# School Vouchers **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2000, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839 "2000-03-19T07:55:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/41 "2000-03-20T19:04:00Z")
> [@](#): > > My point is that you can call almost anything an “indirect payment” to > > any other activity at all. There are degrees of separation at work here, which I think you know. A road that leads to a church is probably not going to be used exclusively by churchgoers to get to church. Whereas money paid to a religious school will lead directly to money being spent on religious education. > [@](#): > > My question to you is, what is the significant difference between a traditional secular public school and a voucher-supported secular school that underlies your objection? In general I don’t think taking money out of public education is a solution to the problems of public education, but I have no real concrete objection to vouchers for secular education at secular schools. It is vouchers for religious schools I find suspect. > [@](#): > > Why is it any of your business what they do with their own money? And how many times am I going to have to repeat the phrase “their own money” before you get the point? If they want to spend **their own money** on religious instruction, let them. Don’t then come to me for **my own money** to pay for secular instruction because they’ve chosen to spend **their own money** on religion. Voucher programs would facilitate religious indoctrination by freeing up resources which the religious school would otherwise have devoted to secular instruction to be used for religious purposes. > [@](#): > > If you offer a tax refund for all parents with dependant children, and some of those parents happen to be Christians, are you paying them for being Christian? Of course not! You’re paying them for being parents. Not the same thing at all, and as it happens I also oppose paying more taxes to fund people who choose to reproduce. If they can’t afford to have kids without special tax breaks, then don’t have them. ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/42 "2000-03-20T22:35:00Z")
**Bucky:** Your straw man burns at the merest touch of the flame of reason. > [@](#): > > All the literature classes deal with Dionysus, drinking, and wild orgies. Same with history, science, social studies, etc. Such an obviously religion-oriented curriculum would never be approved by even a brain-damaged certifying authority. > [@](#): > > Anyone saying anything bad about drinking is immediately and thoroughly punished. That rule would be termed an inappropriate religious activity, and you would lose your funding. > [@](#): > > Those who don’t show up for “voluntary” religious instruction are shunned, pressured, given poor grades, etc. This happens on both the part of teachers and other students. And thus you would generate complaints of religious discrimination and not only lose your funding but probably be hit with a hefty civil suit as well. You can’t even do this in an ordinary business. > [@](#): > > If one of my older female students in especially cute, I point out how Dionysus had many young women indulging him in sexual appetites and that she should do the same to get a truly full education. And you would be arrested for making lewd comments to a minor, statutory rape or child molestation. > [@](#): > > Nobody will have a problem of my running a school like that on voucher money, will they? Well, yes, and for the reasons posted. Get a grip, Bucky. I expect to see a higher quality of reasoning on this board. **Otto:** > [@](#): > > Whereas money paid to a religious school will lead directly to money being spent on religious education. No one is advocating paying money to religious schools. Let’s move on, ok? > [@](#): > > Not the same thing at all, and as it happens I also oppose paying more taxes to fund people who choose to reproduce. If they can’t afford to have kids without special tax breaks, then don’t have them. You care nothing for continuance for the human race? Come on, Otto, I’m no breeder either (vasectomy at 27, two adopted children), but I know in my bones that we have a duty and an obligation to future generations. * * * “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away”. - Phillip K. Dick ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/43 "2000-03-20T22:39:00Z")
{quote}In order for this argument to work, you’ve already accepted the premise that the vouchers will support religion. Unless you can really make a strong case that a parochial school cannot separate secular and religious education, then what does it matter? All children deserve a good secular education.{/quote} If a parochial school separated religious and secular education, it would no longer _be_ a parochial school. In my experience ( my schooling and my kids) religion permeates the school. They attend Mass at least once a month, inductions into the honor society,student council ,etc all take place in church. Even graduation is in the church, not the school.Although religion certainly doesn’t come up every day or in every subject, it surely would come up in discussions of slavery or segregation, or they may be required to read a book with a religious theme,sing religious songs,write a poem or make a poster for a contest sponsored by a religious organization ,etc., in addition to formal religion classes. You could take all of this out and relegate it to a voluntary afterschool program, but it wouldn’t be a parochial school, it would be a private school and an essentially separate religious education program. ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/44 "2000-03-20T23:19:00Z")
