One of Rep. Braddocks ideas ... What do you think?

[gpatt0n]

Reading legislation and figuring out what it means is not always the easiest thing to do.

 

One of the posters suggested that Ms. Braddock has not been doing much and another said her 'birther's bill' sponsorship was just there for practice. So, I decided to look up what she is sponsoring and there are several.

 

I'll not go into the others now other than to say one is for staggered terms for those appointed to the election board and another commending a local group and there was one that she signed onto that does something with the tier one county issue; although I'll have to read it a couple of times to really understand how it might help Paulding. What I do know is that other than the local legislation, none of the other bills I've looked at are going anywhere this year.

 

One, however, peaked my curiosity because of my sitting on the board of the Paulding Business Association; which dedicates itself to providing scholarships to deserving youth.

 

It is House Bill 369 and it says its title is an act:

To amend Titles 20 and 48 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating, respectively,

2 to education and revenue and taxation, so as to revise provisions relating to student

3 scholarship organizations; to revise definitions; to revise requirements on student scholarship

4 organizations; to provide for penalties; to revise and change certain provisions regarding the

5 qualified education income tax credit; to provide for related matters; to provide for

6 applicability; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

 

Now the title only tells you that it is dealing with student scholarships and organizations that administer tham and taxes and tax penalties which doesn't say how. I've read a fair amount of legislation and as they say, the devil is in the detail ... or at least how the law is supposed to work is in the detail. And there is a lot of detail and legalese in this act including references to state law and the like.

 

I'm including the entire bill here as enrolled as a second reader because I may misunderstand it. Here it is:

 

 

Again, what is being proposed is not exactly crystal clear to me but here's kind of what I think it says.

 

It appears to set up special scholarship programs that allow individuals and companies to earmark funds for scholarships and allows them a dollar for dollar tax credit for donations to these special scholarship programs that can total 75 percent of the entire state tax bill due the state by an individual or corporation.

(see lines 135 through 139 of the bill) including taxes due for the sale of booze or the fees due for the sale of insurance.

 

The proposed law does say that while you can 'earmark' the funds - direct them to the support of a particular student or individual, you can't do so if that student is a dependent of the taxpayer. Of course a taxpayer may take this deduction for the 19 or 20 year old student which could be worth $20-30,000 off their taxes as a credit and forego the $5000 or so deduction off gross earnings claiming the youth as a dependent would offer. And if the taxpayer didn't pay but $20,000 in state taxes; why they could bank five grand of that (the 25 percent they couldn't deduct), for credit anytime in the coming five years.

 

This seemingly puts the state in the role of paying for a childs' education from money that otherwise would be due for state taxes and that could prove an exceedingly popular program except ... it is limited to $50 million a year and while the program is presumably available on a first come, first serve basis, we all know that when that batch of mail comes in the door, someone would be choosing who is first in line.

 

Oh, and this program is not just for college students; there are provisions that say (line 188-190)(2) The amount of any scholarship received by an eligible student or eligible pre-kindergarten student shall be excluded from taxable net income for Georgia income tax purposes.

 

The proposed law does not bar payments from these scholarship programs to private kindergarten, elementary or high schools based on religious affiliation.

 

Notably, Ms. Braddock is also sponsoring a law that would address that as well but that ... because it is a separate law, is a separate matter.

 

I'm not very comfortable with this on first reading.

 

pubby

[zoocrew]

This bill looks really familiar.

 

My link

Edited March 17, 2011 by zoocrew

[TwoKidCircus]

This is an extention of a bill Earl Erhart sponsored last year for tax credits. He introduced another bill, HB 325, that did pass yesterday. House leadership went with Earl's version instead of the Austin version.

 

 

 

Reading legislation and figuring out what it means is not always the easiest thing to do.

 

One of the posters suggested that Ms. Braddock has not been doing much and another said her 'birther's bill' sponsorship was just there for practice. So, I decided to look up what she is sponsoring and there are several.

 

I'll not go into the others now other than to say one is for staggered terms for those appointed to the election board and another commending a local group and there was one that she signed onto that does something with the tier one county issue; although I'll have to read it a couple of times to really understand how it might help Paulding. What I do know is that other than the local legislation, none of the other bills I've looked at are going anywhere this year.

 

One, however, peaked my curiosity because of my sitting on the board of the Paulding Business Association; which dedicates itself to providing scholarships to deserving youth.

 

It is House Bill 369 and it says its title is an act:

To amend Titles 20 and 48 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating, respectively,

2 to education and revenue and taxation, so as to revise provisions relating to student

3 scholarship organizations; to revise definitions; to revise requirements on student scholarship

4 organizations; to provide for penalties; to revise and change certain provisions regarding the

5 qualified education income tax credit; to provide for related matters; to provide for

6 applicability; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

 

Now the title only tells you that it is dealing with student scholarships and organizations that administer tham and taxes and tax penalties which doesn't say how. I've read a fair amount of legislation and as they say, the devil is in the detail ... or at least how the law is supposed to work is in the detail. And there is a lot of detail and legalese in this act including references to state law and the like.

