Proposition 103 - Temporary Tax Increase for Public Education

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

You can see that on the small scale in the small towns around Colorado, the direct involvement of the community with their schools. However, those school districts still get money from the state to support the districts and the community doesn't pay the entire bill for their school system.

How should the schools be funded? Entirely by the community it serves? What if that community is poor and cannot fund at the same level as, say Cherry Creek where their funding comes from Cherry Hills, Greenwood Village and the like? Do we say too bad? Level the playing field some?

I'm really not arguing with anyone here; I am trying to see if someone has an idea, a solution for a complex problem that escapes our legislators.

---

I know outside of religious institutions/schools, the state still supports public education. However, I do think the community should foot the complete bill. They want better for their children, they'll figure out... A school is not dependent on a building, utilities, etc. A teacher can find a way if the pupils are willing. (THAT is the single biggest problem, finding willing pupils. Kids want everything HANDED to them with no work ethic.)

It's for the family to figure out, not for the government to dictate. If a child wants to go to a cherry creek school, then the parents can figure out the transportation and the school costs they would need to share in that. I truly believe a school should be run like a business. People need to learn that failing is not the end of the world and that sometimes failing can teach you greater lessons than always passing or everyone getting a medal. For without second place, first place means nothing.

I do not think there needs to be a system in place to leverage the playing field at all. Again, education is not dependent on the amount of money thrown at it. An allstate football team will crush a JV team almost everytime because of the amount of depth that the money brings. However, I'd be willing to bet that most kids on the smaller team know multiple positions instead of right tackle defend right tackle therefore the smaller team would have a deeper field of education. But that JV team will learn how to defend against the weak side rush, etc. They will have plenty of opportunity to play people on their own level of learning, but it is good for both teams.

I see nothing wrong will failing. Lord knows I have multiple times. So yes, we do say "too bad" and "grow the f%Y^ up".... hehehe

Life happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

I listen to Caplis and Silverman in the afternoons and Dan Caplis is always arguing this point. Privatization means competition means better schools. Okay, I can agree to that. However, he fails to acknowledge two points, one of which you mention. Parents do have the option to put their kids into any school they want to. Its called open enrollment. You live in Boulder and want your kids to go to school in Cherry Creek, you can. You just have to figure out how to get them there. You want them to go to a private school, you can. You just have to pay for it.

---

Problem is, many (most) people with kids in failing schools can't afford to send their kids to a private school.

Quote:

---

The second point Dan Caplis doesn't mention in his privatization argument is, he wants the state to give the parents the state and federal money allocated for the individual student and have them spend it where they want to. I have issue with this. If you want to send your kids to a secular school, have at it, go forth and conquer, but don't expect taxpayer money to support it. Same with home schooling.

---

The GI Bill has been paying for veterans to go to religious schools for decades, so that precedent has been set. Why shouldn't the tax money that is set aside for a kid's education follow the student to whatever school is chosen?

Quote:

---

Your point about not paying for the school district unless you have kids is interesting and one I've thought about. I, as a homeowner pay taxes directly to the school district as part of my property taxes, and as a consumer, a very, very small amount of my income and sales taxes are allocated to school funding. However, a large amount of people live in apartments or rented homes and do not pay property taxes. One would argue they pay indirectly as their payments probably cover the actual owner's property taxes, but that isn't a certainty.

---

Did I really read that??? [Help]

Of COURSE rent payments cover the taxes; it most definitely IS a certainty. A landlord must recover ALL his costs of the building when he rents it, and one of those costs is property taxes. So, while a renter doesn't directly pay taxes, the landlord does, and that money comes directly from the tenant.

Quote:

---

The argument has been made for decades that society benefits as a whole if the population is educated and paying for that education is a societal requirement. I, owning a home directly pay into the school district and the mother with 5 kids living in an apartment does not.

---

We all do benefit from a publicly-funded education program (though there are huge doubts about how effective the government-run programs are working). And only taking money for education from people with kids in school would make it prohibitively expensive for many of those parents.

Vouchers would change all that. The money that's earmarked for a student could follow that kid to the school of choice. Poor parents would more likely be able to send their kids to a better (or private) school. The schools would have to <gasp> compete for their business. Different schools could tailor their curriculum to the demographics they wish to lure; one school might emphasize the arts, while another might specialize in business, and yet another on the skills necessary for engineering. Some could lean to the Left, others to the Right. The parents would have a choice on what they want their kids to be exposed to.

