Logos Stick said:

---

Quote:

---

The last time leftists controlled Texas was 1976. You can't blame leftist policies for how Texas education has ended up.

---

Wrong! Texas is not autonomous! Federal law controls major policy/practice at public schools. Schools also get about 15% of total funding from the Feds which means they must comply or lose funding.

Here are some of those laws, which have been broadly interpreted to ruin public schools:

ESSA (2015): Sets requirements for standardized testing in reading and math (grades 3-8 and once in high school), mandates accountability plans, and tracks subgroup performance (e.g., racial minorities, English learners). States design the specifics, but federal approval is needed.

IDEA (1975, reauthorized 2004): Guarantees free appropriate public education for students with disabilities, dictating policies like individualized education programs (IEPs). States must comply or lose federal special-ed funds.

Civil Rights Laws: Title VI (1964 Civil Rights Act) bans racial discrimination, Title IX (1972) ensures gender equity, and Section 504 (1973 Rehabilitation Act) protects students with disabilities. These override local policies when violations occur, enforced via federal lawsuits or funding cuts.

NCLB (2002-2015): Before ESSA, it imposed stricter testing and "adequate yearly progress" goals. Its legacy lingers in accountability frameworks.


Title IX also controls:

Mandates Equal Opportunity:
Schools must ensure that students of all genders (originally focused on male/female, now interpreted more broadly) have equal access to educational programs, including academics, extracurriculars, and athletics. For example, if a school offers boys' football, it must provide comparable opportunities for girlslike volleyball or soccermeasured by funding, facilities, and participation rates. This doesn't mean identical programs, but equitable ones.

Sexual Harassment and Assault:
Title IX requires schools to address sex-based discrimination, which courts have interpreted to include sexual harassment, assault, and gender-based violence. Schools must have policies to investigate and resolve complaints (e.g., a Title IX coordinator), or they risk federal penalties. A landmark 1999 Supreme Court case, Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, held schools liable if they're "deliberately indifferent" to known harassment.

Gender Identity and Transgender Rights:
As of March 31, 2025, Title IX's scope includes protections for transgender students, following the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (extending sex discrimination to gender identity under Title VII, influencing Title IX interpretations). The Biden administration's 2021 rules explicitly protect transgender students' access to bathrooms, sports, and pronouns consistent with their gender identity. Schools defying thislike some in red statesface legal battles or funding threats, though enforcement varies with political winds.

Enforcement Mechanism:
The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) oversees Title IX compliance. If a school violates it (e.g., mishandling a harassment case), OCR can investigate, negotiate fixes, orrarelycut federal funds. In practice, lawsuits from students or advocacy groups often drive enforcement, as with the 2023 settlements forcing schools to improve sexual assault policies.

Quote:

---

That being said, a Republican president signed the No Child Left Behind Bill into law.

---

W was not a conservative by any measure. He doubled the national debt, passed NCLB (co authored by Ted Kennedy) and passed Medicare D. He would have signed amnesty for illegals had they passed it. W was solid left of center!

Quote:

---

What Texas education needs are drastically smaller class sizes, more individualized supports towards interventions for students, and more individualized supports to help better meet SPED students where they are at. Doing away with STAAR, mandating more outside time in younger grades, and less screen time.

---

None of what you suggested - a bunch of leftist pap - would help.

Quote:

---

This all coming from an educator whose worked in Texas education since 2017.

---

Not surprised.

---

I appreciate you taking the time to refute my post, but I don't think you or I will see eye to eye on this. A posts a few up, you advocates for placing, what I think I gleamed from your post so feel free to correct me, under performing students (minors by the way) into a, what you described, sort of "detention center" until they turn 18.

Always support ones ability to share their beliefs and opinions, but I just agree to disagree when it comes to our differences in how we'd go about fixing public education.

sam callahan said:

---

Proponents are pushing for a system that will proliferate choices, drive competition, and reward results. Things that will definitely improve education.

Your 84% figure is some biased projection, not a dynamic predictor of reality.

---

The current bill does none of this things. It picks 100,000 winners and the other 99% are left to the current system.

Let teachers manage their classes as they see fit, keep the government overreach out of classrooms and allow admin to discipline kids AND parents to hold them accountable. That will improve education as well.

aggiegolfer2012 said:

---

They must've changed something in the more recent bill. I haven't paid much attention since the election because I just assumed they were going to pass whatever they wanted.

If nothing else, I hope some of this shows people to pay attention during elections. A lot of folks that voted for the 'school choice' candidates Abbott was backing during the election aren't happy with what school choice means anymore.

