We’ve heard a lot of crazy stuff from the professional left in defense of failing government-run schools – which continue dragging academic achievement further down the drain at an increasingly steep cost to American taxpayers. Here in South Carolina – which boasts the worst government-run education system in the entire country – the constant refrain from the “progressive” establishment has been that the debate over expanded parental choices (which have yet to be passed, incidentally) represents a crippling distraction to our “public schools.”
Huh?
Government educrats also argue that these “public schools” are underfunded – even though per pupil expenditures in the Palmetto State’s atrocious government-run system are more than three times as high as the average private school tuition.
(Oh, and those are just the expenses we know about … which is worth considering in light of the failing grade state government recently received on the issue of education funding transparency).
Anyway, while Palmetto State politicians – including liberal “Republicans” in the S.C. Senate – continue to block meaningful parental choice, a far left columnist has offered up perhaps the most ridiculous column we’ve ever read on the subject.
“You are a bad person if you send your children to private school,” writes Slate managing editor Allison Benedikt. “Not bad like murderer bad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.”
Wait … what?
Here’s a choice excerpt from the piece …
If you can afford private school (even if affording means scrimping and saving, or taking out loans), chances are that your spawn will be perfectly fine at a crappy public school. She will have support at home (that’s you!) and all the advantages that go along with being a person whose family can pay for and cares about superior education—the exact kind of family that can help your crappy public school become less crappy. She may not learn as much or be as challenged, but take a deep breath and live with that.
Wow …
Just … wow.
Guess we should all “live with” the Obamcare individual mandate, too, which along with pro-carbon tax propaganda, FDR hero worship, free condoms for gay sex and a healthy dose of white guilt is what our children will be learning instead of reading, writing and arithmetic.
Benedikt goes on to write that parents who are fortunate enough to be able to afford choices for their kids should do more than “just acknowledge (their) liberal guilt,” they should “do something about it” by subjecting their children to the same catastrophically inferior government-subsidized education (more like indoctrination) other kids are receiving.
Amazing …
Missing from Benedikt’s screed? The fact that education in America didn’t wind up in the crapper until after government took over. And the more resources it has sucked up, the worse government-run education has performed. Of course Benedikt has nothing to worry about when it comes to the Palmetto State. The “one size fits all” education monopoly is alive and well here – backed to the hilt by Republicans, Democrats, liberal educrats and the “progressive” mainstream media.
(Read more about the liberal MSM’s efforts here).
That means even if most parents desperately wanted something better for their children – or something different than the full-on liberal brainwashing that government-run schools are performing on a daily basis – their options are nonexistent.
But hey … let’s just throw more money at the government-run schools for a few more decades and see what happens, right?
183 comments
“their options are nonexistent”?? Really?
Untrue. If you the type who listens to the crazy education stuff put out by the professional right, and you really believe the super crazy rightest nonsense from the “regressive” establishment you read on this site; you are free to send your kids to private school. Just don’t ask me to help you pay for it.
TBG (TheDealmaker) will gladly agree to not ask you to help pay for his children’s education, if, in the spirit of reciprocacity , you agree that he doesn’t have to help pay for anyone else’s education.
We all pay for public school. No civilized nation on earth does not provide for the education of its children. I have no children in school, but I believe there has to be a public education system, if our nation is to survive as a democracy and compete in the world. I believe it ought to be a good one, though people like, Will do not. I believe, like roads, publication education is essential for the public good and everyone benefits from it. I acknowledge that others disagree, but until a majority of the population feels otherwise and shuts the doors on public education, I will pay my share of public education and I will expect you to pay your share.
If you choose not to use the public education system that is your choice. If I choose not to use public education system that is my choice. Just like the roads.
TBG gently inquires:
Aren’t the roads, at least in theory, supposed to be payed for by fuel taxes and tolls, you know, user fees?
Where do you find that in the Constitution?
Commerce Clause, DUH?
*smiles*
Gas taxes do not come close to paying for the expense to build, maintain and police roads and highways. There are only two toll roads in SC. One is flat broke, and the other barely pays it’s expenses. Both were paid in part by tax dollars, in addition to the tolls.
“I will expect you to pay your share”
lol….there you go TBG…the answer would be “no”.
You must pay what Jan and the voting mob says you’ll pay.
The issue of “fair”, “right”, “reciprocity”, etc. is not the issue.
The issue is they know what is best in terms of spending your(?) money.
“Need’ now means wanting someone else’s money. ‘Greed’ means wanting to keep your own. ‘Compassion’ is when a politician arranges the transfer.”
? Joseph Sobran
We are truly living in a quasi 1984 world, where the very definition of words is opposite of their original meaning.
Sort of like voucher and tax credit proponents saying they “care” about children in public school.
You wouldn’t get any disagreement from me on that issue.
Some of them might claim it outcome might be better…but “care” for other people’s kids isn’t the issue for most I’d guess.
Few of them are coming from the premise that they are simply be allowed to keep their own money(hence the ‘greed’ label reference by TBG).
Everyone always talks about the ‘greed’, not the theft.
edit: “the outcome”
and “should simply be allowed”
They are not just keeping their money when they are increasing the cost of government to everyone else. When someone is not asked to pay his or her share of a cost, the cost to those who are asked to pay goes up. Taking a few hundred students out of a school district is not going to decrease the cost of operating the school district. You can’t let the individual taxpayer decide what he wants to pay for. What if no one wants to pay for a road in front of your house. Is that ok?
The state should not allow a tax credit to someone so that he can pay a private business for services. I prefer UPS to the US Postal Service. Why should I not get a tax credit for what I pay to UPS. I would prefer to use a private security service instead of my local police department, why should I not get a tax credit for what I pay for private security services. Should the government give me a tax credit if I want to build a private air strip behind my home instead of using the local airport.
Taxes are not theft. No government in history has operated without taxes. Taxes are the cost of civilization. No one can possibly argue the “founding fathers” did not envision that the government would collect taxes.
“Taxes are not theft.”
lol…really…how am I supposed to have a reasonable dialogue with you when you can’t even admit the obvious?
“They are not just keeping their money when they are increasing the cost of government to everyone else.”
So gov’t has no role in increased costs?
Basically Jan, you never address voluntary exchange(free market) vs. coerced exchanged(which is theft)…so I’m not really sure we can get anywhere, here’s another example:
“When someone is not asked to pay his or her share of a cost”
There is no “asking” Jan, they are told. That’s why it’s “theft”.
If they don’t pay, they get fined, thrown in jail, property confiscated, etc.