 

I'm including the entire bill here as enrolled as a second reader because I may misunderstand it. Here it is:

 

<embed src="http://www.paulding.com/pdfs/wildonepaulettehb169.pdf" width="800" height="900">

 

Again, what is being proposed is not exactly crystal clear to me but here's kind of what I think it says.

 

It appears to set up special scholarship programs that allow individuals and companies to earmark funds for scholarships and allows them a dollar for dollar tax credit for donations to these special scholarship programs that can total 75 percent of the entire state tax bill due the state by an individual or corporation.

(see lines 135 through 139 of the bill) including taxes due for the sale of booze or the fees due for the sale of insurance.

 

The proposed law does say that while you can 'earmark' the funds - direct them to the support of a particular student or individual, you can't do so if that student is a dependent of the taxpayer. Of course a taxpayer may take this deduction for the 19 or 20 year old student which could be worth $20-30,000 off their taxes as a credit and forego the $5000 or so deduction off gross earnings claiming the youth as a dependent would offer. And if the taxpayer didn't pay but $20,000 in state taxes; why they could bank five grand of that (the 25 percent they couldn't deduct), for credit anytime in the coming five years.

 

This seemingly puts the state in the role of paying for a childs' education from money that otherwise would be due for state taxes and that could prove an exceedingly popular program except ... it is limited to $50 million a year and while the program is presumably available on a first come, first serve basis, we all know that when that batch of mail comes in the door, someone would be choosing who is first in line.

 

Oh, and this program is not just for college students; there are provisions that say (line 188-190)(2) The amount of any scholarship received by an eligible student or eligible pre-kindergarten student shall be excluded from taxable net income for Georgia income tax purposes.

 

The proposed law does not bar payments from these scholarship programs to private kindergarten, elementary or high schools based on religious affiliation.

 

Notably, Ms. Braddock is also sponsoring a law that would address that as well but that ... because it is a separate law, is a separate matter.

 

I'm not very comfortable with this on first reading.

 

pubby

[gpatt0n]

So this is how they are doing the vouchers. Huh. Thanks for the tip TwokidCircus. I didn't know.

 

The biggest difference I could see between the two is that Erhart's version caps the individual tax credit, not at 75% of the total tax due as per Ms. Braddocks, but $1,000 for individual filer's and $2,500 for joint tax filers.

 

There is another difference from Paulettes bill; which allowed those who buy Georgia whiskey tax stamps to pay for them with the money they might donate for k-12 scholarships.

 

I'm also intrigued why they assert a first-come first serve policy regarding the cap and also set the cap at $50 million.

 

From what I can see and what former member says, I suspect that in practice, and to begin, there is a group of folks here and there already ready for passage. I.e. the existing private church schools have relationships with their corporate sponsors and parents and will be able to stand in the front of the line in what would seem like record speed.

 

If it is passed, it will be in operation this year (the language lets credits accrue beginning Jan. 1, 2011) and it will be at least a year before the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional. That would be $100 million in state money for Church schools in little more than six months. (July 1, 2011 for all of 2011 and January 10 2012 nets the second $50 million).

 

Both Rep. Maxwell and Rep. Braddock voted for passage of HB 325 which passed. Mar/16/2011 - House Vote #182Yea(110)Nay(56)NV(10)Exc(4)

 

pubby

 

PS: What bothers me is it would appear that some parents could avoid paying some or all state income taxes for something like 16-18 years (starting in Kindergarten and, if they paid less than $2,500 in state income taxes it could carry over for up to five years.) In a sense, they are rendering unto the Church, what is Ceasar's which confuses things which is kind of rendering what is the Church's unto Ceasar.

[Cathyhelms]

Wow, looks like Paulette has quite a fan club around here. :yahoo:

[NewsJunky]

She better not jay walk and that is the truth! They are watching every move.

[gpatt0n]

Well, I think that the real impediment to the proposed law above is not whether it would violate the US Constitution but appears to be in direct violation of the Georgia Constitution.

 

Why else would Rep. Braddock, who obviously supports the above law to divert personal and corporate taxes to private, presumably to include religious institutions, support changing the state Constitution's very direct language on separation of church and state.

 

Article I, Section II,Paragraph VII. Separation of church and state. No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, cult, or religious denomination or of any sectarian institution."

 

 

I didn't know that the Georgia constitution was that direct on this issue. I would have thought that some other folks would be quoting it more.

 

pubby

[LPPT]

I had a child in private church based school for 10 years.

I also had 3 that were in public school and graduated.

 

What surprises me is that Paulette was on the school board, she knows what a struggle it is budget wise to serve the many children attending our public schools.

 

A bill taking away money from public schools just seems not quite in line with her past.

 

I foresee an expensive bureaucratic nightmare in the future not only will you be taking funds from public school you will be adding bureaucrats to over see it.

 

My impression of Paulette was she supported less Gov. and less Gov control.

 

 

I am assuming that the gov. will be controlling this in the way of multiple hoops to be jumped through and more Gov employees to oversee the jumping.

 

I have talked personally with Paulette about the issues with the school voucher plan which is what this is.