---

There are two bills this legislative session, SB2 and HB3, both going up before the House education committee tomorrow. Both awful. And both different from bills in past legislative sessions.

Yep, people were completely fooled.

t_J_e_C_x said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Quote:

---

The last time leftists controlled Texas was 1976. You can't blame leftist policies for how Texas education has ended up.

---

Wrong! Texas is not autonomous! Federal law controls major policy/practice at public schools. Schools also get about 15% of total funding from the Feds which means they must comply or lose funding.

Here are some of those laws, which have been broadly interpreted to ruin public schools:

ESSA (2015): Sets requirements for standardized testing in reading and math (grades 3-8 and once in high school), mandates accountability plans, and tracks subgroup performance (e.g., racial minorities, English learners). States design the specifics, but federal approval is needed.

IDEA (1975, reauthorized 2004): Guarantees free appropriate public education for students with disabilities, dictating policies like individualized education programs (IEPs). States must comply or lose federal special-ed funds.

Civil Rights Laws: Title VI (1964 Civil Rights Act) bans racial discrimination, Title IX (1972) ensures gender equity, and Section 504 (1973 Rehabilitation Act) protects students with disabilities. These override local policies when violations occur, enforced via federal lawsuits or funding cuts.

NCLB (2002-2015): Before ESSA, it imposed stricter testing and "adequate yearly progress" goals. Its legacy lingers in accountability frameworks.


Title IX also controls:

Mandates Equal Opportunity:
Schools must ensure that students of all genders (originally focused on male/female, now interpreted more broadly) have equal access to educational programs, including academics, extracurriculars, and athletics. For example, if a school offers boys' football, it must provide comparable opportunities for girlslike volleyball or soccermeasured by funding, facilities, and participation rates. This doesn't mean identical programs, but equitable ones.

Sexual Harassment and Assault:
Title IX requires schools to address sex-based discrimination, which courts have interpreted to include sexual harassment, assault, and gender-based violence. Schools must have policies to investigate and resolve complaints (e.g., a Title IX coordinator), or they risk federal penalties. A landmark 1999 Supreme Court case, Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, held schools liable if they're "deliberately indifferent" to known harassment.

Gender Identity and Transgender Rights:
As of March 31, 2025, Title IX's scope includes protections for transgender students, following the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (extending sex discrimination to gender identity under Title VII, influencing Title IX interpretations). The Biden administration's 2021 rules explicitly protect transgender students' access to bathrooms, sports, and pronouns consistent with their gender identity. Schools defying thislike some in red statesface legal battles or funding threats, though enforcement varies with political winds.

Enforcement Mechanism:
The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) oversees Title IX compliance. If a school violates it (e.g., mishandling a harassment case), OCR can investigate, negotiate fixes, orrarelycut federal funds. In practice, lawsuits from students or advocacy groups often drive enforcement, as with the 2023 settlements forcing schools to improve sexual assault policies.

Quote:

---

That being said, a Republican president signed the No Child Left Behind Bill into law.

---

W was not a conservative by any measure. He doubled the national debt, passed NCLB (co authored by Ted Kennedy) and passed Medicare D. He would have signed amnesty for illegals had they passed it. W was solid left of center!

Quote:

---

What Texas education needs are drastically smaller class sizes, more individualized supports towards interventions for students, and more individualized supports to help better meet SPED students where they are at. Doing away with STAAR, mandating more outside time in younger grades, and less screen time.

---

None of what you suggested - a bunch of leftist pap - would help.

Quote:

---

This all coming from an educator whose worked in Texas education since 2017.

---

Not surprised.

---

I appreciate you taking the time to refute my post, but I don't think you or I will see eye to eye on this. A posts a few up, you advocates for placing, what I think I gleamed from your post so feel free to correct me, under performing students (minors by the way) into a, what you described, sort of "detention center" until they turn 18.

Always support ones ability to share their beliefs and opinions, but I just agree to disagree when it comes to our differences in how we'd go about fixing public education.

---

Ok, call it a Joy Center. I don't care. It's a safe place for them to hang out during the day while waiting to become an adult. They've learned the basics at that point and there is no need for additional traditional school. They don't show aptitude or motivation to go to vo-tech, so they get to hang at the Joy Center.

You can't post a single realistic workable solution for the 25% of kids who don't give two ****s about school and never will. Those kids are a drain on the system and a HUGE barrier to other kids getting educated.

