Democratic lawmakers warm up to vouchers

Source: St. Petersburg Times

By Ron Matus, Times Staff Writer
In print: Monday, May 12, 2008

In 2001, Democrats in the Legislature pounded Republican plans to start a private school voucher program for poor and predominantly minority kids. They said it was unconstitutional, a drain on public schools, even un-American. In the end, all but one Democrat voted against it.

Times have changed. This year, a bill to vastly expand the same program passed by large margins.

And this time, a third of the Democratic caucus was on board.

"I'm a strong advocate for public school education, and I'm not necessarily a strong advocate for vouchers," said Rep. Bill Heller, D-St. Petersburg, one of four Tampa Bay-area Democrats to vote yes. But "the bottom line has to be the child. If good things are happening for the child, then you can justify it."


Read more: http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article500372.ece

I know you're all ticked off at the party about the delegates thing, but why take it out on the kids??

And the priests can "counsel:" more youth

Repub talking points right here on DU.

I myself just read it before logging on to DU.

I know the headline is real.

I prefer to stay informed on what's going on. Ignorance is not bliss.

look bad as far as a certain poster is concerned.

This in obviously not an issue which all Democrats are in 100% agreement.

And rebuilt from the ground up.

I'm serious. There's no redemption for these corrupt, incompetent fools.

Parents who want to send their kids to such schools are welcome to do so. And they can pay for it too.

Public funds.......Public Schools

Private funds......Private Schools.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

one daughter went there from pre-school to high school graduation, the other opted out after the third grade -- she wanted to go to public school and we agreed, as it was a much better fit for her.

A voucher proposal was floated here in California early on when both my kids were at the private school. I opposed it then and I oppose it now. The tax money collected for education is intended to support schools for everyone, in order to improve the opportunities of all and to help develop responsible, educated participants in our democracy. That I chose to send my children elsewhere was my choice, made for my reasons, and as such I consider society under no obligation to support me in my decision.

Among other reasons that vouchers lose is because upper class and upper middle class parents who send their kids to either private schools or well-performing public schools don't want an influx of inner city kids (i.e. black, Hispanic and poor) coming into their schools.

Even with a voucher, an inner city child would still need private transportation to a private school, which in most cases are not in inner-city neighborhoods, and even then, the voucher would not cover the full cost of tuition.

And even if the voucher did cover the cost of tuition, schools that wanted to exclude "voucher students" would simply raise their rates the amount of the voucher. As I was already paying the pre-voucher tuition, I wouldn't have been effected, as I'd be paying the same as I was before, only now I'd be giving the school extra taxpayer money in the form of the voucher I would receive (same as the inner-city families).

So there was another reason I had to oppose vouchers: They would, at best, amount to a taxpayer subsidy for the private school, at the expense of the public schools, and very few additional children would be educated therein.

you could not have stated my views on vouchers any better...

???

that is tied to a plan to improve public school education in some real, "more than words" way other than defunding it or turning it capitalist, then we can talk.

The problem is, none of these conservative idiot plans for vouchers ever comes with a real plan for improving public education. The majority of the time it's just a vehicle for perpetuating segregation - poor, handicapped and minority kids in the public schools that get no money or attention, middle class and rich white kids in the private schools who are given every opportunity to succeed.

I mean that quite literally: "God forbid." Public education is a major sin, doncha know, although using public money for private, religious education is just peachy keen.

.....with the public education system. If you're well off financially you get a "tax break" let's say for 2k per kid and this way you use this "break" to reduce the tuition for a private school. If you are less well off, you get the same tax break that you won't be able to use in the same way simply because you don't have the "balance" of the tuition to pay out of your pocket like the rich cocksuckers. This is how this fucked up deal works; you are poor, you get the tax break and your kid goes to the shit school. You're well off, and you WOULD HAVE SENT YOUR KID TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL ANYWAY and you get ANOTHER tax break. Really blows, don't it? Bottom line, you still have to have the BALANCE of the tuition to send your kid to a "good" school, and everybody else's kid gets fucked.

I agree with much of your post, but dissing someone for being well-off enough to send their kids to private school is just ignorant.

......with two very liberal parents, was a Union man all my life and am a high school dropout. If the way I express myself offends you or ANYONE for that matter, the only thing I can/could say is: To bad (polite version) or tough shit (my dialect). You did get the point of my opinion of ANY voucher system, right?

...people who have gotten wealthy in life certainly must have done it by screwing someone else, not by hard, honest work. :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

Coming from a lower middle-class, liberal family and being a highschool dropout doesn't mean jackshit about your right to claim some moral pedestal for yourself. :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

Our system rewards those who screw others for their own benefit; who are willing to put their own personal success over the best interests of the group or their fellow human being. Who have their hand out every chance they can and then slap anyone else's who looks to tax money for help or to accomplish something.

Everything I can get for me; screw you, you're on your own.

Did EVERYONE who is well-off get their from screwing others? Of course not. Are there SOME economically successful people who got there "by hard, honest work"? I'm sure there's a couple, here and there.

But the FACT is that, when you look at the income sources of wealthy people, the vast majority get most or all of their income not from wages or salaries (i.e., working for a living) but from dividends and capital gains--buying and selling assets for a profit. That's how our system is set up. With very few exceptions,

YOU DON'T GET RICH BY WORKING.

You get rich by buying low and selling high--whether you're buying and selling, stocks, bonds, real estate, entire companies or someone else's labor. You give as little as you can get away with and take as much as you can get away with.