**doreen:** That’s exactly what we’re suggesting. I agree with your point: a “parochial” school by definition cannot participate in a privatized education system. I don’t really care if that restriction would diminish support for privatization. If I _really_ wanted to effect specific political change, I would abandon rationality and become an activist or a politician. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/45 "2000-03-20T23:54:00Z")
douglips: > [@](#): > > What you’ve done is simply close down or reduce one ‘public’ school and open a new ‘public’ school that used to be a ‘private’ school. Just because a school has to fulfill outside standards doesn’t mean that all of a sudden it’s a public school. My high school was very careful to follow all the guidelines to become accredited and to make sure that its courses would make its students eligible for the University of California. Just because they were following standards set by UC, a public entity, doesn’t mean they were public. > [@](#): > > My question is, why do you get to choose to ‘get your money back’ so you can send your child to private school, when I can’t choose to get my money back because I have no children and therefore am already not participating in the education system? It’s not the first payment that SingleDad wants back. This is the property taxes that pay for an educated citizenry. Everyone is obligated to pay them, and so SingleDad would have no basis for asking for them back. However, SingleDad has no obligation to pay for a private school. If he does anyway, he has some standing for asking for reimbursement. Since you aren’t paying anything to a private school, you have no money to get back. > [@](#): > > What you are saying is that after these private roads are installed, the government should pay your toll for you, or at least the portion of the money they spend on the road you would have driven if you stayed on the public road. No, I’m saying that if public funds are sufficient to pay for a road, there should be no toll charges. If a private company wants to build a toll road, that’s fine, but don’t pay for it out of taxes. If motorists have to pay for a road out of their taxes, and then again through a toll, that would be paying twice. > [@](#): > > I suppose I could have been clearer? Well, rhetorical statements tend to be clearer than rhetorical questions. I had a basic understanding of what you were saying, but not enough to argue against it without you perhaps saying that I was misinterpreting you. > [@](#): > > As DavidB pointed out above, there is no possible way you are paying enough taxes to cover the cost of your child going to school, otherwise people without children wouldn’t be taxed. As SingleDad pointed out, the average person, over his or her lifetime, does pay enough taxes to put a child through school. > [@](#): > > Therefore, if you have to pay for the education of one child at a private school plus the portion of your taxes for a public education system you are paying, let’s say, 1.3 times. You’re misinterpreting the phrase “pay twice”. It does not mean the same thing as “pay twice as much”; it means “pay twice”, and nothing more. If SingleDad pays property taxes, and pays for a private school, he’s paying for education twice. He may not be paying twice as much, but he is paying twice. DavidB: > [@](#): > > Because that’s not what we’re talking about. Voucher do not equal contractors. There are two public schools locally that are run by private contractors (to be more specific, one that is running now, one that will start next year but is accepting applications now). That is a contractor system. Vouchers are not. Apples are fruit. Oranges are not apples. Therefore oranges are not fruit. Any more logical fallacies you’d like to inroduce into this thread? I think there are a few you haven’t gotten to yet. > [@](#): > > How does one decide how much it costs to educate a child? The way I envision voucher systems, what would be most important is not the cost of educating a child but the value. If society values a child’s education at $4k/year, then any institution that educates a child is providing society with $4k/year of value, and should be reimbursed $4k/year. If it costs them more than $4k/year to educate a child for any reason (including that they’re spending money on religious instruction), then they still only get $4k/year. No school would ever get any more money for providing a child with both secular and religious education than it would if it just gave the child a secular education, and so any extra costs of the religious education would be borne solely by the school. > [@](#): > > So you’d be taking the money and giving it away and then leaving some of the highest-cost kids in the public system. It just won’t work. Currently, any parent that sends their child to private school is giving **their own money** to the public school system. A voucher system would reduce the amount of money being given to the public school system. This isn’t quite the same thing as taking money away from the public school system. If I give you a thousand dollars a year for a while, and then I decide to give you only $750 each year, am I taking $250 away from you each year? Or am I giving you $250 less? If you say “taking $250”, then you’re an ingrate. > [@](#): > > Sure! Except, as I’ve said, it’s a shell game. They say, “We’ll use little Johnny’s $2000 for solely secular purposes.” And then they take the $2000 they would have used there and move it to some religious purpose. Either you have absolutely no understanding of accounting, or you’re just putting out a ridiculous argument in the vain hope that we won’t see through its silliness. How will moving money around give them any more money? Suppose they do use the $2000 to pay for religious instruction. So what? Now they have $2000 less to spend on secular instruction. Where are they going to get that $2000 from other than taking it away from religious instruction again? In order to get the voucher, they must provide secular instruction, and to provide secular instruction they must get the money to pay for it from somewhere. Not using the voucher money on secular education just gives them less money to spend in other areas. You work for a newspaper/ newsletter, right? Suppose you were handed a couple hundred dollars in cash to buy a plane ticket to somewhere a news event was happening. Suppose you use that money to buy a TV, and then used your own money to buy the plane ticket. As long as you pay for the plane ticket, do you think that anyone will mind? You can move the money around between your saving account, your checking account, and your wallet to your heart’s content, but you’re not going to get any more money. > [@](#): > > Did you read the links I posted? They address some of this, discussing how difficult it truly is to split “secular” and “religious” activities and education at many of these schools. I skimmed them. Declaring _ex cathedra_ that it is not possible to split secular and religious education is hardly the same as actually showing that it is impossible, and posting links to anti-voucher propaganda is hardly the same as arguing against vouchers. > [@](#): > > Then your ideal voucher program wouldn’t include religious schools? Because that’s the only real way to accomplish what you’ve said. I guess this was addressed to SingleDad (as were the previous quotes), but I think that you would want my answer as well. I see no church-state entanglement problem with paying religious schools to provide secular education. I’ve already posted ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/46 "2000-03-21T00:27:00Z")
I’m not going to cut and paste because this thread already takes several minutes to go through. But here’s my take. Private schools are PRIVATE – that means they have the right to take who they want and exclude who they want. If your child is handicapped and I don’t want to provide those services, I don’t have to. If I believe all children should play sports and go on to college, and your child has no intention of doing either – well, find a school you’d be happier with. The same goes with religion. If I’m running a religious-based school, I will teach my faith however way I choose. If I want to teach it in science class, if I want to teach the Bible as history, well, it’s a private school. And if the state comes in and say I’m not providing a good education, well, too bad. I’m a private school. Now let’s throw in a voucher system. Does that mean I have to educate students I don’t want to educate, in a way that I don’t feel appropriate? That hardly seems fair. Or does it mean you the taxpayer has to pay for educational programs that you may not believe in, but have no say about, because they are private? That hardly seems fair. And SingleDad – if you think it’s tough battling the bureaucracy in a public school system to get special services for your child, just wait until you disagree with the administration in a private school that doesn’t have a legal obligation to educate your child. * * * I understand all the words, they just don’t make sense together like that. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/47 "2000-03-21T03:54:00Z")
> [@](#): > > You care nothing for continuance for the human race? The human race did just fine before tax breaks for breeding and would continue unabated without them. > [@](#): > > Come on, Otto, I’m no breeder either (vasectomy at 27, two adopted children), but I know in my bones that we have a duty and an obligation to future generations. I’m not seeing how “Otto pays more in taxes to finance someone’s reproduction” equals “Otto fulfils his obligation to future generations.” > [@](#): > > By providing secular education, aren¹t they providing you with a service? Not if they aren’t providing that secular education to me or mine. > [@](#): > > Do religious schools have some obligation to pay for secular education? If they want to teach nothing but religious indoctrination, no I suppose not. I don’t imagine they’d get too many students if they didn’t provide secular education, though. > [@](#): > > Yes, but it would free up their own money. They would spend less of their own money on secular education, and would therefore be able to spend more of their own money on religious education. Why is it any of your business what they do with their own money? It’s my business if my money is going to them to allow them to indoctrinate students. > [@](#): > > What¹s the difference between refunding some of the cost of raising a child, knowing that some of that refund may go towards religious purposes, and refunding part of the cost of a secular education, knowing that some of that money may go towards religious purposes? Again, it’s a matter of degrees of separation. I don’t know that the recipients of a breeder rebate will use that money to indoctrinate their children. Hopefully they’ll spend it on rum and whores. I do know that the recipients of tax money in the form of vouchers to religious schools will use the money made available by that voucher for indoctrination. > [@](#): > > So you¹re against public education as well? Did I say that? ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/48 "2000-03-21T07:46:00Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s not the first payment that SingleDad wants back. My OP said, “I can’t _afford_ to pay twice {emphasis added).” I don’t want _anything_ back. I’m not mad about “paying twice” specifically because I _haven’t_. I’ve paid _once_ and I want my money’s worth! What I _want_ is a universal education system that structurally addresses the needs of _all_ children, not just the majority. The difference I’m trying to get to, and perhaps vouchers are not the correct solution, is a **privately operated** , publicly funded educational system. Government or regulated monopolies do ok in certain areas (although I’m not always convinced they’re the _best_ solution). I need the same kind of electricity, the same kind of roads, the same kind of local phone service that all my neighbors need. But children have a very wide range of educational needs. The administration of a public school, by the nature of its foundation, needs _at best_ only to satisfy the needs of the majority of its students. In contrast, a privately administered school, like any