You are living outside of reality in your through processes.
edit: “thought processes”
Actually no one is forcing you to pay taxes unless you choose to live here. You are free to say the taxes are too high and leave the country for a less taxing environment. There are many in the third world.
You are delusional if you think we can live in a civilized society without taxes.
“You are free to say the taxes are too high and leave the country for a less taxing environment.”
Actually, that’s not true. You have to get citizenship in another country BEFORE you are allowed to renounce.
So, you are not “free to leave for a less taxing environment”. You are incorrect.
Further, AFTER you get citizenship you have to still yet pay 3 more years of taxes, unless you have over $500,000 in net assets, in which case you get an immediate tax bill and still 3 more years of taxes.
So everything you just said is completely and totally incorrect.
“You are delusional if you think we can live in a civilized society without taxes.”
You have 150 years of an income tax free American society to contend with, during which the post civil war pre Federal Reserve era of no income taxes produced the most economic growth ever seen…. EVER.
…150 years of an income tax free American society…
You (slightly) moved the goalposts there, but your point is well made.
You were posting earlier as someone else. Had I known I was having this discussion with you I would not have wasted the time. We have had this discussion before. You can’t argue about reasonable government with a person who believes we do not need government at all.
There is no difference between income taxes and any other tax except who pays.
” You can’t argue about reasonable government with a person who believes we do not need government at all. ”
‘Reasonable gov’t”? lol
Not only is that notion laughable, the idea that any two people have the same idea of what “reasonable” is, is well, laughable as well.
But alas, you can’t have a discussion about reasonable taxes with someone who can’t admit they are confiscatory.
“There is no difference between income taxes and any other tax except who pays.”
Clearly there is…that you don’t see it is difficult. The concept of a user fee being one such example, aside from the difference in growth I highlighted under tariffs vs. income tax.
Actually no one is forcing you to pay taxes unless you choose to live here.
Wrong.
Thanks for playing. The FITSNEWS girls have some nice consolation gifts at the door…
I should have said and give up your citizenship.
What if no one wants to pay for a road in front of your house. Is that ok?
Yes.
You can’t let the individual taxpayer decide what he wants to pay for.
Why not. I suspect the technology is there. What could be more “democratic”? Why do you hate democracy?
Taxes are not theft.
Sure they are.
No one can possibly argue the “founding fathers” did not envision that the government would collect taxes.
TBG would argue that the founding fathers thought the country could be run on tariffs and user fees. TBG will argue that the founder’s did not envision the income tax. TBG would also note that the founders fought a war with England over tax burdens that were much lower than those faced by citizens today.
Actually the colonies rebelled over a tariff. A tax is a tax is a tax. The only difference is who pays. Why do I care if I pay $20 in income tax or $20 more for a pair of socks to cover the tariff.
And it does not matter whether the founders envisioned other types of taxes or not. We amended the Constitution, as they envisioned we would, to allow for that.
Why do you hate
poorless fortunate people?Great quote; I’ll remember that next time Fits or you starts demanding tax credits for private school tuition.
You’ve succeeded in giving TBG a “duh” moment. Care to be a bit more specific?
“The voting mob…” I like that. Way to demonize the American Citizen.
I’m sure your continued faith in the “American Citizen” will produce a solution for the gov’ts massive debt and our nations declining academic performance and ongoing business climate.
The whole voting thing has gone spectacularly so far as guided by the voting mob.
TBG may also feel free to go someplace else to live where he doesn’t have to foot the bill for any sort of ordered, civilized society.
Maybe Somalia.
TBG believes that an ordered, civilized free society is what the US Constitution is all about.
TBG is happy to pay for things that are constitutional.
TBG notes that government (public) education is not mentioned in said US Constitution.
TBG also notes that government education plays a large role in Marx and Engels manifesto.
If TBG were to move, he is more partial to Central America, the South Pacific and Southeast Asia…..but thanks for the Somalia suggestion. TBG also appreciates your playing along with his third person riff.
Nothing in the constitution prevents a state from paying for public education or makes public education unconstitutional.
Ding! Ding! Correct. It’s the federal involvement that really chaps TBG.
Does the Constitution mention roads and bridges?
Nope.
Of course, you realize that the Interstate System (Which TBG grudgingly admits has been a success) was authorized under the rubric of “national defense”.
The term is Commerce Clause. It says: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” That would mean the means to build roads. So to answer your question, YES!
Oh god…the commerce clause has in effect given our gov’t unlimited power…it’s one of the many flaws in the Constitution.
Really?
Delta is ready when you are.
Be careful what you wish for Bauknight. Pushing out those complaining about high taxes may only leave those paying no taxes left….and then it’s a national “Detroit” even more quickly.
Go find a king you can serve, then. America will be better off without “citizens” that don’t believe in democracy. I don’t know or care how much you pay in taxes.
“I don’t know or care how much you pay in taxes.”
Of course not, you lean left…balancing a budget is something most lefties aren’t really concerned with.(not that the right cares much about that either really…but at least they pretend to and understand that it might be important)
They think that “public money” is something that is printed up or taken from others….as a reward for their “citizenship” as you put it.
Keep the faith good Bauknight, as I said, I’m sure your faith in the voting mob will pull the country out of its doldrums.
Trevor is…uh…misstating his position. Deep in the bowels of his dark progressive heart, he damn sure wishes that you pay you “fair share” in taxes. To avoid huge deficits, TBG figures that to be a nominal rate of about 1000%
So are you saying I need to get 10 more jobs so we can all live better?
:)
You mad at me, bro?
Really? I thought the tired old “love it or leave it” thing was pretty much the domain of the redneck, wifebeater-wearing, “cold dead hands” crowd…
Exactly…it depends on who’s using the fallacious argument, that determines what label they wear. It contains elements surrounding appeals to authority.
Hey, so did I. All you have to do to dispel that notion is to take a look around at the bitching about Obama, policy-wise a center-right politician that would be right at home in the GOP if only he weren’t so *exotic*…we’ve implemented RomneyCare nationwide, we’ve protected the banksters and big business at the expense of justice, we’ve continued heinous policies of remote-control violence in the Middle East, we’ve continued the drug war, and we’ve watched the Republicans retreating so far into the right wing shadows, retreating from increasingly conservative Democrats and even policies the Republicans themselves sponsored and championed only a few years ago, that the John Birch Society is enjoying its biggest moment of political success, perhaps ever.
It’s fascinating, how the shoe is suddenly on the other foot, and the malcontents are the ones that claim to love America but really, really hate about 47 percent of its people.