 

Paying home makers to stay home and educate their children, church schools taking any money for anything from the Gov is a no no in my book.

 

My fear is that every little church on every little corner will start a school to receive some Gov. funding.

 

The certification and over seeing of church and home education is going to pull even more money from the public school system, leaving those without the resources to stay at home of drive children to private schools dealing with substandard educational opportunities for their children due to underfunding of public education.

 

Private education has almost alwys required sacrifice from families, asking millions of kids to sacrifice their education for the minority that want private education is so unfair.

 

So I have to ask, does Paulette represent the majority of her constituents? or does she allow a minority of people that have the means to send their kids to private school and would like to be first in line for a tax break.

 

 

Many of the children in out public schools have parents that aren't qualified for tax breaks, because they don't even make enough to tax to begin with.

 

I always believed that education was about breaking the cycle of poverty, this is not how this plays out in my opinion.

 

I just don't understand how you can be responsible for the education of thousands in the public school system, spend years doing your best for public education, then take funding away from it.

 

I know that she knows from first hand experience that unfunded mandates from the state are one of the biggest challenge for local school boards, I really expected that having served on the school boar that she would have been passionate on those issues, rather than seeking a way to underfund public education even more.

 

Having had a child in private school I know first hand that tuition does not give you one bit more power over the school administration.

 

Ultimately in the end it was more about me and my child working towards their education.

[zoocrew]

Does anyone honestly believe Braddock understands the bill? I mean, really. The bill is certainly written a bit above the picture book level to which she is accustomed.

[TwoKidCircus]

This has already been in operation for a year. If it was going to be challenged as unconstitutional, someone would have already filed suit.....

 

So this is how they are doing the vouchers. Huh. Thanks for the tip TwokidCircus. I didn't know.

 

If it is passed, it will be in operation this year (the language lets credits accrue beginning Jan. 1, 2011) and it will be at least a year before the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional. That would be $100 million in state money for Church schools in little more than six months. (July 1, 2011 for all of 2011 and January 10 2012 nets the second $50 million).

 

Both Rep. Maxwell and Rep. Braddock voted for passage of HB 325 which passed. Mar/16/2011 - House Vote #182Yea(110)Nay(56)NV(10)Exc(4)

 

pubby

 

PS: What bothers me is it would appear that some parents could avoid paying some or all state income taxes for something like 16-18 years (starting in Kindergarten and, if they paid less than $2,500 in state income taxes it could carry over for up to five years.) In a sense, they are rendering unto the Church, what is Ceasar's which confuses things which is kind of rendering what is the Church's unto Ceasar.

[icare]

I had a child in private church based school for 10 years.

I also had 3 that were in public school and graduated.

 

What surprises me is that Paulette was on the school board, she knows what a struggle it is budget wise to serve the many children attending our public schools.

 

A bill taking away money from public schools just seems not quite in line with her past.

 

I foresee an expensive bureaucratic nightmare in the future not only will you be taking funds from public school you will be adding bureaucrats to over see it.

 

My impression of Paulette was she supported less Gov. and less Gov control.

 

 

I am assuming that the gov. will be controlling this in the way of multiple hoops to be jumped through and more Gov employees to oversee the jumping.

 

I have talked personally with Paulette about the issues with the school voucher plan which is what this is.

 

Paying home makers to stay home and educate their children, church schools taking any money for anything from the Gov is a no no in my book.

 

My fear is that every little church on every little corner will start a school to receive some Gov. funding.

 

The certification and over seeing of church and home education is going to pull even more money from the public school system, leaving those without the resources to stay at home of drive children to private schools dealing with substandard educational opportunities for their children due to underfunding of public education.

 

Private education has almost alwys required sacrifice from families, asking millions of kids to sacrifice their education for the minority that want private education is so unfair.

 

So I have to ask, does Paulette represent the majority of her constituents? or does she allow a minority of people that have the means to send their kids to private school and would like to be first in line for a tax break.

 

 

Many of the children in out public schools have parents that aren't qualified for tax breaks, because they don't even make enough to tax to begin with.

 

I always believed that education was about breaking the cycle of poverty, this is not how this plays out in my opinion.

 

I just don't understand how you can be responsible for the education of thousands in the public school system, spend years doing your best for public education, then take funding away from it.

 

I know that she knows from first hand experience that unfunded mandates from the state are one of the biggest challenge for local school boards, I really expected that having served on the school boar that she would have been passionate on those issues, rather than seeking a way to underfund public education even more.

 

Having had a child in private school I know first hand that tuition does not give you one bit more power over the school administration.

 

Ultimately in the end it was more about me and my child working towards their education.

 

Good post! Braddock is a puppet for certain members of the Americans for Prosperity group that are influencing her votes. I am a conservative through and through but do not agree with Braddock on a lot of issues! She and her good friend Mrs. Galloway are simply furthering their agenda. They are only listening to a handful of voters, it will bite her in the end....

[gpatt0n]

This has already been in operation for a year. If it was going to be challenged as unconstitutional, someone would have already filed suit.....

