Vouchers and SOCAS

[Scylla]

pldennison:

I’m not suggesting an ends justify the means at all.

Given a scenario where we must choose between keeping Socas pure, and our children’s right to a minimally acceptable education, I would think violating SOCAS is the lesser of two evils.

Church and state are entangled to a necessary degree, simply by the fact that they operate within our boundaries and are subject to our laws. I think few people take SOCAS to the extreme that all organized religions and followers should be shipped offshore to avoid entanglement with the Government.

I think most would agree that entanglement needs to be kept to a reasonable minimum.

Do the failures of our public school system merit extreme measures so that a higher minimum is reasonable and necessary.

Again, normal circumstances would make this a negative, but these are not normal circumstances. It is not a desirable state of errors, but I maintain that the right to an education supersedes escalating entanglement temporarily as far as SOCAS goes.

I’m putting forth an either or proposition.

[CyberPundit]

It seems your arguments is in two parts:

1)Some kind of voucher system for private schools is essential to improve schooling in inner cities.
2) If you have private vouchers , SOCAS implies that you HAVE to have vouchers for parochial schools.

I am reasonably open to the idea 1) might be true but I don’t quite see the logic in 2). It seems paradoxical to say that SOCAS ever **requires[/] the government to fund parochial institutions. Your argument seems to be that if the government funds private schools it has to fund religious schools as well because religious schools are a type of school. You could use that argument to argue that if the government funds secular research then it has to fund theological research. I think the government has the right to make a reasonable distinction between purely secular instruction and partly religious instruction and choose not to fund the latter. Whether SOCAS requires the government to do so choose is another matter, and one I am not sure about since I am not familiar with the relevant case-law.

So basically , while I can see why the abysmal quality of education in some places might justify some kind of voucher , I still don’t agree that it requires that the vouchers be extended to parochial schools.

[CyberPundit]

Oops I seem to have misplaced the “bold” tags. I tried to edit the message but it doesn’t seem to work.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by CyberPundit *
**It seems your arguments is in two parts:

1)Some kind of voucher system for private schools is essential to improve schooling in inner cities.

**

That’s being debated elsewhere, and may or may not be true. For purposes of this discussion, it’s a given.

2. If you have private vouchers , SOCAS implies that you HAVE to have vouchers for parochial schools.

It seems that way to me. However, if I knew for sure I wouldn’t feel the need to start a debate on the subject. Hopefully, I’ll either end up with a better viewpoint, or leave finding mine reinforced.

I am reasonably open to the idea

Damn, I must be good!

You could use that argument to argue that if the government funds secular research then it has to fund theological research.

Not really. Imagine two research institutions trying to find a cure for cancer.

Research institute #1 is a part of The Friends of Cthulu.

#2 has no religious attachments.

Both compete for the same Federal funds.

Let’s pretend #1 has made a significant, peer reviewed, and promising breakthrough. #2 hasn’t.

Who gets the money?

If you withhold the money from The Friends of Cthulu based solely on their religious affiliation, that’s discrimination, IMO.

If we’re going to have Private voucher money, it needs to go to the best qualified schools regardless of affiliation.

---

IMPORTANT ASIDE

Apparently this issue of entanglements isn’t as complex as we think. Our new President fears no such thing, based on his move today.

Can’t say as I’m especially pleased.

[Monster104]

PLD: Thanks, though I knew who the justices were. However, one must keep in mind that the Supreme Court is not always consistant. I could go get specific court cases, but it’s a fact that the SC has reversed it’s own opinion several times during it’s history. Who doesn’t think that the SC might reverse itself on issues of SOCAS? (ie, the more conservative the court gets, the more likely are the chances that more leniency will be allowed in SOCAS issues)

As for using vouchers for public schools only, doesn’t that defeat the purpose of vouchers? In LA, nothing short of replacing the entire school board can save the LAUSD (They recently gave another pay raise to LAUSD teachers, which will possibly bankrupt the school system).

