Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.