Betsy DeVos and Vouchers - Yes!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Which means those good private schools will have more resources to extend to more students (assuming they're not at capacity). If St Albans, for example, gets $100k in coupons, couldn't they give scholarships to 20 more low-income kids?

No. St. Albans tuition is about $40K per year. If vouchers don't have income limits, then the coupon would cover 10K and parents pay the other 30K. Cost of providing the school will still be 40K so no extra money for scholarships or whatever.

For each student who uses a $10K coupon at St. Albans the amount the DC government receives from the federal government for education would decrease by 10K.

?

Example: high-need family currently receives $30k in St Albans financial aid. If St Albans receives a $10k coupon, St Albans only has to dole out $20k from their financial aid to that family. So, compile the coupons at St Albans and you have a less strained financial aid budget which St Albans can offer to MORE high-need families, or offer extra relief to current families. Or maybe instead of coughing up $10k, the family pays $5k or $0 (unlikely). Either way, a win win for all.

Nope, no public funds for religious schools.

[Anonymous]

I left a go-nowhere public high school for a working class Catholic high school because I wanted to go to college and get admitted to a good college. At the Catholic high school, I found much better academics (even AP classes which were new at the time) and good discipline, with no bullying whatsoever. At the public high school, some teachers were getting body-checked into the lockers in the hallways and fights among students were routine after and sometime during school. I was in some of those fights, and it didn't stop bullying - there was always a new one (it becomes a culture). At the public high school, suicide was high, as well as drug use and heavy drinking; there were many deaths from car fatalities too. We had the freaks and the jocks, and the jocks beat on the freaks and anyone in between. None of the foregoing existed at the Catholic school, notwithstanding the kids being tough and predominantly from an inner-city working class neighborhood; needless to say the football, basketball and baseball teams were division one.

I got accepted from the Catholic high school into a highly competitive Jesuit college. I went there on financial aid, including Pell grants, Stafford loans, and some other Federally subsidized loan that had lower interest than the Stafford.

If I had stayed at the public high school, I know none of this would have happened. Discipline was virtually non-existent. We'd even have snow ball fights in the classroom by opening the window in winter. And yes, there was my chemistry teacher displaying a retort tube, stroking it, and asking the girls what they thought of it and what it reminded them of as he slowly passed up and down the aisles; we all thought he was so cool and didn't think anything of it at the time. I guess here in DC the public school teachers just skip the foreplay and "sleep" with the students while taking cell phone videos (if we must stereotype and generalize).

The long and short is that the Federal government paid for and subsidized me to go to a religious school. What's the difference here in DC?

Give some kids a chance.

Don't worry, they won't get converted unless they want to, and most don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Yes , if the schools are accredited as decent academically. I'm not a racist or bigot. I just care about good academics in a safe environment.

The ones in DC are not accredited.

Some of these parochials are getting Blue Ribbons by the US Dept. of Education. How could they not be accredited? - They're far better than anything DCPS or HRCS has to offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I left a go-nowhere public high school for a working class Catholic high school because I wanted to go to college and get admitted to a good college. At the Catholic high school, I found much better academics (even AP classes which were new at the time) and good discipline, with no bullying whatsoever. At the public high school, some teachers were getting body-checked into the lockers in the hallways and fights among students were routine after and sometime during school. I was in some of those fights, and it didn't stop bullying - there was always a new one (it becomes a culture). At the public high school, suicide was high, as well as drug use and heavy drinking; there were many deaths from car fatalities too. We had the freaks and the jocks, and the jocks beat on the freaks and anyone in between. None of the foregoing existed at the Catholic school, notwithstanding the kids being tough and predominantly from an inner-city working class neighborhood; needless to say the football, basketball and baseball teams were division one.

I got accepted from the Catholic high school into a highly competitive Jesuit college. I went there on financial aid, including Pell grants, Stafford loans, and some other Federally subsidized loan that had lower interest than the Stafford.

If I had stayed at the public high school, I know none of this would have happened. Discipline was virtually non-existent. We'd even have snow ball fights in the classroom by opening the window in winter. And yes, there was my chemistry teacher displaying a retort tube, stroking it, and asking the girls what they thought of it and what it reminded them of as he slowly passed up and down the aisles; we all thought he was so cool and didn't think anything of it at the time. I guess here in DC the public school teachers just skip the foreplay and "sleep" with the students while taking cell phone videos (if we must stereotype and generalize).

The long and short is that the Federal government paid for and subsidized me to go to a religious school. What's the difference here in DC?

Give some kids a chance.

Don't worry, they won't get converted unless they want to, and most don't.

So you got a voucher to attend the Catholic school?

Nobody here is arguing that DC schools are perfect. We know some DC schools are failing and that kids deserve better. What we're saying is that given the DC market, it's impossible to see how a voucher program actually creates more TRUE choice. TRUE choice defined as new, quality seats -- including sufficient SECULAR seats for families that do not want a Catholic school. If you have a different, specific, fact-based take on how it would work in DC, please explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Yes , if the schools are accredited as decent academically. I'm not a racist or bigot. I just care about good academics in a safe environment.

The ones in DC are not accredited.

Some of these parochials are getting Blue Ribbons by the US Dept. of Education. How could they not be accredited? - They're far better than anything DCPS or HRCS has to offer.

There's no evidence that the Blue Ribbon schools, for example St. Peter's in Capitol Hill, would expand capacity with an expanded voucher program. They already take DC vouchers; and they already have a very long wait list for families willing to pay full freight. If you believe that the Archdiocese would expand schools to meet a new voucher program, that's an interesting argument, but one not supported by facts. If they wanted to expand their Blue Ribbon schools such as St. Peter's they would have already done it, because the demand already exists. In fact they could raise their tuition significantly and STILL fill several additional classes there on the Hill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Give people something for their tax money. If they feel the public schools suck, as they do, then let them apply the money it would have cost to send their children to the suckie public school and use it somewhere where they feel comfortable. Otherwise, they and their tax money move out of the city, and so then what did you accomplish? This is common sense.

At the rate DINKs are moving into the city, the city would be happy for you to sell and leave. It's an economical win-win for the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Yes , if the schools are accredited as decent academically. I'm not a racist or bigot. I just care about good academics in a safe environment.

The ones in DC are not accredited.

Some of these parochials are getting Blue Ribbons by the US Dept. of Education. How could they not be accredited? - They're far better than anything DCPS or HRCS has to offer.

There's no evidence that the Blue Ribbon schools, for example St. Peter's in Capitol Hill, would expand capacity with an expanded voucher program. They already take DC vouchers; and they already have a very long wait list for families willing to pay full freight. If you believe that the Archdiocese would expand schools to meet a new voucher program, that's an interesting argument, but one not supported by facts. If they wanted to expand their Blue Ribbon schools such as St. Peter's they would have already done it, because the demand already exists. In fact they could raise their tuition significantly and STILL fill several additional classes there on the Hill.

Exactly. DC has had vouchers for years. If athe acceptance of vouchers was the only thing stopping the success of schools, the Catholic Church would not have closed so many of their parochial schools in this city. The vouchers obviously were not enough for sustainability.

[Anonymous]

I went to an evangelical Christian school K-12 and learned next to nothing. I had smart parents but their main concern was shielding my brother and I from the "evils" of public school kids.
I did very well on the SAT (national merit finalist) and went on to a competitive college as a pre-med major where I BOMBED freshman chemistry and physics because I had never seen ANY of it before (while it was complete review for the
rest of my classmates who came from strong publics school AP programs). Of course I had received straight A's in these classes at my Christian school.
We basically did NOTHING at this high school. I had no idea it wasn't the norm and my parents assumed the school was teaching us what we needed to know. They both worked long
hours so they weren't around to micromanage my school work. And I was a "straight A student" so they figured it must be okay.

When I get together with my high school friends we still talk about this to this day. How we learned absolutely ZERO in high school except a whole lot of legalistic bible teaching. I send my kids
to very strong public school as does everyone I know from my high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Yes , if the schools are accredited as decent academically. I'm not a racist or bigot. I just care about good academics in a safe environment.

The ones in DC are not accredited.

Some of these parochials are getting Blue Ribbons by the US Dept. of Education. How could they not be accredited? - They're far better than anything DCPS or HRCS has to offer.

what makes you think a school has to be accredited to be a Blue Ribbon school?

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/faq.html indicates that results on a nationally normed test is what counts-- no need for state accreditation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I left a go-nowhere public high school for a working class Catholic high school because I wanted to go to college and get admitted to a good college. At the Catholic high school, I found much better academics (even AP classes which were new at the time) and good discipline, with no bullying whatsoever. At the public high school, some teachers were getting body-checked into the lockers in the hallways and fights among students were routine after and sometime during school. I was in some of those fights, and it didn't stop bullying - there was always a new one (it becomes a culture). At the public high school, suicide was high, as well as drug use and heavy drinking; there were many deaths from car fatalities too. We had the freaks and the jocks, and the jocks beat on the freaks and anyone in between. None of the foregoing existed at the Catholic school, notwithstanding the kids being tough and predominantly from an inner-city working class neighborhood; needless to say the football, basketball and baseball teams were division one.

I got accepted from the Catholic high school into a highly competitive Jesuit college. I went there on financial aid, including Pell grants, Stafford loans, and some other Federally subsidized loan that had lower interest than the Stafford.