PGAG said:

---

The craziest thing about all of this to me is Abbott continues to point the finger of blame for poor performing public schools that he has been in charge of for years! His first act was to appoint a commissioner of education with the vast experience as a school board member in Dallas ISD. Arguably the worst performing school district in the state.

---

I literally had a Rep tell me:
"You are blaming the person who votes for more money every time public education says that it will be fixed by them if I do. Can you hear yourself? It is nuts saying that the failure of a school, that I have never stepped foot in, is my "FAULT"."

and, "…stuck in a zip code" (they could fix this if they wanted),

and "It is a ridiculous statement to tell me to go into every last school where students are failing and that I should "fix it". (not what I said),

and (after sharing section 4.001 of the Texas Constitution) "The legislatures duty is to publicly fund the system of free schools. No where does it say the legislature is to ensure PUBLIC EDUCATION AND MISSION OBJECTIVES are met."

It's pretty clear the legislature has wiped their hands of the issue. They just toss money at it and cross their fingers it fixes itself.

sam callahan said:

---

Notice how none of the opponents of school choice spend time talking about the best ways for children to learn.

---

I'd say Homeschool in a large majority of the cases.

sam callahan said:

---

Proponents are pushing for a system that will proliferate choices, drive competition, and reward results. Things that will definitely improve education.

Your 84% figure is some biased projection, not a dynamic predictor of reality.

---

We have choice right now.

The question is whether you want the government more involved in the education market, or less.

aggiegolfer2012 said:

---

sam callahan said:

---

Proponents are pushing for a system that will proliferate choices, drive competition, and reward results. Things that will definitely improve education.

Your 84% figure is some biased projection, not a dynamic predictor of reality.

---

We have choice right now.

The question is whether you want the government more involved in the education market, or less.

---

I despise how these are called school "choice" bills. They are not. They are FUNDING bills.

I already pay for a system I don't use. I don't want to pay for another one.

People can choose to withdraw their child from public education right now this very moment. Maybe they will have to make some sacrifices to do so, but it's their private choice and they should be the ones to fund it.

sam callahan said:

---

My opinion is that a one size fits all system becomes a race to the lowest common denominator. That freedom and choice drive innovation. That we have more tools and resources available than ever before and we are stuck in an old model. That instead of designing a system on poor expectations, we should throw off the chains and shoot for spectacular. That we shouldn't fear excellence. Let the high achievers pull everyone up instead of letting the worst case examples pull everyone down.

---

Sounds like political speak, but how does that translate to real world action?

Logos Stick said:

---

t_J_e_C_x said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Quote:

---

The last time leftists controlled Texas was 1976. You can't blame leftist policies for how Texas education has ended up.

---

Wrong! Texas is not autonomous! Federal law controls major policy/practice at public schools. Schools also get about 15% of total funding from the Feds which means they must comply or lose funding.

Here are some of those laws, which have been broadly interpreted to ruin public schools:

ESSA (2015): Sets requirements for standardized testing in reading and math (grades 3-8 and once in high school), mandates accountability plans, and tracks subgroup performance (e.g., racial minorities, English learners). States design the specifics, but federal approval is needed.

IDEA (1975, reauthorized 2004): Guarantees free appropriate public education for students with disabilities, dictating policies like individualized education programs (IEPs). States must comply or lose federal special-ed funds.

Civil Rights Laws: Title VI (1964 Civil Rights Act) bans racial discrimination, Title IX (1972) ensures gender equity, and Section 504 (1973 Rehabilitation Act) protects students with disabilities. These override local policies when violations occur, enforced via federal lawsuits or funding cuts.

NCLB (2002-2015): Before ESSA, it imposed stricter testing and "adequate yearly progress" goals. Its legacy lingers in accountability frameworks.


Title IX also controls:

Mandates Equal Opportunity:
Schools must ensure that students of all genders (originally focused on male/female, now interpreted more broadly) have equal access to educational programs, including academics, extracurriculars, and athletics. For example, if a school offers boys' football, it must provide comparable opportunities for girlslike volleyball or soccermeasured by funding, facilities, and participation rates. This doesn't mean identical programs, but equitable ones.

Sexual Harassment and Assault:
Title IX requires schools to address sex-based discrimination, which courts have interpreted to include sexual harassment, assault, and gender-based violence. Schools must have policies to investigate and resolve complaints (e.g., a Title IX coordinator), or they risk federal penalties. A landmark 1999 Supreme Court case, Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, held schools liable if they're "deliberately indifferent" to known harassment.

