Narrow Search

Comment Archives: stories: Today

Re: “A 'Fat Cat Tax'?

Response to "Just Sayin'

Provide some evidence and logic other than expecting us to believe something just because you say it.

What do you believe will create a better education system and why do you believe it. What evidence do you have? What logic are you using? Just sneering and denigrating doesn't cut it and getting a mob to back you up doesn't cut it.

Posted by on 05/22/2017 at 5:21 PM

Re: “Can Voters Defeat the Vouchers-For-All Law?

Amen brother! And the non establishment clause kept the government fro endorsing or establishing their own religion.

That's may be why they adopted the environmental theology. Most people didn't see it as religious, and were easily duped.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Green Is Their Money Color Also on 05/22/2017 at 4:18 PM

Re: “Can Voters Defeat the Vouchers-For-All Law?

Betts Putnam-Hidalgo writes, "vouchers are clearly a way to drain public dollars that go to the schools that 80% of the population chooses." That repeats Democratic party orthodoxy, but is not an accurate way of characterizing what vouchers do. Vouchers are per-pupil funding that is transferred from the public school where it would have been applied in support of that child's education in that setting to a private school, which, if the child transfers, must bear the cost of educating that child. It's a zero sum game. The public school loses the expense of educating that child at the same time that it loses the per pupil funding. There is no "drain" on public schools involved. Public schools only get "per pupil" funding when the pupil chooses to enroll there, not when they withdraw.

In a context where the above-described transfer is not permitted through vouchers or tax credits or some other equalizing type of law or policy, what is actually going on is economic discrimination against families who want their children's academic instruction delivered in a context different from the public district or public charter schools. In states like Arizona where there are deeply troubled public school districts that have been permitted to mismanage the education of tens of thousands of students, when students transfer out of one of these troubled districts into a high-performing private, if there are no vouchers or tax credits, the state is able to benefit from better educated, higher earning, more productive citizens at no cost to itself. Voucher supporters believe the state should be asked to pay its fair share towards the education of all K-12 students. (It would be best if the state provided some way of verifying that the quality of education delivered in alternative institutions is at or above the quality of education delivered in publicly funded schools. Unfortunately, Arizona legislators have not seen fit to put in place any regulatory mechanisms that can accomplish this, and that is a serious flaw in the way the law and policy relating to this have been structured to date.)

The so-called "separation of church and state" which voucher opponents call in to service to back up their economic discrimination against families using alternative schools which happen to have religious affiliations shows a misunderstanding of the context in which the US Constitution was framed. The founders were trying to prohibit the kind of economic discrimination practiced in England against all those who refused to affiliate with the state-sponsored religion. They wanted to prevent the formation of a state-sponsored religion in this country. Allowing people to choose to apply the public funds available for the K-12 education of their children in whatever alternative institution they prefer -- religiously affiliated or not -- in no way limits the freedom of other citizens, constitutes the establishment of a state-sponsored religion, or discriminates against anyone who does not want to make the same choice.

Unfortunately, what is at the bottom of a surprising amount of anti-voucher advocacy is resistance to the entitlements citizens should have in a country that grants freedom of religious affiliation and -- even worse -- thinly disguised prejudice against organized religion. Citizens with religious affiliations have not always found the public district school system a "value-neutral" environment. For generations now, those who have chosen not to educate their children in contexts that show subtle and not-so-subtle forms of disrespect for their values and beliefs have carried an inappropriate economic burden as they have paid out-of-pocket for schooling that, if they had chosen to ignore the discriminatory flaws too often found in the public district system, would have been free. It's a good thing that this form of economic discrimination is now, in some contexts, being reversed. It seems unlikely that the citizens benefiting from these programs will fail to organize to support their continuance, if they come under threat in upcoming elections.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by ... and some don't want public funds spent on failing TUSD. on 05/22/2017 at 2:09 PM

Re: “Awe, Nostalgia

Will they be selling heroin and throwing up fucking pancake batter at the show? Asking for a friend.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Peabo on 05/22/2017 at 1:48 PM

Re: “Best Musical Instrument Store

I have always loved the Chicago Store. I do miss the old, much bigger location, though. It was a real Tucson institution. Phil and Joe Levkowitz started my loyalty 'way back in time and my loyalty continues with Mark. The eastside store has many large photographs from the old days that really make me nostalgic and remind me that this is still the Chicago Store. Long live the Chicago Store!

Posted by Bill Winkelman on 05/22/2017 at 11:59 AM

Re: “Can Voters Defeat the Vouchers-For-All Law?

You also cannot abbreviate the name of the city, or write with anything other than a blue or black ball point pen. And yes, cursive letters that go below the line will make your signature invalid. The intent of the lege is on full display.

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Pima Mujer on 05/22/2017 at 10:41 AM

Re: “Can Voters Defeat the Vouchers-For-All Law?

If and when this thing gets on the ballot, expect millions of dollars from the pro-voucher movement to pour into the State to defeat it. That said, I hope the people prevail!

5 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Michael S. Ellegood on 05/22/2017 at 8:36 AM

Re: “Can Voters Defeat the Vouchers-For-All Law?

Vouchers are clearly a way to drain public dollars that go to the schools that 80% of the population chooses ... in order to fund private schools. I am not at ALL convinced that public schoolchildren are being sacrificed (or held as "economic hostages") in order to save public schools (in fact I think its really offensive)--nor am I convinced that we should all overlook the religious side of Catholic education just because the schools are well organized. I would not expect public monies to send my student to a madrasa, to a Jewish school, nor to a Catholic or Bible school. Kudos to them if their schools are so-called "good schools"--public monies going to religious entities goes against the separation of church and state that this country is supposedly founded on. But who cares about that?!

7 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Betts Putnam-Hidalgo on 05/22/2017 at 7:37 AM

Re: “Can Voters Defeat the Vouchers-For-All Law?

If you get rid of vouchers, you end up with the status run by a government sanctioned monopoly. Being a monopoly, their solutions tend to be in their own self interest. There will no doubt be a call to lard up budgets and raise taxes on " the rich". If you want to look at other states for inspiration, try California. High taxes and approval of many education bond issues. Studies show most of that money goes to the education monopoly bureaucrats and not the classrooms.
The biggest objection to vouchers is that it rewards motivated parents. Maybe we should encourage more motivated parents.

7 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by bsinn on 05/22/2017 at 6:41 AM

© 2017 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation