"Church of Satan school to begin accepting vouchers"

[Philosophocles]

Well, at least not yet, to my knowledge. But why shouldn't a Church of Satan school be allowed to accept students who receive publicly-funded education vouchers?

One member of the Ohio ACLU noted, "When the Church of Satan shows up at the doorstep with goat entrails in one hand and an application (for participating in the voucher program) in the other hand, I think you have to write them a check."

Okay, well as far as I know, Lavey's Church of Satan is not even into animal sacrifices, and the philosophy they teach is not really an endorsement of violent mayhem. Rather, the Church of Satan seems to teach a quasi-Nietzschean philosophy of self-reliance and cultivation of creativity (and doesn't even believe in the existence of a conscious cosmic entity known as "Satan"). I don't personally agree with all the "Church of Satan" stands for (i.e. I disagree with their stand on gov't social programs, gun control, and capital punishment), but their ideology is no farther out of the mainstream than, say, that of the Christian Coalition.

So why not let a parent use their taxpayer-funded vouchers to send their children to the Church of Satan school of their choice? (I don't know if there are such schools, or if the Church of Satan would have any interest in creating such schools, but let's say, hypothetically, that these schools exist and meet all basic curriculum and staff requirements.)

Second hypothetical: How about a parent who wants to use taxpayer money to send their kid to an Aryan Nations school? The factor complicating such a scenario is that federal funds could not be disbursed for an overtly discriminatory purpose. However, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Aryan Nations school meets all basic educational criteria to participate. The Aryan Nations then say, "Sure, black or Jewish kids, or kids of any race or ethnicity can attend the Aryan Nations Primary School." (In making such a pronouncement, the Aryan Nations would be making a wager that parents of these "non-Aryan" kids would not want to put their children in such an uncomfortable situation.) The Aryan Nations school would teach everything that an ordinary school would teach, albeit with occasional breaks for group prayers and chants in the "Christian Identity" spirit.

Granted, there are reasons why the Aryan Nations might be reluctant to partipate. Many members of the Aryan Nations could be reluctant to accept government money because of their "anti-government" philosophy which makes them fear becoming subject to any state control. Also, the Aryan Nations might be reluctant to do something to muck up a government policy that drives a wedge into the African-American community. But let's say that many members of the Aryan Nations are willing to look past these concerns and apply for vouchers to use at an Aryan Nations school. (and of course, we are supposing, hypothetically, that the school meets all curriculum requirements, and will not overtly discriminate) Given this scenario, should parents be allowed to send their child to the Aryan Nations school of their choice?

[Duck Duck Goose]

Looks like it to me, but then IANA lawyer.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.school.vouchers/index.html
Bush said that the move "clears the way for other innovative school choice programs, so that no child in America will be left behind."
A Church of Satan School or Aryan Nations school would certainly be "innovative". :D

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by Philosophocles
Well, at least not yet, to my knowledge. But why shouldn't a Church of Satan school be allowed to accept students who receive publicly-funded education vouchers?



If the school can be accredited through the accepted procedure there isn't any reason that I can see not to let parents get the vouchers for their children to attend. The Supreme Court majority has opened a real Pandora's Box, I'm afraid.

Suppose a "Church of Satan" school tries to get accredited and is turned down. The school immediately sues and now the courts are on the way to entangling government and religion. The courts are not immune to public opinion. Does anyone really believe that the mainstream religions are not going to howl their heads off if such Satanic schools are granted equal status with theirs? And does anyone believe that state court judges, many of whom are elected, will not be aware of, and fear, the backlash if they rule that the mythology of the Satanic's is equal to the mythology of the mainstream?

And does anyone believe that the mainstream religions will not insist that the Congress "do something" if the Satanic school is accredited and begins receiving public money to teach students their philosopy?

In the words of Bette Davis in that movie whose name escapes me, "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride!"

[december]

As I pointed out on anther thread, the effectiveness of vouchers will depend on the parents' concern and judgment. Hopefully most parents will choose voucher schools only if they are better for their child than the available public school.