The education would still be publicly-funded, and spread around a large tax base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

blah blah, blah blah blah blah

---

Fuck your failing schools using taxes extorted from me to indoctrinate children into the cult of liberalism and derp-endance. Let the dollars follow the student.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tweety Bird

The schools would have to <gasp> compete for their business. Different schools could tailor their curriculum to the demographics they wish to lure; one school might emphasize the arts, while another might specialize in business, and yet another on the skills necessary for engineering.

---

Not a popular view since it brings up thoughts of "trade/vocational" skills for people who don't know what they want to do in life yet, but I've often thought this would be a great idea.....

There is a deeper issue here, but I can't adequately explain the concept. It seems like public schooling is similar to food production on a national scale. People are free to pursue specialized professions because they don't have to hunt or gather food. With corporations employing much of our country, children no longer have to help with the family business, but they are only allowed one option to pass the time until they are of age to work, and that is going to school.

This is the same as if instead of everyone hunting and gathering for themselves, they were still required to work on a farm to produce food for everyone. Our population is far too large to support an entire nation of farmers. At least with employment, there are other options and a natural balance can occur. Requiring ALL children to remain in school until they are 18 is like trying to control a market. It is causing all kinds of disasters in society because we can not maintain the artificial market.

Instead of requiring kids to be in school, the employment age should be greatly reduced, and kids who don't do well in school because they don't want to be there, can go get a job some where instead. This will reduce class size, and students will be surrounded by other students who WANT to be there. This would reduce class size, reduce costs, reduce stress on teachers as they'd be able to teach students who are there because they want to be, as opposed to the baby sitting and lawsuit dodging that they do now.

Of course there would be a period of adjustment when young people learn how to take care of themselves, but we all know someone who was self sufficient since they were very young. My fiance lived in her own apartment when she was 14 years old, had a job, and wasn't the drain on society that you'd imagine the average 14 year-old would be if you told them they didn't have to go to school anymore.

I think it is ridiculous how everyone is pushed to go to college today. School just isn't for everyone. The societal pressure to have EVERYONE be educated is wrecking havoc on our economy.

*Right now would be a rough time to release a bunch of 13-16 year-olds into the job market, as we are low on jobs as it is, but eventually an equilibrium would be found.*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBear

It's for the family to figure out, not for the government to dictate. If a child wants to go to a cherry creek school, then the parents can figure out the transportation and the school costs they would need to share in that. I truly believe a school should be run like a business. People need to learn that failing is not the end of the world and that sometimes failing can teach you greater lessons than always passing or everyone getting a medal. For without second place, first place means nothing.

I do not think there needs to be a system in place to leverage the playing field at all. Again, education is not dependent on the amount of money thrown at it.

I see nothing wrong will failing. Lord knows I have multiple times. So yes, we do say "too bad" and "grow the f%Y^ up".... hehehe.

---

That's the point; the family CAN figure it out. It's called open enrollment and it has been going on for a long time now. Outside of schools within districts, and outside of districts, at least in the metro area. I can't speak to your school Bear. The school gets funds from the state for each butt in a seat, so an additional student is money to them.

Do you feel the district, the schools owe something to the kids in those seats at all? Do you feel the lack of learning is solely due to the student, and not influenced by the instructor, the curriculum, or mandatory testing?

I agree we need to start emphasizing winning and losing. Not everyone wins. Not everyone succeeds. There is second (and third and fourth) place people, teams, and schools. I also learned from my mistakes, I grew with failure, learned to work harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tweety Bird

Problem is, many (most) people with kids in failing schools can't afford to send their kids to a private school.

The GI Bill has been paying for veterans to go to religious schools for decades, so that precedent has been set. Why shouldn't the tax money that is set aside for a kid's education follow the student to whatever school is chosen?

Did I really read that??? [Help]

Of COURSE rent payments cover the taxes; it most definitely IS a certainty. A landlord must recover ALL his costs of the building when he rents it, and one of those costs is property taxes. So, while a renter doesn't directly pay taxes, the landlord does, and that money comes directly from the tenant.

We all do benefit from a publicly-funded education program (though there are huge doubts about how effective the government-run programs are working). And only taking money for education from people with kids in school would make it prohibitively expensive for many of those parents.

