<p>
Baloney. That has nothing to do with Matt Damon, or general support for public schools, or teachers’ pay. And I don’t believe for one second that all those right-wing talkers care one whit for those poor inner city kids. They want vouchers so they can take their own kids out of “government” schools and send them to religious schools–on my dime.</p>
<p>The public lower schools would have had a devastating effect on D1. </p>
<p>I have tremendous sympathy for kids stuck in poor education systems. But just because a system exists or even works for some percentage for the kids, does not mean it is superior to other choices or right for a given kid. </p>
<p>The notion that one must stick their kids in the local school, in order to be interested in the state of public schools, is bogus.</p>
<p>The answer isn’t to say those who advocate for better public schools should immerse their kids in the very problems they decry. </p>
<p>And Damon? Who cares? Pacific Palisades is one of the wealthiest LA suburbs. I’d guess he moved his kids for a number of reasons, including his own schedule.</p>
<p>“They want vouchers so they can take their own kids out of “government” schools and send them to religious schools–on my dime.”</p>
<p>^This.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve sent my children to Catholic schools for non-religious reasons, but in the future they will be attending the local public school. Catholic schools do teach the religion, and I don’t think the government should pay for that. But at least 80% of the time is spent on secular subjects – reading, math, social studies and science. If that is the case, I don’t see why at least the bulk of expenditures for a Catholic school should not be reimbursable by the taxpayer, if the taxpayer would otherwise be paying for instruction in the same subjects at a government school. And the local Catholic school spends about 1/2 as much per student as the local public . A voucher covering the Catholic school cost could save the taxpayer money if lots of parents shifted their children from public schools.</p>
<p>Sorry, Beliavsky, but I can’t follow your argument when you refer to “government” schools. Maybe it’s because I’m a member of the “Democrat” party.</p>
<p>Also, I just can’t support “devil take the hindmost” approaches to education.</p>
<p>I think people can notice that Hunt’s irritable message does not respond to my main point, which is that religious schools spend much of their money teaching the same subjects taught in public (feel better now, Hunt?) schools. So why should be parents be forced to pay the full cost of Catholic schools out of pocket, while the public school is free?</p>
<p>“But will the increased tax base bring more money to the city than is being expended on vouchers? Again - how about improving the public schools, and maybe allow parents to choose from among a list of public schools? Some cities are doing that quite successfully, and those schools serve a broad cross-section of students, not just those who can scrape up the balance of the tuition, and provide transportation. I know of several families who moved to local cities because property values are lower - what they save on property taxes they spend on tuition to send their kids to parochial school. I don’t think vouchers will entice middle class families back to the inner cities.” </p>
<p>Improving the public school? Most inner city districts spend far more per pupil than suburban districts yet have far more problems and lower out comes than those districts. The reason is that the parents in the suburban districts value education and those values are passed on to their children. My wife went to a school district in Wash DC in the early 70’s when the district was integrated. She went from a school where her classmates were neighbors and friends to a school that she would get shoved up against a wall and had her lunch money stolen. How long does one put up with that? The result (and admittedly it would have occurred eventually albeit at a much slower rate) people like my wifes parents moved to the suburb where the school district was better and they had the choice. You have an opportunity here. Young middle class people often like living in urban areas. They often will stay there until they have children and then they have a choice. Live with the school districts that they have, pay for a private school, or move to a suburb where the schools are safer and better. A fourth option would be voucher where a student can go to a school which can cater to those who value education. If that keeps those people in the city eventually the public schools will improve because the make up of the people in the population will value the education they provide. It took 10 to 15 years for middle class flight to take affect and it will take even longer to get them back but no amount of money is going to improve the quality of schools for those who do not wish to learn.</p>
<p>Bel’s is one of the arguments used. If another school can do it better (and often less expensively,) why can’t we support that? We also have charter schools (dedicated to lower income) up through m/s, which do a phenomenal job. Could they also be supported by vouchers? </p>
<p>If the issue here is really about supporting public education, why aren’t we eliminating some celebrity from the talk? I think, because it’s one of those rare chances to take a shot at a liberal celebrity. Boo.</p>
<p>