Gender Identity and Transgender Rights:
As of March 31, 2025, Title IX's scope includes protections for transgender students, following the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (extending sex discrimination to gender identity under Title VII, influencing Title IX interpretations). The Biden administration's 2021 rules explicitly protect transgender students' access to bathrooms, sports, and pronouns consistent with their gender identity. Schools defying thislike some in red statesface legal battles or funding threats, though enforcement varies with political winds.

Enforcement Mechanism:
The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) oversees Title IX compliance. If a school violates it (e.g., mishandling a harassment case), OCR can investigate, negotiate fixes, orrarelycut federal funds. In practice, lawsuits from students or advocacy groups often drive enforcement, as with the 2023 settlements forcing schools to improve sexual assault policies.

Quote:

---

That being said, a Republican president signed the No Child Left Behind Bill into law.

---

W was not a conservative by any measure. He doubled the national debt, passed NCLB (co authored by Ted Kennedy) and passed Medicare D. He would have signed amnesty for illegals had they passed it. W was solid left of center!

Quote:

---

What Texas education needs are drastically smaller class sizes, more individualized supports towards interventions for students, and more individualized supports to help better meet SPED students where they are at. Doing away with STAAR, mandating more outside time in younger grades, and less screen time.

---

None of what you suggested - a bunch of leftist pap - would help.

Quote:

---

This all coming from an educator whose worked in Texas education since 2017.

---

Not surprised.

---

I appreciate you taking the time to refute my post, but I don't think you or I will see eye to eye on this. A posts a few up, you advocates for placing, what I think I gleamed from your post so feel free to correct me, under performing students (minors by the way) into a, what you described, sort of "detention center" until they turn 18.

Always support ones ability to share their beliefs and opinions, but I just agree to disagree when it comes to our differences in how we'd go about fixing public education.

---

Ok, call it a Joy Center. I don't care. It's a safe place for them to hang out during the day while waiting to become an adult. They've learned the basics at that point and there is no need for additional traditional school. They don't show aptitude or motivation to go to vo-tech, so they get to hang at the Joy Center.

You can't post a single realistic workable solution for the 25% of kids who don't give two ****s about school and never will. Those kids are a drain on the system and a HUGE barrier to other kids getting educated.

---

Those are children, the areas of their brain controlling executive function are not fully developed yet. You can't place that blame on minors. That starts at the home and, as others in here have stated, that's one of the areas that needs to be rectified.

Have you read SB2 and HB3? As 10andBounce said earlier, it's one thing to support vouchers at a macro level, but these bills are not "it".

What doesn't make sense if you incentivize not going to your local public school through 12 th grade by handing out vouchers

Parents will find away to pull their kids out of school have them get an online GED and start working at 17 instead of 19
Maybe it takes the help of the local pastor to establish a " school " so voucher money can flow to the "school" but places like Navasota where the kids aren't generally going to college pretty sure some parents would take that option

aggiegolfer2012 said:

---

sam callahan said:

---

Proponents are pushing for a system that will proliferate choices, drive competition, and reward results. Things that will definitely improve education.

Your 84% figure is some biased projection, not a dynamic predictor of reality.

---

We have choice right now.

The question is whether you want the government more involved in the education market, or less.

---

Private schools are not required to take vouchers.

The government involvement isn't an absolute requirement of giving more people freedom. That's mostly a roadblock thrown up by people who hate vouchers.

Let the market handle most of that, too.

This is just another argument that sucks us down the lowest common denominator vortex.

A couple of points since the last thread on this:

- I've watched all of the senate and house ed committee testimony and it's both fascinating and frustrating. Notice who is testifying for the legislation and who is testifying against the legislation. Hint, a majority of those testifying "for" the bills are the catholic school systems that will eventually benefit from more funding. If the impetus of this effort was to "allow" parents to "escape" poorly performing schools, I have yet to see one of them testify to this case. The people this is being tackled for are not speaking out in support. Crickets. That speaks volumes.

- When comparing to other state voucher programs: You need to compare apples to apples, which is difficult and takes a lot of time and research. Texas funds public education differently than Florida or Arizona or Ohio etc. So these bills would impact public schools different in Texas than in say Florida. Apples to Oranges in impact to the remaining 5 million public education students in Texas.

- I watch the Sunday news shows, Meet the Press, This Week etc. Mainly for the panel discussions at the end. The voucher / governor commercials are becoming nauseating. Referencing freedom and making claims without the nuance needed for discourse. These commercials end with "Paid for by David McCintosh with the Club for Growth". Washington DC. This isn't a Texas effort. This obviously isn't a Texas Republican priority. This is a national driven effort being forced on Texas (and funded) and a willing partner in the Governor. Club for Growth (501c4) largest contributor is Jeff Yass. He's the billionaire in Pennsylvania that gave Governor Abbott the largest campaign contribution in Texas history.....for the voucher efforts. This is all separate from the specifics of the bills or education in Texas but just context to the "why" and "how" and "by whom" the efforts are being made.

