Posted on 07/19/2006 7:15:14 PM PDT by ChessExpert
Congressional Republicans on Tuesday proposed a $100 million plan to let poor children leave struggling schools ...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I'm not a supporter of vouchers. I want government out of education altogether, and education sold on the free market.
Many homeschoolers that I know see it the same way, but maybe some are supportive. I'm not sure. I'll give it a ping.
If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Are you a homeschooler looking for advice from other homeschoolers? Visit our Free Republic Homeschoolers' Forum 2006-2007.
bttt
We are lower middle class--I'm sure we wouldn't qualify. So the people in the middle get left out? How is this equal treatment?
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em, Down Hezbullies.)
This is a great election year ploy. Go for it!!! It'll never pass because the NEA is too powerful of a lobby but it can work to our advantage in November.
Another issue the GOP should find some way to raise right before the midterm elections: Reparations for Black America. That's a win/win situation for the Pubbies.
Thanks for the ping TX. I'll never see vouchers--with my luck it will happen after all three kids are out of school. I'm sure you wouldn't mind seeing vouchers either. Did I tell you they've got another charter school opening here in 2007? That will be #2 boy's kindergarten year so we are on the waiting list for that. They are still in the process of getting approval, getting a site, and getting staff. Hopefully it will go through and turn out to be something good. The lady that is starting this school said it will be all boy and all girl classes. She said they would take kids with learning disabilities as well so we will see.
"Typical Republicans. Instead of going to the source (Killing the Dept of Education and giving control back to local communities) they have to come up with another big-government "conservative" program."
Bingo! Or haven't you forgotten this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/975049/posts
"Over the course of an hour-long meeting with Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, we took great care to give him every opportunity to explain himself fully so that nothing could be misunderstood. The result was a surprisingly frank admission that the Republican Party defines “fiscal responsibility” as increasing the federal budget at “a slower rate of growth” than the Democrats (his words).
We asked him three times to explain why President Bush and the Republican Congress have increased discretionary non-defense spending at such an alarming rate, and why the party has embraced the expansion of the federal government’s roles in education, agriculture and Great Society-era entitlement programs.
“Those questions have been decided,” was his response. The public wants an expanded federal role in those areas, and the Republican Party at the highest levels has decided to give the public what it wants."
Instead of going to the source (Killing the Dept of Education and giving control back to local communities) they have to come up with another big-government "conservative" program.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Very typically Republican, indeed! They should be killing the Department of Education, exactly!
They make me sick!
At first, I thought this was great - but not if it's only for the 'poor'. ( Cotton Ball)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The best way to begin privatizing government education is to start handing tuition bills to the well off when they show up at the government school with their little darlings.
Government education is the biggest entitlement to the middle and upper classes after social security.
the vouchers create competition among schools
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Element, I completely agree with you but it ticks me off how the Republicans go about it.
The Republicans should be working on this on the state level. And the on the federal level they should be abolishing the Department of Education.
Kill the NEA.
It's a government hand out for something that the parents are unable or unwilling to do for themselves. It is also a government subsidy for private schools. If the government is going to subsidize those schools then why shouldn't the government have a say over what is taught and who gets admitted? Is that what you want? Is there any doubt that the next Democrat administration won't do exactly that?
Why should any child be forced to attend a falled government school?
There is no reason whatsoever why you yourself cannot put your children in private schools. There are no laws to prevent it. Lord knows that there are a lot of private schools out there. The only thing that prevents it is that you are unwilling to foot the expense. So your solution is for the government to subsidize you and pay for something you are unwilling to pay for yourself. And you see nothing wrong with that?
When the government gets into the business of providing something that parents are unwilling to pay for themselves then why shouldn't the govenrment have a say over where their money is going? Why shouldn't the government be able to tell the schools what to teach and how to teach it? Who they must let in and who they cannot keep out? And if the government can do all that then how long before all private schools are at the same level as public schools?
Absolutely not.... I pay school taxes to the tune of 2% of the assessed value of my property each year... Why should I not have the right to direct that funding to the school of my choice, beit public or private?
That is NOT government funding...it came from my pocket.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.