Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Funding for education is a matter for the States and the People (10th Amendment).

I support private scholarships for advanced education. These are overwhelmigly awarded based upon the merit of the student.

Originally Posted by TastyWheat

Meanwhile, Obama's children are safe and sound in the private education system.

Originally Posted by Lizard People

Here's what bugs me about the Democrat hypocrisy.

A woman has the right to choose whether to abort or not, but she doesn't have the right to put their kid in a safe school where they can get a good education and won't be assaulted with weapons. She gets to choose the baby's life up until it is actually born, then the government steps in and takes over.

Originally Posted by Jellah

Ok so you only want funding to come from states instead of both state and federal...how does that help the problems? How does the additional funding from federal harm the public education system?

What do the states do that have much less money and cannot adequately fund their public schools?

Originally Posted by Guy Fawkes

Easy, more local control. That money that goes to the Feds now wouldn't if things were they way they should be. Then each state could run their own system and the cream would rise to the top making models for the rest to follow or not, it would be the choice of their voters.
Then when you send anything to the Feds you only get back .70 cents per dollar and whatever other waste occurs along the line.

You want good schools? Privatize them all.

Originally Posted by Guy Fawkes

Easy, more local control. That money that goes to the Feds now wouldn't if things were they way they should be. Then each state could run their own system and the cream would rise to the top making models for the rest to follow or not, it would be the choice of their voters.
Then when you send anything to the Feds you only get back .70 cents per dollar and whatever other waste occurs along the line.

You want good schools? Privatize them all.

Originally Posted by Jellah

Just because they recieve funding from the federal govt doesnt imply they lose all control over the school system in their state.

I would rather address the specific federal guidelines and controls people disagree with from the federal govt....they could still recieve funding without those guidelines or controls if those guidelines or controls are deemed harmful and causing problems rather than helping.

So what are the specific controls and guidelines set by the federal govt that you have a problem with?

Privatizing is not some magic answer or solution...there are just as many problems there. There is just as much corruption and waste in the private sector as there is in the govt...they just have less accountablity and transparency which actually makes private a bit more of a problem than the public sector is.

If all were private and we privatized the education system as you suggest...what happens to all the people who cant afford to send their kids to school?

Originally Posted by JP5

The Obama administration and Democrats are trying to sneak this by, hoping no one notices:

Omnibus Spending Bill Eliminates Opportunity: As it stands now, the House omnibus bill will eliminate the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (DCOSP). Since the program’s inception in 2004, the DCOSP has given thousands of low-income students in the District of Columbia access to a better education.

• For Children in Need: About 1,700 children currently attend private school using opportunity scholarships. The average household income of a DCOSP family is $23,000.
• Safe and Effective Learning Environments: DCOSP has yielded positive results for its participants. Studies show higher parent satisfaction with their child’s school safety and learning environment, and test scores are moving in the right direction as students regain ground lost in their previous under-performing schools.
• Traded in for Violence and Low-Performance: Eliminating DCOSP would take students who are flourishing in a safe and effective learning environment and send them back into a public school system that ranks 51st nationally in student achievement, where barely half of all students graduate high school, and where one in every eight students reports being assaulted or injured with a deadly weapon.
• Yet Costs Less: DCOSP costs less per student than traditional federal programs and provides a better learning experience. The $13 million cost of DCOSP is a drop in the bucket compared to the $68 billon in the federal budget for the Department of Education. The stimulus bill alone added $140 billion over two years to the Department of Education, including $15 billion for Pell grants, which support school choice for upper-income college students.
• Something All Should Agree On: Nationally, school choice policies like the DCOSP have attracted bipartisan support. Fourteen states in total offer students a choice in education, including Louisiana, where a voucher bill sponsored by Democrats was signed into law in 2008. State legislative chambers controlled by Democrats in Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island have approved school choice bills in recent years.

http://www.voicesofschoolchoice.org/

So, why would Dems seek to end such a successful program and take away the choice of these children to attend the same school that Obama's kids attend? One reason: teacher's unions. It's one of their big voter bases and it's promises they've made. Teachers Unions see this as a threat to the public school system, which is their livilihood. Forget that they've failed these kids over and over again in places like Washington D.C.---which has the absolute worst school system......Obama must pay back his voters no matter what the cost. Dem leaders have supported this for other places....so why NOT Washington D.C??????

Originally Posted by Jellah

How are the schools improved by getting less funding?