How Children REALLY React To Control

toto wrote in message . ..
On 2 Jul 2004 08:45:20 -0700, (abacus) wrote:

Fine by me. I honestly don't care. But why is it that the private
schools provided that smaller class size - if indeed that is the
reason for the improvement - while the public schools did not? And
why is it that you object to allowing parents more options for their
children's education?

Money

Follow the money into those schools and guess where it goes.

I prefer the idea of funding education costs for students, and letting
the money follow the student.

In regards to the money, what I care about is whether or not it is
buying the children in our society a good education. I don't have any
particular reason to favor public schools over private or secular ones
over religious schools. Nor have I yet to read an argument, either in
the press or in newsgroup conversations like this that causes me to
think I should. So I'm fine with allowing parents to make those
decisions, just as adults receiving funding for their education from
the government are allowed to make those decisions.

abacus wrote:

"Circe" wrote in message

The Constitution doesn't prohibit the
government from putting a bus stop closer to your house; it *does* prohibit
the government from providing religious instruction. And whether that
religious instruction is given in a public school or a private one is
immaterial or whether it is done at the behest of or against the will of the
recipient is irrelevant--the government cannot and should not pay for
religious education.

Ma'am, I won't argue that the government should not pay for religious
education. I agree with you on that point. But denying equal funding
for education simply because the education is done in a religious
setting strikes me as the equivalent of refusing to run put a bus stop
in front of a church just because people go there to attend religious
services. Where people go and why they go there is not a matter of
governmental concern, government's only concern should be whether or
not there are sufficient people who want to go there to a bus stop.
------------------------------------
True, but it's not the same. If it was a funding a church bus that
goes to the church most of the time that would be more analgous.
We can't do that, it's offensive to all of us who think the very
kinds of religions who have buses are morally wrong. The protestant
churches can be divided into the unreasoning overbearing ****-headed
assholes vs the more tolerant reasonable thinker-sort of Xtian
precisely by whether they seem to want to bus any children they can
find to brainwash as if in a cattle car, as if compulsory like a
school bus, namely, that they actually USE an old school bus.
That's ****ing offensive!
Steve

abacus wrote:

Doesn't really matter to me why the students with vouchers performed
better. The point is that the voucher schools took the same amount of
money (well, actually less) that the public schools would have
received for those students and provided an education as good or
better than that of the public schools. Why deny people choice when
the education is at least as good and the costs to taxpayers are no
higher than that of public schools?
---------------------------
Because we cannot support the intermixing of truth with falsehood as
if they belonged together, or pay for it publically if these religious
**** are going to intermix public money with private and then act as
if it was all the result of religion! That's larcenous and deceitful!!
Steve

abacus wrote:

toto wrote in message . ..
On 1 Jul 2004 09:36:06 -0700, (abacus) wrote:

?The results suggest that students in P-5 schools [Milwaukee public
schools with small class sizes and supplemental funding] have math
test score gains similar to those in the choice schools, and that
students in the P-5 schools outperform students in the choice schools
in reading.? Rouse went on to explain: ?Given that the pupil-teacher
ratios in the P-5 and choice schools are significantly smaller than
those in the other public schools, one potential explanation for these
results is that students perform well in schools with smaller class
sizes [emphasis in original].?34 In other words, the gains in math for
voucher students may very well not be due to the fact that they were
in voucher or private schools, but to other factors such as class
size.

Doesn't really matter to me why the students with vouchers performed
better. The point is that the voucher schools took the same amount of
money (well, actually less) that the public schools would have
received for those students and provided an education as good or
better than that of the public schools. Why deny people choice when
the education is at least as good and the costs to taxpayers are no
higher than that of public schools?

Not true.

What have I written that is not true?
---------------------------
All of it.
We simply cannot support the intermixing of truth with falsehood as
if they belonged together, or pay for it publically if you religious
**** are going to intermix public money with private and then act as
if it was all the result of religion! That's larcenous and deceitful!!
Steve

abacus wrote:

toto wrote in message . ..
On 2 Jul 2004 08:45:20 -0700, (abacus) wrote:

Fine by me. I honestly don't care. But why is it that the private
schools provided that smaller class size - if indeed that is the
reason for the improvement - while the public schools did not? And
why is it that you object to allowing parents more options for their
children's education?

Money

Follow the money into those schools and guess where it goes.

I prefer the idea of funding education costs for students, and letting
the money follow the student.

In regards to the money, what I care about is whether or not it is
buying the children in our society a good education.
---------------------------
If that were all it is it wouldn't be a problem, as in private secular
schools. That is a feasibly acceptible way to educate, had we chosen
that way.

But we simply cannot support the intermixing of truth with falsehood,
which is education intermixed with religion, as if they belonged
together, or pay for it publically if these religious **** are going
to intermix public money with private and then act as if it was all
the result of religion! That's larcenous and deceitful!!

It does libel and slander to the State Support for Knowledge and
Science and the Evenhanded Fairness of the People's State toward
all beliefs, however fraudulent, all the while it patiently
supports the Secular Search for Truth!

