Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

landodk t1_jacoa5l wrote

Reply to comment by Simple-Acanthaceae-4 in School choice bills aim to deny private schools public money by casewood123

Some towns don’t have a local public school

12

Simple-Acanthaceae-4 t1_jacpxj9 wrote

This is exactly what I mean about under funding the public schools. Trying to pick a private school to fund instead just seems like asking for trouble. Private schools can teach anything they want (on top of basic curriculum). I think we should add a little on to the income tax (which is progressive meaning charges people with more money more) so that we can fund our schools better. There are probably obstacles that I am not aware of in the regions w/o HSs, but I am willing to spend a lot of money to make sure that public money does not support religious indoctrination. The separation defined in the constitution is critical to our democracy!

31

Kixeliz t1_jacr1x0 wrote

Isn't it weird how when it comes to things like broadband, the state is working to bring that service to underserved areas, but with schools its "well, there's no public school here so we have no choice but to use the private school available"? It stops being weird when you realize for decades now, the pro-business folks have been trying to undermine public education and prop up private schools. They get elected to the school board and purposely underfund the budget (looking at you Barre). Then they cry foul when there is any attempt to get funds back into public schools. They get to undermine public education then point to how ineffective public education is and how private schools are better. All part of the Republican play book where they actively make government worse so they can then tout the benefits of small government.

21

HeadPen5724 t1_jaexr91 wrote

Funding for broad band is a one off. Building, staffing, and maintaining a school in Bloomfield for 5 kids is a reoccurring expense.

7

fizban7 t1_jaedbni wrote

I think its because the funding for broadband comes from the federal government, but the school budget is all state. funding gets complicated though.

1

Ok_Birthday749 t1_jacuc2y wrote

The problem is nobody wants to pay more in taxes. Using property taxes to fund education is part of how we ended up in this mess to begin with. Do you really think a Republican Governor, even a moderate one like Phil Scott is going to allow for an income tax increase to fund public education? We are in a real pickle that can only be solved by a complete overhaul, like so many other social issues in our country.

9

landodk t1_jacradl wrote

I think it’s better to have a maximum per student rate and then standards that receiving schools should be held to. This crap with MVC is ridiculous, but Burr and Burton has never had those issues.

Obviously Manchester made the choice to go that way, but look at a town like Ludlow or Grafton. If their local tax base does not support a full high school, they get grouped into another district, but there are 3 high schools close and depending on where in the town you live changes drive time significantly.

Certainly there is an argument for increased taxes in general, but especially in south central VT there isn’t the population density to support local schools.

In fact with the need for alternative schools in general, I think we should be supporting this, but again, with high standards.

7

Real-Pierre-Delecto2 t1_jacsvka wrote

There is a max rate already in place. I could be wrong but I think it's set by the individual district not the state but that could be backwards?. If a private or independent school charges more than that the parents have to pay the difference. Many also charge much less btw.

5

HappilyhiketheHump t1_jad6tw0 wrote

Curious to know what metric you are using to assert that Vermont is underfunded Pre-K-12 education.

5

TheTowerBard t1_jae9s92 wrote

Yeah, that’s the issue. So let’s build one, fund it, and pay teachers a generous wage so we make sure to attract great minds into the profession. And yes, we have the funding.

1

landodk t1_jaeahxl wrote

But if the town only has 40 kids at high school age, is that serving them well. One teacher for each subject, only online electives?

3

HeadPen5724 t1_jaey69z wrote

The education budget alone currently is over $2.5B. The entirety of revenue generated in the state is ~3.5-4B. Thinking that we have an extra pile of cash kicking around isn’t reality.

2

TheTowerBard t1_jaeyhkj wrote

It’s not an issue of funding, it’s an issue of priorities. We are the wealthiest country in the world. Money isn’t the problem here.

1

HeadPen5724 t1_jaf08u9 wrote

This is a state issue and Vermont is broke.

2

TheTowerBard t1_jaf3a0p wrote

Nope. We are failing our kids. It’s shameful. Lack of funding in the richest nation in the world isn’t an actual issue. We’ve got the money. It’s not just a Vermont issue either, we aren’t alone in this.

3

HeadPen5724 t1_jaf3whm wrote

Educating VT students is a state issue and yes funding in VT is a problem. I’d suggest checking out the revenue in VT, GDP, total income, and cost of education and health care. You’ll find out really quick how far off base you are hear. Or you can just repeat how we are the wealthiest nation in the world and that somehow magically means something to education in VT.

1