School Vouchers

[SingleDad]

A firestorm of controversy! And me on the other side of David B This should be good!

David B

My tax dollars should not fund somebody else’s religion.

I’m not asking for that. I’m asking that they fund secular education in a different manner.

Your tax dollars are already going for religious education: Religious extracurricular activities are already permitted on school grounds after regular school hours. To do otherwise would discriminate against religion.

Agreed, making a credible and serious separation between a parochial school’s secular and religious education would be difficult, but I’ve seen no serious argument that it’s impossible.

Then what about all those people with no children? Why should they have to pay at all? You seem to favor a half-way system – the one that helps you the most but still takes money from those who don’t have kids at all. I would say you can’t have it both ways. Either the public supports education or they don’t.

What “two ways” am I asking for? I’m asking for the same thing that currently exists: that the taxpayers support universal education in a different method than currently implemented. So what if I’m arguing in my own self-interest? Should I only argue that taxes should be collected to punish me? Fie on you, David! That’s the weakest piece of reasoning I’ve ever seen from you.

I’m not arguing a moral difference, that some moral precept makes acceptance of vouchers a logical necessity. I’m arguing it’s a better way to offer universal education.

And I was paying property and income taxes before I had kids, and I will be paying property taxes after they’re grown. In fact, given that my children will almost certainly be out of school before vouchers would become implemented even if adopted now, I’m making the case for future generations of children. I will most certainly pay for more than two children’s education over my lifetime.

Regardless, what’s wrong with asking for things to be the way I want them? I’m certainly willing to compromise, and take into account other people’s views, but my own self-interest does not automatically disqualify me from making a case.

But what about the Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu population in smaller towns? They don’t have enough kids to put together a viable school. Let alone atheists.

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.

No, voting against them is the best way to ensure it.

I do… but I’m in the minority in one of the most religious and conservative areas in the country. A free market system removes the problem. If 60% of the voters in a school district are screwing with the curriculum, then all public schools suffer. In a free market system, then 60% of the schools will suffer, and I can send my child to one of the other 40%

Or suing when they overstep their bounds

And wait 10 years for the results?

Arguments against vouchers are not the same as arguments for the “current public school system.”

Of course not. But the questions are closely enough related that I felt they would intertwine sufficiently as to illuminate each other.

douglips

Private schools don’t have to have special education departments for learning disabled or severely developmentally disabled children.
…
Private schools don’t have to accept a student who is below their standards,

If you accept vouchers, then it’s part of the regulations that you do accept all kids (first come/first serve) including learning-disabled children. Or, perhaps LD kids get a higher voucher, to compensate for their more expensive educational needs. This is not a fundamental objection, just a technical one.

If you’re not happy with the quality of your public schools, move.

Well, that’s one of the reasons that I moved here. But I was naive. I had the boys only a year, and I didn’t realize the extent and difficulties of my older boy’s learning disabilities.

It’s very expensive to move. Additionally, the medical, psychiatric and social work infrastructure for my son took me 5 years to get correct, and probably would take 1-2 years to restructure in a new location.

If you can’t afford to move, become an active participant in your childs education.

Oh I do, I do… My boys are in a charter school (a reasonable compromise), and this takes a lot of effort and money to participate in, which I’m happy to spend.

When I attempted to participate in his education in traditional public schools, I was slapped down by the teachers and administrators. They ignored the IEP and the psychiatrists recommendations. I’m still pursuing this in the court. I get a judgement in my favor, the school ignores in, and I have to go back and appeal, or move it to a different venue. After 5 years in court, I still have one more “administrative remedy” (6-12 months to even be heard) before I can get it into civil court. Literally, by the time I’m done with the court case, my son will be out of high school.

Removing funding from failing schools does not benefit society in any way. The students that are left behind in that school are placed at a greater disadvantage.

If the school is that bad, then all the parents should take their kids out. But it’s usually not a matter of bad schools. The public schools here in Littleton are actually pretty good, for traditional students. Go outside that bound and you’re screwed, though.