market-driven organization, must satisfy the needs of _all_ its students or it will lose the ones it doesn’t satisfy. This is known as market segmentation, and it’s one of the most powerful features of a market-driven system. I don’t mind my child’s educational curriculum being approved by a competent regulatory body, but I do mind when that body **mandates** one. Look at the Kansas State School Board. How far away are they from **demanding** that “Creation Science” be taught in the schools? I’m not offering this anecdote to try to prove that all (or even many) “public” schools are bowing down to religious pressure and propaganda, but that’s it’s **really happening**. **The Ryan:** I want to say I’m really grateful for the support! Thanks! Nice to know I’m not alone. I suggest, however, we simplify the debate by taking religious schools out of the picture altogether. It’s just a red-herring anyway. The “secularity” of a school can be objectively determined. And regardless of any privatization schemes, the Catholic Church will continue to subsidize a combined religious/secular education; there’s no reason for the taxpayers to do so. > [@](#): > > Most private schools already follow publicly decided criteria. One of my points is that the public schools use publicly **mandated** curricula, whereas private schools use curricula **approved** by a well-respected academic source. There’s a big difference there to the credit of the private schools. **kunilou:** > [@](#): > > Now let’s throw in a voucher system. Does that mean I have to educate students I don’t want to educate, in a way that I don’t feel appropriate? That hardly seems fair. If you don’t want public funding, you don’t have to. If you **do** want public funding, you have to. > [@](#): > > just wait until you disagree with the administration in a private school that doesn’t have a legal obligation to educate your child. Been there, done that. **Much** easier. The private school needs my money. They have a vested interest in pleasing me. They won’t genuflect, but they are willing to be somewhat flexible. The public schools are totally unwilling to be flexible. They’re overcrowded here anyway: They’re thrilled if a student leaves. **Otto:** I’m really unable to see where you’re coming from here. The argument that each citizen must fund universal education has been decided in real life: you have to. You can post another topic here arguing that point; I’ll be happy to respond. What we’re discussing here is the **method** of implementing universal education. Anything you have to say on that topic is most welcome. * * * “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away”. - Phillip K. Dick ---
**Author:** ![Erratum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/cc9497/32.png) [@Erratum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erratum)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/49 "2000-03-21T16:38:00Z")
**SingleDad** : “_What I want is a universal education system that structurally addresses the needs of all children, not just the majority._” There are many who believe that voucher programs will not do that. And, even though you want to dismiss the religious school factor, it is very important to many of us who do not want the state intermingled with religion (and to the people who want the state to pay for religious indoctrination). “_The difference I’m trying to get to, and perhaps vouchers are not the correct solution, is a privately operated, publicly funded educational system._” Perhaps you should list for us _specifically_ what features a private school has that a public school does not have or cannot have. What problems, _exactly_, are you trying to fix? Also, please respond to these objections to a voucher program: [ul][li]Rural school districts are unlikely to have enough students to support many competing schools, so you will have _no_ market forces at work. Does your program help them?[/li][li]It frequently takes a long time to realize that a student is not doing well and would do well in a different school. Isn’t the “feedback mechanism” of poor student performance in a particular school potentially _too slow_ to make a “market” system reach optimal results?[/li][li]Wouldn’t the disruption in a student’s life from jumping from one school to another be “too high a price to pay” for some, causing them to not “shop around” for different and potentially better schools?[/li]Many people criticize parents today for not being involved enough in their child’s education, why do you believe they are suddenly going to be so involved that they will pick an optimal school for their child?[/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/50 "2000-03-21T17:20:00Z")
SingleDad – as I said in another post, Mrs. Kunilou has taught special education for 25 years. For several years her job was providing SE services to students in private schools. You say the private school needs your money so they’re willing to be flexible. Mrs. Kunilou would reply that you are lucky. Most of the private schools she dealt with were unwilling to do so much as provide a wheelchair ramp unless they were forced into it. Their attitude was that handicapped (physically, mentally, emotionally, you name it) students simply weren’t worth the time and effort (and expense) needed to provide them with the special instruction and services they needed. There are private schools that specialize in the education of certain types of handicaps. In fact, I know of public school districts that, when faced with children with exceptional disabilities, have offered to pay the child’s tuition to a private school. If you’ve found one of them and they’re willing to work with you, great! But those services are not available to people in the vast majority of the U.S., and “market forces” simply won’t change that. Here in St. Louis we have four private schools that do an exceptional job of teaching the deaf. However, that’s the mission they want to serve. If you have a child who is deaf and blind, deaf with