Proposition 103 - Temporary Tax Increase for Public Education

[TEAMRICO]

Well working for a school in one of the districts here in Colo Springs I see that MORE MONEY would do little for the kids because a large majority DON'T CARE about learning! They only want cell phones and cool clothes. Most think lunch is free and that A's are supposed to be given to them for showing up! They don't care if they are late and the parents blame the schools for all the trouble they get themselves into. The teachers are trying to teach and it does not take more computers and more Nachos for lunch if the kids could care less if there is welfare and food stamps out there for free? They all have dreams of "Getting a Job" and buying flashy toys to be cool. They need a swift kick in the ass instead of the ability to blame others for their problems.
More parent envolvment is whats needed but when they show up you see exactly where they get it from!!!!

[Danimal]

There are so many things like this in our government that are failing for the same reasons. I am a big fan of privatization and open market competition with only regulations being on ethical standards. Why hasn't there been a push to privatize schools and have them compete? My wife and I are going to be having kids soon and I think that it would be awesome to be able to sit down and look at schools based on their cost vs. performance of graduating students instead of gang violence and drug use statistics.

The public school system in my opinion does have enough money to continue on the path that it is on, however, I think that teachers are the most overlooked and under appreciated group of professionals in our society today. Being a teacher should be a competitive position where performance is measured by ability to educate. Public schools are mismanaged on every level and as a result the inefficiencies of the system will continue to grow with time. Being an educator should be a fairly high paid position to encourage the best in the field to become teachers thereby producing smarter students, creating a self fulfilling positive gain for society.

I think that you should only have to pay taxes for schools if you currently have a student enrolled in them. This would show people what they are investing in them and would encourage private schools. If public schools had to compete for students, the quality of education would rise and money would be managed much more effectively. Or they would go under.

I vote no every time for these same measures, but being that I live in Libtard Boulder county, I will most certainly see another increase to pay for a flawed ever expanding system even though I will never use a dime of their funding.

[Danimal]

My mother is a teacher and she is quitting this year. She feels like they are setting their school district up for failure by taking away the teachers ability to solve any problems in class. For example, if a student is attacking another student in class, the teacher is not to interfere, the police must be called. The other student can not fight back or will suffer the same disciplinary actions as the attacking student. She is afraid to work because one of the teachers at her school tried to comfort an upset child when he/she had gotten injured playing and now that teacher is being charged with sexual assault. I agree with her decision to quit, it is not worth the risk.

The children coming in from all of these dysfunctional homes can not even be shown what is socially acceptable behavior. They disrupt learning with no fear of consequences, because there are none. Teachers are backed into a worse and worse corner every year and it is our children that are suffering for it.

[OneGuy67]

I am a big fan of privatization and open market competition with only regulations being on ethical standards. Why hasn't there been a push to privatize schools and have them compete? My wife and I are going to be having kids soon and I think that it would be awesome to be able to sit down and look at schools based on their cost vs. performance of graduating students instead of gang violence and drug use statistics.

I think that you should only have to pay taxes for schools if you currently have a student enrolled in them. This would show people what they are investing in them and would encourage private schools. If public schools had to compete for students, the quality of education would rise and money would be managed much more effectively. Or they would go under.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Tweety Bird]

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.

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?

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???

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.

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.

[BigBear]

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.....

[Irving]

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.*

[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.

[XJ]

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.