Vouchers violate the constitution.

I’ll repeat the point that others have made here. Vouchers in and of themselves do not violate the Constitution, at least not the US Constitution. The “technical” problem is violation of church and state. I call it a technical problem, because I see no reason why it cannot be addressed through appropriate regulation and structure. It’s a very important problem, and, if any voucher system were implemented, I would insist myself on a very clear separation.

I believe it is the case that some religiously funded institutions already receive government funding. Catholic hospitals, for instance, collect Medicare/Medicaid. Regulations in that arena might form a template for those in the educational arena.

That’s enough for one post! <exhausted>

---

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away”. - Phillip K. Dick

[SingleDad]

Ok, here’s a set of regulations under which vouchers might be granted. I’m no lawyer, so evaluate them in spirit.

For each dependent child between the age of four and eighteen (“student”), the parents or legal guardians of that child shall be issued one voucher to be redeemed by an certified institution for the secular education of their child (“school”). This amount shall be equal to the amount allocated for each child in the traditional public school system. In order to be eligible to receive reimbursement for vouchers collected:

Each school must verify the attendence of its students for a miniumum of X days per year, at least 7 hours per day.

The school must designate a period of at least 7 hours per day (“school hours”), during which time no religious instruction or activity may take place in any form or manner. Activities after school hours ("extra-curricular activities) must be considered optional, and no student may be penalized for not taking place in such activities. No religious symbols, materials, mottos, writings, or any other religious paraphenalia may be exhibited on the school grounds during school hours.

All instructors must have a minimum of a Bachelors Degree in Elementary Education, with an appropriate certification for the subject they teach. The curriculum and associated materials for each subject must be approved by the such certifying education as the legislature may designate. This curriculum must address only secular education, and may not include religious education. The accepted curriculum must be taught in its entirety.

Every school must accept all applicants regardless of race, religion, national origin, physical or mental disability, or academic ability, on a first-come, first-serve basis, as defined by the date of the original application. A school may recoup additional expendetures necessitated by serving students with verified learning disabilities.

Twice yearly, all students in each school will receive a set of standardized tests. Any school which shows an average acheivement in the 25th percentile of all students in three years of any five consecutive years will no longer be eligible to receive reimbursement for vouchers (“decertified”). No teacher, staff member, or administrator who has served at the decertified school for three years or more in the aforementioned five-year period may serve in any certified school for the next five years.

The school must be a non-profit educational corporation under the relevant IRS regulations. Additionally, it’s financial records must remain open to the public at all times.

These are the terms in which I would like to see vouchers implemented.

---

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away”. - Phillip K. Dick

[MandaJo]

SingleDad said:

No teacher, staff member, or administrator who has served at the decertified school for three years or more in the aforementioned five-year period may serve in any certified school for the next five years.

This is completly unworkable. You could not get good teachers to come work in a bad school (the one thing bad schools desprately need)if they new that their best intentions might not be enough to save a sinking ship and thus might cost them their livlyhoods for the next five years (an english degree + teaching certificate dosn’t equip you to do much else) And in any case, how would five years working as a secratary improve anyone’s teaching abilities?

[Otto]

No, it¹s a direct payment for teaching secular subjects.

Which allows the school to avoid paying for those secular subjects from their own funds, which frees up resources for religious instruction. An indirect payment for religion.

[SingleDad]

Manda JO

This is completly unworkable.

You’re probably right. Any ideas for holding the staff accountable for grossly sub-standard performance? Just dissolving the school allows it to re-form under another name, accomplishing nothing.

Otto

Which allows the school to avoid paying for those secular subjects from their own funds, which frees up resources for religious instruction. An indirect payment for religion.

Paying for secular education in the public schools has exactly the same effect. Are you arguing against taxpayer supported education by any means?

[Otto]

Paying for secular education in the public schools has exactly the same effect.