Obama, policy-wise a center-right politician
Just for fun, would you mind naming someone (American) who you consider to be a leftwing politician?
we’ve implemented RomneyCare nationwide, we’ve protected the banksters and big business at the expense of justice, we’ve continued heinous policies of remote-control violence in the Middle East, we’ve continued the drug war,
You get no argument from TBG on this, though.
Some friendly advice TBG – Mike (please note use of third person in your honor) spent some quality time in Somalia, Eritrea, etc. back in his federal guv days. Strike that area from your list of potential ex-pat destinations right now. Don’t discuss or research any further, just strike it.
Don’t listen to Mike, TBG. Somalia is a libertarian garden spot. You’d love it.
TBG think someone speak with forked tongue.
Somalia has a multitude of governing bodies…so I’m not sure in what sense it is “libertarian”.
My favorite progressive is Matt Damon.
He does publicity works championing government schools but when it comes down to the decision on where to send his kids, he makes the correct choice and sends them to a private school.
It must be tough to live in such a compartmentalized life and not feel like a hypocrite sometimes.
Because Obama has done the same thing, maybe someone should ask him how he handles the dissonance. At least Damon admitted that he doesn’t know how to explain his actions.
It all reminds me of the Congressional staff getting waivers unavailable to the rest of us in regards to Obamacare.
The laws are for us, not them.
Nonsense, they have the money to send their kids to the school of their choice on their dime, and that’s fine. The fact that they also care about the quality of the education of the children of other people and the society at large does not make them a hypocrite. It makes them compassionate and smart.
The hypocrites are those people who say they are for school vouchers because its good for children in public school, and then proceed to bash public school children as having an inferior education when they know that is a lie and when they know they could not care less what happens to kids in public school.
Jan vs Jan!
*Michael Buffer Voice*
“LETS GET RRRREADY to RRRRRRRRRRUMBLE!”
Either TBG has been hitting the sauce, or the post by “Bitchero” was originally credited to (a) “Jan”.
The site sometimes does that…it doesn’t update via disqus properly until you hit “refresh”…crappy code.
“The fact that they also care about the quality of the education of the children of other people and the society at large does not make them a hypocrite.”
You would think this caring you speak of could be done by Damon himself, I mean he’s worth $200 million.
Why is it he calls for a 50% tax rate but doesn’t go ahead and donate $100 million to gov’t to “spread the wealth”?
Why doesn’t he give up his 50% without needing a tax law to do it?
Better yet, if he wanted a quality education for his kids why not just fund the public school in his areas that they would attend? Couldn’t he just drop $20 million in his district and accomplish his task?
Makes the correct choice?
The correct choice is making the best decision for your child that is within your means. If you can afford a great private school, great. If you have the time and ability to properly homeschool, good. If your public school is high ranked, good. If you can afford a tutor, good. If you can work with your kid to help them out, good. If you can do parent-teacher conferences to discuss your child’s needs, good.
Doing the best you can to ensure your child’s success is the only correct choice there is, and that doesn’t require private schooling.
As an aside, try studying the reason Congressional staffers need Obamacare waivers instead of pretending it’s because they don’t wish to be subject to the law. In fact, the opposite is true. The effort was to have them subject to the law, but the law doesn’t provide an accommodation for large employers to use the exchanges for three years, and so staffers would be without paid healthcare benefits until then. This whole thing is an effort to ultimately have Congressional staffers under Obamacare, not exempt from it.
I am not familiar enough with Matt Damon’s personal life to know where he send his kids to school, but I do know that at least Matt Damon’s not whining for a taxpayer handout to pay his kids’ tuition.
Maybe the fact he’s got $200 million sitting around and pays less in % than you has something to do with that.
Only 3 more days until the 1st of the month. Ms. Sic told Sic Willie he better have the mortgage money ready on time. OK Howie, this one is for you.
You hit the nail on the head. Sic’s achilles heel is his refusal to address the issue of how his site is funded and the accusations that he creates fictitious posters to rile his audience and generate comments.
Seriously…Howie really needs to find a more intelligent, eloquent, and convincing voice to promote his libertarian/fascist agenda. One of these days Mr. Rich is going to realize that he can do better. At that point he is going to jettison Fitsnews like a dog scratches off an engorged tick.
Will wants desperately to be recognized on the national scene and leave this barely disguised tripe propaganda site behind him. That ain’t going to happen. The Peter Principle is alive and well in the life of Will Folks. He has reached his level of incompetence. No one is going to hire this loon as a consultant or advisor.
FDR worshipers? You ignorant buffoon. Your knowledge of history is as laughable as your economic rants.
lol what the hell is a libertarian/facist agenda?
corporatism=fascism
Libertarians are champions of the unhampered “free market” …thus in favor of eliminating nearly all regulations on business. When business has free reign to do anything they please in pursuit of profits that is fascism.
TBG’s #1, all time pet peeve is misuse of “rein” and “reign'”. Misuse of “bated” and “baited” are tied with misuse of “palette”,
“pallet”, and “palate” for second….
I praise you, fellow keeper of the Queen’s English! We are a dying breed.
Does my use of master baiting disturb you?
Not if you are fishing…
I stand corrected, sir.
Actually, The third person TBG is a poke at FITSNEWS’ founding editor’s constant use of “our founding editor.”
No problem here, TBG. I still laugh and picture the Long Ranger when you do it.
When I was about six years old I was living in Columbia (mid-50’s). It was announced that Clayton Moore was going to make a personal appearance at the old baseball field near the fairgrounds. Every kid got a silver (plastic) bullet upon entering the stadium.
We were all jumping up and down and hooting our enthusiasm when a limo drove onto the field. The driver jumps out, grabs a wheelchair out of the trunk, and walks to the back door of the limo. The door opened and there sat Mr. Moore in full Long Ranger attire with a big cast on his leg. He got out, hopped in the wheelchair, pulled off his hat and waved to the disappointed crowd. Cheap bastard didn’t even bring Silver or Tonto.
The announcer apologized and said that Mr. Moore was in a horse riding accident. I bet there were at least 500 kids in that stadium who, if given the opportunity, would have gladly engulfed him in a hail of suction cup arrows.
You have the defined “fascism” incorrectly.
Fascism is the merging of gov’t and corporate powers.
In a true “free market” the customer would be able to choose the best product/service based on their needs and ability to pay.
Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the abuse of powers that banks enjoy(money multiplier, etc.) that helped cause the financial crisis.
It was the artificial creation of credit, via gov’t monopoly on money, that was partially responsible for the financial crisis.
If gov’t had not intervened, all the TBTF banks, etc. would have all suffered for their actions.
