From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: School choice (Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:45:37 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc

In article <BsuM8C.J3C@well.sf.ca.us> rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.130834.4017@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com writes:
>>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>|> Now, one more time.  Start from the current situation.  You are going
>>|> to increase the number of students being funded out of tax dollars by
>>|> 33%.  NO ONE HAS MOVED TO OTHER SCHOOLS YET.  How is this going to be
>>|> cheaper for me?  Are you postulating not providing enough money in the
>>|> voucher to allow students to attend public schools, or what?
>>
>>Where does the 33% figure come from?  Does anyone have a real number
>>for percentage of K-12 students *already* attending private schools?
>
>This is pure nonsense, as the voucher proposals with which I am
>familiar do *not* allow existing private-school students to receive
>the money until X years after the initiative passes (X varies).

You appear to require a redefinition of the term 'pure nonsense' to
'something that doesn't happen under the plan proposed by X', since
that seems to be how you're using it.  Color me unimpressed so far,
since I've heard of quite a number of plans which have no such
provisions in them.

>
>
>>First of all, I think it makes more sense to see that families
>>that use private schools currently have already saved you tax
>>dollars.  If you got a tax refund one year, and decided out of charity
>>to contribute it to the federal treasury for reducing the debt,
>>and the next year you decide to keep your refund, would you want
>>people to start hounding you for making them pay more taxes now that
>>you're not returning your refund?
>
>  This is an excellent point, and one I hadn't thought of.  Yes, those
>families are paying exorbitant property taxes and *not getting anything
>for them*.  Their children are not using resources in the government
>schools, are not taking up a teacher's time, etc. etc.

So do single people.  What's your point?  Those people are getting the
same thing for their 'exorbitant property taxes' that I am getting for
mine: someone else's kids educated.

>
>>However, the voucher system could exclude families making over,
>>say, $100K per year, thereby excluding most of the students
>>who are currently affording the private school in the current
>>system.
>
>  You could do this; it may be necessary to allay the naive fears of
>some about the effect of vouchers.  Since the primary effect of
>vouchers is to help the *poorest* families the *most*, I don't think
>it matters much what is done about the rich.  But something like this
>might be necessary to get the measure passed.

What it takes to get such a measure passed is a well thought out plan.
All the ones I've heard proposed by various people so far seem to be
more interested in helping folks of like political ideology (i.e., to
get votes) rather than as something to actually improve the
educational system.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1514 alt.politics.marrou:774 talk.politics.misc:39595 alt.politics.elections:10542 talk.politics.theory:3665