• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

NC Open Enrollment School Bill

Deacon923 said:
I would happily pay higher property taxes if Guilford County will invest them in the schools, especially the schools in the poorer areas. I got a NC tax cut this year that I didn't ask for, I would happily pay higher NC states taxes especially if they will devote that money to the schools. Not trying to #humblebrag but when you are a person making decent money advocating for more money spent on schools is tantamount to holding up your hand and volunteering to pay more money.

Your next argument, I suppose, will be that I should voluntarily go over to Irving Park Elementary and fork over some cash if that's the way I feel. I could, but buying a few notebooks or even a few computers isn't going to make much difference in the long run. Pooling my money with every other property owner in Greensboro will make a difference, so I advocate for that to be done. In the meantime, I give (generously) to my own daughter's school. I do that not to make her experience better, because we already make sure she has everything she needs and more. My giving helps some parents in her classroom can't afford to buy their own kids notebooks and pencils and so forth.

Basically, your argument is a giant cop out and an attempt to avoid addressing anything in this thread on the merits. You're trying to duck the policy argument with this red herring that no one has the right to express an opinion on anything until they first - what? Give all their money and assets to try to address the problem first? And then and only then are they allowed to express an opinion? Ridiculous and not worthy of any more of my time.
Click to expand...

The higher NC state taxes you would "happily pay" is far more likely to go where you would like it to go (devoted to the schools) if you take it yourself to the schools and fork it over for the needs you think the schools have. If you raise everyone else's taxes the proceeds will probably go where some greedy politician will get the most bangs for your buck. This is most especially true if you actually work hard and have sizable assets to dispense. Your contribution alone could make a big difference to somebody's class. Advocating that someone else be forced to pay for what you think ought to be funded is pure and simple greedy brutality. Don't confuse that with "volunteering to pay more money". People should of course be allowed to express their opinions. They just should not be allowed to force me to suffer because of their opinions.
 
tjcmd said:
The higher NC state taxes you would "happily pay" is far more likely to go where you would like it to go (devoted to the schools) if you take it yourself to the schools and fork it over for the needs you think the schools have. If you raise everyone else's taxes the proceeds will probably go where some greedy politician will get the most bangs for your buck. This is most especially true if you actually work hard and have sizable assets to dispense. Your contribution alone could make a big difference to somebody's class. Advocating that someone else be forced to pay for what you think ought to be funded is pure and simple greedy brutality. Don't confuse that with "volunteering to pay more money". People should of course be allowed to express their opinions. They just should not be allowed to force me to suffer because of their opinions.
Click to expand...

Bundy?
 
tjcmd said:
The higher NC state taxes you would "happily pay" is far more likely to go where you would like it to go (devoted to the schools) if you take it yourself to the schools and fork it over for the needs you think the schools have. If you raise everyone else's taxes the proceeds will probably go where some greedy politician will get the most bangs for your buck. This is most especially true if you actually work hard and have sizable assets to dispense. Your contribution alone could make a big difference to somebody's class. Advocating that someone else be forced to pay for what you think ought to be funded is pure and simple greedy brutality. Don't confuse that with "volunteering to pay more money". People should of course be allowed to express their opinions. They just should not be allowed to force me to suffer because of their opinions.
Click to expand...

So instead of "no taxation without representation," you prefer that representatives can't tax you at all.

Do you think education is important?
 
Why are you arguing with tjcmd? The guy is a fuckwit who actually got banned from the scout boards (a haven for the psychopathic right) for being such a douche.

Anybody who continuously rants and raves about "copious copulators" is really not someone worth involving in a discussion.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
To your first paragraph, if your solution is to keep the status quo and let individual Counties or Cities like you have mentioned handle their business, then I am fine with that. But then don't complain when some Counties or Cities shit the bed or don't do anything at all, and don't complain that not enough is being done at a higher level.

To your second paragraph, and the question specifically raised in the last sentence, my answer would be no. If you are starting from the current reality, those "left behind" are already left behind under the current system. If you are using a linear scale, they are already at zero and their number isn't changing. Now some of them that get out and can take advantage of school choice become net positives, but the new policy isn't creating a negative by leaving somebody where they already are. Is it even remotely close to a good overall solution, absolutely not. But only real margin is the kids from worse schools going to better schools, which is a gain. You wouldn't have kids going to worse schools than those they already go to, so there is minimal downside.
Click to expand...

We don't disagree much on the first paragraph I suspect. The thing you have to recognize (at least in NC) is that the state, not the cities and counties, is principally responsible for public education. Cities and counties are only supposed to have responsibility for supplementing the state's responsibility. It's right there in the state constitution:

(1) General and uniform system: term. The General Assembly shall provide by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of free public schools, which shall be maintained at least nine months in every year, and wherein equal opportunities shall be provided for all students.
(2) Local responsibility. The General Assembly may assign to units of local government such responsibility for the financial support of the free public schools as it may deem appropriate. The governing boards of units of local government with financial responsibility for public education may use local revenues to add to or supplement any public school or post-secondary school program.
Click to expand...

So, as a citizen of North Carolina, I think I certainly can object when my elected representatives in Raleigh are not living up to their responsibilities. They have cut funding to the point that many localities are not just "supplementing" - they're funding the basics, and the state as a whole is falling behind because the cities and counties can't afford it.

As to the second, I see what you are saying - and I didn't say there was no net positive, I said it impacted the degree of net positive. Consider, however, that the "kids left behind" in the crappy schools under these plans are not just going to stay the same. They're likely going to get an even worse chance at life than they would in the first place. Studies are crystal clear that poor children in a school with a mix of socioeconomic children do better than poor children in a school that is almost entirely poor.