 

If you are talking about HB 325 as sponsored by Earl Erhart, it just passed the house and has not yet passed the senate nor has it been signed into law. It couldn't be in operation for a year and no one would have standing to challenge it because, well, it doesn't really exist.

 

So what exactly has been in operation for a year?

 

pubby

[TwoKidCircus]

He sponsored the bill last year that created the tax credit scholarship. This is not a new law. This is an extension of his original bill.

 

If you are talking about HB 325 as sponsored by Earl Erhart, it just passed the house and has not yet passed the senate nor has it been signed into law. It couldn't be in operation for a year and no one would have standing to challenge it because, well, it doesn't really exist.

 

So what exactly has been in operation for a year?

 

pubby

[gpatt0n]

He sponsored the bill last year that created the tax credit scholarship. This is not a new law. This is an extension of his original bill.

 

You're almost right TwoKidCircus:

 

Last year (2010) there was a very similar bill passed but it was vetoed by Governor Perdue but in the 2008 session, another very similar bill did pass and was signed by Governor Perdue.

 

Now why Governor Perdue signed the one in 2008 (HB 1133 in 2008 session) and vetoed the very lightly amended version in 2010, I don't know.

 

In anycase, Governor Perdue, when he vetoed HB 100 in 2010, said:

 

HB 100 House Bill 100 provides changes to Georgia’s student scholarship organization tax credit program enacted in 2008. Among other things, these revisions include allowing a taxpayer to receive both a tax credit and a tax deduction for contributions to a student scholarship organization. Allowing a dollar-for-dollar tax credit as well as a tax deduction would actually reduce the amount of actual contributions available to student scholarship organizations each year, thereby reducing the funds available for scholarship recipients otherwise qualified for the scholarship. I agree that changes are needed to the original student scholarship organization law and I supported HB 394, which would have enacted the changes I believe are necessary. In reviewing legislation, I must consider fairness for all Georgians. If some Georgia taxpayers could reduce their income tax liability by seventy-five percent, it could have a significantly detrimental impact on other citizens’ educational and other opportunities. For the foregoing reasons, I VETO HB 100.

 

 

One of the differences is that the 2008 bill enacted did limit the credit to $1,000 (single) and $2,500 (joint filing taxpayers) plus the corporate tax credit of up to 75 percent of corporate income taxes.

 

And there is at least one certified 'scholarship organization.' Based in Marietta, it advertises that not only does providing the donation to the scholarship organization not cost anything (the taxpayers are paying) but they've figured out a way for it to earn you 20 percent on your money to boot.

 

CCMA Informational Packet.pdf

 

It would appear that the marketing of the opportunity is in part, one of the reasons for the amendments as the newer versions do require the DOE, I believe, to publish the names of the scholarship organizations on the web as well as provide interactive tools for its use. That wasn't part of the bill as passed and I figure the DOE, seeing that it costs the state tax revenue, sought to make it harder to find out about the offer.

 

I also did note, as you stated, that the program approach has passed muster in the lower federal courts when the issue of separation of church and state is explored. There doesn't appear to be any challenge so far in Georgia that I can find even though the state constitution is obviously more restrictive than the federal constitution in regard to state revenues being expended for religious organizations.

 

Oh, and if you look at the Georgia Christian Schools Scholarship Fund PDF (above) you'll see they aren't bashful at all about their religious use of this tax credit.

 

pubby

[LPPT]

Since I know that those supporting this have a goal of creating a voucher system for parents to send their children to private schools, I am trying to figure out how it is done reading this pdf.

 

I am assuming that the Georgia Christian School Scholarship Fund is an organization set up for the sole purpose of creating a voucher system called a scholarship fund.

 

I can see how it would work that way.

You send your child's tuition to this organization, they then write a check to your kids school for a scholarship in your child's name.

I am assuming a scholarship is whatever one says it is.

You then get back a form to send to the Georgia revenue dept that takes that amount off of your taxes.

 

I would think if for whatever reason your child left private and went to public the state would continue to pay for the child's education.

 

I am also assuming that any non profit organization can set one of these up, such as Muslim organizations not that I care, but some would.

 

We now have more incentive for even more religions and churches to start schools pulling even more money from our public school system.

The cap this year is 50 million, will it be 100 million next year?

With the incentive for churches to create more and more schools we are looking at 2 levels of bureaucracy, one to oversee public and one to over see private, again pulling more revenue from public schools.

Now we have the Gov. in our churches over seeing how they educate the children in those schools.

 

My child was in a religious private school, I had faith in that school to educate my child, the idea was definitely not that the Gov. would tell the church or the school how they would educate my child.

 

 

My issue is this, our officials should represent the majority of our citizens, the majority of their children go to public school, the time, energy and resources spent finding a way to fund religious schools should be spent improving the public schools and the quality of education for the majority of the children in our schools.

 

I believe that if it is that important for your child to have a religious education you should have to fund it yourself.

 

We as a community are all negatively impacted when the quality of public education is not a priority.

 

For many years our schools have been ranked the lowest in the nation, we would be better served by our public officials putting their efforts towards improving our public schools.

 

It seems to me as though they are throwing their hands up and saying let the churches do it.

