I live in mn. They are taking some left over taxes from last year to try it out. Its a proven way to help even out the gap between upper and lower class. One point was made how English isn't always a first language for parents and this is a way to help them learn it better before starting kindergarten. Don't see a problem with it.

They're also trying to pass free food for elementary school kids with the money. Or is that "bad" too?

This was a fun debate. Interesting opinions on both sides and everyone played nice.

My debate time is up for the evening but it's been fun and challenging without calling each other names ladies

Till next time!

Here's to happy and educated kids in all states

Schools must only follow federal laws like ADA and IDEA if they receive direct federal funding. Vouchers would be state funded.

If schools were private, well then they could do pretty much whatever they wanted.

Every school has a max capacity whether vouchers or not. Crappy schools would stay open, there'd be preferential treatment for those close by or with siblings already enrolles, lotteries to use your vouchers at the popular ones (just like with school choice now), or worse people bribing their way in, and regardless, if you can't afford to drive your kid two hours each way it doesn't matter. Vouchers would change nothing except add administrative workload.

It's a shame that the ADA doesn't apply to private schools.

Right but by receiving the voucher the school would be receiving public money and not permitted to discriminate

Yes race is one that cannot be discriminated against by anyone. However sexual orientation, handicaps or any number of other issues....perfectly legal.

Also worthwhile to mention that even if a private school receives no public funds racial discrimination remains illegal

Plus schools receiving vouchers would in effect be receiving federal and state funds - discrimination problem solved

Clearly any system moving away from the failing system currently in place would be forced to accommodate and adhere to existing education law with regard to disabilities.

Perhaps their voucher would be larger bc realistically the current system spends more on disabled students than mainstream ones

Sure they can! They just use a different word for it. It's called selective admission and it's perfectly legal and allowed. They are only held to the same standard if they receive *any* government funding.

Also private schools cannot discriminate. That's just not true.

Private institutions performing a traditionally public function (education) are held to the same standards as public entities.

The state doesn't just leave hundreds of public schools to fail. Popularity (private market) determines which stay open bc the tax money gets sent there via the voucher.

The schools that sucks close which is what everyone wants anyway. Who wants to send their kid to a crappy school?

All the tax dollars just don't disappear. They are re-directed according to parent choice

And if you don't pay property taxes which is where education funding comes from, you still get the value of tax money normally spent on your child via the voucher.

Another question about the voucher thing....

What about people with no kids? They don't pay?

What about people who don't drive? Why should they have to pay for road maintenance?

What about people who aren't incarcerated? Why should they have to pay for jails?

What about people who don't go to parks? Why should they have to pay for the lawn to get cut?

$280/mo? I got quoted $500/mo because my child will miss the cutoff for ABC (funded preschool) by 8 DAYS! 8 flipping days. So I either pay their insane price (which would be free if he was born 8 days earlier), pay for private preschool (there are NONE in my area,closest is 30 minute drive one way), or keep him home another year.

I still don't know what I want to do.

It is absolutely legal. Believe me, I checked. I hate time warner cable. And another cable had been trying unsuccessfully to run cable lines in our town but they kept getting blocked by the city council.

I think vouchers are an excellent start and I wholeheartedly support that movement.

Pretty sure that's no longer legal yaya, and regardless, there's always satellite. Although there are plenty of cable companies that have no interest in running lines in small towns because it would take them years to recoup costs, so yes many towns still only have one (or none) lined provider. Sometimes, it's just for fun because they can. My current city has no fewer providers than my last (40 minutes away) but basic cable (like 12 channels) is double with each provider. Regardless the prices are ridiculous and inflated and they all work together to make it so.

I'm not sure if this is common knowledge, but private schools can legally discriminate on the basis of gender, race, economic background, etc. What would happen to special education students, which are a huge part of our school system?

Public Schools must accept everyone and educate them to the fullest extent possible. If we have a blind student, we must provide braille. If they are deaf, we must provide an interpreter, etc. Private schools could legally deny those services or charge crazy amounts for them.

Parents that pay twice now are choosing to do so. If those tax dollars disappear from public school funding then public schools would be even worse off than they are now. The kids attending would suffer which means in the long run; your community suffers and pays the consequences. I really wish there were more big picture thinkers.

So isn't that the same as paying tax? And what about families that don't pay tax?