- Lastly, since this really started in the last session, I cannot find a politician that can state an accurate "mission" of this voucher effort. Why are we doing this? And what problem are we trying to fix? None will reference a constituent that's an example of this "problem" and will be relieved by these bills. If they state the superficial "problems" echoed in social media, none will talk about how the state plans to tackle these "problems" to the benefit of the 5 million public education students that will remain in Texas schools. It's always ill-defined and nothing beyond a sound byte. This is probably true of state politics in many other issues also.

I just think the politicians have lost site of whatever they thought the original goal was. Through the multi-legislative-session of "sausage making", what comes out the end will not be easily tied to the original goal and intent. It may pass, but it won't solve any of the "problems" they started talking about but rather will allow the Governor to claim a political victory which will be a good resume bullet.

Also, at this point in the debate....at least on Texags....I doubt any amount of education or supporting information will change anyone's mind on support / non-support of whatever voucher bills advance. It's been beaten so hard both on Texags and in general, that positions are firm. Just guessing here.

sam callahan said:

---

My opinion is that a one size fits all system becomes a race to the lowest common denominator. That freedom and choice drive innovation. That we have more tools and resources available than ever before and we are stuck in an old model. That instead of designing a system on poor expectations, we should throw off the chains and shoot for spectacular. That we shouldn't fear excellence. Let the high achievers pull everyone up instead of letting the worst case examples pull everyone down.

---

Below is what I wrote earlier and I was told it's not a reasonable option

Quote:

---

I'm a 20+ year public educator who is pro-school vouchers as long as we start allowing public schools to operate similarly to charter and private schools.

If we don't want to, we don't offer special education services. If we want to, we can kick out any kid. If we don't want to, we don't use standardized tests. If we're going to allow some parents to decide if they are happy with their educational choices without state interference, all parents should have that choice. Public schools choose what they teach, not the state.

---

I'm not defending the proposed bills. I'm advocating for the general concept. One that is in use in over half the states.

If the current bills are trash - and they may be - that's on the screwed up Texas Legislature. There are plenty of other examples out there to follow.

m-walker said:

---

As far as my little to none research, just assumptions…

Main argument is that they will go to families who don't need it. Why spend more money giving vouchers to people are already go to private school?

Because you have to be accepted to private schools, minorities can still face discrimination. They won't be able to use the vouchers if they can't get into the school in the first place.

---

Here's someone who doesn't see the discrimination of public schools where black kids are forced to go to terrible schools with little funding and terrible sports programs with bad coaches.

But rich kids go to schools with lots of funding with 100 million football stadiums and 30 million theater buildings and great teachers and robotics programs and top ranked marching bands who travel on tourist style busses.

This is a chance to break the cycle and get poor kids into good schools funded by taxes.

t_J_e_C_x said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

t_J_e_C_x said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Quote:

---

The last time leftists controlled Texas was 1976. You can't blame leftist policies for how Texas education has ended up.

---

Wrong! Texas is not autonomous! Federal law controls major policy/practice at public schools. Schools also get about 15% of total funding from the Feds which means they must comply or lose funding.

Here are some of those laws, which have been broadly interpreted to ruin public schools:

ESSA (2015): Sets requirements for standardized testing in reading and math (grades 3-8 and once in high school), mandates accountability plans, and tracks subgroup performance (e.g., racial minorities, English learners). States design the specifics, but federal approval is needed.

IDEA (1975, reauthorized 2004): Guarantees free appropriate public education for students with disabilities, dictating policies like individualized education programs (IEPs). States must comply or lose federal special-ed funds.

Civil Rights Laws: Title VI (1964 Civil Rights Act) bans racial discrimination, Title IX (1972) ensures gender equity, and Section 504 (1973 Rehabilitation Act) protects students with disabilities. These override local policies when violations occur, enforced via federal lawsuits or funding cuts.

NCLB (2002-2015): Before ESSA, it imposed stricter testing and "adequate yearly progress" goals. Its legacy lingers in accountability frameworks.


Title IX also controls:

Mandates Equal Opportunity:
Schools must ensure that students of all genders (originally focused on male/female, now interpreted more broadly) have equal access to educational programs, including academics, extracurriculars, and athletics. For example, if a school offers boys' football, it must provide comparable opportunities for girlslike volleyball or soccermeasured by funding, facilities, and participation rates. This doesn't mean identical programs, but equitable ones.