Cerebral Palsy, deaf and emotionally disturbed, etc., you’re going to have a lot tougher time getting and keeping him/her in one of those schools. I apologize if I’m restating your point of view incorrectly, but I think what you’re asking for is some mechanism to ensure that your taxes be used to find your child the best possible education for your specific needs. My argument is that, despite its flaws, your best hope is to work with public schools, that are goverened by public laws for the handicapped, and controlled by a publicly elected board that you can campaign for or against, or run for yourself. There are also advocacy groups that will help you pursue due process if you think your school district is being unreasonable. I don’t think that the argument about not using vouchers for religious education is going to hold much water. After all, the same argument that you make (I pay the taxes, therefore I should have more control over how my child is educated) can be made by parents who send their children to religious schools. I went to both private and public schools. My parents viewed my religious education as a parental obligation, not an entitlement. At the same time they were sending me to parochial schools, they were voting for tax increases for the public schools, because they felt it was important. As for my own point of view, I’m paying for a public school system, a public street department, and a public police department. As a voter I have some indirect say in how my tax money is spent. If you want to opt out of that system and send your children to private schools, drive on private streets, and hire a private security force, that’s your right. But unless the public providers say they can’t serve you andopt out of the system, I don’t think I should have to pay for it. ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/51 "2000-03-21T17:23:00Z")
**Erratum:** > [@](#): > > There are many who believe that voucher programs will not do that. And, even though you want to dismiss the religious school factor, it is very important to many of us who do not want the state intermingled with religion (and to the people who want the state to pay for religious indoctrination). I don’t want the state intermingled with religion either. I’m **agreeing** with you: No religious, semi-religious, mixed religious/secular, etc. school should receive public funding under any circumstances. I maintain that it is rationally and objectively determinable whether or not a school is _completely_ secular. As for those who want the state to pay for religious education, I agree with David B: The First Amendment specifically prohibits that. End of story. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you should list for us specifically what features a private school has that a public school does not have or cannot have. What problems, exactly, are you trying to fix? As I said in my previous post, what I want is harness market forces to provide structural incentive to meet the needs of _all_ students, rather than the majority. > [@](#): > > Rural school districts are unlikely to have enough students to support many competing schools, so you will have no market forces at work. Does your program help them? Let me modify my position somewhat. What I want to do is put privately-run schools on an **equal basis** to government-run schools. In a rural district, there may well be only a single government-run school. If that’s what the people vote for, and the population density is too small to allow competition there, oh well. I don’t see that there’s _any_ possibility of fundamental improvement in this exceptional case. But the structural changes I’m proposing wouldn’t make this case any worse. > [@](#): > > It frequently takes a long time to realize that a student is not doing well and would do well in a different school. Speaking from personal experience, it takes at most half a semester to evaluate the appropriateness of a particular school for a given student. If you have a good sense of a child’s needs, you can frequently determine a school’s appropriateness immediately from an interview and superficial examination. [query]Wouldn’t the disruption in a student’s life from jumping from one school to another be “too high a price to pay” for some, causing them to not “shop around” for different and potentially better schools?[/query] Again speaking from personal experience, both as a student and as a parent, the disruption of a school change is less debilitating than disruption from failing at school. > [@](#): > > Many people criticize parents today for not being involved enough in their child’s education, why do you believe they are suddenly going to be so involved that they will pick an optimal school for their child? Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. Parents who don’t care wouldn’t be any _worse_ off, and parents who _do_ care would be better off. In any arena, if you give people choices, some will still make uninformed or stupid choices. Is that any reason, however, to eliminate choice? Since all schools would still be regulated, required to use an approved curriculum, and their performance monitored, it seems unlikely that even the most apathetic parent would have the ability to make any worse of a choice than under the current system. * * * “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away”. - Phillip K. Dick ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/52 "2000-03-21T17:42:00Z")
**kunilou:** > [@](#): > > Most of the private schools she dealt with were unwilling to do so much as provide a wheelchair ramp unless they were forced into it. Under a privatized school system, any school that accepted public funds would be **required** to implement universal acceptance. Current private school practice reflects current market conditions; change the conditions and the practices will change. > [@](#): > > But those services {special education} are not available to people in the vast majority of the U.S., and “market forces” simply