Private schools should not be funded by public funds.

But that's also based on a false premise. Many private schools are better because they draw from higher income families that place a big influence on education. And it ignores the often constitutional barriers to entry from those schools existing on a broad scale. See the archdiocese

I agree with both what you and Crest said. But it still does start in the home. However, I wouldn't just say it's due to broken homes. It stems from the lack of discipline and consequences kids face. Millennial parents let their kids be precious little angels that do not face consequences. That has bled into the schools, and schools are no longer allowed to discipline kids. Sure, they can reprimand them or "write them up", but ultimately, there are no consequences. And the kids know this. And that pertains to behavioral issues as well as academic. Kids don't have to do shit with homework or attempt to pass classes, yet they will still move on to the next grade.

Ultimately, education fails because we let it fail due to not wanting to make tough decisions and actually challenge kids. Whether it's fear of lawsuits from unions or parents or whomever, schools are hamstrung in that regard. But no one wants to admit that is the problem. They just say we need more money.

Ever!

But I'm firmly in the freedom from religion crowd, and although I'm a private school kid myself, $30k is ridiculous for grammar and high school. And college.

And lower tuition is only possible with extremely generous benefactors...like the Rockefellers

Except when you all want to go to private colleges and need federal loan money.

C'mon, let's try and avoid silly platitudes.

Where did you ever read me posting that? Avoid the incorrect presumptions please.

But even as a private HBCU grad, I feel that way

Where did you ever read me posting that? Avoid the incorrect presumptions please.

But even as a private HBCU grad, I feel that way

So public money is OK for your private school, but not EVER for others?

Which is why I'm confused by your response.

What's to be confused about? I have problems with federal money going to private schools of any stripe, and absent places like the U of C that regularly subsidize tuition based on need or family relationship, private schools' tuition is ridiculous

Loans.

Millions of dollars a year go to loans for private colleges and universities.

MANY don't take that into consideration when they state that public money should never go to private education.

So, in conclusion, when public funds go to providing you with a private education, then it's different.

But Brick and others (yourself included) have correctly brought that up for years. And I agree.

But that's also based on a false premise. Many private schools are better because they draw from higher income families that place a big influence on education. And it ignores the often constitutional barriers to entry from those schools existing on a broad scale. See the archdiocese

Someone earlier in the thread made this point and I believe you stated pretty strongly this was inconsequential. That it was in fact going to be early childhood education / pre schooling that was to be the fix for the problems facing poor education results. I am not trying to play gotcha but are you admitting there are circumstances where children are doing poorly in school due to their family dynamics?

Unfortunately you misread my posts. I don't dispute the value of the strong family structure. I simply have been asserting that it is in the public interest to provide a quality education starting in early childhood.

Family dynamics are unfortunately a tough hurdle for too many, but the public money spent correctly to provide children options is far better spent here as opposed to the republican alternatives.

Unfortunately you misread my posts. I don't dispute the value of the strong family structure. I simply have been asserting that it is in the public interest to provide a quality education starting in early childhood.

Family dynamics are unfortunately a tough hurdle for too many, but the public money spent correctly to provide children options is far better spent here as opposed to the republican alternatives.

Again, this is not about a political solution. And in order to help the MOST kids going forward then we need to sit down and look at ways to improve family dynamics. And no amount of money can do that.

The larger question is, who would subsidize that level of borrowing on a private scale in order to help others pay for college?

And we all know the answer is no one. So, short of public funds being made available, there would not be any college for MANY.

But that's not the issue. There is an undeniable good in the investments into public not for profit, non religious education to attempt to work around that unfortunate teality.

Especially since we will agree to respectfully disagree about MOST

We are going to have respectfully disagree about what the issue is then.

CPS spends $16K per student and schools are failing left and right.

Most private schools spend less for better outcomes fore the kids.

CPS is already getting more and doing less with it.

I give RR credit for mentioning bureaucratic waste.

think you're trying to create an argument that doesn't exist. Yes the government backs student loans, but like people have said, that is paid back with interest. If there is free money from the public for this, then could you let me know how to get some of that thrown my way when my check to the Dioscese is due next month?

My question now Seacrest is why get hyperbolic and talk about how CPS could get $100k per student and bow nothing would change? It definitely wrongly tinges the discussion.

And why won't you address my issues about privileged graft by CPS contractors?