Sexual Harassment and Assault:
Title IX requires schools to address sex-based discrimination, which courts have interpreted to include sexual harassment, assault, and gender-based violence. Schools must have policies to investigate and resolve complaints (e.g., a Title IX coordinator), or they risk federal penalties. A landmark 1999 Supreme Court case, Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, held schools liable if they're "deliberately indifferent" to known harassment.

Gender Identity and Transgender Rights:
As of March 31, 2025, Title IX's scope includes protections for transgender students, following the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (extending sex discrimination to gender identity under Title VII, influencing Title IX interpretations). The Biden administration's 2021 rules explicitly protect transgender students' access to bathrooms, sports, and pronouns consistent with their gender identity. Schools defying thislike some in red statesface legal battles or funding threats, though enforcement varies with political winds.

Enforcement Mechanism:
The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) oversees Title IX compliance. If a school violates it (e.g., mishandling a harassment case), OCR can investigate, negotiate fixes, orrarelycut federal funds. In practice, lawsuits from students or advocacy groups often drive enforcement, as with the 2023 settlements forcing schools to improve sexual assault policies.

Quote:

---

That being said, a Republican president signed the No Child Left Behind Bill into law.

---

W was not a conservative by any measure. He doubled the national debt, passed NCLB (co authored by Ted Kennedy) and passed Medicare D. He would have signed amnesty for illegals had they passed it. W was solid left of center!

Quote:

---

What Texas education needs are drastically smaller class sizes, more individualized supports towards interventions for students, and more individualized supports to help better meet SPED students where they are at. Doing away with STAAR, mandating more outside time in younger grades, and less screen time.

---

None of what you suggested - a bunch of leftist pap - would help.

Quote:

---

This all coming from an educator whose worked in Texas education since 2017.

---

Not surprised.

---

I appreciate you taking the time to refute my post, but I don't think you or I will see eye to eye on this. A posts a few up, you advocates for placing, what I think I gleamed from your post so feel free to correct me, under performing students (minors by the way) into a, what you described, sort of "detention center" until they turn 18.

Always support ones ability to share their beliefs and opinions, but I just agree to disagree when it comes to our differences in how we'd go about fixing public education.

---

Ok, call it a Joy Center. I don't care. It's a safe place for them to hang out during the day while waiting to become an adult. They've learned the basics at that point and there is no need for additional traditional school. They don't show aptitude or motivation to go to vo-tech, so they get to hang at the Joy Center.

You can't post a single realistic workable solution for the 25% of kids who don't give two ****s about school and never will. Those kids are a drain on the system and a HUGE barrier to other kids getting educated.

---

Those are children, the areas of their brain controlling executive function are not fully developed yet. You can't place that blame on minors. That starts at the home and, as others in here have stated, that's one of the areas that needs to be rectified.

---

Fact is, some kids are dumb and some don't care. No amount of brain growth will change that.

Regardless of fault, keeping them in public school is expensive baby sitting. They can be baby sat much cheaper at the Joy Center.

If parental involvement is the solution, why haven't you rectified it yet? You've had decades! Parents not being involved/caring is not going to be "rectified". It never has and never will. That sounds like a Ms America type answer "I want to implement world peace".

Look, we've tried your way for half a century. It's been a massive failure! Let's try a different approach.

Did I say it wasn't a reasonable option?

For sure public schools should have greater autonomy in how they run their schools. The money saved could do some great things for SPED kids and the locals can find that balance and police school policy.

I think the only unreasonable thing about it is expecting it to happen. It's best chance of happening is the pressure put on public schools for real reform by vouchers.

But the bottom line is government run has inherent flaws that it will always suffer from.

Sq 17 said:

---

What doesn't make sense if you incentivize not going to your local public school through 12 th grade by handing out vouchers

Parents will find away to pull their kids out of school have them get an online GED and start working at 17 instead of 19
Maybe it takes the help of the local pastor to establish a " school " so voucher money can flow to the "school" but places like Navasota where the kids aren't generally going to college pretty sure some parents would take that option

---

Parents can already do that if that's what they want to do? I don't see how these bills would prevent or encourage that decision.

Isn't federal Title 1 funding part of that balance? If a certain % of the student body is eco dis, they qualify for more funding, teacher support, structures etc to help close that resource gap with other schools? I know teaching in a Title 1 school in a lot of districts is also paid higher than the more wealthy campuses. At least in metro districts that have both.

sam callahan said:

---

The government involvement isn't an absolute requirement of giving more people freedom. That's mostly a roadblock thrown up by people who hate vouchers.