You may joke about the theory of a Church fo Satan school, but in reality some public schools are hellholes right now. From the majority decision, here's a description (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/28/national/28VTEX.html) of the inner city Cleveland schools. There are more than 75,000 children enrolled in the Cleveland City School District. The majority of these children are from low-income and minority families. Few of these families enjoy the means to send their children to any school other than an inner-city public school. For more than a generation, however, Cleveland's public schools have been among the worst performing public schools in the Nation. In 1995, a Federal District Court declared a "crisis of magnitude" and placed the entire Cleveland school district under state control. . . . It's pretty clear that these particular students will be helped by having alternatives available.

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by december
As I pointed out on anther thread, the effectiveness of vouchers will depend on the parents' concern and judgment. Hopefully most parents will choose voucher schools only if they are better for their child than the available public school.


Holy mackerel, december, think about it a little. Heaven's Gate existed and people joined it. Jonestown existed and people went and even took their children. Satanic cults exist and people join them Presumably if the cult has, or starts, a school at least some of such folks will want their children to go there. And if government money is available to accredited schools through vouchers both the schools and the parents will want to get in on it.

In the words of the mayor's daughter in The Music Man, "Eeeeee Gods!"

[Mockingbird]

Originally posted by David Simmons

movie whose name escapes me, "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride!"

All About Eve

[drpepper]

Holy mackerel, december, think about it a little. Heaven's Gate existed and people joined it. Jonestown existed and people went and even took their children. Satanic cults exist and people join them Presumably if the cult has, or starts, a school at least some of such folks will want their children to go there. And if government money is available to accredited schools through vouchers both the schools and the parents will want to get in on it.

Are you saying that, simply because some parents will make bad choices, that the government is better at deciding where your kid should go to school than you? Should they be the ones to pick your kid's daycare? How about what time your kids go to bed?

Slippery slope arguements aside, I think that we are better off in society as a whole when parents get to make the school decision.

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by drpepper

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holy mackerel, december, think about it a little. Heaven's Gate existed and people joined it. Jonestown existed and people went and even took their children. Satanic cults exist and people join them Presumably if the cult has, or starts, a school at least some of such folks will want their children to go there. And if government money is available to accredited schools through vouchers both the schools and the parents will want to get in on it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you saying that, simply because some parents will make bad choices, that the government is better at deciding where your kid should go to school than you?


No. Reread the post that elicited this response.

[samclem]

december said (about Cleveland's poor public school kids) It's pretty clear that these particular students will be helped by having alternatives available.

Not even close. It's anything but clear. It's a muddy future. There is little so far in the voucher experiments which exist that would indicate that kids are better off. I'd love it if this were some miracle cure. But it isn't. Remember, "it's not about the kids.":mad:

[december]

I'm also unclear about what your point is, David Simmons. There's an interesting theoretical argument, with good points on both sides. But, the grim reality is that millions of students in US public schools are barely learning to read and do arithmetic. These people have little or no hope of significant participation in a 21st century world.

If you think millions of voucher parents will choose even worse schools, please support your POV. If you have some other point, please clarify it.

[Czarcasm]

If millions of students can barely read and write, you can directly blame the millions of parents who refuse to go to PTA meetings, or run for school boards, or at least try to find out what the hell is going on in their children's schools. You can blame people that can't take the time to read what is going on in magazines and newspapers, but mindlessly shout "Ditto!" at their radios when right wing nutcases blame godless-commie-leftwing-liberal-egghead-sex-ed teaching prevert teachers for their children's problems. You can blame Texas(the second largest textbook buyer in the country) for letting religious conservative packed committees strip out all information from the textbooks that doesn't follow their narrow-minded viewpoint. You can blame city, state and federal politicians that have cut funding for public schools to pay for pork barrel projects. You can blame politicians that let state and multistate lotteries in that promise to aid school funding, over time letting most of the school funding rely on these lotteries, then act surprised when the people get tired of gambling or when lottery funds are diverted to other pork projects without finding alternate funding for the schools.
december, the millions of parents that can't take the time to take part in their childrens lives now are going to dump the same load on the (most probably) parochial schools, where they will have even less influence then they do now.
And I really appreciate the fact that my choice to give money to religious institutions that I may or may not support has been taken away from me. :(

[WV_Woman]

You can also blame teachers who are more interested in being tenured than they are educating their students.