It is like stealing from the government and giving it to a church.
A debatable good done wrong!!
Steve

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"toto" wrote in message
...

Not true. Why not simply allow the public schools to have the same
small class sizes that promoted the learning instead of handing
money to *new* schools that factor that in.

Because it would cost more - at least in an "apples and apples" comparison
where the same number of students are educated using public money either
way.
----------------
Nope, EITHER it would cost more because these private schools
are PROFIT schools, something public schools don't have to pay
to investors, OR it would cost more in private schools because
oversight is simpler and cheaper in a massive public system,
where efforts don't have to be duplicated to serve expensive but
small niche student groups, like handicapped or remedial, or
special education.
Steve

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"toto" wrote in message
...

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=5446

Facts About Vouchers

Cleveland, OH Voucher Program
# Through 2001, the Cleveland voucher program has cost more than $28
million. When direct administrative costs are factored in, costs of
the voucher program increase to $33 million. In 2001-02, the Cleveland
program enrolled 4,266 voucher students and program costs were
estimated to exceed $8 million, with an additional $2 million or more
being spent by Cleveland public schools to provide transportation for
voucher students. In total, the voucher program cost more than $10
million in 2001-02. 100% of this money came from funding intended to
benefit all children in Cleveland's public schools.

This is one of the dirtiest tricks anti-choice people use: they pretend that
children who receive vouchers aren't children. The money was intended to
help educate Cleveland's schoolchildren, and it did help to educate
Cleveland's schoolchildren. The statistics provided here do not provide a
single shred of evidence that the school system lost money compared with if
it had had to educate the children in city schools and pay the costs
associated with doing so.

# The state of Ohio has spent more tax money per student on the
students in the voucher program than it has for the other nearly 90%
of Ohio's school children in public schools.21

I smell a shell game here. The ratio of $8 million for vouchers compared
with $2 million for transportation implies that transportation costs would
push the cost up from a maximum of $2250 per student to maybe around $2800
per student. Add in any reasonable oversight costs and the cost is still
far below what the Cleveland public schools average spending per student -
and probably below half what they average spending per student.

But wait. The writer says, "the state of Ohio has spent." If the voucher
money comes entirely from the state level, while public schools get most of
their money from local taxes, the claim could be technically true - even
while the impression it is intended to create is a clear, deliberate lie.

Of course now we get into another problem. Didn't the author just say that
the money spent on vouchers was money that was "intended to benefit all
children in Cleveland's public schools"? But how could that be if it was
state money rather than local money? It would seem that the author uses
words differently in different paragraphs depending on what is most
effective for distorting facts to create the desired impression.

Since 1991, the state
has appropriated more money for its private schools ($1.1 billion)
than it did to refurbish its public schools ($1 billion).22 $140
million in the 1998-99 school year alone went to private schools for
textbooks, reading and math specialists, science equipment, and
more.23 This is in addition to already providing all of Ohio's private
schools with about $600 per student in cash, supplies and services
from state taxpayers and local schools.24

And the cost of educating the same children in the public schools would have
been??? Probably a whole lot higher, in which case the money would not have
been available for school refurbishment and such at all.

# Additionally, Ohio relies heavily on local property taxes to fund
state education.

Thought so. :-) Remember what I said about the shell game?

# As in Milwaukee, money is subtracted from public school funds in
Cleveland to pay for voucher students who were not attending public
school. In the program's first year, $1.6 million-almost 25% of the
Ohio taxpayer cost for vouchers-went toward the tuition of students
who were already enrolled in private schools. In the 1999-00 school
year, less than one-third of the voucher students came from public
schools the year before.28 Similarly, a recent study conducted by the
Cleveland-based research institute Policy Matters Ohio, determined
that one in three students participating in the voucher program in
1999-00 was already enrolled in a private school prior to receiving a
voucher.29

So now we go up from about $2800 per student (including transportation) to
about $4200 for each student not previously enrolled in a private school.
(Actually a bit less because not all students are eligible for the $2250
maximum amount.) That's still less than two thirds of Cleveland's average
spending per student in public schools. So students who hadn't had their
education funded previously get it funded, and the cost to the taxpayers
still probably isn't higher than it would have been if the students had
attended public schools. (The reason I say "probably" is that overall
averages include kids with special needs that drive the cost of educating
them way up.)

# As in Milwaukee, Cleveland public schools are not saving money due
to the reduction of students. A study conducted by the consulting
company KPMG LLP found that the district's operational costs continued
to increase even though the number of students was reduced by the
voucher program. The report found that voucher students were drawn
from throughout the large district making student reductions at the
school negligible, so that it "is not able to reduce administrative
costs or eliminate a teaching position..[Instead, the district] is
losing the DPIA without a change in their overall operating costs."32

Could this be another shell game? Mathematically, what would be expected is
that a majority of situations where pulling out a couple students does not
allow a reduction in the number of teachers would be counterbalanced by a
minority of situations where pulling out one or two students would allow a
reduction because the numbers had been just one or two students over the "We
need another teacher" threshold before the voucher program kicked in.
Mathematically, it should balance - *IF* the threshold at which an
additional teacher is "necessary" remains constant.