You’ve not only failed to properly define fascism, you fail to see how it has brought the country to its knees and even worse blamed the non-existent “free market” for our woes.
“Fascism is the merging of gov’t and corporate powers.”
That is, in a nutshell, what I said.
Just one of many articles on Glass-Steagall:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/201384183347752450.html
Outstanding. Thank you.
Thanks, Trevor. I enjoy your intelligent, educated insights. You are a real plus on this site.
Maybe you two should get a room.
“That is, in a nutshell, what I said.”
lol…no, it was not.
I don’t care what the peanut gallery has to say about it.
I doubt that, had you read my entire response, you would be able to either comprehend the contents or construct a valid counter-argument.
“lol” & “you two should get a room.” Is that the best you can muster? Witty you are not…
You doubt that? I’m sorry, I thought the definition, which you admitted was accurate, would be enough for you.
Let’s dissect your incorrect statements further so you have no doubts:
“When business has free reign to do anything they please in pursuit of profits that is fascism.”
That is incorrect, by your own acknowledgement of my definition. Free reign for the pursuit of profits has nothing to do with the government.
Gov’t may try to intervene in this pursuit…but they are two separate entities.
“Fascism, in the past, has been characterized by the primacy of the
state. Replace that with the primacy of corporations and you have yet
another nuance to add to the pile.”
You know what that “nuance” is called? Your own “definition”.
Congrats, you just created a whole new meaning for the word “fascism” and successfully applied it to something that is not fascism.
Pure genius.
“When business has free reign to do anything they please in pursuit of profits that is fascism.”
your response: That is incorrect, by your own acknowledgement of my definition. Free reign for the pursuit of profits has nothing to do with the government.
Nonsense. When the government abdicates its legitimate role as a “referee” in the marketplace, business becomes the governing force.
I cannot boil my comments down to a bumper sticker to please you. Sometimes Occam’s Razor just doesn’t apply.
You asked for references. Here’s one. Sit down with a copy of Hannah Arendt’s landmark work “Totalitarianism.” It is a short read and is regarded by scholars as crucial to understanding communism and fascism.
“I cannot boil my comments down to a bumper sticker to please you.”
So who is it now that can’t make an argument?
“When the government abdicates its legitimate role as a “referee” in the marketplace, business becomes the governing force.”
That response is total nonsense and has nothing to do with fascism.
If you can’t even frame a proper argument on the most basic of levels I can’t really give me credence to any recommendations you have.
edit: “you any credence”
“Fascism is the merging of gov’t and corporate powers.”
That is just how Mussolini defined it.
So seriously, give me a legitimate definition, widely accepted via some references outside of what I listed that you have seen showing some other variation of the word “fascism”. I’m truly open to some credible scholarly evidence.
“lol what the hell is a libertarian/facist agenda?”
It’s total made up bullshit. He’s the “Ask Ike” of FITSnews. He picks buzz words and co-mingles their meanings with the free associations of other words in his head.
I note that you didn’t address any of the comments I made regarding fascism as practiced in Italy, Germany, and Spain. Once again, I am sorry if I can’t boil down the information regarding this issue down to a bumper sticker slogan for you.
What is there to say? You acknowledged by definition was correct, would you like to simply take that back or cling to obscure historical references in the hope someone will believe you are correct in circumventing a words accepted definition?
edit: “by” to “my”
I am going to try and reach you one more time. You offered up a static, unchanging definition of Fascism. I would submit that political systems and the ideologies which drive them are anything but static.
For example: If you were capable of time travel and you went back to early 19th century America and asked a plantation owner in the south to define democracy you would get one answer. If you were to go to the fields and ask a slave the same question you would get an entirely different answer.
Fast forward and ask the same question of a robber baron and say, Eugene Debs or Upton Sinclair and you would hear conflicting ideas. Factor in a suffragette and you see where I am going with this.
As far as libertarianism is concerned I think that there are a lot of really good ideas there. Smaller government. End foreign entanglements. When it comes to economics, however, that’s where libertarianism enters into La-La land. Same with the Social Security and Medicare issue. These are the issues which will prevent libertarianism from ever becoming anything more than an insignificant splinter group.
Don’t get me started on Ayn Rand:
http://2big2fall.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/rethinking-scrooge-was-tiny-tim-the-real-villain/
Another thing I would like to mention. This is not just for you: My blog is one of the simple, free, non-advertising ones offered by wordpress. I have posted exactly 100 articles there. Unfortunately, most of the commentary posts and short stories are buried in the archives section below the table of contents on the right. Most of what you see in the table of contents on the right-hand side of the screen consists of little photoshop pieces.
Please note that I don’t want to be anybody’s enemy or whipping boy. If your dander was raised too much, I am really sorry. Life is way to short…
“When confronted with a legitimate, well-constructed argument for which
they cannot muster an intelligent counter-argument they say fuck it and
jump into the well of insult.”
I wanted to add one thing.
I apologize that my joke insulted you.
That being said, let us not pretend you made a well constructed argument.
writes Slate
I think I found the problem.
Slate attention-whores with the best of them. Few outfits do it as well…
…chances are that your spawn will be perfectly fine at a crappy public school.
Nice.
Dear TBG,
What the progs on this blog don’t get is that I will probably fail every single one of their precious public school darlings, because they are functional illiterates and cannot think for themselves. Private school kids do OK. But the best students are products of “shared” home schooling. I’m guessing TBG knows why.
Check out the PASS test scores at Muller Road Middle School in Blythewood, a new school that focuses on a different teaching method which includes no textbooks and taxpayer funded iPads. After two years, the scores of students have dropped significantly for those students who have gone through 6th and 7th grade. Oh well, another liberal experiment in public education where there are only victims. The whole “tablet based education” push at in Richland Two is going to be a disaster.
What are the scores of the kids of the same age at the nearest private school? South Carolina has the worst private schools in the nation, why should I have to help pay for that?
I don’t know what the scores are for the nearest private school but the nearest public middle school (Blythewood Middle – three miles away) had much better scores without the iPads.
Yeah, but we know there are NO scores for kids in private schools. Their parents take that they are getting a good education on faith alone. After all it’s the same school they went to. Particularly, in the rural counties where they are, except for a handful of black, Asian and East Indian kids, still white flight academies.
“In South Carolina, the National Center for Home Education did a survey of 65 homeschool students and found that the average scores on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills were 30 percentile points higher than national public school averages. In math, 92 percent of the homeschool students scored above grade level, and 93 percent of the homeschool students were at or above grade level in reading. These scores are “being achieved in a state where public school SAT scores are next-to-last in national rankings.”
