<p>I vociferously object to the idea of my tax dollars going to support parochial schools or the Catholic Church. Since my tax dollars are in a sort of pool, I don’t want any taxes/vouchers/etc supporting those institutions. If you want your kids educated by the Church, fine with me. If the Church wants to pay to educate your kids, fine with me. I object to being asked to contribute directly or indirectly.</p>
<p>^^^^
Amen! :)</p>
<p>Is it any better when a conservative sends his kids to private and doesn’t advocate for public improvements? Or just less satisfying because you can’t just swing out the “hypocrite” bat? You actually could call that conservative a hypocrite- because rather than work toward change, he just exits.</p>
<p>Btw, in my area, all the schools are supported with public access to textbooks, provided by the public school dept, as long as those used by parochial or private schools appear on the large master list of books ordered by the publics.</p>
<p>The problem with either vouchers for private school or charter schools is that, no matter how the system is run, they by definition are cherrypicking students. Then, at least as far as how it goes now, they are compared to the schools which are left with the least committed parents, special ed kids (which other schools say they don’t have the resources for) and in general, the poorest, the most threatened, and the least supported.</p>
<p>So we then have two systems: the lucky kids plucked out, and taking their resources with them, and the most needy students who are punished twice–first by the lowering of resources, and second by the comparisons to the “better” schools branding them and their schools as failures.</p>
<p>The biggest effect on a child’s schooling is home–agreeing with Zoosermom. If you can make it so everyone’s parents are educated, have time and ability to read to them, can bring them up in a place where they don’t fear crime, make it so they don’t move often, have better food resources, aren’t affected by bad air and lead (two leading causes of school problems) and in otherways give them middle class lives, then pretty much any school can give them middle class outcomes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I agree Matt Damon has the right (privilege?) of sending his kids to whatever school he can afford, I’m not sure I agree there’s zero hypocrisy. I would imagine his local public school would benefit if his kids attended and he surely knows that. It seems a little false for him to ignore the good he could do.</p>
<p>@geo, just a bit of irony…it’s on the standardized testing here in PA</p>
<p>ITA, alh, but I would extend it to all religious schools. As it is, kids in religious and private schools get services such as speech therapy and LD diagnosis that come out of the public school budget. I don’t have a problem with that, since their parents pay taxes, but I would note that those $$ are never included when people talk about the relative $$ spent per student. (Or the fact that the public system has to pay amounts like $40K per year to send some kids to special schools…or the fact that if your kid needs LD help at the private school, you have to pay extra for it…and so forth.)</p>
<p>
I feel the same way. However, I would go so far as to say that I don’t really want any of my tax dollars paying for anything for houses of worship. Except emergency services.</p>
<p>It makes me crazed that sanitation workers here shovel out houses of worship after it snows, and it also bothers me that subsidized Access-a-Ride services take people to and from houses of worship.</p>
<h1>84 ^^yes. I understand from friends that in other countries all the (public) schools are the same quality regardless of location- regardless of neighborhood and property values.</h1>
<p>consolation: Yes, I extend it to all religious schools.</p>
<p>ETA: #87 also agree</p>
<p>I agree, Zoos.</p>
<p>How are vouchers any different from Pell Grants going to religious colleges?</p>
<p>zoosermom, I thought that <em>I</em> was a zealot when it comes to separation of church and state! 
But I completely agree. (Public workers do not shovel out churches here. Our sexton does it. Don’t know about rides for seniors.)</p>
<p>Los Angeles public schools have a VERY mediocre reputation. There are a few schools that are ok.</p>
<p>I do not know where in Los Angeles they are moving to but there are a few schools that are ok…If they are moving to Brentwood the combination of Kenter Canyon/ Paul Revere’
Palisades is really fine. Santa Monica isn’t part of LAUSD, Beverly Hills…also have separate systems. </p>
<p>The other important part of this is SECURITY. For Matt Damon and other famous parents that can be a huge concern. Crossroads, Brentwood, John Thomas Dye, Harvard Westlake in addition to high tuition provide secure campuses. The most secure of the private schools is Stephen Wise/Milken. It is a Jewish Day school system. Many non Jewish families sent their children here because of the security and the preparation for most scenarios.</p>
<p>
I don’t think that is hypocritical at all. Doing your own thing and keeping your mouth shut with regard to other people isn’t hypocritical.</p>
<p>I don’t think people would have problem with Damon if he wasn’t so vocal. I don’t think he is a hypocrite, though. He does pay his taxes and his opinion is as valid as anyone else’s.</p>
<p>Well if he is supporting the public schools he is still trying to make them better. Maybe he believes that they aren’t good enough yet, so he won’t send his kids there.</p>
<p>Or you could just mind your own business and not worry about what other people choose if it doesn’t affect you.</p>
<p>
How do you feel about paying private school tuition for special ed kids? Which is an interesting situation because those are often the most financially secure families anyway, not to mention savvy.</p>
<p>
Well you already knew I was a crazy person, right? City workers shovel out houses of worship and it is very expensive. I don’t want to pay that. Let the houses of worship do it themselves. I’m fine with public schools, hospitals and post offices being shoveled out on my dime, but that’s pretty much it. Except bus shelters. That is fine.</p>
<p>^^Can o’ worms.</p>
<p>Best I know, our hospitals don’t get public shoveling.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whoa, another perfect scenario! Qualifying for special education is most often generational in my district - I have colleagues who are teaching in special ed to the third generation of some families - within a 30 year career span.<br>
And my district only sends the most severely effected students to private schools because we don’t have the resources they need. So this is not true in my experience.</p>
<p>Zoosermom–I think it may in some cases be misused, but I do agree that there are special cases where the public schools cannot provide the kind of care in a particular case that a very specialized school can. I know it’s been true for many years that, legally, public schools have to do that. In those cases, for very individual reasons, the student is paid for in order to get an equivalent education, not a better one, than his or her home district.</p>
<p>What’s much less rare is special ed kids being denied entrance into privates or charters because they claim not to have the appropriate services, leading to a higher percentage in the (non-charter) publics.</p>
<p>And yes, it does tend to be savvy, well-off parents who know how to navigate the system.</p>
<p>Qualifying for special education is a totally different thing than opting out of the public school system and having it paid for by taxpayers. That often involves advocates, lawyers and a lot of expense and sophistication.</p>