Let the market handle most of that, too.

This is just another argument that sucks us down the lowest common denominator vortex.

---

It is if they want to be fiscally responsible. They shouldn't be giving out money without oversight.

What needs to happen is property tax reform. Don't take it in the first place.

sam callahan said:

---

Did I say it wasn't a reasonable option?

For sure public schools should have greater autonomy in how they run their schools. The money saved could do some great things for SPED kids and the locals can find that balance and police school policy.

I think the only unreasonable thing about it is expecting it to happen. It's best chance of happening is the pressure put on public schools for real reform by vouchers.

But the bottom line is government run has inherent flaws that it will always suffer from.

---

These bills don't reform public schools. It requires them to operate the exact same way they have been with less money. The governor doesn't seem to care about actually working to improve the system. He just wants to wash his hands of it.

We don't have to burn down the system to improve it.

Many districts already have those programs for alternative education and graduation. For working students or pregnant etc.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

sam callahan said:

---

My opinion is that a one size fits all system becomes a race to the lowest common denominator. That freedom and choice drive innovation. That we have more tools and resources available than ever before and we are stuck in an old model. That instead of designing a system on poor expectations, we should throw off the chains and shoot for spectacular. That we shouldn't fear excellence. Let the high achievers pull everyone up instead of letting the worst case examples pull everyone down.

---

Below is what I wrote earlier and I was told it's not a reasonable option

Quote:

---

I'm a 20+ year public educator who is pro-school vouchers as long as we start allowing public schools to operate similarly to charter and private schools.

If we don't want to, we don't offer special education services. If we want to, we can kick out any kid. If we don't want to, we don't use standardized tests. If we're going to allow some parents to decide if they are happy with their educational choices without state interference, all parents should have that choice. Public schools choose what they teach, not the state.

---

---

It's not a reasonable opinion. State education exists as a backstop specifically for those people to have a chance. However, none of the teachers seem to want to teach hard kids; they want the easy ones with parents who care, which is why vouchers are a big deal.

There's also a reason teachers in this thread don't tout educational outcomes of the children (reading/writing levels, etc.). The system is bad but it pays well and staffs a lot of people. It's a jobs program where the cogs point the finger for outcomes and have few successes along the way to tell us about.

The system sucks and people shouldn't be stuck paying for a terrible system, from a state or local level, if their kids aren't in it. Whatever people think public education is, that's a thing of the past.

oldag941 said:

---

A couple of points since the last thread on this:

- I've watched all of the senate and house ed committee testimony and it's both fascinating and frustrating. Notice who is testifying for the legislation and who is testifying against the legislation. Hint, a majority of those testifying "for" the bills are the catholic school systems that will eventually benefit from more funding. If the impetus of this effort was to "allow" parents to "escape" poorly performing schools, I have yet to see one of them testify to this case. The people this is being tackled for are not speaking out in support. Crickets. That speaks volumes.

- When comparing to other state voucher programs: You need to compare apples to apples, which is difficult and takes a lot of time and research. Texas funds public education differently than Florida or Arizona or Ohio etc. So these bills would impact public schools different in Texas than in say Florida. Apples to Oranges in impact to the remaining 5 million public education students in Texas.

- I watch the Sunday news shows, Meet the Press, This Week etc. Mainly for the panel discussions at the end. The voucher / governor commercials are becoming nauseating. Referencing freedom and making claims without the nuance needed for discourse. These commercials end with "Paid for by David McCintosh with the Club for Growth". Washington DC. This isn't a Texas effort. This obviously isn't a Texas Republican priority. This is a national driven effort being forced on Texas (and funded) and a willing partner in the Governor. Club for Growth (501c4) largest contributor is Jeff Yass. He's the billionaire in Pennsylvania that gave Governor Abbott the largest campaign contribution in Texas history.....for the voucher efforts. This is all separate from the specifics of the bills or education in Texas but just context to the "why" and "how" and "by whom" the efforts are being made.

- Lastly, since this really started in the last session, I cannot find a politician that can state an accurate "mission" of this voucher effort. Why are we doing this? And what problem are we trying to fix? None will reference a constituent that's an example of this "problem" and will be relieved by these bills. If they state the superficial "problems" echoed in social media, none will talk about how the state plans to tackle these "problems" to the benefit of the 5 million public education students that will remain in Texas schools. It's always ill-defined and nothing beyond a sound byte. This is probably true of state politics in many other issues also.