won’t change that. Why not? Experience has shown that any time resources become available for a particular purpose, someone will come along to fulfill that purpose. > [@](#): > > I think what you’re asking for is some mechanism to ensure that your taxes be used to find your child the best possible education for your specific needs. By the time this debate is settled in the real political world, my children will have long since passed out of the secondar school system. What I’m asking for is a mechanism that will serve _all_ children, not just the majority. > [@](#): > > After all, the same argument that you make (I pay the taxes, therefore I should have more control over how my child is educated) can be made by parents who send their children to religious schools. My argument is consistent with the First Amendment; the corresponding religious school argument is not. > [@](#): > > My argument is that, despite its flaws, your best hope is to work with public schools… No, that’s your **assertion**. You’ve said you disagree with me, and that’s fine, but you’ve made no actual **argument** that the existing public school system is **better** than a privatized system. > [@](#): > > As a voter I have some indirect say in how my tax money is spent. Of course you do. That’s why I’m trying to **persuade** you that I have a more effective plan. I don’t claim a **moral** right to a privatized education system; I’m not arguing that the public must implement such a system regardless of majority opinion. > [@](#): > > But unless the public providers say they can’t serve you and opt out of the system, I don’t think I should have to pay for it. Actually, the public providers here **have** said they can’t serve one of my children. They have said specifically that his educational failure constitutes an **acceptable loss** , as they have to concentrate their resources on the **majority** of children. * * * “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away”. - Phillip K. Dick ---
**Author:** ![egkelly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/db5fbb/32.png) [@egkelly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/egkelly)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/53 "2000-03-22T06:50:00Z")
Here’s a truly revolutionary thought! Stop coercing people to attend school! Most of the problems with urban and suburban school systems result from: (a) having to “educate” disinterested, possibly violent young people (b) dealing with the crime, disruptions, etc. caused by the minority who simply do not want to learn I would simply make school voluntary, from the 9th grade on-this will greatly reduce expenditures, which can be directed toward a quality education for thos motivated to remain. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/54 "2000-03-21T19:00:00Z")
Another revolutionary thought - actually fund public schools. The area I live in has public schools funded through some obscure combination of federal/state funds, property taxes and referendum. We’ve turned down the past two referendum to fund the school district, and so services are being cut and class size is increasing. And then we have the nerve to complain and suggest vouchers. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/55 "2000-03-21T19:22:00Z")
The argument that private schools will lead to less diversity just baffles me. Can anyone point to an instance where a market solution led to less diversity than a government solution to the same problem? Markets THRIVE on diversity. If there are 20 left-handed Albino students with speech impediments, someone just may well open a left-handed Albino Speech school, because they think they can corner that particular market. I also don’t buy the argument that a voucher system would hurt the kids left in public schools. I believe that free market solutions tend to be cheaper and better than government solutions. If it takes $8,000 per year to educate a kid in the public school system, provide a voucher for $5,000. If a private school can provide an equivalent education for that money, you just left $3,000 extra for the other kids in the public system. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/56 "2000-03-21T19:47:00Z")
SingleDad – “Actually, the public providers here have said they can’t serve one of my children. They have said specifically that his educational failure constitutes an acceptable loss, as they have to concentrate their resources on the majority of children.” You have excellent grounds for a lawsuit, since Federal law requires that your child be given a free, appropriate education in the least restrictive environment possible. I’m not being flip here. As a resident and taxpayer, you have as much right as any other resident of your district to have your child educated. There are a number of court decisions all the way across the United States that will back you up on this. There are numerous advocacy groups that will help you pursue this, and once you decide to pursue this, you won’t have to wait for your child to get all the way through the system. Results typically take a lot less time. Have you talked to your state department of education about the treatment you’re receiving? If they’re giving you the runaround as well, you have even better grounds for a lawsuit. Yes, it’s a tremendous hassle, but if you have a special needs child, you’re already familiar with being hassled. And if they get away with it with yur child, they’ll try it with the next one. ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/57 "2000-03-21T20:38:00Z")