If I had stayed at the public high school, I know none of this would have happened. Discipline was virtually non-existent. We'd even have snow ball fights in the classroom by opening the window in winter. And yes, there was my chemistry teacher displaying a retort tube, stroking it, and asking the girls what they thought of it and what it reminded them of as he slowly passed up and down the aisles; we all thought he was so cool and didn't think anything of it at the time. I guess here in DC the public school teachers just skip the foreplay and "sleep" with the students while taking cell phone videos (if we must stereotype and generalize).

The long and short is that the Federal government paid for and subsidized me to go to a religious school. What's the difference here in DC?

Give some kids a chance.

Don't worry, they won't get converted unless they want to, and most don't.

+1.

I had a very similar experience.

Thank you for taking the time for sharing yours.

I'd love to see a serious and ambitious voucher plan at national scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left a go-nowhere public high school for a working class Catholic high school because I wanted to go to college and get admitted to a good college. At the Catholic high school, I found much better academics (even AP classes which were new at the time) and good discipline, with no bullying whatsoever. At the public high school, some teachers were getting body-checked into the lockers in the hallways and fights among students were routine after and sometime during school. I was in some of those fights, and it didn't stop bullying - there was always a new one (it becomes a culture). At the public high school, suicide was high, as well as drug use and heavy drinking; there were many deaths from car fatalities too. We had the freaks and the jocks, and the jocks beat on the freaks and anyone in between. None of the foregoing existed at the Catholic school, notwithstanding the kids being tough and predominantly from an inner-city working class neighborhood; needless to say the football, basketball and baseball teams were division one.

I got accepted from the Catholic high school into a highly competitive Jesuit college. I went there on financial aid, including Pell grants, Stafford loans, and some other Federally subsidized loan that had lower interest than the Stafford.

If I had stayed at the public high school, I know none of this would have happened. Discipline was virtually non-existent. We'd even have snow ball fights in the classroom by opening the window in winter. And yes, there was my chemistry teacher displaying a retort tube, stroking it, and asking the girls what they thought of it and what it reminded them of as he slowly passed up and down the aisles; we all thought he was so cool and didn't think anything of it at the time. I guess here in DC the public school teachers just skip the foreplay and "sleep" with the students while taking cell phone videos (if we must stereotype and generalize).

The long and short is that the Federal government paid for and subsidized me to go to a religious school. What's the difference here in DC?

Give some kids a chance.

Don't worry, they won't get converted unless they want to, and most don't.

+1.

I had a very similar experience.

Thank you for taking the time for sharing yours.

I'd love to see a serious and ambitious voucher plan at national scale.

Nope, no, not getting away with that here. Please read the literature on vouchers, and explain, in detail, how vouchers will expand choice IN DC, and in the rest of the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left a go-nowhere public high school for a working class Catholic high school because I wanted to go to college and get admitted to a good college. At the Catholic high school, I found much better academics (even AP classes which were new at the time) and good discipline, with no bullying whatsoever. At the public high school, some teachers were getting body-checked into the lockers in the hallways and fights among students were routine after and sometime during school. I was in some of those fights, and it didn't stop bullying - there was always a new one (it becomes a culture). At the public high school, suicide was high, as well as drug use and heavy drinking; there were many deaths from car fatalities too. We had the freaks and the jocks, and the jocks beat on the freaks and anyone in between. None of the foregoing existed at the Catholic school, notwithstanding the kids being tough and predominantly from an inner-city working class neighborhood; needless to say the football, basketball and baseball teams were division one.

I got accepted from the Catholic high school into a highly competitive Jesuit college. I went there on financial aid, including Pell grants, Stafford loans, and some other Federally subsidized loan that had lower interest than the Stafford.

If I had stayed at the public high school, I know none of this would have happened. Discipline was virtually non-existent. We'd even have snow ball fights in the classroom by opening the window in winter. And yes, there was my chemistry teacher displaying a retort tube, stroking it, and asking the girls what they thought of it and what it reminded them of as he slowly passed up and down the aisles; we all thought he was so cool and didn't think anything of it at the time. I guess here in DC the public school teachers just skip the foreplay and "sleep" with the students while taking cell phone videos (if we must stereotype and generalize).

The long and short is that the Federal government paid for and subsidized me to go to a religious school. What's the difference here in DC?

Give some kids a chance.

Don't worry, they won't get converted unless they want to, and most don't.

+1.

I had a very similar experience.

Thank you for taking the time for sharing yours.

I'd love to see a serious and ambitious voucher plan at national scale.

Nope, no, not getting away with that here. Please read the literature on vouchers, and explain, in detail, how vouchers will expand choice IN DC, and in the rest of the country.