“In South Carolina, the Greenville County School District stated, “Kids taught at home last year outscored those in public schools on basic skills tests.” In that county, 57 out of 61 homeschooled students “met or exceeded the state’s minimum performance standard on the reading test” of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills. The homeschool students’ passing rate was 93.4 while the public school counterparts passing rate was 83.9 percent. Furthermore, in math, the homeschooled students passing rate was 87.9 percent compared to the public school students’ passing rate of 82.1 percent.”
Sacrificing your children’s education for the Greater Good is such a patent Marxist absurdity that it could only come from Slate. Anyone who gets mad at Slate columnists (with some notable exceptions) is falling for their business model and just feeding their click-bating machine. That’s why there’s the #SlatePitches joke on Twitter—they do this for a living.
I agree
Gawker is the master of click-bating, but Slate isn’t far behind them.
I attended public schools first grade through undergraduate degree, and I got a top-notch education. I also had support at home that saw to it that I remained on the college-prep/advanced placement track from second grade on, and a lot of great teachers along the way.
That said, I admit that private schools probably offer a better education for those that can afford it. Not every private school, or certainly every little K-5 church-run extended Sunday School, is a better choice, but on balance, things like greater individualized instruction, smaller class sizes, etc. are going to give a wider variety of students a better chance at a good education. Motivated students can get a good education at just about any modern school, if they and their parents care to allow it.
The problem is this: Let’s say that parents were given some sort of government subsidy, either a direct payment or a tax break or whatever, in order to further their children’s private education, and those parents did their research and figured out which private school offered them the best bang for their buck. What happens when 10,000 students show up at Christ Church, or Wilson Hall, Hammond, or Bishop England waving their government vouchers? A tuition hike? Larger classes? More discipline cases? All of those would instantly bring public school problems to the door of the private school.
There just aren’t enough private schools to handle the influx, and there’s no time to waste a generation waiting for the private sector to do what it would already have done if there was a natural profit in it (as opposed to a profit dependent on taxpayer subsidy). The fact is that there is no profit in educating the poor and disadvantaged, because they have no means of paying for it and the rest of society doesn’t seem to think having an educated populace helps enough to justify socializing the cost.
So just like in every other American “capitalist” venture, there are entrepreneurs waiting to privatize profit while socializing risk and cost, and NONE of it is about educating or helping society. “School choice” is about taking public money and putting it in private hands with the absurd hope that educating all future citizens ahead of their majority is the real goal when it’s far more likely that the only thing these corporatist libertarian “education reformers” like Eli Broad are only in it for the money or simply the opportunity for indoctrination it gives them.
Reform public education, yes. But keep it public.
You know, some of what you say is true. I mean, I agree, I think that top performing private schools are not going to want to subject themselves to inferior students and/or governmental mandates. At the same time, I really don’t know of anyone who enjoys paying twice for a singular product. Do you? Thus, a simple solution: if a family’s child is able to gain admittance to a top performing private secondary school (based solely off of college acceptance rates, AP scores, and SAT scores), than this family should qualify for an annual tax credit per child in the amount of the average annual cost spent per pupil in SC for public schools. That’s it, no strings attached for either the schools or the parents; yep, no games. Just a stright forward, fair, and elegant solution. but you know, such an idea will never pass due to the Lexington-Richland District 5’s of world and their long list of powerful allies… the local chambers of commerce, the real estate and homebuilding lobby (i.e. Mungo), the insurance industry, the local government racket, the local RINO state legislators, etc., etc., etc.
Your idea is neither elegant nor fair. You are not paying for the same thing twice. You are paying for a public education system that you are free to use or not. Just like everyone else whether they have kids or not. If you choose not to use the public system, you pay a private company to perform the same service. Its just like UPS and Fed EX. You can use the postal service or UPS. You don’t get a tax credit to pay for your UPS usage. Or the public transportation system. If you don’t use it you pay for your own gas and your own car. You don’t get a credit for those.
Why should you have to pay less for the public education system than I do”? You chose to have kids and you chose to sent them to private school.
“You are not paying for the same thing twice” Really?!!
So if you’re in a school district that you don’t like or that is crummy, you’ve got three typical choices, no?:
(1) Stay, shut up, and be miserable (yep, you’re right, you’d not be paying twice for this);
(2) Move to a new school district (yay, this is the Mungo model; and yep, you’re probably going to be paying more than twice for this);
or
(3) Bite the bullet, and send your kid to a private school (sorry, but regardless of what you state above, you’re property taxes and state taxes will reflect that YOU ARE STILL PAYING FOR YOUR LOUSY SCHOOL DISTRICT, even as YOUR CHECKBOOK INDICATES THAT YOU ARE ALSO PAYING TUITION FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL; THUS, YOU ARE CLEARLY PAYING TWICE!!!).
So yeah, in two of the above three examples, you’re clearly overpaying for your child’s educational service. And for the first, – the one that you wholeheartedly seem to advocate – you’re in essence saying that the opinion of an educational bureaucrat always trumps that of the parents. Sorry, but at that point, you merely become the caricature of big brother, the man… you know, a monopolistic, maoist, stalinist, freedom-hating, anti-family, anti-parental rights b!tch.
Finally, the distribution examples you cite – the US Postal Service vs. Fed Ex and UPS – are terrible and illogical comparisons for your argument. I mean, the US Post Office is bloated, poorly managed, has dubious performance, and is going broke. I can only surmise that your analysis is a Freudian slip whereby you’re acknowledging the similarities of the US Postal Service to the state’s crummy public school system. Let’s face it, you’re just a dumba$$.
If anyone is a Dumbass its you, as you have shown on most of your posts.
The public school system does not belong to you. It is there for the benefit of all. The fact you do not believe it benefits you is irrelevant. What you pay to educate your kids and what you pay to for public education are two different things. They are not the same thing. So you are paying for nothing twice. I am paying my share of public education, and I have no kids in school. I expect you to pay your share. Use it or not.
Get it through your thick skull. No one is advocating you use public schools. No parent is trumped by what you refer to as an “educational bureaucrat.”. You don’t have to use the public schools. They are there if you want to use them, but you have school choice. You can use a private school or home school. Just like roads, the library, the post office, public transportation, and the list goes on.
As for over paying, I do not think so. My public schools are great, because we have few private schools in my town. Almost everyone, goes to public high school here. As a result they are good schools and supported by the public.