Because supporting the secular part of religious schools inherently (if indirectly) supports its religious message as well. Because (in my opinion) it would lead inevitably to further degradation of the public schools.</p>
<p>I think there are two kinds of arguments–one is philosophical, and the other is practical. On the first kind, people can and will always disagree. On the second kind, it’s hard to know what really works the best for the largest number of students–and in particular, will help those who need help the most. I’m just not convinced that a voucher system would work well in the long run. I have a little more optimism about public charter schools.</p>
<p>Matt Damon may support the “idea” of public schools, but in fact, he does not think the public schools in his area are good enough for his children, because they are not as “progressive” as the ones he attended. Do any public schools exist today that meet his criteria? If not, I don’t see how he can be said to “support” our current public schools. In fact, I’d say he actually opposes how they operate.</p>
<p>“So why should be parents be forced to pay the full cost of Catholic schools out of pocket, while the public school is free?”</p>
<p>I paid the full cost of Catholic high school for my son and not for the religious part at all (we are secular jews.) I chose to send him because 1) it was a better fit, 2) small classes are an important factor to me and 3) I’m opposed to the NCLB criteria public schools are subjected to. </p>
<p>No one is forced to pay for to a private school. If you don’t want to pay the price of tuition you can send your kids to a public school for free.</p>
<p>You may fall on the floor in shock, but I agree with emilybee completely. Is there anywhere that public school isn’t free or accessible?</p>
<p>At different times I’ve sent my kids to every possible option based on what was right for each at the time. My highest achiever, by far, was the student who went to an inner-city public school IB program. The graduates of that program, which was located in a very tough, gang-infested neighborhood, went on to top LACs, Ivies and every prestigious college one could imagine. To me, that is the best possible outcome because the parents were involved and when students in schools like that start having success, private money follows. I couldn’t possibly be happier with her experience and, especially, with the stellar teachers who crossed her path and still stay in touch with her.</p>
<p>“Matt Damon may support the “idea” of public schools, but in fact, he does not think the public schools in his area are good enough for his children, because they are not as “progressive” as the ones he attended.”</p>
<p>He supports his public schools as much as anyone else - with his tax dollars - just the same as I support mine - and I bet he doesn’t whine about how much school tax he pays, either.</p>
<p>Adding that I just convinced myself he is not therefor, a hypocrite. Lol</p>
<p>Oh emilybee, no one has a choice to pay property taxes or not, so doing so doesn’t mean anything other than you are alive.</p>
<p>We also sent ours to Catholic lower school- and are not Catholic. The point was the attention and the emphasis (yo, I mean it) on discipline and organizing one’s work and approach. I still stand behind that decision.</p>
<p>Like Zmom, we moved them. But one can’t generalize about the quality of all publics. Sure, those in our flagship public hs are able to test into a high performance track. The segregation (outside sports) is abysmal. The number of kids requiring remedial takes focus off the extent of the offerings to the most driven students. The union insists vouchers will destroy the publics because…it offers an alternative. Proponents, otoh, suggest it will push publics into getting off their duffs.</p>
<p>I don’t know.</p>
<p>But, obviously, Damon does more to draw attention to publics and how they can improve than simply pay taxes. </p>
<p>We could just as easily say, if he saw the changes he advocates, he wouldn’t send his kids to private.</p>
<p>
I still think the real problems can only be solved in the home.</p>
<p>I think hypocrisy is discusting! I was talking to my child the other day about how wrong it is to waste all her time on the computer… Oh Crud!!!</p>
<p>Yes, Bay, he opposes the public schools IN HIS AREA, not all public schools everywhere. He actually supports certain methods of schooling still followed by SOME public schools in SOME locations, just not where his actual kids would be going. It makes perfect sense to me that he sends HIS kids where THEY will be best served while speaking out about the changes to public schooling in general (i.e. teaching to the test, NCLB, larger and larger class sizes, etc.). </p>
<p>I advocate for many things that do not directly affect me, because I have in an interest in improving certain aspects of people’s lives (domestic violence causes, for example). Should I have to be immersed PERSONALLY in every one of these causes to support them? That’s what you’re saying Matt Damon must do.</p>
<p>“Oh emilybee, no one has a choice to pay property taxes or not, so doing so doesn’t mean anything other than you are alive.”</p>
<p>They may not have a choice but they do, quite often, vote down their public school budgets because they don’t want to pay what is needed to support them. They also b**ch and moan about teachers, teachers unions, what teachers are paid, etc., etc., etc.</p>