**SamStone:** “Markets THRIVE on diversity.” Exactly my point! Rah! **kunilou:** I was indeed in that process. However, since I couldn’t get damages, by the time the procedures and suits were settled, I could win only a moral victory, which would then be ignored by the school system for the next child. The bottom line is, since they are not directly accountable for the needs of all children, they will **always** resist serving the minority. I decided that my serious time and energy would be better spent concentrating on my child’s education directly. I’m still pursuing a couple of legal remedies, but I don’t have the time or the money to push hard enough to get immediate results. I’ve tried the advocacy groups; they don’t have the resources either to take everyone’s case. I understand you want me to work within the system. And I’m doing so. But the system **sucks**. Any system that requires me to go to court to effect any change is, IMHO, inferior to a system where I can go down the block to find a better provider. I would like to have a educational system structured so that hassles are at least substantially mitigated for future parents. I’ve heard no ideas for the public schools to be restructured so as to enable responsibility to each individual child to emerge naturally. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/58 "2000-03-22T02:50:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Under a privatized school system, any school that accepted public funds would be required to implement universal acceptance. Current private school practice reflects current market conditions; change the conditions and the practices will change. Here you seem to be talking about a privatized school system, which is far different than a system of vouchers for private schools.A privatized school system would be funded and regulated by the government, but run by a private agency,just as other government services.(prisons, foster care,school buses, etc} are sometimes contracted out.Many of the features of a public school system would probably still exist.Most children would still be assigned to schools based on where they lived. For example, school transportation in NYC is provided by private companies under contract. Parents have no choice in which company their child uses. Whichever company serves your area is who you use. The only time competition comes into play is when the contracts are awarded.Voucher proponents might not support a privatized system,since it would be missing many of the features that cause them to choose private schools such as the school’s ability to discipline or even expel students who disrupt classes,a much higher proportion of parents who care about their child’s education {because of self-selection},or even the parents ability to choose a school because its convenient to the parent’s job or has an afterschool program. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/59 "2000-03-22T06:45:00Z")
The Ryan - I hope you don’t feel I’m picking on you - I’m enjoying this exchange, and hope to continue as much as work allows me to. Me: > [@](#): > > I suppose I could have been clearer? The Ryan: > [@](#): > > …Rhetorical statements tend to be clearer than rhetorical questions… This is actually pretty funny - the ‘?’ was a typo, I meant to say that yes, I could have been clearer. My apologies for the typo - looking back on my post it almost seems insulting and I certainly didn’t mean that. Reminds me of the two New York friends in a horrible argument for weeks. One of them finds a note in his mailbox from the other, but doesn’t have his glasses with him and asks his wife to read it. His wife reads “You were right. I was wrong. I should apologize.” He immediately calls his friend to make amends and says “It’s about time you apologized.” His friend replies “What are you talking about? The note says ‘ **You** were right? **I** was wrong? **I** should apologize?’” But back on topic: The Ryan: > [@](#): > > Just because a school has to fulfill outside standards doesn’t mean that all of a sudden it’s > a public school. Actually, that’s exactly what I was talking about. When you have to fulfill one or two outside standards, you are correct - the school is still private. However, when every single regulation that applies to the public schools is applied to private schools, they effectively become public schools (much like doreen’s “privatized” system described above.) It’s a matter of degree - somewhere in the middle is where the school loses ‘private’ status. Imagine if the secular-only education standard public schools have to meet is applied to private schools - how blurry is the line getting? The Ryan: > [@](#): > > It’s not the first payment that SingleDad wants back. This is the property taxes that pay for > an educated citizenry. […] However, SingleDad has no obligation to pay for a private school. If he does > anyway, he has some standing for asking for reimbursement. Since you aren’t paying anything to a private > school, you have no money to get back. If he has no obligation to pay, why does he have standing to ask for reimbursement? I can see if in his particular situation (public schools suck, administrators saying “Your kid is going to get squat”, etc.) he is required to put the kid in private school and then he sues for reimbursement. In that case, the argument is “I’m entitled to an education and you can’t give it to me at public school, so you must pay for private school.” But, in the general case with an average kid in private school, what is the justification? “Your education is not quite as good as I’d like it to be?” Would that justification go away if adequate funds were provided to public schools? Me: > [@](#): > > What you are saying is that after these private roads are installed, the government should pay > your toll for you, or at least the portion of the money they spend on the road you would have driven if you > stayed on the public road. The Ryan: > [@](#): > > No, I’m saying that if public funds are sufficient to pay for a road, there should be no toll > charges. If a private company wants to build a toll road, that’s fine, but don’t pay for it out of taxes. If > motorists have to pay for a road out of their taxes, and then again through a toll, that would be paying > twice. I’m not sure I understand your position here. Are you saying that the state should not reimburse drivers who choose to take a private, less crowded, slightly more direct road than an adequate public alternative? That is my interpretation of your remarks - please correct me if I’m wrong. Let me see if I can draw some parallels between the situations and you can tell me where I go wrong: ROADS: [ul][li]I pay for a concept called “Transportation infrastructure” through my property and income taxes.