Matt Damon to Put His Kids in L.A. Private School

So what? He has money and that's his personal choice, and none of us here will suffer for it much less care a week from now.

 

I don't see anything wrong with that. Damon comes from the southside of Boston. Not sure he attended private schools. Today he's a rich man and everybody knows the kids of a rich man are more likely to get beaten by the poorer kids for his clothes, things and money. In all logic, he decides to send his kids to a place where it's normal to have rich parents so they are less at risk. That doesn't mean he thinks public schools are bad.

If the liberals are so bad, what do conservatives want to do to make things better? Abolish all public schools? Then half of the population, if not more, wouldn't have enough money to educate their kids. Not sure the society would benefit from that. Everybody is better off when education is accessible to everyone, even people who don't have kids. More education most of the times means less crime.

 

Then he can stop all of his "preaching" against parents using THEIR TAXMONEY, for THEIR KIDS' EDUCATIONS, at the schools THEY CHOOSE, the hypocritical Leftninny (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

- - - Updated - - -

Hey, here's another option: How about we allow parents, to CHOOSE where THEIR TAXMONEY, for THEIR KIDS" EDUCATIONS, is spent?

Damon is VEHEMENTLY AGAINST other parents having SCHOOL CHOICE, the jackass.

Even the FRENCH are that smart....

 

Poor people pay less taxes. If the government gives them this money back, they still won't be able to send their kids to a private school. So where's the choice then? The people who could afford private schools already have that choice with or without taxes.

 

You seem to have low respect for the other students that have to school with no security. More poor kids die at school or because of fights that starte there though. You have no facts to base that opinion on, other then data about how unsafe some schools are.

What do vouchers have to do with abolishing all schools?

- - - Updated - - -

Vouchers cover the cost of private school. Poor people pay the same sales tax you do.

- - - Updated - - -

The "socialist" swedes also have a voucher program. Their kids trounce ours in international standardized tests.

 

He talks trash about competition in education.

 

It is the TAXPAYERS' MONEY; they are the TAXPAYERS' children.

The IDIOCY of allowing the government to DICTATE to TAXPAYERS where THEIR MONEY, for THEIR CHILDRENS' educations, will be spent, is the MAIN REASON our public scholls SUCK, especially in the places where kids are in the most dire circumatances.

Taxpayers' money/taxpayers' children= TAXPAYERS' CHOICE.

You really have no clue how school vouchers work, do you?

Parents are typically allowed 50% of the money per pupil in the school district in which they live, to spend where thye choose, and it DOES MOST DEFINITELY allow poor parents to send their kids to private schools.

 

Some of you people bust me up.


PLENTY of smart, successful people attended public school.

Let me tell you something, not receiving a quality education is NEVER the result of a bad school and instead is the result of the student failing (usually do to family)

Now can a good school contribute to a good education? Of course it can, but a good student can succeed in even a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty school, and most schools aren't (*)(*)(*)(*)ty. They may be just adequate, but that isn't the same.

 

Like what, what exactly has he said?

 

YouTube search "john Stossell Matt Damon". You will see, he is also at an anti voucher pro union rally at the time fighting accountability in schools.

- - - Updated - - -

What about the schools that are, bad and are dangerous? Should kids have to be forced to go to those schools? When their parents and them want to go to another with a voucher? Why and for what purpose? Why don't our kids deserve the same high quality education the kids in Sweden get? There was a time before when they didn't outcompete our best students year after year.

 

It should be 100%. The unions don't need that 50% for doing nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Private schools are often less expensive then public ones in America and yes in charter schools like university prepatory that gets amazing results in Detroit are fully paid for with vouchers. They are given out via lotto, and thousands of kids apply for hundreds of slots. Those that don't win the raffle here( raffled so the unions still get most of the tax money), go home crying with their parents in what is a very depressing affair. They know what life in their terrible school will mean.

 

100% of what? Are you advocating that parents who do NOT want their children to attend public school should receive 100% of the funding that the school would have spent on that child's education?

 

100% vouchers are the only ones that make sense unless you are trying to appease the unions or make it harder for poor kids.

 

Thats not the point, if private schools werent better or offered what many people want they wouldnt exist. Clearly many of the wealthy such as Damon send their children there and pay more because they believe they're giving their children an advantage. Without a voucher type system it means private schools are out of reach for more people creating class divides. With more people stumping up extra for private schools the more money that goes into the education system, its proven when parent pay up for their kids education they tend to become more active with the school.

Theres really no reason to restrict education choices other than, it suits the public teachers unions and those political parties they donate and vote for.

 

You're not answering my question.

Are you saying that people who choose to keep their kids out of public school should receive 100% of the money that the public school would have used to fund their education had they sent them there?

yes, or no?

