No on 103

[OneGuy67]

when the state (county and city too) can show me that they are effectively using my $6500 a year in property taxes, and my 8.25% on everything I purchase...my .125% road use tax, my 4.63% in state income tax, .....etc, etc, etc, I'll gladly give more to education.

You pay $6,500 in property taxes!! Holy cow!

No, you're probably right. That's why vouchers are probably the best realistic idea out there.

I disagree on this solely on the issue of public money being given to private institutions. You want your kid to go to Catholic school? No problem. You will need to pay for it though, out of your own money. Same for any secular school. You want your kid to go to Cherry Creek High School? No problem. You figure out how to get him/her there and they are golden. Open enrollment.

[TFOGGER]

I disagree on this solely on the issue of public money being given to private institutions. You want your kid to go to Catholic school? No problem. You will need to pay for it though, out of your own money. Same for any secular school. You want your kid to go to Cherry Creek High School? No problem. You figure out how to get him/her there and they are golden. Open enrollment.

Would the parents of parochial school students get a break on their property taxes, or would they pay for their kid's education along with supporting a public school system? Would the county have to transfer a portion of their tax revenue to a school where a student transfers, or would the "magnet school" have to bear the cost out of their existing budget?

[OneGuy67]

Would the parents of parochial school students get a break on their property taxes, or would they pay for their kid's education along with supporting a public school system? Would the county have to transfer a portion of their tax revenue to a school where a student transfers, or would the "magnet school" have to bear the cost out of their existing budget?

Interesting question! It is one I thought about. At first blush, I would agree that the property tax mil levy the HOMEOWNER would normally pay to the school district should go to whatever school the kid ultimately went to, be it private or public. However, the funds collected through other taxing sources that end up in the general fund that is divvied up to the schools each year for each student should not follow the kid to a private school. Of course, this penalizes families who don't own property.

I think your second question deals with a recent story in which internet schools would get the initial check for the student, only to have the student drop out and begin attending the brick and mortar school down the street, without that school getting the public funding and I agree that the prorated funding should be rebated back to the state and reallocated to where the student went. Same for any drop out student. The funding for that student should be given back to the state. Right now, there is a certain date in the school calendar that they finalize their attendance and receive a per pupil chunk of money from the state. After that date, the school could care less if the student attends anymore as they got their money. Maybe have the state pay monthly instead of annually?

I don't know. I certainly don't have the answers.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I disagree on this solely on the issue of public money being given to private institutions. You want your kid to go to Catholic school? No problem. You will need to pay for it though, out of your own money. Same for any secular school. You want your kid to go to Cherry Creek High School? No problem. You figure out how to get him/her there and they are golden. Open enrollment.

Your argument parallels Obama's thinking in that it assumes "public" money belongs to the State. So-called "public" money is taxpayer money, citizens' money, so it IS his money and already pays for school. He pays taxes that are intended to be used to educate his kid. The money apportioned by the state should follow the kid -- that's all the voucher system is doing really (and in actuality, only a PORTION of the money apportioned to educate that kid follows him/her as a portion is kept back to pay for the bloated state/county infrastructure).

I grabbed a quick graph, but I can't attest to its accuracy or validity.

Your graph is consistent with the figure William McGurn cited in his editorial in the WSJ.

The state(s) got involved in education decades upon decades ago to bring all schools up to minimum standards and maintain or improve those standards. Today, public education does nothing of the sort and one could argue the political forces of Public Education are a pedagogy dragging students down to sub-minimum standards.

[OneGuy67]

Your argument parallels Obama's thinking in that it assumes "public" money belongs to the State. So-called "public" money is taxpayer money, citizens' money, so it IS his money and already pays for school. He pays taxes that are intended to be used to educate his kid. The money apportioned by the state should follow the kid -- that's all the voucher system is doing really (and in actuality, only a PORTION of the money apportioned to educate that kid follows him/her as a portion is kept back to pay for the bloated state/county infrastructure).

While I wouldn't equate my argument to Obama, I understand what you are saying, but just don't agree with it. It is tax-payer money, but to each individual, that amount is small. It is the combined amount that creates the pot to which money is divvied up in. The money apportioned by the state for each kid isn't all paid for by that kid's parents. The amount they contribute is pretty small overall. You want the rest of the people's money to pay for that kid, which is my issue.

[OneGuy67]

Sniper, my sincerest appreciation goes out to your wife and her coworkers. It is a job I could never do, nor would I want to. It's an old saying, but teachers should be paid what the professional sports people are paid and vise versa.

[sniper7]

Sniper, my sincerest appreciation goes out to your wife and her coworkers. It is a job I could never do, nor would I want to. It's an old saying, but teachers should be paid what the professional sports people are paid and vise versa.

I will definitely let her know. They are most definitely one of the most under appreciated employees out there. whether you like public school or not most of them try hard to do their job well, teach ALL the kids, put up with the bad ones, push the great ones and keep the parents involved.