Vouchers would change all that. The money that's earmarked for a student could follow that kid to the school of choice. Poor parents would more likely be able to send their kids to a better (or private) school. The schools would have to <gasp> compete for their business. Different schools could tailor their curriculum to the demographics they wish to lure; one school might emphasize the arts, while another might specialize in business, and yet another on the skills necessary for engineering. Some could lean to the Left, others to the Right. The parents would have a choice on what they want their kids to be exposed to.

The education would still be publicly-funded, and spread around a large tax base.

---

I disagree with using public money for private schools. We will simply have to disagree on that issue. You mentioning the G.I. Bill is interesting. I used mine to get my degree. It was a contract between the military/gov and myself; I agree to enlist, they agree to pay me money to attend college. I'm not sure that is the same as a school voucher program like you mention.

I'm not sure why you are so surprised at my statement of rents paying property taxes. I know a number of people renting out property for less than their mortgage, let alone property tax payments in order to keep from losing their properties. So yes, it isn't a certainty.

And...with your name being Dan and your voucher defense makes me wonder if you aren't Mr. Caplis....[Coffee]

If you are, let Craig talk more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XJ

Fuck your failing schools using taxes extorted from me to indoctrinate children into the cult of liberalism and derp-endance. Let the dollars follow the student.

---

XJ, I don't remember saying blah, blah, blah. The adults were having a discussion, go play outside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

Instead of requiring kids to be in school, the employment age should be greatly reduced, and kids who don't do well in school because they don't want to be there, can go get a job some where instead. This will reduce class size, and students will be surrounded by other students who WANT to be there. This would reduce class size, reduce costs, reduce stress on teachers as they'd be able to teach students who are there because they want to be, as opposed to the baby sitting and lawsuit dodging that they do now.

Of course there would be a period of adjustment when young people learn how to take care of themselves, but we all know someone who was self sufficient since they were very young. My fiance lived in her own apartment when she was 14 years old, had a job, and wasn't the drain on society that you'd imagine the average 14 year-old would be if you told them they didn't have to go to school anymore.

I think it is ridiculous how everyone is pushed to go to college today. School just isn't for everyone. The societal pressure to have EVERYONE be educated is wrecking havoc on our economy.

---

I'm going to disagree with your premise of letting out the 14 year olds as adults. No way the vast majority of them are mentally, emotionally or mature enough to be on their own.

I agree with your premise that college should not be pushed for everyone. The schools should go back to providing vocational programs and possibly extending them for apprenticeships and the like. I have no idea if my local high school has wood or metal shop anymore. They were great classes for me and there were a few of my classmates who were naturals at being creative with the material. I learned early on I wasn't, but I still enjoyed the classes.

If students showed interest in learning electrical, HVAC, metalworking, woodworking, carpentry, cabinetry, or any other hands on, skilled labor, instead of algebra, they should be allowed to do so in the school. It wins on a number of levels; one, the school still gets its public funding for the butt in the seat; two, the student isn't locked into a curriculum they aren't interested in, which causes boredom and issues; three, it sets the student up to move toward a career not based in a college requirement and gives them skills in which to succeed. They have these types of courses at the community college, and there has been a big push to give high school students the opportunity to earn college credit while still in high school.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

The school gets funds from the state for each butt in a seat, so an additional student is money to them.

---

There is a current issue going on right now where kids sign up for online high schools, and those schools receive the state funds. Then after a few weeks, the kids miss their friends and go back to regular public school, but the money stays at the online high school. How would a voucher system account for mid-year moves and school changes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

I'm going to disagree with your premise of letting out the 14 year olds as adults. No way the vast majority of them are mentally, emotionally or mature enough to be on their own.

---

I never said anything about them being adults, just that they are working. It would certainly be a unique dynamic to not be in school, be working full time (or part time) but still be a minor and under your parent's rule. I agree that most 14 year-olds aren't mentally, emotionally, or mature enough to be on their own. I know I wasn't. That would give them a sharp reality check though, and reaffirm their place in society. I had a great job right out of college, and did not take it seriously. I started strong, but started to slack and was eventually pretty despised by management until I eventually got fired. It took that abrupt change in my comfortable paychecks to snap me back to reality and get serious about myself professionally. I kick ass and take names at work now. I feel like if I hadn't been basically fired, I'd be just another guy thinking he was above everything, complaining about everything, and feeling like I was "owed" things like raises and opportunities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

I agree with your premise that college should not be pushed for everyone. The schools should go back to providing vocational programs and possibly extending them for apprenticeships and the like. I have no idea if my local high school has wood or metal shop anymore. They were great classes for me and there were a few of my classmates who were naturals at being creative with the material. I learned early on I wasn't, but I still enjoyed the classes.

