then it's mostly going to be suburban schools that are left. Are inner city children going to have to wake up an hour earlier than their suburban peers?

What will be the public transportation costs also? How will this effect traffic flow?

 

don't laugh at trailer homes. My mom, a special education teacher for 30 years, spent the better part of her career teaching state-mandated special education in a mobile trailer outside of a Catholic school. Because of the widely-lauded "separation of church and state." It was only late in her career that the state of New Jersey came to its senses and said 'this is stupid." She was finally given a regular classroom inside the (private) schools to do her work.

 

So you don't want to increase capacity through trailer homes as from your tone you feel it is not a optimal situation for education. So do the new kids from the inner city like sit on the floor?

 

parents's choice to drive their kids to a different school is parents' choice--just as parents who drive their kids to school instead of putting them on a bus in the morning to be bullied are making a parental choice

 

not sure why you're pushing this line of questions so hard and in such a silly fashion. I'll respond to serious thoughtful questions, but if you're just going to mock and sneer I can go back to the dipshit moron thread for that

 

NY has vouchers or charters? My definition:

Vouchers are public funds used to attend private schools that have complete freedom to do whatever they want and do not need to adhere to any state standards.

Charters are public funds used to attend public schools, but these schools have quite a bit of freedom to 'innovate' while still adhering to state standards (the charter).

 

So only the parents of poor neighborhoods( usually the areas with poor school outcomes and records) are the only ones who will have to make this choice that can drastically interfere with their tight schedule?

Do kids in these poor urban communities by default if all of them want to be at the "good school" now need to wake up an hour earlier compared to their more well off peers that have a "good" school within walking distance? Many kids in urban poor communities walk to school btw. So I guess this won't be an option for them

Im of the assumption that every child deserves a good education from a quality institution.

 

there is nothing inherent to vouchers that limits their use to private schools. for example:

https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/the-truth-about-vouchers

Florida operates two different programs: the Florida A+ Opportunity Scholarship Program(enacted by the state legislature in 1999) and the McKay Scholarships for Students with DisabilitiesProgram (added in 2000). The A+ program provides tax-supported scholarships to parents whose childrenattend a public school that has been identified by the state as “failing” for two years in a four-year period,enabling parents to send their children to the private or public schools of their choice. In 2001–02, 47students used the A+ vouchers to attend 5 private schools, and 23 students used them to attend a new public school.

​

 

You think these are silly questions because you have simple solutions that don't take into account of the living situations of a certain class of people(poor people). These are things that poor people have to consider when "requesting a voucher".

I for one believe a quality school should be in walking distance of every child.

 

Charter schools are more experimental schools that try new approaches. They are still held to state standards, but yes, there are few of them and seats are limited.

Baton Rouge has some charter schools. Demand is high, and it's usually a lottery system with exceptions. It's also usually very fast-paced and not for everyone. My family has kids in charter schools due to numerous reasons, from serious bullying to academic acceleration.

 

in many inner city school systems, students take public transportation to attend schools in districts that are not where they live. When for a few years I taught at the Henry Street Settlement, I had students from all over the city, including the outer boroughs.

 

And let's get another thing straight about "bad schools" vs "good schools". A lot of the differences in outcomes between a poor neighborhood's district and a well off one doesn't have to do with quality of the school.

Poorer kids just are in worse environments to succeed. Many have adult responsibilities, parents stretched thin etc. A lot of times education just isn't their priority because they have to live day to day with more pressing needs.

 

Yes' that would be a failure of the system.

 

That's why I ask specifically about NY. In TX, the voucher program that Abbott (TX) is pushing for is for private schools. Charter schools already exist in TX and they do pretty well. This belongs more --> here.

 

did not catch the initial question as such. NY has charters, but does not have a private-school choice program

 

Do they teach math to the kids for that money breh ?