How does paying for public education free up the resources of a private religious school to teach religion?

[SingleDad]

The same way paying for secular education in any form “frees up” money; the religion doesn’t have to provide the secular education and can thus concentrate its money on its religious mission. Nothing wrong with that.

We pay for the roads that people travel to go to church… Pay for medicare in Catholic hospitals… We even let religious people hold jobs! thus freeing the religion from having to feed its members. My point is that you can call almost anything an “indirect payment” to any other activity at all.

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?

I don’t think you can use “religious management.” If I’m a clergyman, can I own a paving company, and accept a government contract? If I were a government official, would I then be in a bind between supporting a religion by using that paving company, or discriminating against a religion by not using them for the sole reason of the nature of its management?

Part of the problem, I think, is that most affordable private schools are currently run by religious organizations, primarily the Catholic Church. They’re the only ones that have a large enough donation and wealth base to subsidize private education. But they are doing so not only to promote their religion but from a sincere desire to provide a quality education in contrast to the mediocrity and bureaucracy-bound public schools.

[system]

[quote]
Originally posted by David B:
The Ryan said:

There can be tests to see if the students are learning the secular lessons that they’re expected to learn. If they’re learning what they’re supposed to be learning, then it is none of our business whether or not they’re learning more in addition to that.

Yes, it certainly is – if we are paying for it. My tax dollars should not fund somebody else’s religion. It’s just that simple.

You’re putting me on, right? You’re pretending to be incredibly dense to see how long it will take me to realize you’re just kidding right?
Just in case you’re serious, let me say it one more time:
I AM NOT SUPPORTING VOUCHER PROGRAMS THAT FUND RELIGION.
I do not believe in religious vouchers; I believe in educational vouchers. If the matter of whether or not a school teaches religion has no effet whatsoever on whether that school (or parents) gets vouchers, how can you possibly think that the school is being paid to teach religion? Educational vouchers don’t fund religion; they fund education. What is so hard to understand about that? If you go into a bookstore that sells Bibles, and you buy a secular book, are you funding religion? Religious school provide religious education as one of their services; they also provide secular education as another service. It is this secular education that is being funded. The fact that the religious school uses its own money to provide religious education is totally irrelevant.
How can you possibly think that vouchers will fund religions? Do you really think that the vouchers will be so large as to pay for both a secular education and a religious education?

[quote]

Well, gee, allowing religions to build churches helps those that have enough money to build churches. What about small Muslim or Hindu communities that don’t have enough members to support a temple? Let alone atheists. Should we outlaw churches?

Could you have come up with a more fallacious argument? Nobody’s talking about outlawing religious belief

[quote]

What’s fallacious about my argument? I was simply pointing that although allowing churches benefits some religions more than others, it does not discriminate among religions. I never claimed that you wanted to outlaw religion. You are, however, talking about outlawing anything that would tangentially benefit a religion. Don’t you understand why I find that position ridiculous?

– I was simply pointing out that tax dollars will not – cannot – be equally divied up the way it was assumed.

Sure they can. If the student passes the test, then a set amount of money gets handed out. Simple as that. The religion, or lack thereof, will never enter into the picture.

[quote]
Thus there will be favoritism.

[quote]

Do you really believe that? Do you think there’s going to be some bureaucrat saying “Nope, sorry, you’re not Catholic, so you don’t get any money”?

Vouchers help Catholics more than the general population, but that doesn’t mean that vouchers “favor” Catholics; vouchers do not discriminate against non-Catholics.

Sure they do. I pay taxes. There are no agnostic Jewish (or even regular Jewish or atheist or anything else even close) private schools in town. There are, however, a lot of Catholic schools. So my tax dollars would go, in the form of vouchers, to fund the Catholic religion.

There are no laws against other religions forming their own schools. The fact that some religions choose not to do so is not the fault of the government. Every religion has the same opportunity to get vouchers. The argument that vouchers are discriminatory because some religions will take more advantage of the opportunity that everyone has is preposperous. You might as well say that highway funding is rascist because a greater proportion of whites have cars than blacks.