Would anybody be against vouchers for non-parochial private schools? There aren’t as many, but there are some, and vouchers for non-parochial schools might encourage more schools like this.

[Scylla]

Private prep schools and such are notoriously expensive, and have little motivation or desire to take voucher money.

Parochial schools tend to be less expensive.

[David_B]

Scylla said:

Re: Wiccans

They would have as much a legitimate right to open a parochial school as anyone IMO. For me, if it was the choice between an inferior education at a Public School or a superior education at a Wiccan school for my daughter, I would send her to the latter provided of course that our religious differences were respected.

Yes, they would have had a legitimate right to open a school if the voucher scheme had passed and was not rule unConstitutional. That was what scared so many of the Christians.

But I would oppose giving tax dollars to such a school just as much as I would oppose it for any other religion.

Recieving Federal funds would of course be a benefit to the parochial schools.

Yes, that’s why the Catholic Church is a big promoter of vouchers.

This would be a necessary evil, given an emergency measures situation. I think the right to an education supersedes the responsibility of the Governent to maintain Socas.

You’re wrong. Simply wrong.

The First Amendment provides for SOCAS. Show me in the Constitution where it discusses a “right to an education.”

Now, I’m not going to argue that the government should get out of the education business. But I will say that your statements, as Phil noted, sound like you are saying the ends justify the means. You denied it, I know, but it still sounds that way.

We live in a Constitutional government. That means you don’t just ignore the Constitution whenever it’s inconvenient.

Again, normal circumstances would make this a negative, but these are not normal circumstances.

Prove it. No, seriously. Every election we hear complaints about schooling. What makes you think “these are not normal circumstances”? (Mind you, even if they aren’t, I still hold to what I said above, but I think this point deserves some looking at as well, since you seem to be taking it as a given.)

Apparently this issue of entanglements isn’t as complex as we think. Our new President fears no such thing, based on his move today.

Our president is a moron who deserves to be smacked upside the head by the courts. Lawsuits will be filed so quickly it’ll make your head spin.

Can’t say as I’m especially pleased.

I seem to recall that you wondered why those of us who favor SOCAS were so against Bush. I seem to additionally recall that you said you were voting for him. I’d say it serves you right, but the problem is that he’s serving everybody wrong.

[Scylla]

David B said:

Every election we hear complaints about schooling. What makes you think “these are not normal
circumstances”?

A good point, and it might very well be true. For purposes of this discussion only, I’m assuming it isnt.

Now, I’m not going to argue that the government should get out of the education business. But I will say that your statements, as Phil noted, sound like you
are saying the ends justify the means. You denied it, I know, but it still sounds that way.

Absolute SOCAS is naive IMO. Citizens will have their beleifs, and vote accordingly. Some entanglement is unavoidable as religious organizations operate within our boundaries. Given an either or proposition, I would rather chance the hazards of further entanglement, than compromise the education of our children. Given a willingness on the part of these parochial schools to scale back their religious mission, I think it’s a defensible position. I’ll confess that I’d rather steal than starve if that were the only option, so maybe I am guilty of and “ends justify the means” stance. I’m not sure that proves I’m mistaken in thinking so.

I seem to recall that you wondered why those of us who favor SOCAS were so against Bush. I seem to additionally recall that you said you were voting for
him. I’d say it serves you right, but the problem is that he’s serving everybody wrong.

And you’ll also recall, that for me, SOCAS was not a primary issue in my decision, though I respect that it is for you.

[Monster104]

Well, Scylla…it depends how you define expensive. The Catholic school I go to costs 10K a year, 14K for senior year. That’s just tuition…if you add in books, new wardrobe to be in dresscode, elective course costs (not all have costs, but some do)… that adds up to quite a bit. If a non-parochial private school got federal vouchers, dontcha think it would make it a little easier for poorer students to get a better education? (I don’t exactly have wealthy parents either…Deity bless grandparents).

[CyberPundit]

. “Imagine two research institutions trying to find a cure for cancer.”
Well here you are funding a purely secular activity.

