That's why it needs to be as close to the child as possible. Ideally it would be made up of the parents.
You really think a 12 year old would have that conversation? I don't. If they had not been nurtured to that point, they would already have been lost.

No, I only wish to prevent my tax money going to benefit something with which I don't agree.

crack whores, petty thieves, those who just have no concern about their children - just some who would gladly sell their voucher (and kids) for 10 cents on the dollar to get drugs or other items that don't benefit their children.
You seem to think that everyone will act rationally and in the best interests of their children. Such a funding mechanism must provide some means of ensuring that the funds wouldn't just be a sham.

There would need to be some means of ensuring that the voucher money weren't merely going to sham organizations. Without some type of validation, what would pop-up in many urban centers would be sham "schools" which would cash the voucher and split the money. That would be a waste, of money and a potentially productive life.

"- CC focuses on getting kids career ready instead of college ready."

EVIL!

hey. They probably gave the fleas to the dogs in the first place.

"Again, if we really cared about educating kids we would NOT have 30 kids in one room."

Yeah this is why they don't have any of those thousand seat auditoriums in colleges.

Every class I went to had between 30 and 40 kids in it. I think you're mistaking the problem as class size when it's really *school* size.

The best solution is to provide each child a voucher and allow the parent(s)/guardian(s) to choose where to apply that voucher. Of course, there would need to be some entity that would certify what could call itself a school and receive the voucher. Local school "boards" made up of elected citizens would be a good method. They would review and "certify" in their geographic area.
Variety is good, as is control as close to the activity as possible.

By definition, if a process is right, then the answer has to be right; else, the process is wrong.

The problem is how do you know whether the process is right when the results are valueless? Is it a study of a process for the sake of process? This just creates a bunch of oatmeal headed dumbcocks.

Am I the only one in the world who can see right through all of this? People, you must see that this is all designed to get rid of any reason for children to look for absolute answers found in God, our Creator. He is the only one with the final answers, else, if man is said to have the final answers, at what point and what iteration of man's thinking do we consider the answers really final?

Science isn't useless because we acknowledge a Creator outside of ourselves. Science is enhance by the fact that absolutes exists and repeatable results are possible. What hinders science is speculation outside of actual science, which truly leaves science and enters the metaphysical. You can see this in the Climate Change (doesn't the climate change everyday?)/Global Warming hoax where science has reached a "consensus." I guarantee that any textbook on the scientific method doesn't say you have a theory based on consensus, but instead based on repeatable results. Evolution is metaphysical, not scientific.

Oh may the nations awake and realize you are not smarter than our Creator. I grieve so much for where we are headed.

"We should teach value-neutral reasoning. I strongly agree with teaching critical thinking. If it's done right, it won't steer people toward one answer."

If any answer is ok, then by definition, there is no right and wrong. For example, if a child develops a genius method to murder a person, that is ok under this reasoning, and we are to appreciate the process in how they came up with it and not be concerned with the death of someone in cold blood.

I am sure you are intelligent enough to see that some singular answers are required. By the way, you yourself admit there is right and wrong by your stating that "if it is done right." Who determines, then, whether it was done right and at what point have enough diverse results manifest success?

The big deal is what is truly driving this. Nothing just pops up out of nowhere and is hailed as some great idea. CC is all about the type of citizen the world needs to fit the Agenda 21, communicated in Rio in the early 1990's. I have watched several hours of YouTube videos from educators that understand education in order to let folks make decisions about their life and not be geared into some predetermined career or path. You will note that even the media and many others have changed the way they refer to those who are employed in this country. They are now called "workers," not "employees." There is a difference. "Workers" are for the state; "employees" are for themselves.