Sorry, I meant to say, “most voucher proponents…” In other words, they push voucher programs so they can get religious school funding. You don’t see a whole lot of people clamoring for secular-only voucher programs.

I don’t think that the motivation of voucher proponents is relevant. Personally, I think that the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade was pretty silly, but that doesn’t mean that I support laws against abortion.

Of course, to know that, we’d need to know exactly what SingleDad’s taxes are, what portion go to education, etc.

Okay, I guess I should clarify what I meant by “pay for”. I meant that SingleDad has already fulfilled his financial obligation in regards to his child’s education. Have you paid for the roads you drive on? According to your interpration, you probably haven’t (I don’t know; maybe you paid several million dollars in taxes this year). But according to mine, if you pay your taxes, you have, and you shouldn’t be charged a toll to use the roads you have already paid for. Sure, you can avoid tolls by staying home, but you’ve paid for the roads. Don’t you expect to be able to use them?

If you want to claim that you are overpaying by sending your kid to a private school, what do you say about those without kids at all?

I say they’re fulfilling their obligation to educate the next generation of citizens.

Either you eliminate the entire public school system to accomodate those folks or you stop complaining about “paying twice.”

What do you mean “accomodate those other folks”? They’re already getting what they paid for; an educated citizenry. Parents that send their children to private schools are paying for what society is supposed to pay for. First they pay for education in general, which includes their own child, then they pay for the education of their child again.

You can’t have it both ways; in other words, you can’t just complain about yourself and ignore everybody else.

Who’s ignoring everyone else? I am quite aware of everyone else, and I’m sure that SingleDad is as well.

Do you honestly think any voucher program will suddenly make private school affordable for the majority of people?9

I don’t know; maybe it will, maybe it won’t. It dsepends on the system. I’m sure that even if a voucher system were passed, people like you with irrational objections would force compromises that would seriously impair the efficacy of the system. But it will make it affordable for a significant proportion of the population, and something is better than nothing.

In other words, the Catholic school folks, for example, won’t be lobbying to get a secular-only voucher program backed, which means state Reps & Senators aren’t likely to spend too much time on it.

It depends on what you mean by “secular only”. With SingleDad’s plan, most Catholics probably won’t be pushing for vouchers (neither would I: teach a failing school and you’re tainted for the next five years? Yecchhh). But that’s not the only way to avoid entanglement in religion. For instance, suppose every private school in which a student got a passing score on a year-long AP test got a thousand dollars? That wouldn’t involve religion at all.

Otto

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="

[The_Ryan]

Well, my nested quotes got messed up. Hopefully, if you’ve paid attention to the previous posts you should be able to figure what was me and what was David.

[SingleDad]

The Ryan:

I don’t think there should be any advance payments.

Definitely a better idea than mine. I don’t have Godlike knowlege: I’m not Cecil; I don’t even work for him.

What I’m trying to address are schools that skip important subjects, like Evolution, and distinguish those from schools that just have a lot of kids who are poor at science.

---

This computer paid for with my own money

[waterj2]

Originally posted by Otto:
Which allows the school to avoid paying for those secular subjects from their own funds, which frees up resources for religious instruction. An indirect payment for religion.

What part of the Constitution says that the government is not allowed to purchase the services of an organization which will then use it’s own funds to promote religion? How about if the government wants to buy property owned by a church. The funds from the sale of the land would go towards helping the church continue spreading religion. The US government is not really supposed to be against religion any more than it is for religion.

[douglips]

Me(paraphrase):

The tax you pay is not for your child’s education, but for an education system in general (a well educated populace)

TheRyan:

So why can’t private schools be part of that education system?