If students showed interest in learning electrical, HVAC, metalworking, woodworking, carpentry, cabinetry, or any other hands on, skilled labor, instead of algebra, they should be allowed to do so in the school. It wins on a number of levels; one, the school still gets its public funding for the butt in the seat; two, the student isn't locked into a curriculum they aren't interested in, which causes boredom and issues; three, it sets the student up to move toward a career not based in a college requirement and gives them skills in which to succeed. They have these types of courses at the community college, and there has been a big push to give high school students the opportunity to earn college credit while still in high school.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

---

I agree wholeheartedly with you here. I wanted to take auto shop in high school, but they converted the auto shop into the computer lab. I tried taking a year of computer science, but I wasn't very good at it. I would have done MUCH better in auto shop, and it would have served me better later in life. At least our computer lab had 25 foot ceilings and a 2-ton hoist hanging from the roof.

I made a thread on here a few years ago about how I was feeling jealous of people who've actually learned a trade (electrical, HVAC, plumbing, and especially welding) and have real world skills that they can use after work. I think I'm pretty good at customer service, but it doesn't help me change the axles on my truck, replace the faucet handles on my sink, fabricate a CB antenna mount onto my tire carrier, hang shelves on my walls, or replace my standard thermostat with a programmable one. I feel shafted by having taken the standard route of "higher education" after high school. All I proved was that I can read stuff, retain some of it, and test okay on even less of that. It is a real world market failure that could have been avoided by society as a whole, except for this stupid push for college. Don't even get me started on the positions that are unavailable to people without a college education.

Irving, great thoughts dude. I agree.


OneGuy67:

-Do I feel the district/schools owes something to the kids?

No, no one owes anyone else anything. You make your own life. I might say the district/schools "provide" a learning environment, but "owes" is too strong a word for that. The kid makes their own situations. Nothing is owed.

-Do I feel the lack of learning is solely due to the student, and not influenced by the instructor, curriculum, testing?

I think the majority of responsibility lays on the shoulders of the student. However, I cannot fully make a generalization on this question as there is no set standard to life. There are so many variables to take into account. Now, that being said, to be successful there must be parental involvement, a willingness to have an open mind and want to learn from all parties associated, and an understanding that the vast majority of teaching is to teach the child to teach themselves. (Hope that makes sense.)
I do feel as is curriculum's are too biased and we teach to the test (to get the money) WAY too much!! There are high school kids that can find the equation discrepancies in Einstein's Theory of Relativity but don't understand how to balance their checkbooks between gross and net amounts.

Good stuff going on here. Interesting. I like some of y'all's ideas, etc.

Slightly different take for OneGuy and others to consider. Why exactly do you think the school district or state education department is entitled to your share of their state and federal funding if they aren't educating your kid? If you're going to push for publicly funded education (and there are good reasons to do so even if -- like me -- you don't have kids), those public funds are there for the express purpose of educating the child to at least the minimum standards set by the state or district and should therefore follow the child.
The ACLU and NEA like to argue that public funds shouldn't go to religious schools. Let's get this straight -- they are public funds as a convenience for comingling and efficiency in execution. There is no inherent right to education at anyone else's expense nor any inherent responsibility for education by the state. Yes, I know you can argue Colorado has an implicit responsibility due to constitutional changes but in general the US Constitution and most state consitutions do not require the state to provide public education. The responsibility of the state is a myth generated by same people who feel an "artist" specializing in pornography or sacreligious works has a "right" to public funding.

My wife is a teacher. there is no fucking way I will ever vote yes for this shit though. I can only imagine where this money will disappear to and it won't be seen by the schools.
Districts get most of their money from property taxes.
Around here they will be proposing a mill levy which would increase my property tax slightly. I will vote yes for that because that money can be seen in use (at least by me) vs. state tax which the state does use to supplement public schools, but right now times are tough, the teachers are handling it fine, the kids are still in school and things will be okay.

of course there is never a better time to not let a crisis go to waste....do it for the children.