Lala, the gov controls all that stuff too! We only had one cable service option in our old town because the local gov made a deal with time warner. So we had to pay their crazy prices or cut cable altogether. One town over they had 5 cable companies and they all had lower prices than we were paying.

Lala I'm not sure what you mean

Right now parents who elect not to send their children to public school basically pay twice ... Once thru taxes and then again for tuition

With vouchers everyone gets the value of their tax dollars and can choose which school to support. ineffective schools won't be supported by the private competitive market bc obviously people will choose schools that provide good results

That would make the system no different than now except more paperwork.

Nooooo

The idea of privatizing education does not mean that the poor kids are out or must find scholarships/charity

The idea is that every tax paying family gets a voucher that is worth X amount. And with that they can take it to a school they like, think is good, convenient, offers the type of education that works best for their kid. The voucher serves the place of tax payer funding -- if a state would normally pay on average $Y to educate a kid per year, the voucher is worth that much. They can go to public school, private school, etc.

If the school charges more like a fancy private school then the parents come up with the extra money thru scholarships, charity, savings, etc

The idea is that putting education into the private sector will increase competition and lead to better quality and better targeted results

It's never just, oh well poor kids, you lose.

We've seen how much power consumers have with health insurance ( pre and post aca), cell phone and cable companies. One company adds a bunch of unwanted features and raises the costs and claims it's a better deal, and the rest follow suit. Capitalism is great in theory but isn't working real well for lots of things already. Def not trying to ruin children's chance of education with it.

Oh, let me guess, they are against this but all for taxes funding the Vikings stadium?

I live in MN...we NEED this! In my community, preschool costs $280/month. That is absurd!

Yeah but that gives the power to those with money and takes from those without

But the parents would become the consumers and that's where the power is to create change.

If it was run like a business then money making would be their priority not grades or children . Im in the UK so obviously nothing that happens over there affects me . BUT I hate the thought of some children going without education . Education is a right to all children and I think it should stay that way.

I come from a huge family of teachers. My problem is with the administration and government intervention not with the awesome teachers in the classrooms.

No doubt that some public schools are failing students. But I guarantee that if it was all private, that not only as many private schools would be falling students but some children wouldn't be getting an education at all.

That may be partially true of state universities, but not private. There are lots of reasons for the increase in higher ed including universities competing with businesses for administration. Privatization isn't going to make presidents and vps demand less money and benefits. The other reason is availability of grants and loans, but even if the government removes themselves from loans, banks will just fill in the void. And by your own admission, you advocate for charities helping which would fill the place of grants.

I don't disagree that higher education costs has been artificially inflated by many factors, but I think it's naive to think that removing government from it would help at all.

Depends on where you live. Public Schools are state issues. I'm a teacher in the public school system and work damn hard to do the best I can with what I'm given. When I see the graduates get successful jobs in trades or go on to college, I sure don't feel like I've failed them.

Unfortunately, many things that we cannot control have a huge effect on the kids. Parental involvement is number one.

Waiting for Superman is an excellent documentary that shows how the public school system is failing our children. More government intervention is not the answer to everything.

I agree that government intervention isn't always a good thing, especially because it has driven up the cost of college. But it's important that kids get a good start in life when it comes to education and unfortunately, the government needs to play a role in that to make it feasible. At least for now.

College costs have increased partly due to government subsidies and student loans. But most universities are non-profit. For profit universities care more about their stockholders than the students and typically have terrible graduation rates.

Government has a huge part in the funding and running of universities. It's one of the reasons that it has become so expensive. I want them out of education entirely. Once its run like an actual business with profits and losses the cost will go down for everyone.

Because scholarships have worked so well for higher education? Graduates have more debt than any time in history. Privatization would absolutely equal lack of education for at least a third of the population and lack of QUALITY education for another third.

I doubt there will ever be enough charities to donate and parents who don't work who can run the co-ops, for all education to be privatized. It will never happen as long as any of us are alive and I am glad.

Why would you want all education to be privatised?

Here in NYC we have universal pre-k. It's free full day school for every child regardless of income. The mayor made it so that now even private schools will be offering free pre-k. School should be free for all regardless of income.

They could get scholarships or they could request funds through a charity organization. There would also be more co-ops available. I realize it will never happen, but a girl can dream.

