XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: boy.did.i.fuck.up@shouldhavestayedhome.org
On 2/10/26 9:09 PM, super70s wrote:
> In article <10mfcch$2ugse$14@dont-email.me>,
> Pretti dumb wrote:
>
> Well aren't we 2 cute by 1/2.
>
>> On 2/10/26 12:36 AM, super70s wrote:
>>> On 2026-02-09 23:59:47 +0000, Promises Promises said:
>>>
>>>> Thomas Kane, an education expert at Harvard, believes that the national
>>>> gloom about education is overdone, partly because the three out-
>>>> performers show what is possible, just as earlier periods of improvement
>>>> in Massachusetts, Florida and Tennessee underscored the power of
>>>> evidence-based policies and meticulous execution.
>>>>
>>>> “"States around the country have a lot to learn from what Mississippi,
>>>> Alabama and Louisiana are doing,”" he said.
>>>>
>>>> "We liberals need to wake up to the reality that we are being
>>>> outperformed
>>>> on education, opportunity and racial equity -- supposedly our issues. As
>>>> recently as 2019, blue states had better average test scores than red
>>>> states, after adjusting for demographics; now, red states are mostly
>>>> ahead. We used to say that education was the civil rights issue of the
>>>> 21st century, and if so, we should be ashamed that by that metric,
>>>> Mississippi Republicans are ahead of California Democrats. If we care
>>>> about kids, we must be relentlessly empirical, and that must mean a
>>>> willingness to learn from red states."
>>>>
>>>> Kane said something you don’t expect to hear from a Harvard professor:
>>>> "“I
>>>> hope that there are lots of governors that are looking at Mississippi and
>>>> saying, ‘Look, I want us to be next.’”"
>>>
>>> Are you fine with states giving $7,000 or more of your tax money to
>>> mostly already well off families to privately school each of their kids?
>>
>> If they're as well off as you claim, it's more likely "their" money as
>> opposed to "your" money. Your argument overlooks that those families are
>> already subsidizing the system through taxes without using it.
>
> Well even some Republicans who represent smaller counties in my state
> are against these school voucher scams because it's taking funding from
> the public schools where they are.
>
>> Universal choice isn't about handouts—it's about returning control to
parents
>> and letting competition drive better outcomes for all kids.
>
> If there's "competition" like a horse race that means there are winners
> and losers, there shouldn't be any losers when it comes to eduction.
> Every child should have the same opportunities.
Voucher programs don't inherently "take funding" from public schools in
the way critics claim. The money is allocated per student, so when a
child leaves for a private option, the public school no longer has to
educate that student, freeing up resources for those who remain. In
fact, many states with vouchers (like Arizona and Florida) have seen
overall public school funding increase alongside them, thanks to
competition driving improvements and efficiencies.
If those well-off families you mentioned are already paying taxes but
opting out, vouchers just return a portion of their contribution to
follow their child, rather than forcing them to subsidize a system
they're not using.
>>> Funny how the right throws a fit over government-backed student loans
>>> but they gladly accept free money for their own families.
>>
>> Funny how the left is all about choice until it isn't.
>
> What kind of "choice" are we talking about, are you pivoting to
> abortion? That's a completely different matter.
No, not pivoting at all—I'm talking about school choice, where parents
get to decide the best education for their kids, just like how
progressives champion choice in other personal matters. It's ironic that
the same folks who push for bodily autonomy draw the line at educational
autonomy, especially when vouchers empower low-income families too, not
just the well-off. If we're truly about equity, why not let funding
follow the student to whatever school works best—public, private,
charter, or otherwise? That way, no one's forced into a failing system,
and competition lifts all boats. What part of that sounds like a "scam"
to you?
>> Even funnier is how somehow getting back that they paid in is "free money,"
>> the premise being it is the government's money in the first place.
>
> The government distributes the tax revenue for education, there's only
> so much of it to go around.
>
> If you want to privately school your kids knock yourself out but pay for
> it out of your own pocket.
That's exactly the core disagreement: education funding isn't a fixed
pie owned by "the government" in some abstract way—it's collected from
taxpayers (including those families) specifically for educating kids.
The principle behind vouchers or ESAs is student-centered funding: the
money allocated for a child's education follows the child to wherever
they learn best, rather than being locked into a district or system they
don't use.
If a family pays taxes for public education but chooses (or needs) a
private option, why should they be forced to pay twice—once through
taxes for a school their kid doesn't attend, and again out of pocket for
the one they do? That's not fairness; it's double taxation on families
exercising choice. The "pay for it out of your own pocket" line assumes
the public system has a monopoly claim on every education dollar, but
that's the status quo we're challenging.
In reality, when a student leaves public school (for any reason—moving,
homeschooling, private, etc.), the district no longer incurs the full
cost of educating them. Marginal costs (supplies, some staffing) drop,
even if fixed costs like buildings don't vanish overnight. Many programs
are designed so the voucher amount is often less than or equal to the
state's per-pupil spending, meaning the public system keeps the
local/federal share plus any savings—often resulting in higher per-pupil
funding for remaining students.
If we're serious about what's best for children, shouldn't we let
parents direct those dollars to effective options instead of trapping
them in a system that may not fit? Forcing everyone to fund a monopoly
doesn't make education better—it just protects institutions over kids.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