If you want to pay for private school and you can’t afford it, get off you dumb lazy ass and get a job, or a second job; or tell your spouse to get a job or a second job; or tell your kids to get an after school job. If you are sending your kids to a white flight academy you are probably wasting your money, but that is ok. Its your money to waste, so long as you are not taking any money from the state through a voucher or credit.
So hypothetically, if every parent were able to pull their kids out of their respective “public” schools and place them into private schools, these same parents should still be required to support their now “student-less” public schools?! That’s your argument?!
Gee, what would the money be used for without the students?!…. why of course, the educrats, the operational fluff, the NEA, the SCEA, the school board associations, the school board and staff junkets, the school board per diems, the architects, the engineers, the contractors, etc., etc…. you know, for people probably like yourself.
Actually, your desire for continued payments to the school districts in the absence of (or, with a reduced amount of) students is economic rationalism at its finest and is just so easy to see through… it’s to protect your turf, your revenue steam.
Me? I dream of a day in which nearly free online K-12 schools pull millions of kids away from the corrupt bricks/mortar business and political operations that masquerade as public schools. When that happens, the public education monopoly that you espouse will truly be challenged, and the gravy train that has resulted from said monopoly will begin to dry up.
Pretty funny…your long list of interests that would oppose your “solution” and prefer a greater investment in public education, instead of taking money out of it just because a parent opts to pay for private education, are all groups that have an interest in the quality of life of the whole community, in an educated labor force and all the other things public education is meant to provide.
…taxpayer subsidy… = allowing taxpayers to spend their money as they see fit.
Alrighty then!
It means taking my money and sending it to people like Fits, do he can send his kids to a private school. The very definition of a subsidy.
It’s funny how quickly cons abandon their “principles” when they want some government swag.
It means taking my money and sending it to people like Fits, do he can send his kids to a private school. The very definition of a subsidy.
Actually, that’s not what it means. Nice try, though.
That’s not “magic” money being “sent” to parents. It’s our fucking money being returned to us. Debate public vs. private ed all you like – “vouchers” may or may not be the answer, but we need to quit acting like these are government handouts. We pay an OBSCENE amount of money for a genuinely crappy public ed system (true in most states, not just here), and only brain-deads like Benedikt believe throwing even more money into it is the answer. Our public ed system feeds on itself in a drunken orgy of administrative overhead, taxpayer funded lobbying, and lack of accountability. Fix all that however you can, but defending the status quo just won’t work.
+25
If it were your money, it wouldn’t be a crime to burn it.
Really dude?! So your premise is that American citizens can’t “own” their money because the federal government regulates the use of the currency? Wow. I just don’t think I’ll debate with you…
Exactly…his village is missing their idiot.
his village is missing their idiot.
TBG disagrees.
What, they don’t really miss him that much?
Nah…unless TB has recently availed himself to Delta’s services, his village, most assuredly, still has their idiot.
*Hey! Trevor started it!*
Too funny. It’s my “fucking money,” too, Mike, and you can’t “fucking” have it.
Anyone who thinks private schools will have more accountability for what they do with the taxpayer windfall you and Sic are lobbying for is a bonehead.
If you want to send your kids to private school, get a second job, you lazy sod.
You know what I find interesting about your post?
You acknowledge that this school money is Mike’s money, your money, everyone’s money….but then you go on to say that it’s OK for it to be spent on stuff you agree with but NOT OK for it to be spent on stuff you don’t agree with(like private schools).
It’s downright silly. Mike get’s no say so, but you do?
The level of dissonance is astounding…you have no actual guiding principle behind what you are trying to say…it’s actually amazing.
Holy shit, friend… take a deep breath (or ask your Mom for your next pill). I’m not going to call you stupid and hyperbolic because I try to avoid direct name-calling on here, but let me break this down for you and you decide for yourself. How you deduced that I’m a voucher guy (which I’m not) from my point about the attitude that public funds rebated or discounted in any way are some kind of gift, I don’t get. Chalk it up to miscommunication, I guess. How you get that my kids have ever seen the inside of a public school (they haven’t), I don’t get either. How you determined that I am a lazy sod who somehow can’t afford private ed, I don’t get. I own two businesses, work full-time, and teach. Other than that I lay around a lot and whine about not having money for private school…not. I gladly pay, and think I’m receiving tremendous value for that money. I neither expect that vouchers will ever happen, nor do I advocate for them. I do understand, however, that our public education system is failing horribly in many instances, is much too expensive from a business model standpoint (esp. at the college level), and that these costs and failures have accelerated over the past 20-30 years as teacher unions and educational bureaucracy have become entrenched in the ed system. Even a cursory glance at per-pupil expenditure, administrative cost ratios, and ed spending as a percentage of GDP reveal this to be the case as performance continues to fall. Social and economic issues are at play as well and the debate should be a nuanced one bringing all of this into play, but the anti-voucher crazies tend to be “defend the status quo at all cost” types, just as the pro-voucher crazies tend to want to throw the entire system out in toto (baby, bathwater, and all). My interest here is, if you’ll pardon the pun, academic. I simply understand that our education system serves a key role in our continued development as a society, and the system is all kinds of broken. I am lucky; my kids are doing extremely well for lots of reasons (private school is but one). Many kids (most, even) are not so lucky. Neither side of this debate seems to be capable of rational discussion, and you’re the poster child for that kind of visceral, knee-jerk reactionism. So, the only thing for which I am “lobbying” (private school folks generally know where to put the preposition in a sentence) is improvement within our public schools, because they are part of the reason many of our other institutions are failing as well.
There just aren’t enough private schools to handle the influx, and there’s no time to waste a generation waiting for the private sector to do what it would already have done if there was a natural profit in it (as opposed to a profit dependent on taxpayer subsidy). The fact is that there is no profit in educating the poor and disadvantaged, because they have no means of paying for it and the rest of society doesn’t seem to think having an educated populace helps enough to justify socializing the cost.
*shakes head*
There is so much fail in that paragraph, TBG doesn’t even know where to begin.
The fail is strong within him.
“So just like in every other American “capitalist” venture, there are entrepreneurs waiting to privatize profit while socializing risk and cost”
The irony of not only having to define, but also defend capitalism, in a country that was known as being closest in representing such thinking for a time is a bit much, but ok, here we go.
“Capitalism is an economic system in which capital assets are privately owned and goods and services are produced for profit in a market economy”
Do you see anywhere, anything referring to socialized risk or cost?
No, of course not….because that would be called “socialism”.
Sheesh.