But suppose (gasp!) some of the schools were overcrowded when the voucher
program started? Then the public school system might have taken advantage
of the vouchers to reduce overcrowding instead of keeping the same average
level of overcrowding and cutting teaching positions. My bet is that
Cleveland did get its benefit from vouchers, but chose to take the benefit
in the form of reduced overcrowding instead of in the form of saving money.

Florida Voucher Program
# Florida's statewide voucher program, called the Opportunity
Scholarship Program, could cost more than a quarter of a billion
dollars a year in the future if all eligible students applied-and were
able to find seats at private schools willing to participate in the
program. Eligibility is determined by enrollment in a public school
deemed "failing" for two of the last four years. Seventy-eight schools
received an 'F' grade in 1999-00 and another 4 schools were graded 'F'
a year later. These schools educate about 55,000 students. If all 82
schools were to receive a second 'F' within the four-year period, and
all eligible students applied-and were able to find seats at private
schools willing to participate in the program-the cost to taxpayers
would exceed $280 million annually by the 2003-04 school year.33 Even
if only 25% of these students opted to apply, the cost would be $71
million.

More smoke and mirrors, since if all the children eligible took advantage of
the program, the failing public schools could be closed and their operating
costs saved. No effort is made to show how that savings would compare with
the cost of the vouchers.
----------------------
You're merely lying outright and calling it a critique, we've heard
this same confabulated crap before, and it's been trashed before!
Steve

abacus wrote:

Banty wrote in message ...
In article , abacus says...

Banty wrote in message
...
In article , Nathan A. Barclay says...


I hope you write your book. You're quite the poster child for the
anti-democratic undercurrents and motivations of the movement for vouchers. The
desire to segregate in public life. The desire to convert the religion of
others.

I really think your wrong about his motivations and judging him
according to your memories and your own stereotypes.

I'm judging him by his posts.

Having never met the man personally, so am I. Yet we come to
different conclusions. Therefore, our judgements are affected by our
individual experiences. Hence, you are judging him according to your
memories and your own stereotypes. So am I of course.
-------------------------
No, according to your brainwashing.
Steve

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

Nobody said his house, how about to his church up a two mile private
road on his property!? This is how far they want us to go out of our
way to pay them back their taxes. Asinine.

On the contrary, the route we want is actually less expensive to government
than if all children attended government schools.
----------
LIE! The same process of teaching costs indistinguishably on different
sites unless graft exists, and more of that exists in private business
than in government, it's called PROFIT! And you intermixing education
and religion and pretending it is a result of religion, and your mixing
of truth with falsehood so as to confuse students as to what truth even
IS, is reprehensible!


What you want is
analogous to deliberately routing the bus system in a way specifically
designed to keep it from getting "too close" to churches.
------------
Nonsense, we just don't want churcheschools sucking up public funds to
pay for their church buses! Children being hauled off for brainwashing
with this mix of truth with lies, even slightly at public expense,
sickens us, and makes us want to kill a whole lot of you!!
Steve

abacus wrote:

toto wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:07:58 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:

Not in government schools. I just want families to be able to choose
schools where a prayer can be led someone, where the Ten Commandments can be
displayed on the wall, and so forth, without having to pay thousands of
dollars extra for a choice that in reality costs no more than it would cost
a government school to educate the children.

Here's a mainstream Jewish view:

http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edt..._vouchers.html

Your argument appears to be this one:

Parents whose religious conscience precludes them from using the
public schools are in effect taxed double when they also pay tuition
for their children's mandatory secular education in denominational
schools.

The counter is that:

In fact, all citizens, including single persons, childless couples,
and retired couples, pay taxes to support public schools, regardless
of use. No one is taxed to support a religious school any more than
one is taxed to support a church or synagogue.

In regards to education, the government taxes all citizens to provide
a benefit that is available to all citizens (or at least all citizens
with children). There is no corresponding government service that
provide, free of charge to all who wish to go, benefits that are
analogous to the benefits that one gets from attending a church or
synagogue. If there were (and thankfully there isn't), then this
would be a reasonable analogy. Since there is not, it isn't.
---------------
It doesn't matter, all hobbies have the same status as religion
does before a secular government. The govt supports a lot of those,
but we still cannot publically fund those which are frauds.

Religion IS fraud, that's WHAT IT IS! Everyone knows that nobody
has ever been talked to by God, anymore than THEY have. Everyone
secretly knows it must be a fraud, a scam!! Believing otherwise
is not a reasonable view, in fact it is of the kind of view that
one gets laughed at for in public, or gets ignored and gets told
to sit down and shut up in court. This is why these must be kept
as strictly private views, NOT be imposed on children, even if
you COULD ever decide which of so many conflicting LIES you might
favor!! And mixing falsehood with truth and feeding it to children
is ABUSE!!
Steve