Look at the richest of the rich. Hell, even Bill Gates (smart geek makes good, supposedly). He SCREWED another company when he bought DOS. Do you think he ever had a pang of conscience and said, "Gee, we're making BILLIONS off of what we bought from you, we should give you a slice, even though we don't have to."? HELL NO! That's NOT how you get rich in our system. By and large, you screw the other guy in any way you can that won't blow back on you and hurt your future profit potential. If it does, you do damage control and PR your way out of it.

Are Bill and Melinda doing a lot of good with their billions? Maybe. But they are also pushing an agenda with their billions--there are ideological strings attached.

Finally, being working class DOES carry a dignity and pride with it that being owner-class does not; at least in my value system and in those of most Democrats. Of course that doesn't by itself make any single individual morally superior, or inferior, automatically, but especially when it comes to public policy, people who work for a living deserve everything our society can provide, and more--the rich, well, not so much.

If that's not you, then kindly buzz off. (Or think of a more colorful "working-class" way of saying it!)

...Bullshit...

Feel free to word it however you want...

The debate was originally about the impact of attempts to privatize education through vouchers, an idea I am against.

I originally objected to another poster's characterization of people who could afford to send their children to private schools as "rich cocksuckers."

I also pointed out that being from a lower middle-class, very liberal background didn't automatically allow someone to assume a position of moral superiority on any issue.

I never characterized "wealthy" in the same terms you did; I think of it in terms of people who have been financially successful to the degree that they can afford the comforts of life, and retain a high degree of discretionary spending.

You chose to insult by suggesting that I couldn't possibly be a legitimate Democrat because I somehow didn't empathize with labor, or because I refuse to automatically condemn everyone who has done well enough to provide private education for their kids (which is something I did, and did it while continuing to pay taxes to support public education, and have refused to support the idea of vouchers every time it is raised).

You then suggested that I "buzz off" 'cause apparently my association with the values of the Democratic party are somehow not up to your standards.

Which would be odd, considering I worked in the construction trades all of my life, retired out of them, and am well aware of what it means to do hard, physical, often unappreciated work for a living.

I just don't believe everyone who is more successful, financially, than I am deserves to be labeled a "rich cocksucker..."

But, apparently you do.

And I'm not "buzzing off" to anywhere.

EDIT: spelling ... :dunce:

Financed by the wealthy. (See the various threads on Prescott Bush, the Nazi-inspired coup against FDR he helped plan, and the long association between America's owner class and the extreme right wing in case you doubt that.)

My post specifically did not say that EVERYONE who is wealthy should be condemned. What I said was that those who have gotten rich through hard work are the exception, because our system is designed to reward those who are willing to screw others for their own benefit. I haven't see you refute that, so there's at least one strike against your "level of discourse."

I then suggested that, if you did not think this is the case, or believed that the wealthy are somehow "entitled" to their success (because they are harder working, smarter or otherwise somehow more deserving than the vast "rest of us"), that you do not share the same values as myself or most Democrats. Not an insult, but an argument. One which you have yet to contest in substantive terms.

"I just don't believe everyone who is more successful, financially, than I am deserves to be labeled a "rich cocksucker..."

But, apparently you do."

No, I don't. Specifically, I did NOT say that "everyone" more successful than you (?) should be labeled anything (however much I might agree with the emotional sentiment coming from the person who used that colorful label). I said that MOST wealthy people are financially successful because they were willing to screw others and have an anti-social, "I'll get mine; you're on your own!" attitude which is characteristic of the Republican Party, right-wing pundits, and right-wing economic policies. As opposed to those of the Democratic Party and progressive thinking and policies.

My suggestion that you buzz off was based simply on the reasoning that if your outlook on wealth and the wealthy has more in common with right wing thinking than progressive thinking, you should look somewhere else for ideological companionship, instead of picking fights with someone who is legitimately pissed off and all of the damage that has been done to our society and our world by the parasitic owner class.

And all you can say is "bullshit"?? Let's just say I found that response a little lacking in substance. You used more words this time, but I don't think you said all that much more.

most of them don't even know what work is.

Also part of their vision is to have the situation be such that the best job opportunities for the uneducated would be in the military, so they can have an army to do their bidding..

There were few reports on the long term achievement by students moved from public to private schools under vouchers. Recently a rigorous study was performed of one of the longer running voucher programs in the country. The conclusion was that students attending private schools through vouchers did not show any difference from those attending public school. Washington Monthly recently did an article summarizing those reports and noting that many conservatives are backing off vouchers.

I've never supported them and my wife teaches at a private school. In private schools, you generally get what you pay for. Her school is top notch but charges about $3000 more than the rate for per student spending on public schools. The majority of private schools pay teachers much less than public schools. Voucher schools, here in Florida, have few restrictions on standards. The teachers are not required to be certified nor have degrees in the subject they teach. They don't have to follow Florida educational standards. While the voucher kids have to take the FCAT, their scores are not reported so that their progress can be compared to the public school students. All in all, vouchers are a Repug initiative to demolish public education by taking money from it and giving it to unregulated private schools.

"Good things could happen to children" in the public schools if enough money and attention were given to the schools, the teachers and the pupils.

Too many people undervalue the public educational process and those who are a part of it.

Somehow, I think the Department of Ed was really a wrecking crew.

The FL legislature is already insanely lopsidedly Republican; it's even worse if one-third of the Democrats are behaving like Repugs as well.

then i want a voucher for MY share of the tax money, since i don't have any kids. if the people WITH kids don't have to support the public schools, then why should the people without kids have to...? :shrug:

btw- i NEVER even attended a public school- i went to lutheran schools my whole life, so i have NEVER used a penny of the tax money that my parents and now i pay to support public schools through taxes.

I about had heart failure when I saw this thread, thought it was in DC.