Your response is devoid of content. Of course I don’t see socialized risk or cost associated with the dictionary definition of capitalism. That’s because the system we have is a corrupt fascist facsimile of capitalism in which private losses are tempered by indirect and direct government subsidy. What keeps it from being socialism is that the gains are not realized by all citizens, but rather only by those that have been able to pull enough money out of the flow to “invest” in a stake of the private interest, if such a stake is even available.
“That’s because the system we have is a corrupt fascist facsimile of capitalism in which private losses are tempered by indirect and direct government subsidy.”
Great, then STOP CALLING IT “CAPITALISM”.
Call it fascism, or something accurate…and you won’t have to endure my “devoid of content” posts.
Do you see anywhere, anything referring to socialized risk or cost?
If doling out money to you and Sic Willie so you can send your kids to private school isn’t a “socialized cost,” I don’t know what is.
You are an utter moron.
The money is first collect, in a socialized manner against the will of many of the victims…then redistributed to educate SOME people’s kids in gov’t schools.
It’s is a socialist system…before you even get to the issue of allowing vouchers, rebates, etc.
edit: “collected”
My dear Question mark, you know that you can edit your comments after you post. I always clean up my typos that way.
and lose the “is” in the 1st sentence
“I attended public schools first grade through undergraduate degree, and I *got* a top-notch education.”
Failed to convince in the first sentence.
I think that was satire
Only in the alternate universe of today’s Republican lunatic fringe is public education considered “leftist.” Public education has been a pillar of the Republic since before there was a Republic. In began in Massachusetts in the 17th century and came to fruition across America in the 19th century. The eminent American educator, John Dewey, articulated a philosophy of how public education provides the vehicle for children to, not only gain knowledge, but learn the social functioning of a democracy. These are valuable benefits. For most people, the argument for public education is settled. Could it be reformed? Certainly — what can’t? To move toward “parental choice,” which is just a cover term for privatization, is to undermine a democratic society by pushing further toward the stratified Republican nirvana where the rich get richer and they don’t have to rub shoulders with the “others.”
I don’t think the framers contemplated the demographic challenges with which we have now to endure. Even old Abe, I believe, would be stupefied.
Heh.
Dude, whether or not you support public education, no matter how popular or unpopular it becomes, whether or not it is a “good” idea… it was.,is. and always will be a “leftist idea.” TBG laments, for secular humanism’s sake, the main historical supporters of public education are Karl Marx and John Dewey. TBG respectfully inquires, “what could be more leftist than that?”
Lipstick on a pig and all that.
Deal with it.
Some of us weren’t born yesterday and recall some interesting history on the subject. Public education was a settled issue in America — until the earthquake of Brown vs Board of Ed of Topeka, Kansas. Then a change began via the Right (then, often, Southern Dems allied with Republicans of the John Birch stripe. By the way, the descendants of those Southern Dems are now Repubs). This moved along in the GOP in the late Sixties and early to mid-Seventies — amazingly coincident with desegregation and, later, busing. Many of us recall the sudden proliferation of private academies and “Christian” schools around the south in this era. The agenda of such schools was clear. I think this history exposes the reality of Repub attacks on public education better than any complaints about “liberal” bureaucrats.
I have no objection to private schools, based on a simple formula: Private schools = private money. Public schools = public money. No public money for private schools. This is the crux of the issue, and it has gone back for years, Repubs want public money for private schools.
TBG was born at night.. just not LAST night.
TBG wholeheartedly agrees with everything in your first paragraph.
However after TBG had kicked the football…you sir, gently moved the goalposts. The discussion was whether or not public education is a “leftist” concept.
I maintain it is not and never had been “leftist.” It was long considered a standard of American life. It became “leftist,” in some political circles, only after it became desegregated and the government pushed for educational equality. The trend, by the Right, since the Seventies has been to marginalize public education by pushing the spurious argument that it isn’t consistent with American “freedoms.” That’s hogwash. It is and has long been fundamentally American — not left or right. The Right (mostly Repubs) have made it a left/right issue.
+25
TBG is sincerely flattered. Thank you.
Just like they want state support and sanction of THEIR religious views over and against those of the “others” and Federal money when it’s their state that suffers a disaster while denying it to “others” when theirs does.
It’s nothing more than third-grade selfishness and greed.
There’s that word “greed” again.
In the case of Bauknight, “greed” means wanting to keep more of your own money.
Sic you idiot. Republicans have been in charge of SC government for more than 30 years. how is SC’s shitty education system “leftists” fault?
Thanks for stating the obvious fact that seems to be ignored.
Well, let’s examine the truth of your assertion:
In the last 30 years (1984-2013),
Democrats have controlled the Governor’s office 8 years (Riley and Hodges ring a bell?)
Democrats controlled the House 10 years (until 1996)
Democrats controlled the senate 16 years (Until 2000)
The vast majority of Superintendents of Education have been Democrats (Williams, Tenenbaum and Hodges ring a bell?)
Prior to the last 30 years Dims controlled everything for most of our history so maybe you’re wrong – oh hell, lefts just go ahead and flat out state it – you’re wrong.
We are still paying for Dick “the edumicashum goobernor” Riley’s
“tweaking” our public schools and universities.
Excellent. I know Dick. I saw him the other day and asked him for my penny back. He didn’t think it was funny. I told him I didn’t think it was funny either.
TBG can only speak for himself, but in no way, has he ever implied (or thought) that Republicans are any more capable of running a government education system than are the Democrats.
Just curious, what % of teachers, administrators, etc. in the SC school system do you think self identify “Democrat”?
Did this drive you so crazy, it infected this story and that’s why sentences are overlapping sentences in the comment section?
Not every state has poor public schools. It’s just one more thing that conservative SC can’t do right.
Liberal icon, Pat Moynihan’s Law of the Canadian Border.
This community, state, and nation once viewed public schools as for “our” kids and our and their future. Now, increasingly, the concern is just for “my” kids, as if they can make it alone in later years.
Not a great way to face an increasingly competitive and still nationalist world.
Well..they are definitely for “your” kids–my wife and I have wisely chosen not have any. But yet, I’m still forced to help pay for yours. You’re welcome.
Nonsense. I keep hearing this complaint on local right-wing radio from random crank callers. “I ain’t got no kids in school. Why should I have to pay taxes for schools?”
Those taxes you pay for schools are producing the doctors, dentists, veterinarians, engineers, teachers, waitresses, electricians, accountants, firemen, EMS technicians, and so forth and so on. These are the people who make YOUR life easier, safer, and more enjoyable.
Using your line of reasoning I could (foolishly) say that I should not have to pay for taxes for air traffic control, the FAA, Airport construction, and the many non-private aspects of flying. I haven’t flown in 25 years. Why should I have to pay for this?