They can be. I don’t think it’s a good idea, but I don’t see why you couldn’t legally have ‘contractor’ schools to educate a portion of the children. Other issues like forcing the private school to deal with 14 profoundly disabled children will make things very interesting. 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. Now that the private school cannot expel a student for refusing to pray or for getting an F in math or dying their hair purple it is really a public school and will be just as good or bad as other public schools, with the exception that it started off as a private school and will have some inertia to overcome to reach equilibrium with the other schools, and then parents will re-examine whether they want to pay the balance of the tuition to get the same education they could get for ‘free’.

Me:

Why do you get to choose [where to send your children] if I (with zero kids) don’t?

TheRyan:

Because you don’t have kids. [paraphrase: that was a stupid question…]

OK, the question was not well phrased. When I pay for a well educated populace, I do not get a say in what the education department does with the money other than in a very general sense (educate children.) If I have a child and want him to participate in that education system, I need to take it as it is or leave it, modulo moving around to place my child in a better locale. When I send my child to private school, I am choosing to not participate in the public education system.

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?

TheRyan:

If you don’t have a car, you don’t get to choose whether you want to drive on a freeway or a surface street. You just don’t. Does that mean you have the right to tell other people which type of route they should take?

I live in the SF Bay Area. Traffic congestion is legendary here, and there is some talk of opening private roads. That is to say, permitting private companies to install roads and charge for their use. 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.

As someone without a car, I would indeed be upset that I don’t get the money back because I am also not using the exact same stretch of road you are not using. Should I declare what my commute would be if I had a car, then get the credit for not using that road? No, I don’t get to choose because I don’t have a car. So, the people who can afford a car are subsidized by the people who cannot.

Me:

If you have eighteen kids do you pay eighteen times more property tax than if you have one kid?

TheRyan:

What’s your point?

I suppose I could have been clearer? This goes back to the “paying twice” argument.

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. 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. If you have eighteen kids then you’d be paying 18.3 times, not 36 times which is where I was going with the eighteen kids question. If you had to pay 18 times more tax because of your children, then you could bitch about paying ‘twice as much’.

[David_B]

Don’t think I’m gonna get a chance to respond to everybody who has posted since I last did, so I’m going to start with one and see how much I can get done before having to go to work.

Waterj2 said:

We have already accepted as a premise that the public is obliged to fund education. Therefore, everybody must pay into the system, regardless of whether they have children or where they send their children to school.

Although the Florida State Constitution may specify differently, there is nothing in general that says that the government must run the schools itself. The people should be able to decide how they want the money divided up.

We have already accepted that the public is obliged to fund a national defense. There is nothing in general that says the government must decide how that money should be divided up. Therefore, individual taxpayers should be allowed to decided how they want the money divided up.

Since we have decided that the public should pay for educating its children, why is it unfair for the public to pay the same amount per student, but to allow private schools to basically be contractors hired to educate children as well.

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.

Also, a “per-child” fee is not an entirely truthful statement, either. How does one decide how much it costs to educate a child? Those are always average costs. Well, it costs a lot more to educate a child with learning disabilities, behavioral problems, or physical handicap than it does to educate one without. Yet those categories of children are exactly the ones most likely to be excluded from private schools because private schools don’t have to accept them. 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.

The religion issue is a red herring. It would not be difficult to make the school voucher legislation provide for the funds from the vouchers to be applied solely to secular education. The various parochial schools involved would probably be willing to comply to keep everything constitutional.

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.

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.

[David_B]

(I suspect I won’t be able to answer all of SingleDad’s post here, as it’s getting close to time to get ready for work, and I also hear the stirrings of a little one getting ready to wake up.)

I had said: “My tax dollars should not fund somebody else’s religion.”

I’m not asking for that. I’m asking that they fund secular education in a different manner.

Then your ideal voucher program wouldn’t include religious schools? Because that’s the only real way to accomplish what you’ve said. If that’s what you’re saying – secular private schools only – then that’s fine. I just need to know so I can know what I’m debating!

