School Vouchers

California


CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 9 EDUCATION


SEC. 5. The Legislature shall provide for a system of common
schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each
district at least six months in every year, after the first year in
which a school has been established.

ANONONE, the point is public schools are in the state constitutions, thats where the right exists lol. Colorado coming right up.

you can stop after Colorado

Colorado Article IX

Section 2. Establishment and maintenance of public schools. The general assembly shall, as soon as practicable, provide for the establishment and maintenance of a thorough and uniform system of free public schools throughout the state, wherein all residents of the state, between the ages of six and twenty one years, may be educated gratuitously. One or more public schools shall be maintained in each school district within the state, at least three months in each year; any school district failing to have such school shall not be entitled to receive any portion of the school fund for that year.

you can stop after Colorado Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Done

I see lots of comments about private schools and public schools, but what about home schoolers? If we pay taxes and want to home school our kids, should we get a refund or tax break? I know a lot of people that choose to home school their kids and they say that most colleges will consider home schoolers first because a lot of them have had better educations than what is offered in both public and private schools. I don't have the stats, but I have seen home schooler doing high school work at ages under 12 years old. Originally Posted by Nicolette Bordeauxva

In the following, I'm not at all questioning the validity of home schooling as an educational option.

I wondered if someone would bring this up? I think it would simply be impossible for the state to issue full vouchers for home schooling. First, I would be extremely reluctant to see anything that might be considered a financial incentive to keep kids home from school. Potential for abuse is just too high. Following this line of thought, how would the school district monitor that the money being spent for home schooling is actually going to the education of the child?

Maybe it would work if the home schoolers only received half the amount the student would normally be eligible for and the other half of that money was used to cover the costs of monitoring and verifying the educational process.

I helped home school my kids.
We even formed an association to help each other. We could pool money to rent a swimming pool or gym at the local colledge and they would provide instructors. The state requires standardized testing each year. That was no problem.
We in no way would have asked for nor receive an money from the state.
You take money you also have more of their control.

In the following, I'm not at all questioning the validity of home schooling as an educational option.

I wondered if someone would bring this up? I think it would simply be impossible for the state to issue full vouchers for home schooling. First, I would be extremely reluctant to see anything that might be considered a financial incentive to keep kids home from school. Potential for abuse is just too high. Following this line of thought, how would the school district monitor that the money being spent for home schooling is actually going to the education of the child?

Maybe it would work if the home schoolers only received half the amount the student would normally be eligible for and the other half of that money was used to cover the costs of monitoring and verifying the educational process. Originally Posted by Silverstream

Oh, I think it could be done...and am frankly (without getting into a lot of detail) in a position of authority of something that provides funds for educating youth. But the provisions cover some verifiable costs...it is not just payment.

For instance, if one wanted to, a credit could be issued to the homeschooling parent for the purchase of books, supplies, testing materials, etc.

But there are some in here who appear to be saying that the concept itself is flawed. i.e. - The state should only be providing the cost of an education in a formal, public school environment. Anything else, you're on your own.

With such a premise, methodologies don't really matter.

ANONONE, the point is public schools are in the state constitutions, thats where the right exists lol. Colorado coming right up. Originally Posted by discreetgent

I meant the US Constitution. If you had read my post completely you would have saved yourself more leg work than a paralegal would do for a major case.

LOL!!!

The point was, some folks that get into this voucher discussion seem to act as if you have a right to an education. You do not.

There is no enumerated constitutional right to an education. This is the same type of myth as folks that think the phrase "separation of church and state" is written in the constitution.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda. . .

It is not in the Bill of Rights and that was done on purpose. The framers of the document could come to no consensus and they left it to the states.

I guess you cold argue it is an implied right. . .but wow, that is a slippery slope.

Like I said, even if it was a right, on what basis can anyone say that the right must be provided to you?

Go back to this:

We have a right to bear arms. The government does not go out any buy you the firearm of your choice.

First let me say, I haven't read this whole thread.

I see lots of comments about private schools and public schools, but what about home schoolers? If we pay taxes and want to home school our kids, should we get a refund or tax break? I know a lot of people that choose to home school their kids and they say that most colleges will consider home schoolers first because a lot of them have had better educations than what is offered in both public and private schools. I don't have the stats, but I have seen home schooler doing high school work at ages under 12 years old. Originally Posted by Nicolette Bordeauxva

They see them as socially lacking what it takes ti "fit in" and they must keep up appearances..

I met the US Constitution. If you had read my post completely you would have saved yourself more leg work than a paralegal would do for a major case.

LOL!!!

The point was, some folks that get into this voucher discussion seem to act as if you have a right to an education. You do not. In is not in the Bill of Rights and it was done on purpose--it was left to the states as a provision, not a mandate and not a right, which I already said, so all that research you did was not needed. I guess you cold argue it is an implied right. . .but wow that is a slippery slope.

Like I said, even it is was a right, on what basis can anyone say that the right must be provided to you?

Go back to this:

We have a right to bear arms. The government does not go out any buy you the firearm of your choice. Originally Posted by ANONONE

Geez, AN. That is a bit myopic. In fact, I know of no "God Given" (or any other kind of) right to bear arms. It is our US Consititution that gives us that right. When people are expressing their views they are expressing them all the way down to them individually. That would include state constitutions, as well as maybe any more local "rights" (if any).

Geez, AN. That is a bit myopic. . . Originally Posted by Rudyard K

It was muddled.

I was trying to clean it up before you quoted.

Is this better:

I meant the US Constitution. If you had read my post completely you would have saved yourself more leg work than a paralegal would do for a major case.

LOL!!!

The point was, some folks that get into this voucher discussion seem to act as if you have a right to an education. You do not.

There is no enumerated constitutional right to an education. This is the same type of myth as folks that think the phrase "separation of church and state" is written in the constitution.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda. . .

It is not in the Bill of Rights and that was done on purpose. The framers of the document could come to no consensus and they left it to the states.

I guess you cold argue it is an implied right. . .but wow, that is a slippery slope.

Like I said, even if it was a right, on what basis can anyone say that the right must be provided to you?

Go back to this:

We have a right to bear arms. The government does not go out any buy you the firearm of your choice. Originally Posted by ANONONE

Oh, I think it could be done...and am frankly (without getting into a lot of detail) in a position of authority of something that provides funds for educating youth. But the provisions cover some verifiable costs...it is not just payment.

For instance, if one wanted to, a credit could be issued to the homeschooling parent for the purchase of books, supplies, testing materials, etc.

But there are some in here who appear to be saying that the concept itself is flawed. i.e. - The state should only be providing the cost of an education in a formal, public school environment. Anything else, you're on your own.

With such a premise, methodologies don't really matter. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Speaking broadly about vouchers, count me in that camp. It isn't that I'm against private education (I'm a product of it) or in perfect world wouldn't want every child to choose where they want to go and have it paid for but we live in a world of scarce resources.

In many ways there are parallels to our frequent healthcare discussions here. In a world without resource constraints I'd love for everyone to have wonderful hc & not have to pay for it. It just isn't practical.

So I'm saying take state resources and improve public schools (where they need improvement; in some places they are really good).

As for vouchers for homeschooling, if I don't support them for private schools, as you probably suspect, I don't support them for homeschooling, but I don't think the distribution of them would be the hard part. I don't think you would have widespread fraud (like a babymachine saying she was homeschooling her 10 kids so she could collect more checks) - checks in the system like testing would deter it.

More than actual funding (or direct costs) I think the biggest thing the State could help homeschool parents with is the access to resources (at reasonable costs). Depending on which estimate you believe there are 1-2million homeschool kids in the US. That is a huge number. It is also one of the most fragmented & unorganized markets out there. There is a huge (for-profit) market opportunity for making the lives of home school parents easier. In fact, without getting into detail, one of the ventures I'm involved with is engaging this market.

For instance, if one wanted to, a credit could be issued to the homeschooling parent for the purchase of books, supplies, testing materials, etc.

But there are some in here who appear to be saying that the concept itself is flawed. i.e. - The state should only be providing the cost of an education in a formal, public school environment. Anything else, you're on your own.

With such a premise, methodologies don't really matter. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

FWIW many many states do provide some kind of help to private schools. Lunch programs, school bus, sometimes text books are funded in some states.

FWIW many many states do provide some kind of help to private schools. Lunch programs, school bus, sometimes text books are funded in some states. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Yes - sometimes entire programs (including staff). Vocational Education, Counseling, etc.

Like "private" universities, if is very hard to find one that isn't taking some govt $