You can also blame the ATF and the NEA for almost exclusively supporting Democratic politicians to make sure their precious little unions are catered to.

You can also blame the idiots who make school policy which spends more time punishing a kid who accidentally brings a knife to school but does nothing about the drug pushers, bullies, and other disruptive little ##*(%# who don't want to be there to begin with.

Yes, parents have GOT to take part in their kids education but there are some really really shitty teachers out there as well.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by WV_Woman
You can also blame teachers who are more interested in being tenured than they are educating their students.

You can also blame the ATF and the NEA for almost exclusively supporting Democratic politicians to make sure their precious little unions are catered to.

You can also blame the idiots who make school policy which spends more time punishing a kid who accidentally brings a knife to school but does nothing about the drug pushers, bullies, and other disruptive little ##*(%# who don't want to be there to begin with.

Yes, parents have GOT to take part in their kids education but there are some really really shitty teachers out there as well.
That's cute. So tell me, how much time have you spent in the education field? You ever been a teacher? Do you have several teacher friends? Or is the only information you are aware of coming from ignorant conservative pundits?

Sorry, but MOST teachers are more concerned with their students' education than with tenure. That's why MOST teachers will work overtime with a student if s/he is having trouble. That's why teachers often work through the night grading papers and tests. All for jack in pay and benefits.

However, if you look at MOST of the kids who have trouble in school, you will find that it is the parents who aren't concerned that their child is coming home with bad grades. To put it bluntly, usually, if a child isn't doing well in school...blame can squarely be placed on parents who don't bother to ask the teacher WHY little Johnny or Janie is failing English. They don't bother to check to see whether they are doing their homework or even attending class. Of course, there are learning disabilities and whatnot, but they are usually dealt with.

Granted, there are terrible teachers who DON'T care. They generally don't last. The vast majority of teachers care about their students. If the education system is failing (and I'm not convinced it is) then the problem is probably not teachers but a culture that doesn't take education seriously enough.

As for the remark about schools not punishing drug dealers, that's just moronic. One more indication that you don't know what you are talking about. In most school districts, the simple allegation of a student having drugs means a bag search. If drugs are found, the police are called. As for bullies...you are correct that not enough is being done about them, but most schools are working on that.

[december]

Czarcasm, I agree that things might be better if parents took more interest in the schools. But, maybe not. My wife and I took a lot of interest in our daughters' schools and we never had an impact.

Regarding who to blame, I'm more focused on fixing the problem.

The public schools have had a lot of money from all levels of government, as well as extensive university and union support. They are getting nowhere. It's time to give a real choice to the poor kid stuck in a school that isn't working for her.

My wife and I moved our daughter to private school for two years when her public school situation wasn't right for her. Poor kids ought to have the same opportunity.

december, the millions of parents that can't take the time to take part in their childrens lives now are going to dump the same load on the (most probably) parochial schools, where they will have even less influence then they do now. Think about how you influence the suppliers of other goods and services. E.g., the Ford Falcon was a crappy car. I once owned one. I switched to a Volvo that lasted for 20 years.

I didn't get a better car by advising manufacturers on quality control. I voted with my pocketbook. I dumped the Falcon and bought a Volvo. Millions of other buyers also dumped the Falcon. That's one reason why today's cars are far superior to the cars of the 1960's. Only the good models survived.

Competition worked for automobiles and it can work for inner city education.

[Czarcasm]

Are you proposing that the government should give vouchers(taxpayer money) for the purpose of buying more expensive cars?
As far as competition goes, taking money from schools that are under imposing city, county, state and federal rules and regulations and giving them to private schools that do not have to follow most of those rules is not competition.

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by december
I'm also unclear about what your point is, David Simmons. There's an interesting theoretical argument, with good points on both sides. But, the grim reality is that millions of students in US public schools are barely learning to read and do arithmetic. These people have little or no hope of significant participation in a 21st century world.

If you think millions of voucher parents will choose even worse schools, please support your POV. If you have some other point, please clarify it.

My point didn't have anything to do with the runaway hijack you are pulling.