Your tax dollars are already going for religious education: Religious extracurricular activities are already permitted on school grounds after regular school hours. To do otherwise would discriminate against religion.

That’s not religious education. Allowing a group to meet on public property is a lot different than giving money to educate them. In the schools that I attended, some teachers stayed after school with a club. However, almost none of them took active part in what was going on at the club – and they certainly were not acting as educators! If a bible club meets, it is supposed to be a student club. That is quite a bit different from giving money to a religious school. I presume you see the difference.

Agreed, making a credible and serious separation between a parochial school’s secular and religious education would be difficult, but I’ve seen no serious argument that it’s impossible.

Did you read the links I posted, above? They make some pretty good arguments.

I’m arguing it’s a better way to offer universal education.

And I’m arguing that it’s not. If you want universal education, you don’t send some kids away from the public schools and leave the rest there to suffer from lack of money.

I had suggested that you sue school boards when they overstep their bounds. You replied:

And wait 10 years for the results?

No. Most of these things have been hashed through in court already, and it is likely you would get a restraining order against them almost immediately (for example, if they proposed teaching creationism or posting the 10 Commandments). In fact, most of them realize the stupidity of wasting school money on a losing battle and back down fairly soon after (at least, that is the trend I’ve noticed recently).

If you accept vouchers, then it’s part of the regulations that you do accept all kids (first come/first serve) including learning-disabled children.

Do you really think those operating private schools want to do this? They want the money but not the extra regulation.

Or, perhaps LD kids get a higher voucher, to compensate for their more expensive educational needs.

I can just see it now: Parents fighting to have their kids designated as LD so they can get more money…

But more seriously, why just LD? Do we need a separate scale for BD also? Physically handicapped? Gifted? Those in English as a Second Language? Etc.

My boys are in a charter school (a reasonable compromise), and this takes a lot of effort and money to participate in, which I’m happy to spend.

If you believe that a charter school is a reasonable compromise, why are you arguing for more?

When I attempted to participate in his education in traditional public schools, I was slapped down by the teachers and administrators. They ignored the IEP and the psychiatrists recommendations. I’m still pursuing this in the court. …

It sounds like you got a raw deal. But your personal raw deal is not a reason to overhaul the entire system. Does the school you had problems with need to be smacked upside the head? Sure sounds that way. But that doesn’t mean they all do.

That’s all for me today. Gotta go.

[RonaldBarnhardt]

Does anyone wonder what would happen if the Republicans holding a temporary majority in Florida would spend their energy on trying to fix public education?

In Orlando, the parts of town with failing or near failing schools don’t have any private schools close enough to make vouchers feasible. However, parents with kids in failing schools do have the choice of sending their kids to the nearest “good” public school. That makes me wonder what Gov. Bushes intentions really are.

[Dangerosa]

Two points:

1. Funding only secular education - this loses much of the support base for vouchers. Not all voucher supporters want religous education, but many do.

2. Government oversight of private schools - Also loses much of the support base. “Hey, the government can’t run the schools its supposed to…that’s why we are sticking our kids in private schools in the first place.”

I always look at vouchers as a “be careful what you wish for” situation. I know some Pagans who are really exicted about the idea - they’ve been homeschooling and vouchers would give them some funding to open up a private school. I know some voucher supporting Christians that are absolutely against teaching “devil-worship” with their tax dollars. I myself am not real excited about funding a military school run by militia-types. Perhaps none of these schools would open - but throw enough money into vouchers to actually enable low and middle income people to send their kids to school, who knows? Should vouchers take off, certainly more private schools would be required to take on the load, and in a large community, there would be plenty of room for niches

[Erratum]

A couple of people have been advocating vouchers, and have been trying to deflect criticism by saying, “okay, we’ll regulate that, but what about the underlying premise?” The problem, I think, is that you are eroding the notion of a “private school” so that it is no longer recognizable. For example: publicly decided curricula (presumably by an elected school board, or something), publicly decided certification criteria, publicly decided acceptance criteria, publicly decided expulsion criteria, publicly decided (and Constitutionally permissible) position on religious education… After you have made all of these “concessions”, what is the difference between the private school and a public school?

