Proposition 103 - Temporary Tax Increase for Public Education

[OneGuy67]

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.

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???

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....

If you are, let Craig talk more.

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.

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.