The original post's point was that the Supreme Court decision could easily lead us into religious strife over the elegibility, for government funded vouchers, of schools operated by "off the beaten path" religions.

Your first post immediatly changed the subject to the effectiveness of vouchers for private schools vs. education in the public schools. And you dragged in the idea of the parent's policing of the effectiveness of their children's education. All I pointed out is that if weird cult schools do start trying to get onto the federal gravy train, there will be plenty of parents who will leap in to help them.

I am not enthralled with most "slippery slope" legal arguments. Courts are on a "slippery slope" many times in deciding fine legal distinctions, so that's nothing novel. However, this particular "slippery slope" is, I think, going through a minefield. It seems to me that any legal challange involving the suitability of a particular school for accreditation to accept federally funded vouchers from parents as payment will immediately embroil the courts, and sooner or later, Congress in a struggle to decide the legitimacy of religious institutions. But I could be wrong and it would be nice if I were.

So, december I will not enter into a discussion on this thread about the efficacy of private schools vs. public schools. This thread didn't address that question in the beginning; I don't really have enough information at present to make an informed judgement; and having read your posts I doubt that you do either.

[december]

Originally posted by Czarcasm
Are you proposing that the government should give vouchers(taxpayer money) for the purpose of buying more expensive cars?Is this comment some sort of a joke? As far as competition goes, taking money from schools that are under imposing city, county, state and federal rules and regulations and giving them to private schools that do not have to follow most of those rules is not competition. This is an interesting comment. Which sorts of rules do you have in mind? E.g.
-- course content
-- hours in school
-- tenure for teachers
-- salary scale for teachers
-- class size
-- restrictions on various sanctions, such as suspensions and expulsions

Or, something else entirely.

Note that the Cleveland public schools involved in this decision have not been following the most important rule of all -- the rule that they must educate their students.

[samclem]

Boy, december, you hit the nail on the head.

Now, if you can, please tell me how all of those single parent families in Cleveland are gonna have the money to take their kids out of a Ford Falcon Public School and enroll them in a Volvo Alternative School? It's more like taking them out of the Ford Falcon Public School and enrolling them in the Ford Pinto Private School.

You, sir, were rich enough to see that your kids got to go to a private school which educated them. And don't forget about the support they got from their parents.

If you think that vouchers are gonna mean that 75,000 poor, mostly Afro-American poor kids in Cleveland are gonna get educated in some wonderful fairyland group of private schools, then you need to get out there in the trenches.

I could go on chapter and verse about the experiment here in Ohio. The voucher schools so far, IMHO, are a joke. Many/Most are either run for profit somewhat compently, but don't do a measurably better job than the public schools. The worst case ones are currently being investigated by the Ohio State Department of Education(which institution is a JOKE. Don't get me started)>

I taught high school frolm 1967-1970. IMHO, there are/were bad teachers. They do get tenure. They are hard to get rid of. Fortunately, they are a small percentage. The parents, many times through no fault of their own, but rather the pace of life and the economic realities of today won't/can't give as much to their kids as we would all wish. Parents are where it's at, no matter whether in public school or private. Teachers can only do so much.

WV-Woman . Are you serious, or have you just not learned how to use smilies to indicate when you are being sarcastic?

An example You can also blame the ATF and the NEA for almost exclusively supporting Democratic politicians to make sure their precious little unions are catered to.

So, if the NEA/ATF were to exclusively support Republican politicians, then kids would get a better education? Is that what you're saying?:rolleyes:

[MrMrE]

How in the world will $2500 pay for a poor childs private education? Probably, it will just help out the families that already have children in private schools. Or possibly, new schools will open to accept $2500 as tuition while offering a minimal education. In any case, if a school meets the requirements, regardless of religious or political beliefs, it must be eligible for funding. I don't care for that decision. Public funds for public schools.

[Nightime]

If millions of students can barely read and write, you can directly blame the millions of parents who refuse to go to PTA meetings, or run for school boards, or at least try to find out what the hell is going on in their children's schools.