[SingleDad]

Then your ideal voucher program wouldn’t include religious schools? Because that’s the only real way to accomplish what you’ve said. If that’s what you’re saying – secular private schools only – then that’s fine. I just need to know so I can know what I’m debating!

We are in complete agreement on this point.

That’s not religious education… I presume you see the difference.

I do. Again, we have reached agreement on this point.

And I’m arguing that it’s not. If you want universal education, you don’t send some kids away from the public schools and leave the rest there to suffer from lack of money.

You are making the implicit argument that schools benefit from economy of scale. I would suggest that this view is very debatable. The better schools that I’ve been to are smaller (and I had my primary and secondary education in just about every type of school you can imagine). Larger schools do not educate their children more effectively. They’re a little cheaper, but children are not widgets.

No. Most of these things have been hashed through in court already, and it is likely you would get a restraining order against them almost immediately…

It’s obvious you’ve never tried to deal with a public school bureaucracy to deal with a learning-disabled child.

Do you really think those operating private schools want to do this? They want the money but not the extra regulation.

<shrugs> If you make a market, people will come to fill it, regulations or no. If the existing private and parochial schools don’t like it, tough luck.

I can just see it now: Parents fighting to have their kids designated as LD so they can get more money…
But more seriously, why just LD? Do we need a separate scale for BD also? Physically handicapped? Gifted? Those in English as a Second Language? Etc.

BD?

Yes, yes, yes… dealing fairly with LD, physically disabled, gifted, ESL… These are all huge issues already. Vouchers, public schools, whatever, we still need to spend extra money on these kids, and create educational programs tailored to their learning styles.

If you believe that a charter school is a reasonable compromise, why are you arguing for more?

Well, the charter school is an improvement, but it’s still difficult meeting his needs.

It sounds like you got a raw deal. But your personal raw deal is not a reason to overhaul the entire system.

Yes, my son is getting a raw deal. Once I got involved in education, I saw how many kids were getting raw deals. Also, my raw deal was fundamental in nature, not just a problem with this particular school (see my next post).

[Centerline]

I think one of the underlying problems with all these discussions really has to do with the “quality” of the public education that now exist in this country, specifically, the wide “variance” in the quality. Somewhere along the line, we have arrived at thinking that the original founding fathers that intended a “free” education means a “complete” education. Back then, education really meant Reading, 'Riting, 'Rithmetic. It was somewhat of an established “base-line” of learning. School was mostly half day, and the rest of the learing occurs at home, working on the farm, or in the family business, in addition to a great deal of parental guidance and teaching.

Perhaps we should return to those base-lines: “public”, “free”, education, means a certain base-line only, following the 3Rs. This supports the fundamental public interest in assuring that every citizen can do those three things. Everything else can become private. If a parent believes that the child should have a strong science education, the child can be sent to some private school known for science education, in addition to the public school. If they even want religion, they can send the child to a religious school for the afternoon. Parents with children that unfortunately have disabilities of one form or another can send their children to the appropriate shoold. All school and property taxes will be reduced greatly so that individual parents can spend the additional money as they please. They can even have the child work and learn on-the-job in family businesses.

This will foster private competition as well as support the public good simultaneously.

I can’t believe my fingers have been separated from my brain and joined in this hot topic by themselves!

[Bucky]

So, I open my Dinoysian school. Since I’m receiving voucher money, I agree not to specifically bring up Dinoysian teachings during my 7 hour day. However:

All the literature classes deal with Dionysus, drinking, and wild orgies. Same with history, science, social studies, etc.

Anyone saying anything bad about drinking is immediately and thoroughly punished.

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.

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.

Nobody will have a problem of my running a school like that on voucher money, will they?

Headmaster Bucky