[/li][li]I pay roughly the same whether I use it or not. (Disagreements on this may end up being a new topic.)[/li][li]From the taxes collected, the state builds roads, railroads, bridges, funds public transportation, etc. to[/li]provide “Transportation infrastructure”. [li]I am required to travel in my day to day life, to get to work, shop for groceries, etc. I cannot escape this.[/li][li]If I travel on public roads, there is no cost to me. If I travel on public transit, there is a minor cost to me.[/li][li]A private company can build a public road, and charge for the very concrete service of “Personal[/li]transportation”. [li]Since the company has invested capital in the private road, they will charge me to recoup their[/li]investments and possibly profit. [li]I am not forced to travel on a private road, so the state should not pay for my usage of the private road[/li]when there is a public road/public transit that can provide an adequate **though not necessarily equal** alternative.[/ul] SCHOOLS: [ul][li]I pay for a concept called “an educated populace” through my property and income taxes.[/li][li]I pay roughly the same whether I use it or not.[/li][li]From the taxes collected, the state builds schools, buys books, pays teachers, etc. to provide “an[/li]educated populace.” [li]I am required by law to educate my children (if I have them.)[/li][li]If I educate my children through public schools, there is little to no additional cost to me.[/li][li]A private company can build a private school and charge for the concrete service of “personal education”[/li]for my child. [li]Since the company has invested in the private school, they will charge me to recoup their investments[/li]and possibly profit. [li]I am not forced to educate my child in a private school, so the state should not pay for my usage of the[/li]private school when there is a public school that can provide an adequate **though not necessarily equal**) alternative.[/ul] I’m sure I’m overlooking something, but it still seems to me that if an adequate education is available publicly that the state is not obligated to provide a private education even if it is marginally better. Since it is the parent who chooses to obtain that marginal difference, I maintain that it is the parent who should pay for the private education. Just as in the case of the private road - if I choose to drive on a road that has a higher speed limit but is private, I shouldn’t gripe that the state doesn’t pay the toll for me. The Ryan: > [@](#): > > If I give you a thousand dollars a year for a while, and then I decide to give you only $750 > each year, am I taking $250 away from you each year? Or am I giving you $250 less? If you say “taking > $250”, then you’re an ingrate. This goes back to the “taking money away, leaving the troubled kids behind” argument. You are right, that if you give me 25% less than before you are not taking money away, but giving less. That is fine as long as thing thing you are giving me the money for also decreases by 25%. But let’s say you have been giving me $1000 per year to accomplish two tasks, peel one apple and build one intricately detailed model airplane. Assume for the sake of argument that it costs me 25 cents to peel the apple and $950 to build the airplane, leaving me with $49.75 annual profit. Now you say "It shouldn’t cost $500 to peel an apple - I’ll take the $500 and peel the apple myself, but you keep doing the airplane building. Since it is half as many t ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839/60 "2000-03-22T06:56:00Z")
kunilou > [@](#): > > Or does it mean you the taxpayer has to pay for educational programs that you may not believe in, but have no say about, because they are private? That hardly seems fair. Under my plan, it would be the results that would be most important. If a child gets educated, then why does it matter how (within basic boundaries, of course)? Otto > [@](#): > > Not if they aren’t providing that secular education to me or mine. You don’t think that you derive any benefit from an educated citizenry? Then isn’t your beef with publicly supported education in general, not vouchers in particular? > [@](#): > > If they want to teach nothing but religious indoctrination, no I suppose not. So if you agree that private schools have no obligation to provide secular education, then why do you consider it a bad thing to compensate them for taking on this responsibility that they didn’t have to take on? I > [@](#): > > It’s my business if my money is going to them to allow them to indoctrinate students. No it’s not. They have a right to indoctrinate students, and so it is **none** of your business whether or not they are able to exercise that right. > [@](#): > > Again, it’s a matter of degrees of separation. I don’t know that the recipients of a breeder rebate will use that money to indoctrinate their children. Hopefully they’ll spend it on rum and whores. I do know that the recipients of tax money in the form of vouchers to religious schools will use the money made available by that voucher for indoctrination. Well, your anti-heterosexual bigotry is a matter for another thread. But as for your point that we “know” that they will use the resources for religious instruction: so what? The whole point of having private ownership of property is that the private owners get to decide what to do with the property. Why do you get a right to tell the schools what they can and can’t do with their money? > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## So you¹re against public education as well? > > Did I say that? You certainly have implied it very strongly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-vouchers/17839.md?page=4)