Tokenconservative
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,202
We're told that everything the teachers and their union do is "for the children!"
Seems that's exactly the case in Utah as the union does yeomanlike work and spends millions to make sure that the vote to reaffirm Utah's highly successful voucher program goes the "right" way.
As George Will (Wash Post) puts it, "(in Utah), teearshe unions, whose idea o progress is preservation of the status qo, are waging an expensive and meretricious campaign to overturn the right of parents to choose among competing schools, public and private, for the best education for their children."
Will, apparently, does not know that teachers, and educrats, not parents know what's best for our children.
As they always do, the unions in Utah are shrieking that every child removed from the public roll via Utah's Parent Choice in Education Act is a net loss in revenue for the schools, which of course means the public schools are being impoverished.
But wait...the "teachers" seem not to have employed any of those skilled in math in their calculations for it seems that in Utah (as in every other attempt at vouchers in the US) only a PORTION, and at that a SMALL portion of the total per-head $$ that goes to the public school for each student, is ciphoned off for the parents' chosen school, To wit: depending upon income, a voucher in the Utah system will range in dollar value from $500 to $3000 (USD).
But Utah spends $7,500 on each pupil, according to Will. Hmmm...let's see if we can all do the math together...are there any in here who were privately or home-schooled who can oversee our calculations?
$7,500
- 500
______
$7,000
or
7,500
-
3000
_____
$4,500
Now I'm no economist or accountant and as many in here are eager to point up, I was educated publicaly, and went to a lousy college where I didn't even have to take a math class, so I COULD be wrong, but it seems to me that LOGICALLY, if you take a kid out of a school, that kid no longer represents a COST to that school to educate him or her.
But the schools in this case (and every voucher proposal nationwide) would still get at minimum, $4,500 for a kid who is not there using the bathroom, not there taking up the teacher's valuable internet surfing time, not there wearing out the carpet or making the janitor cleanup his spitwads.
By any rational economic model, the absense of a net cost to a school (pupil) while that school retains at minimum (and more often most of) more than half the per-pupil dollars it recieves, would represent a net gain--a surplus in fact, to the school. It's as if you had a business and for each client you lost, you retained more than 1/2 of the $ that client used to spend with you...why wouldn't you just chase away all your clients, retain half your income but none of the work!?
But teachers and other liberals do this math differently, it appears and are spending millions in advertising in Utah to decry this system, claiming that it in fact represents a net economic LOSS to the schools and is thereby impoverishing further the "poor" children left behind in what we are told are, overcrowded schools that would only also profit educationally by a lower student-to-teacher ratio.
It's all very confusing to we, the unwashed and uneducated in the public, but apparently makes perfect sense to teachers and educrats.
Just remember: it's for the children!
Tokie
Seems that's exactly the case in Utah as the union does yeomanlike work and spends millions to make sure that the vote to reaffirm Utah's highly successful voucher program goes the "right" way.
As George Will (Wash Post) puts it, "(in Utah), teearshe unions, whose idea o progress is preservation of the status qo, are waging an expensive and meretricious campaign to overturn the right of parents to choose among competing schools, public and private, for the best education for their children."
Will, apparently, does not know that teachers, and educrats, not parents know what's best for our children.
As they always do, the unions in Utah are shrieking that every child removed from the public roll via Utah's Parent Choice in Education Act is a net loss in revenue for the schools, which of course means the public schools are being impoverished.
But wait...the "teachers" seem not to have employed any of those skilled in math in their calculations for it seems that in Utah (as in every other attempt at vouchers in the US) only a PORTION, and at that a SMALL portion of the total per-head $$ that goes to the public school for each student, is ciphoned off for the parents' chosen school, To wit: depending upon income, a voucher in the Utah system will range in dollar value from $500 to $3000 (USD).
But Utah spends $7,500 on each pupil, according to Will. Hmmm...let's see if we can all do the math together...are there any in here who were privately or home-schooled who can oversee our calculations?
$7,500
- 500
______
$7,000
or
7,500
-
3000
_____
$4,500
Now I'm no economist or accountant and as many in here are eager to point up, I was educated publicaly, and went to a lousy college where I didn't even have to take a math class, so I COULD be wrong, but it seems to me that LOGICALLY, if you take a kid out of a school, that kid no longer represents a COST to that school to educate him or her.
But the schools in this case (and every voucher proposal nationwide) would still get at minimum, $4,500 for a kid who is not there using the bathroom, not there taking up the teacher's valuable internet surfing time, not there wearing out the carpet or making the janitor cleanup his spitwads.
By any rational economic model, the absense of a net cost to a school (pupil) while that school retains at minimum (and more often most of) more than half the per-pupil dollars it recieves, would represent a net gain--a surplus in fact, to the school. It's as if you had a business and for each client you lost, you retained more than 1/2 of the $ that client used to spend with you...why wouldn't you just chase away all your clients, retain half your income but none of the work!?
But teachers and other liberals do this math differently, it appears and are spending millions in advertising in Utah to decry this system, claiming that it in fact represents a net economic LOSS to the schools and is thereby impoverishing further the "poor" children left behind in what we are told are, overcrowded schools that would only also profit educationally by a lower student-to-teacher ratio.
It's all very confusing to we, the unwashed and uneducated in the public, but apparently makes perfect sense to teachers and educrats.
Just remember: it's for the children!
Tokie