First of all, many parents simply don't have the resources to be able to attend PTA meetings and run for school boards. What about parents that have to work all the time? Parents that are not independantly wealthy? Second, the parents are NOT usually the problem. I know many teachers, and they usually tell me that their class is very good, with the exception of a few bad kids that constantly disrupt the class. The parents of these bad kids invariably defend their kid no matter what and fight off anything designed to stop the disruption. So yes, bad parents are a problem, but problem parents are a minority, just as bad teachers are a minority of teachers. You are just avoiding the problem if you blame the parents, because what exactly can the good parents do to counteract the disruption of the bad parents and their kids?

The real problem is the rules we have set up that make it impossible for teachers to stop disruptive kids. You can't do anything to them, because their parents will sue. And trust me, one bad kid can completely take over a class.

I am scared of the possible effects of vouchers. But maybe things have to get worse before they get better. Maybe all the terrible things that happen because of vouchers will finally help people to understand that teachers need more power to control their classes. It is not in the kids best interest to make them unpunishable. Also, I am baffled as to how kids are untouchable when they disrupt class and don't try to learn, but are treated as criminals if they are found with a butter knife or a tic tac :confused: .

[december]

<<The real problem is the rules we have set up that make it impossible for teachers to stop disruptive kids. You can't do anything to them, because their parents will sue. And trust me, one bad kid can completely take over a class. >>

You said it, Nightime. That's the biggest problem. What I saw when my kids were in elementary school was not only that one bad kid could take over a class, but two bad kids in a class killed education for sure.

[samclem]

While I agree with december and Nightime that disruptive kids are a problem(and have always been), I disagree with the contention that there are rules in place that prohibit the teachers/administrators from doing anything about disruptive kids You can't do anything to them, because their parents will sue.

This is akin to my kids telling me that I can't spank them or they'll call Children's Services and have me arrested.

Give me a break! Schools "can't do anything to them, because their parents will sue?" Where does this come from?

[Nightime]

Give me a break! Schools "can't do anything to them, because their parents will sue?" Where does this come from?

These are just examples of kids in my dad's class (my dad is a fifth grade teacher):

1. One boy was always disruptive because he literally couldn't help it. He talked way too loud, he got up during class and started singing, he would fall out of his chair, he would steal things. No matter what you told him, he would soon forget it and start disrupting the class again. Clearly he belonged in a different setting, and his mom was often told so, but she refused to let him be taken out of the class. In fact she became very angry and threatening when the subject of putting her kid in an alternate class came up. Of course I understand it is hard for her, but at the same time the other kids are suffering.

2. Twins in the same class, both very disruptive. Their teacher begged to get one of the twins out of his class, because it was being together that really made them start acting out. However, it is a year round school. The parents are of course unwilling to have them on different tracks, and let the school know this. These kids are also failing all their tests and should not even get to the next grade level. But the parents are unwilling to accept this and make it known that they will fight to get them promoted. (Incidentally, the parents moved these kids into a different school district where they were promoted, and plan to bring them back to the original school so they would not be held back)

3. A boy who really knows how to work the system. He constantly disrupts the class, steals, asks to go to the bathroom and then hangs out by the soda machine trying to get money from other kids, and always denies whatever you say he did. He is supposed to get his dad to sign something about his behavior after school every day, but he is obviously forging the signatures. Of course, calling the dad only gets an angry response in defense of his son.

I guess I don't know for sure that the parents would sue in any of these cases. But the school is either unable to confront these problems because they aren't allowed, or because they are scared the parents will fight it.

[Nightime]

I should point out that the 27 other kids in the class are good kids, and it is a shame that their education is being compromised because nothing can be done about 4 problem kids. Also, the 4 kids I mentioned are not being done any favors either, in the long run.

[samclem]

Nightime Thanks for the informative response.

I guess I don't know for sure that the parents would sue in any of these cases. it is a shame that their education is being compromised because nothing can be done about 4 problem kids.

You confuse "nothing can be done" with "nothing is being done."

Unless this is a strange school system, something "can" be done.

I'm curious now. You say it is a year-round school.. Public school, in the USA? Where?

And, I humbly apologize to the OP, Philosophocles for my continued digressions in this thread. I just can't let statements stand that are anecdotal and IMHO wrong.