[NewsJunky]

Since I know that those supporting this have a goal of creating a voucher system for parents to send their children to private schools, I am trying to figure out how it is done reading this pdf.

 

I am assuming that the Georgia Christian School Scholarship Fund is an organization set up for the sole purpose of creating a voucher system called a scholarship fund.

 

I can see how it would work that way.

You send your child's tuition to this organization, they then write a check to your kids school for a scholarship in your child's name.

I am assuming a scholarship is whatever one says it is.

You then get back a form to send to the Georgia revenue dept that takes that amount off of your taxes.

 

I would think if for whatever reason your child left private and went to public the state would continue to pay for the child's education.

 

I am also assuming that any non profit organization can set one of these up, such as Muslim organizations not that I care, but some would.

 

We now have more incentive for even more religions and churches to start schools pulling even more money from our public school system.

The cap this year is 50 million, will it be 100 million next year?

With the incentive for churches to create more and more schools we are looking at 2 levels of bureaucracy, one to oversee public and one to over see private, again pulling more revenue from public schools.

Now we have the Gov. in our churches over seeing how they educate the children in those schools.

 

My child was in a religious private school, I had faith in that school to educate my child, the idea was definitely not that the Gov. would tell the church or the school how they would educate my child.

 

 

My issue is this, our officials should represent the majority of our citizens, the majority of their children go to public school, the time, energy and resources spent finding a way to fund religious schools should be spent improving the public schools and the quality of education for the majority of the children in our schools.

 

I believe that if it is that important for your child to have a religious education you should have to fund it yourself.

 

We as a community are all negatively impacted when the quality of public education is not a priority.

 

For many years our schools have been ranked the lowest in the nation, we would be better served by our public officials putting their efforts towards improving our public schools.

 

It seems to me as though they are throwing their hands up and saying let the churches do it.

How do you suggest that you get past the bureaucracy to make the schools better? Have you seen the picture of the little guy beating his head against a brick wall? Let the money follow the child. There is a lot of talk about how other countries beat America at education. One of the reasons is that the money does follow the child. That would make the Public Schools compete and they would get better. It is amazing how folks will use the Christian schools as a threat and a reason NOT to allow parents the choice about which school is best for their child.

[LPPT]

How do you suggest that you get past the bureaucracy to make the schools better? Have you seen the picture of the little guy beating his head against a brick wall? Let the money follow the child. There is a lot of talk about how other countries beat America at education. One of the reasons is that the money does follow the child. That would make the Public Schools compete and they would get better. It is amazing how folks will use the Christian schools as a threat and a reason NOT to allow parents the choice about which school is best for their child.

 

I assumed that we elected people to work to make our schools better. To me it is giving them a pass on doing their job.

Many parents are not even aware of what a good education is, how would they know if a private school is even doing a better job.

 

The elected officials are saying we can't make public schools any better so go put your kids in private schools.

 

Their are a lot of parents that can not afford to pay the $5000 of tuition up front to take advantage of this tax credit, so basically what it boils down to is this is a break for the rich parents and the poor parents have to send their kids to the underfunded public schools.

 

I predict that private school tuition will rise substantially when we adopt a full out voucher system.

 

People do have a choice about where their kids go to school, you simply have to pay for the choice that you make.

When you choose to take money from the public school system we all suffer.

 

You may have to work 2 jobs to send your child to private school.

 

My issue with Christian schools is that there is no consistency in what christian is, it varies from not only denomination, but church to church.

 

People need to think long and hard about that.

 

Is the Gov. going to start accrediting religion based on what is being taught at the pulpit in each individual church.

 

This might work in a country where religions and doctrines are consistent such as Catholicism, Buddhism, or Muslim.

 

Do you want children attending a school regularly where daily during chapel there is snake handling?

 

If you don't then you will be asking the Gov. to step in and decide if that religion can start a school that will be eligible under the voucher system.

 

Now our Gov. has the door open to dictate what is and isn't an acceptable religion. And to fund those it approves of and not fund those it deems unacceptable.

 

 

 

You know life is not fair. many people can not afford to send their kids to private school.

On the flip side the rich don't get a tax break because they can.

[mrshoward]

I support school choice.

[LPPT]

I support school choice.

 

Is there not school choice now?

[NewsJunky]

I assumed that we elected people to work to make our schools better. To me it is giving them a pass on doing their job.

Many parents are not even aware of what a good education is, how would they know if a private school is even doing a better job.

 

The elected officials are saying we can't make public schools any better so go put your kids in private schools.

 

Their are a lot of parents that can not afford to pay the $5000 of tuition up front to take advantage of this tax credit, so basically what it boils down to is this is a break for the rich parents and the poor parents have to send their kids to the underfunded public schools.

 

I predict that private school tuition will rise substantially when we adopt a full out voucher system.

 

People do have a choice about where their kids go to school, you simply have to pay for the choice that you make.

When you choose to take money from the public school system we all suffer.

 

You may have to work 2 jobs to send your child to private school.

 

My issue with Christian schools is that there is no consistency in what christian is, it varies from not only denomination, but church to church.

