Fairly huge news. Not only for the education system, but democrats in general. To digress from the point of the article: I must fully emphasis that democrats rely heavily on union funding. I would say it's their backbone, and it's increasingly getting weak in the private sector (ie private sector union membership is 7%, while the public sector is 36.2%)...prodominately union teachers. Point being,.. you lose them, you lose your political backbone.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070125/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/organized_labor But to get back to the article's point: Indeed, over time this will present a different political and social climate.... Of coarse schooling will mostly likely be a bit more competitive, and more loosely regulated. Putting more power in the parent's hands. While my position on this isn't quite solid, I do lean to this being a good experience. And I find it hard to believe it took so long for us to even take a step in that direction...much less having the most conservative state take that long...with such a narrow vote. But to be reasonable: And I agree with the bold. If it passes, then they should give it due time. Another thing to note. I never understood why they couldn't just offer similiar amounts. If the public school is going to spend that money, then why not spend that money on the private....!? http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/200702...tion_s_first_universal_school_voucher_program I really do believe the moment education moves towards privatization, America will truely leave the 'new left' behind. It's not that I want a whole bunch of 'Bushies' in office....which I really don't want...but I want this nation to return to it's foundation (minus the racism of it's past). I guess I just figure the best way is decentralized/competitive education.
Here's the problem vouchers face. Florida has a system in place, where if your school receives a failing grade, you can put your kid in another school that is not failing. I think last year, about 10% of students who were eligible moved schools. Parents are not investing the time to make sure their kids are getting a good education. So, if the parents are lazy (or don't want to up the other $3,000 - I assume they'd have to pay the difference), then vouchers are meaningless. I think vouchers are a great idea, in theory, but I do not think enough people are willing to invest the time in making the system work. Does it boggle anyone else's mind, that in a classroom of 30 kids, you have about $200,000 dollars in there and yet we cannot teach our kids reading, writing, math and science? How much beaurocracy is eating up all that money?
Utah is very religious-based. Mormom's basically. So I'm assuming it will be used there. While I wonder how the politics, regulation, and so-forth are handled,...I have a general level of optimism. This going towards the right direction, atleast. 6k*30=180,000...which is about 200k. Yes, it doesn't make sense that it requires so much for these kids to learn so little. The most ideal thing would be to let parents deduct (state) taxes in proportion to how much they spend on these private schools. I think that's the eventually goal, but it will take time to construct a system that outcompetes public schools. Right now, I'm considering this to be like Canada's supreme court health care decesion...which allowed private insurance (to a degree). This will bleed-off some of the pressures in the public sector, and may give a bit of a chance to the private. Progressives moved to slowly grow government, and those whom are conservative or libertarian must be as patient to slowly remove that as well.
I remember that a few years ago. Has any companies taken advantage of this and set up shop? I haven't seen much followup on this; and how it'd work exactly.
Similiar...but I too am not familiar with the dirty details of Canada's healthcare system. I'm assuming that since they don't get a tax breaks at all to venture in different systems, it's not used as much. But when a person has cancer, a major disease or a serious injury...I'm sure they do consider that.
Wiki reference: So it was delayed...I should have followed-up on what's going on now...I will. Interesting thing about their system....it work simliar to a voucher system ie the healthcare is private, but with public funding. According to wiki, which is probably a limited truth: Which obviously asserts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
Boy thats a good quality post...anyway. I'm not sure about this whole voucher thing. While I don't have children yet, if I want to pay for them to go to private school and get a better education, then I should work harder and not rely on my taxes to provide that. Right now, I am at the point where I think this is a fleecing of America, starting with Utah.
That doesn't make sense. You are paying taxes for your kids to go to school, but shouldn't be able to take your money to put them in private school instead? Silly.
Most taxes are through property tax/income tax...for states. So if you own a house you're paying for someones education...like it or not. So I figure that since most people do own a house when they have children...why not give them that sort of tax choice with their money. If the purpose of government mandated school is to have an educated society, what better way to influence such (atleast within this paradigm) than giving a sort of tax brake specifically for that. As I said, it would be better if they just deducted school spending for parents.
Out of curiousity...a state voucher system is 'similiar' to most universal health care programs. Canada's UHC is mainly operated by private institutions. The funding of the institution come from the government (roughly 70%). So the voucher system is like the 'acclaimed' Canadian universal health system. It's a semi-private instiution, which get public funding. Why would a liberal argue against this? After all, they're for Universal Health Care, aren't they? Just curious....buzz in with your thoughts.
Its the exact opposite of similar, isnt it? You are forced to participate in the UHC arent you, if you are canadian? You aren't forced into it in Utah. I think the "forcing" is the problem
UHC...you just pay through in taxes. The courts have allowed a level of private care, because the incredibly long waits in Canada. So there's a level of chose, but from what I hear...these people come to America when they really need care. In Utah you still pay taxes...and you have somewhat of a choice. You can forget the tax part, and educate at home or you can send them to private school and get some your taxes back.
http://kutv.com/local/local_story_040184327.html Apparently Utah spends roughly 6k per student. The bill (I believe), intends to keep some of the funds from that student still in public schools. Although it seems they're limiting that amount. So barring a judicial intervention, I think this will be the first experiment into private schools with public funding. Hopefully they don't screw this up.