The whole thing is also penny-wise and pound-foolish. Children in bad, poor schools have a much greater chance of teenage pregnancy, criminal activity, unemployment, and incarceration. By shorting the schools to save money, you guarantee that you'll spend multiples of the savings on social welfare and criminal justice later on, mainly in incarceration costs.
 
I was banned from TOB for calling rj "the tapeworm of hate" and suggesting that he crawled out of a sick moose's hole after he repeatedly insulted me. The "copious copulator" is the famous Orlando Shaw

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/06/08/tenn-taxpayers-support-dads-22-kids-from-14-moms-75509

who at last count had dumped 22 children by 14 babymamas onto the social safety net. Perhaps people would prefer to make their own decisions about with whom they argue rather than accepting the character judgements of turdfucker DeaconSmegma.
 
Anybody who considers any form of taxation to be "brutalizing" families is a fucking idiot and not worthy of any real discussion
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Anybody who considers any form of taxation to be "brutalizing" families is a fucking idiot and not worthy of any real discussion
Click to expand...

Did you really mean "any form of taxation" or "all forms of taxation"? I don't consider all forms of taxation to be brutal and if you don't consider any form of taxation to be brutal then you might be the fucking idiot.
 
tjcmd said:
I was banned from TOB for calling rj "the tapeworm of hate" and suggesting that he crawled out of a sick moose's hole after he repeatedly insulted me. The "copious copulator" is the famous Orlando Shaw

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/06/08/tenn-taxpayers-support-dads-22-kids-from-14-moms-75509

who at last count had dumped 22 children by 14 babymamas onto the social safety net. Perhaps people would prefer to make their own decisions about with whom they argue rather than accepting the character judgements of turdfucker DeaconSmegma.
Click to expand...

Well, I have certainly been put in my place. DeaconSmegma, whatever will I do to overcome such a slight?

You are an idiot. Go to packpride- you'll fit right in.
 
DeaconSig said:
Well, I have certainly been put in my place. DeaconSmegma, whatever will I do to overcome such a slight?

You are an idiot. Go to packpride- you'll fit right in.
Click to expand...

Why don't you try treating other people with respect? I know they will almost always return the favor. Why do you think it is your place to jump into a conversation with epithets for people who have not addressed you? When you do that people will think you are an asshole.
 
Deacon923 said:
We don't disagree much on the first paragraph I suspect. The thing you have to recognize (at least in NC) is that the state, not the cities and counties, is principally responsible for public education. Cities and counties are only supposed to have responsibility for supplementing the state's responsibility. It's right there in the state constitution:



So, as a citizen of North Carolina, I think I certainly can object when my elected representatives in Raleigh are not living up to their responsibilities. They have cut funding to the point that many localities are not just "supplementing" - they're funding the basics, and the state as a whole is falling behind because the cities and counties can't afford it.

As to the second, I see what you are saying - and I didn't say there was no net positive, I said it impacted the degree of net positive. Consider, however, that the "kids left behind" in the crappy schools under these plans are not just going to stay the same. They're likely going to get an even worse chance at life than they would in the first place. Studies are crystal clear that poor children in a school with a mix of socioeconomic children do better than poor children in a school that is almost entirely poor.

The whole thing is also penny-wise and pound-foolish. Children in bad, poor schools have a much greater chance of teenage pregnancy, criminal activity, unemployment, and incarceration. By shorting the schools to save money, you guarantee that you'll spend multiples of the savings on social welfare and criminal justice later on, mainly in incarceration costs.
Click to expand...

On the first subject, I think there is a difference between funding and action. If you want to complain about NC state funding on education, go right ahead, I'm right there with you. But like Ph alluded to earlier, simply throwing money at it doesn't solve anything without actual action. The action example you gave was about a County firing the principal and making wholesale changes. That may be a great idea for that County with that principal, but that isn't something that can be done at the state level as an overall reform strategy. The state legislature doesn't have the appropriate knowledge of each situation to simply mandate that every school fire its principal. I guess they have the authority to do it, but that wouldn't seem like a good idea across the board. When it comes down to taking corrective action, those types of decisions IMO have to be made at the local level if you want worthwhile results. There is only so much policy that can be made at the state level that works well for everyone. I agree with you that the legislature should give more funding to education to let the Counties make good decisions, but in some sense that is what this proposed bill is doing. It is funneling the dollars attached to each student to those schools that are apparently making the right decisions. I think we both agree that an increase in dollars is needed, and not just a reallocation of existing dollars, but the more I think about this proposal the more I think it pushes things in the right direction without much downside.

On the second point about the socioeconomic mix, I still don't see this bill creating a massive socioeconomic disparity. If you are talking about a crappy school, the rich kids already aren't going there. They either don't live in that district or they already go to private school if the public school blows. So you're talking about middle and lower class kids with the opportunity to move to another school, and all you need to make the move is a car, which most middle and lower class families do have (recoginze that we're not talking about the old and invalid like RJ brings up when discussing voter ID). When I was in high school with my dad's work schedule, he would drop me off 90 minutes before school started and pick me up at 6:30 at night so that I could go to a better school than where I was slotted to go. I think a parent who sees the value of education is going to do what they can to get that for their kids, even if it means adjusting the kid's schedule. But some parents aren't going to care either way, and I think that impacts the kid more than the socioeconomic mix at their school going from middle/lower to less middle more lower. I don't know what the percentage of NC families is that have school aged kids but don't have a car and who would also otherwise be inclined move their child's school, but it would surprise me if it was anything significant enough to where the negative ramifications from lack of socioeconomic mix at the schools of those kids outweigh the benefit of an actual better education to those that are able to move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top