Delibirb Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Unsure if this will really form a debate or not. Is imagine most of us will be on the same side of this but as I'm unsure, we'll keep it here for now. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/610 Choices in Education Act of 2017 This bill repeals the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and limits the authority of the Department of Education (ED) such that ED is authorized only to award block grants to qualified states. The bill establishes an education voucher program, through which each state shall distribute block grant funds among local educational agencies (LEAs) based on the number of eligible children within each LEA's geographical area. From these amounts, each LEA shall: (1) distribute a portion of funds to parents who elect to enroll their child in a private school or to home-school their child, and (2) do so in a manner that ensures that such payments will be used for appropriate educational expenses. To be eligible to receive a block grant, a state must: (1) comply with education voucher program requirements, and (2) make it lawful for parents of an eligible child to elect to enroll their child in any public or private elementary or secondary school in the state or to home-school their child. No Hungry Kids Act The bill repeals a specified rule that established certain nutrition standards for the national school lunch and breakfast programs. (In general, the rule requires schools to increase the availability of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or fat free milk in school meals; reduce the levels of sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat in school meals; and meet children's nutritional needs within their caloric requirements.)To me, this seems silly and sounds like its trying to lead into something more sinister. Firstly, its counterintuitive (and somewhat hypocritical) I feel to want to assist people in paying for private schooling. Just make public education more effective as well as cost effective. Secondly, its worded in such a way that, to me, they're intending for this to introduce the idea of defunding public schools. Slowly, but surely. Its not explicitly stated, but it can be interpreted as such. Why would you even want to do that? No public schools means fewer taxes to use on things that matter. If you want lower taxes as a rule, defund things that are actually unnecessary/getting more money than they need. Thirdly, that repealing of having some nutritional value in school lunches is, I feel, unnecessary. What harm does having some fruits and vegetables available do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mido9 Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Firstly, its counterintuitive (and somewhat hypocritical) I feel to want to assist people in paying for private schooling. Just make public education more effective as well as cost effective. Secondly, its worded in such a way that, to me, they're intending for this to introduce the idea of defunding public schools. Slowly, but surely. Its not explicitly stated, but it can be interpreted as such. Why would you even want to do that? No public schools means fewer taxes to use on things that matter. If you want lower taxes as a rule, defund things that are actually unnecessary/getting more money than they need. You can't make public schools more effective bc they don't compete, so teachers and headmasters and etc end up purposely doing badly, then asking for more funds, then do more badly, then ask for more funds etc etc, and you end up doing weird roundabouts like tying teacher pay to grades and establishing specific curriculum(which is sorta regimenting children), and it's a big cobweb of nonsense. It's also a big reason why inner cities don't get better even with huge funding, I mean chicago, detroit and etc spend 30% more than the average school and still suck. It's cheaper and cleaner and a lot more efficient to just have the schools compete to teach children(with an SAT or etc on top). Also, who cares that there's no public schools? Private schools and homeschooling are literally free under this bill, the end goal of "free education for all" is still 100% there and massively improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delibirb Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 You can't make public schools more effective bc they don't compete, so teachers and headmasters and etc end up purposely doing badly, then asking for more funds, then do more badly, then ask for more funds etc etc, and you end up doing weird roundabouts like tying teacher pay to grades and establishing specific curriculum(which is sorta regimenting children), and it's a big cobweb of nonsense. It's also a big reason why inner cities don't get better even with huge funding, I mean chicago, detroit and etc spend 30% more than the average school and still suck. It's cheaper and cleaner and a lot more efficient to just have the schools compete to teach children(with an SAT or etc on top). Also, who cares that there's no public schools? Private schools and homeschooling are literally free under this bill, the end goal of "free education for all" is still 100% there and massively improved.First point is difficult to prove. Second point is fair I suppose. Its still counterintuitive I think, but fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mido9 Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 First point is difficult to prove. Second point is fair I suppose. Its still counterintuitive I think, but fair enough.Uh, it probably is, yeah, actually. I'll find something, hold on. According to Governing.com Illinois spends 12k per student and the US average is 10k per student. Chicago spends 14k per student, but its literacy