 

People need to think long and hard about that.

 

Is the Gov. going to start accrediting religion based on what is being taught at the pulpit in each individual church.

 

This might work in a country where religions and doctrines are consistent such as Catholicism, Buddhism, or Muslim.

 

Do you want children attending a school regularly where daily during chapel there is snake handling?

 

If you don't then you will be asking the Gov. to step in and decide if that religion can start a school that will be eligible under the voucher system.

 

Now our Gov. has the door open to dictate what is and isn't an acceptable religion. And to fund those it approves of and not fund those it deems unacceptable.

 

 

 

You know life is not fair. many people can not afford to send their kids to private school.

On the flip side the rich don't get a tax break because they can.

 

Who do you think the bureaucracy is and who do you think allows them to control things. Could it be our elected officials? Look for more Charter Schools and Virtual Schools. We keep electing folks we think will make changes. How do you think it is working out? I keep hoping for it to change and I will keep working for candidates that I think will change it. Let the money follow the Child!!!! It is the child's share because it is their parents who pay the taxes for that education. Parents should have the choice about what is best for their children. Why leave it to government to decide?

 

Is there not school choice now?

 

NO!

[surepip]

Who do you think the bureaucracy is and who do you think allows them to control things. Could it be our elected officials? Look for more Charter Schools and Virtual Schools. We keep electing folks we think will make changes. How do you think it is working out? I keep hoping for it to change and I will keep working for candidates that I think will change it. Let the money follow the Child!!!! It is the child's share because it is their parents who pay the taxes for that education. Parents should have the choice about what is best for their children. Why leave it to government to decide

 

 

The the legislature needs to be upfront with this and amend the state constitution accordingly to allow state funds to flow to religous schools.

 

This argument has been going on since I was a child in the 1950s. I attended 12 years of Catholic Parochial schools and the precedent was firmly set by the SCOTUS back then that there could NOT be ANY governmental funding of religous oriented or supported schools.

 

So change the constitution or take away ALL the voucher schools.

[NewsJunky]

The the legislature needs to be upfront with this and amend the state constitution accordingly to allow state funds to flow to religous schools.

 

This argument has been going on since I was a child in the 1950s. I attended 12 years of Catholic Parochial schools and the precedent was firmly set by the SCOTUS back then that there could NOT be ANY governmental funding of religous oriented or supported schools.

 

So change the constitution or take away ALL the voucher schools.

If they do that we will see how many are re-elected. I disagree with you. Parents should have the choice no matter what kind of school it is as long as it is good at educating the child. Last time I checked, the Catholic Schools had great results at that. Maybe the Public Schools should follow their lead on how to do it. Discipline is a very big factor.

[LPPT]

Who do you think the bureaucracy is and who do you think allows them to control things. Could it be our elected officials? Look for more Charter Schools and Virtual Schools. We keep electing folks we think will make changes. How do you think it is working out? I keep hoping for it to change and I will keep working for candidates that I think will change it. Let the money follow the Child!!!! It is the child's share because it is their parents who pay the taxes for that education. Parents should have the choice about what is best for their children. Why leave it to government to decide?

 

 

 

NO!

 

Yes there is, there are plenty of private schools, and plenty of people with the money to send their children to them.

They are exercising their choice to spend their money on large homes, cars, and vacations.

 

This is clearly legislation to support the idealism of a minority, privatizing education.

 

The government does not do anything to prevent a person from sending their child to a private school.

[surepip]

If they do that we will see how many are re-elected. I disagree with you. Parents should have the choice no matter what kind of school it is as long as it is good at educating the child. Last time I checked, the Catholic Schools had great results at that. Maybe the Public Schools should follow their lead on how to do it. Discipline is a very big factor.

 

But the constitution of the State of Georgia, and the Federal, both specifically forbid using governmental funds for religous purposes. Let the family pay, or the religous school is free to provide scholarships, .....but not with tax money.

[NewsJunky]

But the constitution of the State of Georgia, and the Federal, both specifically forbid using governmental funds for religous purposes. Let the family pay, or the religous school is free to provide scholarships, .....but not with tax money.

I really don't have a problem with not allowing it for religious schools I do have one with not allowing it for private schools. Money should follow the child. I think a large number of parents who are using religious based schools would be OK with decent private schools. They just have little choice right now.

[zoocrew]

If they do that we will see how many are re-elected. I disagree with you. Parents should have the choice no matter what kind of school it is as long as it is good at educating the child. Last time I checked, the Catholic Schools had great results at that. Maybe the Public Schools should follow their lead on how to do it. Discipline is a very big factor.

 

You said Catholic Schools had great results. That's true. But it's because of the economic and educational level of the parents that are the biggest factor in how well a child does in school AND have the least discipline problems. That means that this voucher system gives more money to those who can best afford it, and takes more money away from educating those who can least afford it. In essence, it subsidizes the wealthy sending their kids to private school because the poorer parents cannot afford to send their kids to private school, even with a voucher. The result is the poor minority students get the worst teachers, in the worst schools, with the worst discipline, and stay uneducated, while the wealthy get the best schools, the best teachers, in the best behaved schools and a far superior education. The private schools will be able to price the poor out of the market, effectively a segregation model. This is elitism disguised as a "freedom" argument.