[tomndebb]

Nighttime, your example #1 describes my son. Now, unlike his parents, I was more than willing to work with the school to get something done to help him. However, I know that several kids in my son's current alternative class are not there voluntarily. If the school "cannot" do something, it sounds to me as though the school administration is simply unwilling to try to do something.

Now, in some support of your position, I would note that the superintendent of my district noted in a talk, last year, that between 1980 and 1990 the district faced one lawsuit (over a child being injured in a school setting) but that between 1990 and 2000, the district faced an average of seven lawsuits a year.

Of course, there are several aspects of his statement that need clarification (which I have not been able to get): how many of those suits were brought over the rather messy millage proposal fights that were repeated throughout the decade? how many were brought as a result of the radical change in the community (at the opening of a new freeway, we were inundfated with yup-scale folks in a very brief time)? and for what reasons were the actual suits brought or threatened? (He also did not differentiate between actual suits filed in court and angry parents claiming "I'll sue!" before being talked into a more rational approach.)

Society is more litigious. However, the complaint that the schools "can't do anything" because of those suits strikes me as less than fully demonstrated.

[wring]

wrenching this back to the OP, I believe that the quote given + source (ACLU) was attempting to point out to those who support vouchers (believed to be mostly Conservative white Christians - at least in my state of MIchigan that certainly followed - ie when vouchers were again on the ballot recently, the funding came from the Grand Rapids Bible Belt and the proposal had the most support over there and the least support in D-troit) that once you've opened the door to school vouchers for religous based schools, you cannot deny them to religions you don't find comfortable.

my little area of Mi (the capital) has a whole host of 'alternative' schools - mostly charters. There's a Catholic school, a Montesorri school, an Edison project school, a Lutheran school, a large 'alternative' school, and even an Afro Centric school or two.

after a couple of years, we've found - all but two of the schools have dropped middle /high school levels, the largest that is still doing all levels has cuts looming of 25% of it's budget. Interestingly enough, the local paper did a project, asking several schools some basic pieces of information (what was their enrollment, average level of education for it's teachers, salary rates for teachers, it's 'plan' - a state mandated thing, and several other things). The public schools (in particular the inner city one) answered w/in short time, others needed several prods, including a letter stating that the info was part of the Freedom of Information Act, and two (both charters) refused outright, even after being told that it fell under the FOIA.

the governing body for many of the charters were out of area groups who operated on a lessez faire approach, sometimes with disasterous results (one of the charter schools is near bankrupcy, has gone through more than one principal in a year, the last one was arrested at the school on an outstanding drug warrant).

IN the meantime, the public schools (who would have had those students and the funding therein) has had to struggle w/budgeting problems.

Having watched how these charters operated, I'm not at all convinced that vouchers will improve the situation. At least w/the public schools, the public has a board they elected and can address how their tax $$ are spent and accounted for. I'm not able to go to the charter's board and make a case, even if it's my tax $$ supporting them.

[december]

I thought this article was interesting.An Arizona high school teacher who attempted to maintain order in his classroom by keeping out a disruptive student was accused of being a racist and a bigot for his actions, reports the Arizona Daily Star.

Math teacher Jim Bloodsworth, a retired Air Force master sergeant, was forced to seek a restraining order against a student because, after the student assaulted a classmate, punched a hole in a window and threatened to kill the teacher, the school failed to do anything.

For seeking the restraining order, Bloodsworth was accused of mounting an "extremely bigoted, zealot, racist-attitude attack" by principal Steve Wilson, who likened the situation to "Mississippi in '54, only without the rope." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56628,00.html

[tomndebb]

I found it rather more interesting that the little "PC Alert!" column to which you linked provided none of the relevant pieces of information to a genuine analysis of the situation, such as:

The principal is an old college basketball coach brought in to "shape up" the school;
the student is a highly prized basketball player who was recruited for the school team
the teacher and the student have had multiple earlier incidents and the teacher felt that he was not getting support from the principal.

In other words, under the cover of "PC" what we appear to have is the same old "Claim anything in the world to protect our sports wins" scenario. There has not yet been any evidence that the principal actually believes anything he is saying.
(I have not seen any indication, yet, of the principal's ethnic background.)

So rather than a PC story, this looks to me to be a classic "jocks can do no wrong" story.