rate is 53% and like, a quarter of 8th graders are proficient in science, reading, writing or math. Same for detroit, 14k and no literacy. A private school costs 10k and gives a way, WAY better education. It's not that there's no funding, it's just that the money gets pocketed and there's no accountability and yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Thirdly, that repealing of having some nutritional value in school lunches is, I feel, unnecessary. What harm does having some fruits and vegetables available do?It's not that having fruits and Vegetables is bad, it's that they also strip away any other fun options Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delibirb Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 It's not that having fruits and Vegetables is bad, it's that they also strip away any other fun optionsPor que no los dos? ~~~~~~~~~~~~ I imagine there's more factors in the capability of students than how much money is thrown at them. That's not to say the students aren't trying, just that teacher apathy may not necessarily be a factor, or at least not the sole/largest one. There's also the matter of sample size. Those are the two worst examples, sure, but are they outliers? What are the best examples of public schooling proficiency relative to budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Por que no los dos? ~~~~~~~~~~~~ I imagine there's more factors in the capability of students than how much money is thrown at them. That's not to say the students aren't trying, just that teacher apathy may not necessarily be a factor, or at least not the sole/largest one.Agreed, why not both. But the current standard would not do both. Idk, I actually love fruits, so I'm not that perturbed, but removing Mountain Dew from the vending machine was a sin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delibirb Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Agreed, why not both. But the current standard would not do both. Idk, I actually love fruits, so I'm not that perturbed, but removing Mountain Dew from the vending machine was a sinI wasn't aware anything was removed. But, I was moving halfway across the country when these changes took effect, iirc, so I have little to compare to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mido9 Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Por que no los dos? ~~~~~~~~~~~~ I imagine there's more factors in the capability of students than how much money is thrown at them. That's not to say the students aren't trying, just that teacher apathy may not necessarily be a factor, or at least not the sole/largest one. There's also the matter of sample size. Those are the two worst examples, sure, but are they outliers? What are the best examples of public schooling proficiency relative to budget?Yeah there's definitely other factors. I mean, I really don't want to be dishonest and throw out everything but money, but I really don't think there's any bill that can solve those. Also, in general this sort of trend is in most states, private schools give better education with give or take the same cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr47t Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 This bill just seems silly to me. 1. Regarding the voucher shift: If something is failing and you have a productive way to solve it, do that instead of scrapping it. In this case, the "something" is public schools (although that argument could also be made about Obamacare). We don't need a shift to private school education, nor would it be productive. I feel that the only people to truly stand from a privatized education system are CEOs and others who would profit from it. @Mido: Please provide some data to back up your claim that "private schools give better education with give or take the same cost". 2. Regarding the repeal of the clean food act: I smell a rat here too, as the only people I can see benefiting from such a repeal are a. the CEOs and big businesses that deal in/profit from less healthy foods (ex. fast food) and b. the politicians funded by said CEOs and big corporations. Since when has mandating healthy meals in schools been a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mido9 Posted March 8, 2017 Report Share Posted March 8, 2017 This bill just seems silly to me. 1. Regarding the voucher shift: If something is failing and you have a productive way to solve it, do that instead of scrapping it. In this case, the "something" is public schools (although that argument could also be made about Obamacare). We don't need a shift to private school education, nor would it be productive. I feel that the only people to truly stand from a privatized education system are CEOs and others who would profit from it. @Mido: Please provide some data to back up your claim that "private schools give better education with give or take the same cost".Pretty much EVERYONE who can afford private education sends their child to private education. Like, every politician, every CEO, every big business owner etc all sent their child to private school. The numbers even show how much better the education is. If you're not gonna get crippled financially by it, you go private every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delibirb Posted March 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2017 Pretty much EVERYONE who can afford private education sends their child to private education. Like, every politician, every CEO, every big business owner etc all sent their child to private school. The numbers even show how much better the education is. If you're not gonna get crippled financially by it, you go private every time.A: Link is a 404B: You just have to provide the evidence. Peer pressure is not evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.