Hey, the world’s gonna end tomorrow when JESUS comes! Why should I have to pay for NASA?
I’m a Christian Scientist! Why should I have to help fund medical research?
I read earlier where TBG said that people shouldn’t have to pay for the stuff that they don’t personally benefit from. That is an absurd notion from those who are screaming for smaller, more efficient government. If we had that ability the IRS would have to multiply its employees by a factor of ten in order to untangle the resulting mess.
TBG wagers that Norma Scok’s first initial is “E”
Those taxes you pay for schools are producing the doctors, dentists, veterinarians, engineers, teachers, waitresses, electricians, accountants, firemen, EMS technicians, and so forth and so on. These are the people who make YOUR life easier, healthier, safer, and more enjoyable.
Hell, why not pay for their (doctors, dentists, veterinarians, engineers, teachers, waitresses, electricians, accountants, firemen, EMS technicians, and so forth) services with tax dollars also?
Yeah, TBG realizes that it’s already a done deal with teachers and soon with doctors and dentists. While TBG fervently hopes that Margaret Thatcher was wrong, and that “we” will NEVER run out of other people’s money…it’s not the way he would bet.
You were way too nice to Geddings. He is pompous know-nothing, whose finest effort is his public masturbation on this blog. I know, I know, it looks like a penis, only smaller.
Excellent post! Were you sucking on your mama’s titties when you came up with that gem?
Ironic that you should choose the moniker Polyphemos. This is a misspelling of the name of one of the cyclopses on an island that Odysseus lands on as he journeys back from the Trojan war. The correct spelling is Polyphemus.
Either way I think that it’s quite appropriate that you chose the ID of a drunken, quite stupid, cave dweller who gets his one and only eye poked out with a sharp, burning stick.
Score one for Odysseus and a loud huzzah for public masturbation!
Of course you could be referring to you beloved aunt Poly Phemos but Polly is misspelled as well.
You are wrong. Again. Polyphemus is the LATINIZED form of the ancient Greek, ?????????. Notice the omicron at the end of the word, NOT an upsilon. Polyphemos was the He is the son of the god Poseidon and Thoosa a creature of great strength. In the myth of Jason, he is a best of immense stupidity who broke the cardinal rule of hospitality in Ancient Greece. However, there is an earlier myth in which he is betrayed by Jason. He becomes cynical and trusts no-one, thinking himself stupid for trusting Jason, and thus voluntarily breaks the rule of hospitality. Depends on who’s telling the myth. Odysseus was the better story-teller so his version is more popular with the masses. But you wouldn’t know that because you are a pompous know-nothing.
Omicron? Upsilon? and you call ME a pompous know-it-all?
Of course, you knew all the above when you chose the moniker of a one-eyed giant of dubious intelligence who gets his eye poked out.
“But my usage under the definition of the older myth! You should have known that!” Crap in a knapsack, man, why don’t you just change your id and call it a bad experience.
Unlike you, I actually know my subject.
How is that possible with a stick protruding from your only eye socket?
From your comment, you also seem to have some experience crapping in your knapsack, so I suggest you send your uneducated opinions there. After your stupid comments about the Episcopal Church, I figured you were dumb, but this takes the cake!
You have me confused for someone else. I have no interest whatsoever in the Episcopal church and have never, on this site or any other, made any reference to said church. If your antipathy towards me is linked to this error an apology is in order. You are smart. Of this I have no doubt. But, can you man to making a mistake?
Do you not remember your own comments to me about church history?
I always apologize and make corrections, when I’m wrong.
I do not have any idea what you are talking about. I don’t know jack squat about the Episcopal Church and can’t imagine why I would post anything whatsoever about a subject that doesn’t interest me.
You have mistaken me for someone else and no amount of protestations on my part will convince you otherwise. Maybe you can tell me exactly what you thought that I said about this church?
Perhaps you can provide me with a link as well?
“…and no amount of protestations on my part will convince you otherwise.”
That much is true.
It would seem to be a fairly simple process to access your disqus account and search all comments. If that fails you can do a search on Will’s site. I really don’t know what else to say to you.
You are mistaken and are way too stubborn to admit to error. I disagree with TBG on most issues but enjoy the back and forth repartee with him as he has a really cheerful personality and has a great self-effacing sense of humor.
You just freak me out.
I don’t have anything else to say to you. Goodnight.
WTF? Is your whole life dedicated to disproving the John Donne maxim that “no man is an island”?
No one is suggesting that everything should be free. That is a ridiculous extrapolation on your part.
All that aside, I still find you to be a likable fellow with a decent sense of humor.
Don’t get your panties in a wad; that’s just a typical trolley Slate headline.
Your “solution” to public school problems is to have the state throw money at YOU. Forget it.
‘free condoms for gay sex” ? someone needs to go back to ‘government school’…
what’d you get,1st time? an associate degree in blogging?
sic(k) willie has been regurgitating the same old voucher scam rhetoric for Howie the Voucher Clown for years.
Nobody’s buying it.
That’s because everyone knows that Howie’s voucher plan is a scam.
It’s a scam because vouchers (by any name) do nothing but leave those who need help the most even further behind.
But, Howie’s voucher pimps don’t really care.
They claim vouchers will help all kids. Even those with special needs. Even those from families that don’t have a lot of money.
Here is a question. How do you know when a voucher pimp is telling a lie?
Answer. When they are talking, blogging or writing about the voucher scam.
sic(k) one, we have asked you to do this before.
Tell Howie the Voucher Clown that vouchers are dead in S.C.
A former Midlands’ Elected Official has said so.
BIN New Editorial Staff
Flair and Balanced
The less parents control their children’s education and the smaller roll they have in the process the less educated the children have become from the time of the one room school house to the huge school houses of today. The larger roll government has along with The National anti-Educational Association the less educated our children have become compared to the rest of the world. The first step is to shut down the federal and state boards of education and stop teaching social acceptance of anything and everything and stop applying all the rules that others from out of state, out of county or outside the community where the children are being educated.
ROLE not ROLL, for the love of Pete! Obviously a product of his parent’s involvement in his education.
Taxpayer dollars shouldn’t go to private schools or home-schooling, especially those with a religious agenda. That violates separation of church and state. Many people in the US would rightfully claim bloody murder if subsidies were given to a Muslim-based school where Sharia law was taught, but would think it’s great idea to receive a “voucher” from Uncle Sam to pay for a private Christian/Catholic school.
I’m not against private schools or homeschooling per se, but they should be funded internally from private donations/tuition.