 

Like you said in another thread, other nations don't educate like we do and you cannot compare apples to oranges. Sending the money with the child sounds very good until you realize it hurts everyone by not educating the ones that need it most. That is the worst thing our nation can do because it guarantees the wealthy stay wealthy and the poor stay poor. If you're trying to keep down the competition for wealth, vouchers certainly do that because it creates a permanent sharecropper-consumer. Other nations send the money with the child because they don't believe in educating everyone like we do. If you believe it is wrong to keep the New Math Program because it doesn't treat everyone the same, then you must also say vouchers are wrong because it doesn't treat everyone the same.

Edited March 19, 2011 by zoocrew

[gpatt0n]

The real question is whether the public educational institutions can effect change and improve methods and results and do so efficiently.

 

This involves experimentation on the part of the public schools and it should involve some out of the box thinking. I think we do see some of that on both a local and national scale.

 

I am troubled by the issues associated with the industrial model of education with its assembly line approach to education.

 

My problem with the parochial schools - i.e. the Catholic school model - is not that they often attain success, but rather because they do choose their student body, they are pretty much able to guarantee success. The real challenges in education come from the inclusion of kids whom it could be argued, should be separated from their dysfunctional homes. These kids are rarely admitted to even the most open of private schools, and not only on the basis of economic challenges.

 

The problem with this legislation, for that matter, is not so much the grand idea, as expressed by News Junky, that there needs to be a way to inspire public education to better serve their students or lose the money that follows them.

 

Rather, it is the gaming of that system that seems apparent by not only the "Christian academies" that initially sprang up as a reaction to the integration of the public schools but the legislators who cater to that section of the electorate. We know, as a matter of fact, these folks have been doing their bests to tear down the wall between church and state that was codified in the Georgia State Constitution in no uncertain terms. Why? Because they wanted the money to maintain something closer to the segregated schools that were the rule in the south that was raised. That is historically the motivation and I've not really seen anything other than the same industrialized school approach in these 'conservative' operations. (FYI: My class was the first one to graduate in the main high school a black student and my school was Lilly white - well not quite, we had some Hispanic and even folks of Chinese, Lebanese descent that were there all along - until my junior year.)

 

Maybe it is because of my engagement with computers and virtual teaching/training/video going back to my computer hobbyist days of the late 1970's, or maybe it the fact that the schools I attended tended to be comparatively small (my HS was about 500 total students - I think there were 88 in my graduation class and the college I graduated from had 1400 students with a 10:1 professor/student ratio) but I see the future of education not being in impersonal mega-institutions but offering a much higher level of intellectual engagement.

 

I do think that the move to consolidation, which started in the 1950's, and now results with targeted high schools with 2000+ students, is failing on measures of high touch. It is this lack of personalization - the overwhelming task of engaging 2,000 people - that I feel accounts for comparatively low graduation rates.

 

Part of that is the observation that the schools seem to fail a portion of the brightest kids as often as they do any other group. Heck, even in my day I would have been bored to near tears (by the 9th grade I was reading on a college junior level according to standardized tests> had I not had exceptional freedom to go 'do' (visit downtown during school to sell annual ads, do photo lab work independently during school to make a deadline, etc.)

 

So, I when I look at this law, I do see the opportunity but I am skeptical enough of government to know that things that look good on the outside are often rigged with specific beneficiaries set up to begin. And the 'chosen' beneficiaries in this case seem to be those who have been plotting since the 1960s to get tax money for their church schools. I suspect other innovators this law is presumably designed to encourage will be given the cold shoulder when the 'idea' is translated into action.

 

pubby

 

PS: From what I gather the current legislature and administration is on-board with larger class sizes - as many as 40-50 or more in high school classrooms - as a cost saving measure in the public schools. This, of course, is the wrong direction and adds to the skepticism that the purpose of laws like this are truly the positive transformation of education. As they say, actions speak louder than words and that is an obvious action that says the state is not interested in serving those citizens.

[NewsJunky]

You said Catholic Schools had great results. That's true. But it's because of the economic and educational level of the parents that are the biggest factor in how well a child does in school AND have the least discipline problems. That means that this voucher system gives more money to those who can best afford it, and takes more money away from educating those who can least afford it. In essence, it subsidizes the wealthy sending their kids to private school because the poorer parents cannot afford to send their kids to private school, even with a voucher. The result is the poor minority students get the worst teachers, in the worst schools, with the worst discipline, and stay uneducated, while the wealthy get the best schools, the best teachers, in the best behaved schools and a far superior education. The private schools will be able to price the poor out of the market, effectively a segregation model. This is elitism disguised as a "freedom" argument.

 

Like you said in another thread, other nations don't educate like we do and you cannot compare apples to oranges. Sending the money with the child sounds very good until you realize it hurts everyone by not educating the ones that need it most. That is the worst thing our nation can do because it guarantees the wealthy stay wealthy and the poor stay poor. If you're trying to keep down the competition for wealth, vouchers certainly do that because it creates a permanent sharecropper-consumer. Other nations send the money with the child because they don't believe in educating everyone like we do. If you believe it is wrong to keep the New Math Program because it doesn't treat everyone the same, then you must also say vouchers are wrong because it doesn't treat everyone the same.

