Rich People and Politicians
With a title like that, you'll probably want to skip this if you're not political...
OK, so a few years ago, I started a tiny Coverdell account for each of the boys. At the time, Coverdell accounts were a maximum contribution of $2000 a year per child, but there were no financial penalties with them, and the entire fund could be used for ANY kind of education. Even K-12.
So, say you live in an area where you have good elementary schools. But around middle school, it gets a little hairy. You want to put your kids in, say, Catholic school, but you wouldn't be able to afford the tuition monthly. This would be a way for you to save every month toward that.
In other words, I could see this as a great tool for upwardly mobile lower to middle class families in urban environments.
The amount of money you can save wouldn't go anywhere near the Haverford Schools of the world (the schools I'm surrounded by, here in Boboland).
So, why would the big politicians want to repeal this, and take it back to its useless state... (max $500 per year, only to be used for college. What? They want the kid to buy books, I guess.)
I asked a much smarter person (my husband) why they would do this, and he said that politicians hate anything that takes kids out of public schools. It's how they indoctrinate new voters. And rich people aren't affected by this, so they won't do anything to help extend it.
That infuriates me. Seriously.
Is that really why this is not being extended? To keep poor peoples' kids in the public schools?
(*)>
OK, so a few years ago, I started a tiny Coverdell account for each of the boys. At the time, Coverdell accounts were a maximum contribution of $2000 a year per child, but there were no financial penalties with them, and the entire fund could be used for ANY kind of education. Even K-12.
So, say you live in an area where you have good elementary schools. But around middle school, it gets a little hairy. You want to put your kids in, say, Catholic school, but you wouldn't be able to afford the tuition monthly. This would be a way for you to save every month toward that.
In other words, I could see this as a great tool for upwardly mobile lower to middle class families in urban environments.
The amount of money you can save wouldn't go anywhere near the Haverford Schools of the world (the schools I'm surrounded by, here in Boboland).
So, why would the big politicians want to repeal this, and take it back to its useless state... (max $500 per year, only to be used for college. What? They want the kid to buy books, I guess.)
I asked a much smarter person (my husband) why they would do this, and he said that politicians hate anything that takes kids out of public schools. It's how they indoctrinate new voters. And rich people aren't affected by this, so they won't do anything to help extend it.
That infuriates me. Seriously.
Is that really why this is not being extended? To keep poor peoples' kids in the public schools?
(*)>
posted by birdwoman | 7:40 AM
6 Comments:
I'm afraid I agree with Mr. Flightless Hag. You can't discount the NEA's dislike of vouchers to allow kids to go to private schools and their utter hatred of homeschool kids.
When our oldest was of elementary school age, the public school in our area lost its accreditation. Ther was no way in the world we were going to enroll her there so we were forced with lying about her address or putting her into a highly rated neighborhood Catholic school. We chose the latter, although we could've used the tuition money for many other things.
Turns out both of our girls have gone the Catholic school route, including into high school and have both grown into very fine young women.
I know this is anecdotal, but I have heard of many of their friends who went into public school after 8th grade who haven't fared so well.
To be fair, there was one incident at their catholic preK-
8th grade school of a boy committing suicide at his home. It caused quite an uproar at the school, especially as he was a classmate of my eldest daughter.
No matter what happens at school, you really can't control what happens at home.
Sorry, I hit post too soon...
You can't control what happens at home unless it's your home and
you set the rules. I know that dinnertime at our house was often dominated by discussing what our girls had learned at school that day. Many times it wasn't so good, but we just posited alternative points of view and hoped they arrived at the decision that suited them best.
It makes me sad that philosophy trumps people. Every time. Glad you were able to overcome, even if it was by unscrupulous means.
I don't understand. What was unscrupulous about what we did?
you said you had to lie about your address... oh, I misread! You had to enroll in catholic school or lie. Never mind. I would say "my bad" but I hate it when people say that!
(*)>
Yes, it is YOUR bad!!!! We were advised by many people to lie, but we couldn't bring ourselves to do it. Instead, we forked over thousands of dollars to the private Catholic school. Looking back, we'd do it all over again.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home