I just think the politicians have lost site of whatever they thought the original goal was. Through the multi-legislative-session of "sausage making", what comes out the end will not be easily tied to the original goal and intent. It may pass, but it won't solve any of the "problems" they started talking about but rather will allow the Governor to claim a political victory which will be a good resume bullet.

---

I'm jealous I didn't write this. *chef's kiss*

The bills, as I remember discussion, would create more staff at TEA to administer the program and also more at the Comptrollers Office to administrate the funding. Not sure how much of this is "oversight" but a % of the voucher goes to admin costs at the state level.

sam callahan said:

---

I'm not defending the proposed bills. I'm advocating for the general concept. One that is in use in over half the states.

If the current bills are trash - and they may be - that's on the screwed up Texas Legislature. There are plenty of other examples out there to follow.

---

Ok, but these are what is before the legislature NOW, tomorrow in fact, and they ARE trash. So rather than making this thread a high-level, generalized debate, please pick up the phone, call your rep, and ask them to vote "No".

sam callahan said:

---

Did I say it wasn't a reasonable option?

For sure public schools should have greater autonomy in how they run their schools. The money saved could do some great things for SPED kids and the locals can find that balance and police school policy.

I think the only unreasonable thing about it is expecting it to happen. It's best chance of happening is the pressure put on public schools for real reform by vouchers.

But the bottom line is government run has inherent flaws that it will always suffer from.

---

Not seeing how 1-2% of the school-aged population (of which MUCH LESS is projected to be public school students leaving for a voucher) is going to put enough pressure on the public schools to cause any significant change.

oldag941 said:

---

The bills, as I remember discussion, would create more staff at TEA to administer the program and also more at the Comptrollers Office to administrate the funding. Not sure how much of this is "oversight" but a % of the voucher goes to admin costs at the state level.

---

Yes you're right. These bills create more bureaucracy and spending.

Dark_Knight said:

---

I just thought it was going to allow students to do private, switch districts, or better able to home school. Like the money would move with you depending on your choice. I'm not sure why that's a hard concept to put to a bill. If my student isn't going to public school, then my school tax should come back to me. They wouldn't be a burden to the district, so there's really no money lost.

---

Yeah but how much money and who is gonna insure you are actually teaching the kid anything and not.just pocketing the money and creating an even bigger burden on society.

Pass a school choice bill patterned after one of the existing ones in use and watch the market thrive.

You'll see the blossoming alternative education options on steroids.

Schools like Thayer in NC, more homeschooling based opportunities, coops…plenty of things I can't predict because that's the beauty of an open market as opposed to a centrally planned system.

Will some kids get a GED equivalent at 17 and go straight into the workforce. Damn I hope so. And I hope they are rewarded for it.

Will bad parenting get kids on a rough path to start. Sadly yes. Sadly that happens now. More choice has a better chance of saving some of these kids than locking them into massively failing schools.

AGC said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

sam callahan said:

---

My opinion is that a one size fits all system becomes a race to the lowest common denominator. That freedom and choice drive innovation. That we have more tools and resources available than ever before and we are stuck in an old model. That instead of designing a system on poor expectations, we should throw off the chains and shoot for spectacular. That we shouldn't fear excellence. Let the high achievers pull everyone up instead of letting the worst case examples pull everyone down.

---

Below is what I wrote earlier and I was told it's not a reasonable option

Quote:

---

I'm a 20+ year public educator who is pro-school vouchers as long as we start allowing public schools to operate similarly to charter and private schools.

If we don't want to, we don't offer special education services. If we want to, we can kick out any kid. If we don't want to, we don't use standardized tests. If we're going to allow some parents to decide if they are happy with their educational choices without state interference, all parents should have that choice. Public schools choose what they teach, not the state.

---

---

It's not a reasonable opinion. State education exists as a backstop specifically for those people to have a chance. However, none of the teachers seem to want to teach hard kids; they want the easy ones with parents who care, which is why vouchers are a big deal.

There's also a reason teachers in this thread don't tout educational outcomes of the children (reading/writing levels, etc.). The system is bad but it pays well and staffs a lot of people. It's a jobs program where the cogs point the finger for outcomes and have few successes along the way to tell us about.

The system sucks and people shouldn't be stuck paying for a terrible system, from a state or local level, if their kids aren't in it. Whatever people think public education is, that's a thing of the past.

---

So you agree that this bill doesn't reform education and keeps public schools playing by the state's rules that have led to the current state of public ed? Why not let the local community run them?