 

Doesn't anyone think it is weird that parents are never fighting their local voucher plan? It is always people not affected, or the unions fighting them. After all, everyone would rather be able to choose what school they go to.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes as a voucher.

- - - Updated - - -

How come there is never a like button when you need one.

 

Irrespective of the argument about vouchers, there have always been and there always will be class divides.

Oh, and I could make a pretty compelling argument that people like Damon don't send their kids to private schools because they offer better educations, they send them to private schools because they offer more PRIVACY.

In fact , I'd bet a pretty substantial amount of money that that is the case in nearly every instance where a rich person sends their children to private school.

I mean let's face it, Damon could afford to provide tutors, and whatever else his brood needs to succeed even if they went to public school.

I HATE dishonest arguments.

 

The "50%" was to APPEASE the UNIONS, but they are, of course, unhappy with that,as educating our children is NOT the actual goal, which is ENRICHING THEMSELVES,and the DNC, at taxpayers expense.

They want NO REDUCTIONS in their MONOPOLY on taxpayer dollars.

 

How many kids are kidnapped from school each year?

How many are from the rich and famous?

What does any of this have to do with giving the kids the best education they can get?

Can you give one argument against vouchers that doesn't have to do with how it will negatively impact adults?

How is giving less fortunate kids the same opportunities a class divide issue? Unless you happen to be a limousine liberal trying to keep "the public" out of your private school?

 

Well, you are officially stupid.

I'm on a school board of a medium sized school district, we spend $10,500 per student per year educating them. The AVERAGE family in our district contributes $1000 per year in the form of property taxes. The bulk of the difference is made up by people who are paying property taxes that support the school even though they have no children in the school, and by corporations which own property in the district, with an additional amount coming from larger districts.

In effect you are wanting our school district to pay parents to take their kids out of our schools. LOL

- - - Updated - - -

Did I suggest I'm against vouchers?

Actually I AM against vouchers if you're talking about vouchers that are worth more than a family even contributed towards their child's education..

If you want to give parents a voucher worth exactly what they personally contributed towards their child's public education per year. I'm fine with that.

 

I used to think something was better then nothing until i thought "no, no more comprise with hostage takers. 100% or nothing and we beat over the head with opportunity for the kids they feign to care about and who they think deep down are inferior to them. (*)(*)(*)(*) them. "

 

"Dishonest arguments'?

You just made one.

Damon is not "everyday famous"...most people wouldn't know him from Adam, if he were sitting next to them on a bus...he is ARROGANTLY sending his kids to schools he vehemently OPPOSES other parents having the opportunity to send theirs.

Your madeup bullcrap about private school education vs government school indoctrination is, indeed, the "false agrument" here.

Damon takes advantage of what he TRIES TO DENY OTHERS, especially the NEEDIEST among us.

Have fun continuing to try to spin his OBVIOUS, ARROGANCE,and HYPOCRISY.
Just like Obama, DAY ONE, ending the DC voucher program that allowed poorer DC parents to send their kids tp the same school HIS KIDS attend.

"SPIN" away; you FOOL NO ONE, except yourself.

This is nothing more than another example of the GLARING ARROGANCE of the Left Elitists.

 

I don't mind trying to hepl improve the governemtn shcoolos, while using the voucher program.

It's just that while they are union-controlled, such "improvements" are not likely, I'm afraid.

 

If it were privacy and with the amount of coin Damon has he could open a small school just for his kids. Its not privacy, clearly he wants to give his kids a head start while giving all the social aspects (not privacy), not to mention networking that private schools provide.

 

Coming from you I can take it. Despite the brilliance of your irrespective arguments.

Surprise! An administrator who thinks their job is essential and shouldn't have to compete with the private market for delivery of results.

A lot of money. You get more when they project more students too, so you can just do it for less when students leave your schools. We both know many will.

Sounds good, what is your point? People who make more should have different and better access to government programs? Sounds kind of snobbish. Who is to say that kid in the public school won't be making that big money later and paying it to your school board?

hahahaha. See this is the problem. You think it is your money and your schools. This is the problem with every leftist politician. It is the peoples money, and the people's schools - writ large- . Frankly, I am absolutely disgusted to know you are involved in public education.

Yes

That is against vouchers, tax rebates, (only that year too right?) aren;t the same as vouchers.

No, that is just a tax rebate. That would be a compromise. We want full on 100% vouchers and you prove that you can manage the schools parents will want to send their kids too.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing will help improve them more then the idea that if they dont succeed their will be a penalty. If you dont protect that gay kid who gets his ass kicked every other day, he is leaving for greener pastures, and so is everyone else that doesn't get the service they want. The kids and parents will be the consumers again if we have vouchers and bad schools will have to improve,, or they will just be closed.