I live in Ireland and the govt here provides 1 year's free half day pre-school to all children from 3 years of age, most kids here start school at 4. Childcare costs here are exorbitantly high so it's a bit of a childcare relief for working parents too. It's called Aistear/ Síolta and is completely play based. Activities are themed, home area might be a shop, story-time would be something like "The Baby Catalogue", physical play station would be constructing shops/ town from blocks, small world play- toy cars on the town mat stopping at the shops to collect the correct items, socio-dramatic play could be role-playing trying on clothes or paying for things. These activities & more are stationed around the room and the kids rotate around them in groups.

If all education was privatized what would happen to kids whose parents can't afford it?

Thanks for clarifying that Kaytrone!

MN here. Twin cities actually.

I think it's a wonderful bill. There's opposition to it due to them funding it through our surplus this year. Gov. Dayton wants to use the majority of our surplus from state taxes (I know not every state has taxes) for pre-k and k through 12 education, as well as freezing tuition for state colleges. The rest divied up amongst other things.

Republicans of the state feel the surplus should be distributed back out to everyone and not be used on any funding level.

I think using it for education is best and most of it will go to that, if they returned it to every individual who paid taxes it only ends up being around $1,000 to at most $2,000 per person.

It is not mandatory and is open to all, low income to upper middle class. There is no increase in individual taxes. I don't agree with privatizing education. It should be open, free, and available to all who want it.

I would love it if it came to MN! My child is very hyperactive. It's her personality. I dread the day she has to sit in a desk.

I just don't see why they can't root out existing waste which is known to exist and fund the program that way. Why is the answer always to just create another tax?

Would we do that with our own personal budgets? An unexpected cost comes up and we just run out and get a second job? No, we evaluate our expenses and see where we can cut waste -- Starbucks, extra cable channels, long showers, extra dinners out, etc.

The same idea should apply to government.

I think all education should be privatized.

I wish we had a program like that in my area! Our pre-k is based on a pay scale and we can't afford it this year so my son will be homeschooled.

Yaya please go to the submissive wives post ???

Yaya, tax money is to benefit society as a whole, not the individual. We all pay taxes that go towards roads, libraries, parks, etc, regardless of whether we use them. Government services can't be cherry picked.

@yaya I see your point but not all parents are able to do that. Middle and low income children have limited access to these types of private programs.

Also, it's like taking the approach of: I don't drive on the freeway so I shouldn't have to pay taxes for highway maintenance. Like infrastructure, preschool benefits society at large - so even those who do not use those programs reap the benefits.

I agree with blazer. It's not about if you would personally use it or not, but if it would beneficial to society. Not all kids have parentz who are involved with their children and/or capable of teaching them properly. Those kids would benefit greatly from preschool.

Ive been a teacher almost ten years and there are kids who come to school when it's not required because they have a bad home life and would rather be at school. Some kids live in bad situations and school is their escape. For many, it also may be their only warm meal.

Studies have also shown that children taught at home are fully integrated by the end of the first year of public school. I would rather be able to keep my money and choose the program that works best for my children than to have them placed into the cookie cutter public school program.

Here in Utah we have a free online preschool option. I plan on using that because we can't afford pre k

People tend to be very short sighted and downright selfish when it comes to these types of programs. Long term research studies have shown that children who attend preschool achieve long term benefits in terms of (higher educational attainment, lower rates of grade repetition, some research has shown to reduce delinquency and crime through adulthood). Obviously these benefits are good for the individual children but there is also a huge benefit to society as a whole.

I would hate it. I'm already pulling my oldest out of public school yet still paying taxes for other kids to go to the school. I don't want to have to pay for other kids preschool too.

Although I can understand not wanting taxes raised, we already have very high taxes

I'm in MN, I haven't heard of that but it sounds fantastic! I really hope they pass that!

The idea against paying higher taxes is generally the belief that the private citizen can do more with their money on the private market and obtain better results than paying government to do it for them.

Its not just related to not wanting to "support lazy people."

We have the same program for our district but they call it TK. Half days 5 days a week and it's optional and it's at the elementary school. I live in CA in the Sacramento river Delta area.

I'm in MN and I don't believe my parents paid for us to go to preschool. They paid for us to go to the after school program I think. We did preschool at our elementary that we went to

I wouldn't be against it, but I also believe that early education in an institutional setting isn't as important as spending the early years at home, developing strong, secure bonds with primary caregivers.