 

 

Yes it would treat them all the same. They could all get a chance to go to a better school.

[NewsJunky]

Yes there is, there are plenty of private schools, and plenty of people with the money to send their children to them.

They are exercising their choice to spend their money on large homes, cars, and vacations.

 

This is clearly legislation to support the idealism of a minority, privatizing education.

 

The government does not do anything to prevent a person from sending their child to a private school.

They don't give them the money that the parent paid in taxes to educate their child. It belongs to that child and he/she deserves to get the best education for it. The best system is not the public school system for all of those kids but they are trapped in it. People who fight to keep them there should re think what they are doing..

[Scarlet]

Does anyone honestly believe Braddock understands the bill? I mean, really. The bill is certainly written a bit above the picture book level to which she is accustomed.

 

well said, if you look closely..you can see all of the strings attached to her body of wood..jmo.

 

can I also share my thought when i saw her name on the ballot...R did not stand for Republican, I thought R = Really?!?

[zoocrew]

Yes it would treat them all the same. They could all get a chance to go to a better school.

 

No, it wouldn't. Only the wealthy could afford the tuition, transportation and associated costs. Worse, the private schools segregate by using the price to ensure that.

 

They don't give them the money that the parent paid in taxes to educate their child. It belongs to that child and he/she deserves to get the best education for it. The best system is not the public school system for all of those kids but they are trapped in it. People who fight to keep them there should re think what they are doing..

 

Wrong. We all pay to educate the kids. Everyone does that to ensure a basic, minimum education. If someone wants a private education, that does not relieve them of the public school tax we all pay. Everyone pays the school tax. If you want a private education, you pay extra AND the school tax.

 

We all pay to pave the roads we drive on. If you want your driveway paved also, you still pay the taxes for the roads PLUS the cost to pave your driveway.

[NewsJunky]

No, it wouldn't. Only the wealthy could afford the tuition, transportation and associated costs. Worse, the private schools segregate by using the price to ensure that.

 

 

 

Wrong. We all pay to educate the kids. Everyone does that to ensure a basic, minimum education. If someone wants a private education, that does not relieve them of the public school tax we all pay. Everyone pays the school tax. If you want a private education, you pay extra AND the school tax.

 

We all pay to pave the roads we drive on. If you want your driveway paved also, you still pay the taxes for the roads PLUS the cost to pave your driveway.

Not surprised you feel that way. I want the best for all children, and if they were allowed to take the money with them, private schools would crop up all over. Schools that would accept what the public schools get to educate them..

[zoocrew]

Not surprised you feel that way. I want the best for all children, and if they were allowed to take the money with them, private schools would crop up all over. Schools that would accept what the public schools get to educate them..

 

Not surprised you feel that way either. It is a defacto segregation end run, exactly like what popped up after Brown v Board of Ed. The wealthy get a break in cost while getting to remove the undesirables via pricing mechanism, while the poor get a short-changed on their education and become sharecropper-consumers for the educated elite.

[NewsJunky]

Not surprised you feel that way either. It is a defacto segregation end run, exactly like what popped up after Brown v Board of Ed. The wealthy get a break in cost while getting to remove the undesirables via pricing mechanism, while the poor get a short-changed on their education and become sharecropper-consumers for the educated elite.

Just goes to show that you have no idea what you are talking about. You sure have picked the wrong person to try to accuse of doing something like that.

[Beach Bum]

Just goes to show that you have no idea what you are talking about. You sure have picked the wrong person to try to accuse of doing something like that.

 

I know you well enough to know that your statements and opinions are always very well thought out News Junky and that you make intelligent, informed decisions. I would trust your opinion any day!

[zoocrew]

Just goes to show that you have no idea what you are talking about. You sure have picked the wrong person to try to accuse of doing something like that.

 

It is exactly what the voucher system does.

 

But you're never wrong.

 

Elitism.

[Beach Bum]

It is exactly what the voucher system does.

 

But you're never wrong.

 

Elitism.

 

 

Good grief....you use that word very, very frequently. Did you ever stop to think that it might apply "elsewhere?"

[zoocrew]

Good grief....you use that word very, very frequently. Did you ever stop to think that it might apply "elsewhere?"

 

The voucher system is an elitist system. But you're never wrong either.

[Beach Bum]

The voucher system is an elitist system. But you're never wrong either.

 

Oh I am wrong daily about some things and I will readily admit it. Too bad that "others" here feel the need to call those that don't agree with them "elitists" and do it continually. So sad to not recognize one's own shortcomings.........

[zoocrew]

Oh I am wrong daily about some things and I will readily admit it. Too bad that "others" here feel the need to call those that don't agree with them "elitists" and do it continually. So sad to not recognize one's own shortcomings.........

No, I am not going in that gutter with you. I will not.

Edited March 20, 2011 by zoocrew