+2.

The problem isn't a lack of vouchers. It is a general lack - in DC - of high quality schools that are not at capacity. This is true of public, charter, and private school. Vouchers are not going to solve that problem. Creating magnet schools might solve that problem. Creating test-in middle schools might solve that problem. Opening more high quality schools overall (if there is a magic way to do that) might solve that problem. Vouchers will only create the illusion of more choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left a go-nowhere public high school for a working class Catholic high school because I wanted to go to college and get admitted to a good college. At the Catholic high school, I found much better academics (even AP classes which were new at the time) and good discipline, with no bullying whatsoever. At the public high school, some teachers were getting body-checked into the lockers in the hallways and fights among students were routine after and sometime during school. I was in some of those fights, and it didn't stop bullying - there was always a new one (it becomes a culture). At the public high school, suicide was high, as well as drug use and heavy drinking; there were many deaths from car fatalities too. We had the freaks and the jocks, and the jocks beat on the freaks and anyone in between. None of the foregoing existed at the Catholic school, notwithstanding the kids being tough and predominantly from an inner-city working class neighborhood; needless to say the football, basketball and baseball teams were division one.

I got accepted from the Catholic high school into a highly competitive Jesuit college. I went there on financial aid, including Pell grants, Stafford loans, and some other Federally subsidized loan that had lower interest than the Stafford.

If I had stayed at the public high school, I know none of this would have happened. Discipline was virtually non-existent. We'd even have snow ball fights in the classroom by opening the window in winter. And yes, there was my chemistry teacher displaying a retort tube, stroking it, and asking the girls what they thought of it and what it reminded them of as he slowly passed up and down the aisles; we all thought he was so cool and didn't think anything of it at the time. I guess here in DC the public school teachers just skip the foreplay and "sleep" with the students while taking cell phone videos (if we must stereotype and generalize).

The long and short is that the Federal government paid for and subsidized me to go to a religious school. What's the difference here in DC?

Give some kids a chance.

Don't worry, they won't get converted unless they want to, and most don't.

+1.

I had a very similar experience.

Thank you for taking the time for sharing yours.

I'd love to see a serious and ambitious voucher plan at national scale.

Nope, no, not getting away with that here. Please read the literature on vouchers, and explain, in detail, how vouchers will expand choice IN DC, and in the rest of the country.

Fortunately the Federal government will be making that decision and not you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left a go-nowhere public high school for a working class Catholic high school because I wanted to go to college and get admitted to a good college. At the Catholic high school, I found much better academics (even AP classes which were new at the time) and good discipline, with no bullying whatsoever. At the public high school, some teachers were getting body-checked into the lockers in the hallways and fights among students were routine after and sometime during school. I was in some of those fights, and it didn't stop bullying - there was always a new one (it becomes a culture). At the public high school, suicide was high, as well as drug use and heavy drinking; there were many deaths from car fatalities too. We had the freaks and the jocks, and the jocks beat on the freaks and anyone in between. None of the foregoing existed at the Catholic school, notwithstanding the kids being tough and predominantly from an inner-city working class neighborhood; needless to say the football, basketball and baseball teams were division one.

I got accepted from the Catholic high school into a highly competitive Jesuit college. I went there on financial aid, including Pell grants, Stafford loans, and some other Federally subsidized loan that had lower interest than the Stafford.

If I had stayed at the public high school, I know none of this would have happened. Discipline was virtually non-existent. We'd even have snow ball fights in the classroom by opening the window in winter. And yes, there was my chemistry teacher displaying a retort tube, stroking it, and asking the girls what they thought of it and what it reminded them of as he slowly passed up and down the aisles; we all thought he was so cool and didn't think anything of it at the time. I guess here in DC the public school teachers just skip the foreplay and "sleep" with the students while taking cell phone videos (if we must stereotype and generalize).

The long and short is that the Federal government paid for and subsidized me to go to a religious school. What's the difference here in DC?

Give some kids a chance.

Don't worry, they won't get converted unless they want to, and most don't.

+1.

I had a very similar experience.

Thank you for taking the time for sharing yours.

I'd love to see a serious and ambitious voucher plan at national scale.

Nope, no, not getting away with that here. Please read the literature on vouchers, and explain, in detail, how vouchers will expand choice IN DC, and in the rest of the country.

Very funny, comrade Stalin.

Please explain, in detail, how having no choice expands choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Please explain, in detail, how having no choice expands choice.

Having fewer choices can allow for better focus on making them good choices.

Take this analogy: If there are 500 restaurants and not enough people to staff them, then you have lots of shitty choices. If you have 10 restaurants that are well staffed with the best people, then you have better choices.