I think it's a great idea! We don't have the universal 4k here. but I am having my son who will be two in July and will start preschool in September. Our church started the program a few years ago it's pretty much play based and they will sing songs and talk about weather. It's good for them to get the interaction with other children. I don't really see why anyone would think its a bad idea.

We pay 1.4% property tax. I don't know what it went up from when they implemented universal preschool.

Rita, so many people are selfish. They'd rather pay twice as much to send their kid than chance any of their money being used for someone else. I'm not saying that's everyone's reason, but I think it applies in a lot of cases. My grandmother would refer to them as the type of people that would "jump in the river to get out of the rain." lol

Like pp said here in Ontario we have junior kindergarten and senior kindergarten. JK starts the year you child turns 4. I was 3 when I started school. So was DD1. I think it's great.

Like you said it's more play based focusing on student interactions, arts and crafts, there's sand and water activity tables, painting and colouring, "seasonal" activities as well as a bathroom in each class in any of the schools that I have been in.

It's also not mandatory. It is now full day where as prior to about 5 years ago it was half day.

School can start at 3 here and kids from 2-3 are also entitled to some free care. The children learn through play and just have fun. At 4 they now have more structure but it's all in a fun way. I think it's a great way to introduce children to learning in a fun way and I'm fine with paying extra taxes for it.

Awkward

It was themommydialogues...but when I quite MommyCon I quit the blog. They were connected.

We don't have 4k either but some schools offer transitional kindergarten but only kids born between September and November (maybe december) can go!

I would be against additional taxes. There is so much waste in government as is. It may be a worthwhile cause, but they should cut waste/abuse not just continuously ask residents to pay more, more, more without ever being held accountable.

I don't live in MN, but I think this is great! I'm in CA and we don't have universal access. There is a variety of preschool options-home daycares that offer some instruction, church preschool programs (with expensive tuition!), and programs through the public schools which are free to low income non-English speakers and expensive for everyone else! We don't have anything for kids to do here. It's been an issue since I was born. Other than parks, there is absolutely nothing. Well there is a toddler play area in them all and chuck e cheese. No kiddie gyms or Gymboree or anything. My daughter was the first grandchild on both sides of the family so she had no cousins to play with. Our friends were a mixture ages so they either had no kids or kids that were a lot older. My daughter had no interactions with other kids until she was 3.5. Well except for my nephew who is 2 years younger but they didn't interact or play together. I am so thankful we could afford to put her in preschool! She absolutely needed to be around other children. She needed the stimulation! It did wonders for her! It was play-based but there was learning as well. She can't focus when she's home, if I tried to teach her here, she would lose interest and not focus after 5 minutes! There is no doubt in my mind that had we sent her straight to kindergarten, she would have had major issues! She has loved school since day one, she is so much more social and outgoing and she thrives there. I can only imagine how many children here could really benefit from preschool but are denied because their parents can't afford it and they don't qualify for head start!

I think it's a great idea. I would love to pay a little more in taxes to have state funded preschool. As it is now, it's out of pocket and very expensive!

I wish we had it ! Here in NC you only qualify if you are low income or have a special needs child. I believe early education especially play education is very valuable!

Some people are against tax hikes no matter what the amount. My guess would be that's part of their hesitation.

Yes they have kids...yes it would raise taxes. Not by much. My taxes are really not that high at all.

Basically they have some weird idea of what a 4k classroom looks like and the money. They've never sat in one...I have. They have the image of little kids sitting in desks being made to sit still while a teach drones on in the front of a classroom. That's the impression I'm getting. Our classrooms don't even HAVE desks. They have 3 giant round tables with art supplies in the centers, the walls are covered in toys, play kitchen, puppet theater, blocks and they have their own bathroom because little bladders can't always make it to the big bathrooms.

The bill also wouldn't make it compulsory. It would still be optional. You don't have to send your kids.

Will there be an additional tax or will the funds be pulled from an already existing tax?

Perhaps they don't want a new tax, no matter how small. Do they have kids? If not, it would make a bit more sense why they're against it.

Also, is it mandatory attendance?

Here (Ontario) school starts at age 4. It's a full day 2 year kindergarten program. I think it's great. Early learning is very important.