In the case of schooling you are talking about purely secular education on the one hand and a combination of secular and religious education on the other. I think the government has a right to refuse to fund institutions which supply the latter. It’s like the government funding cancer research but not theological studies. Or to use your Cthulu example, if the cancer research facilities can be used in a major way for religious activities I think the government would be justified in not giving them funds.

A somewhat separate point is that it’s awfully hard in general to fund just the secular part of the services provided by a religious institution because the institution can shift resources that it previously devoted to those activites and now use them for religious purposes. This applies to welfare services as well and I would like to see
what the SCOTUS says about it.

[David_B]

Scylla said:

Absolute SOCAS is naive IMO. Citizens will have their beleifs, and vote accordingly.

Which has nothing to do with SOCAS. This is separation of church and state, not total removal of all religious influence from every person in the country.

Some entanglement is unavoidable as religious organizations operate within our boundaries.

So we should strive to remove as much entanglement as possible, not add to it.

Given an either or proposition, I would rather chance the hazards of further entanglement, than compromise the education of our children.

Who said we are compromising the education of our children? This is not an either/or thing here.

Given a willingness on the part of these parochial schools to scale back their religious mission, I think it’s a defensible position.

The problem is that this is not a given. Do you really think the Catholic Church is pushing vouchers so they can scale back religious education? Come on.

I’ll confess that I’d rather steal than starve if that were the only option, so maybe I am guilty of and “ends justify the means” stance. I’m not sure that proves I’m mistaken in thinking so.

There is a big difference in the steal/starve idea as compared to violating a main component of the Constitution on which we base our government.

And you’ll also recall, that for me, SOCAS was not a primary issue in my decision, though I respect that it is for you.

Ah, but therein lies the crux. This is the reason we are even having this disagreement. As you have admitted, SOCAS is not a primary issue for you. Therefore, you seem easily able to toss it aside whenever it suits you, or when it’s “minor” in your mind, or whenever the ends seem to justify it to you. What other freedoms should we toss aside? Gun rights? Free speech? Freedom to assemble?

As for your continued assumption that “these are not normal circumstances” for education, just because you take it as a given for this discussion doesn’t mean I’m going to stop pointing it out if you try to use it as an excuse for ignoring part of the Constitution.

[pldennison]

Monster104, my comment concerning the Justices involved in Lemon probably sounded more insulting than it needed to be, and for that I apologize. I was reacting to your comment:

The only reason it is considered unconstitutional is because liberal Supremes decided the Constitution says that the government shouldn’t support ANY religion.

That just simply isn’t the case. While the Burger court was undoubtedly more liberal than Nixon might have wished, a reading of the Lemon decision shows that much of the reasoning was based on the opposite of your conjecture. That is, the Court didn’t want the government telling religion what it could and couldn’t do/teach; the wanted the government to keep from interfering with religion, not vice versa.

Furthermore, the Court has not ruled any such thing as you assert. They have refused to even hear cases regarding the national motto, “In God We Trust,” but have indicated that they would not be inclined to declare it unconstitutional if they did hear it. They’ve ruled similarly in other cases.

[Scylla]

David B:

You’ve stated that your primary objection to vouchers is SOCAC. I’m assuming (perhaps falsely,) that this stance results from the cunundrum of the role of parochial schools within a voucher program. Include them, and you are supporting them in violation of SOCAC. Exclude them and you are discriminating against them, also in violation of SOCAC. Therefore, we can’t consider vouchers.

Is this more or less correct?

Any move that includes vouchers for parochial schools furthers government entanglement.

The qualified given of great need doesn’t merit further entanglement, as we may never tamper with our Constitutional rights and freedoms simply for expedience, or because the ends justify the means.

You give examples of other freedoms which may not be restricted: The right to bear arms, Free Speech, and Assembly.

The truth is these rights are restricted. I may not buy or carry a handgun without a permit, and I may be prohibited from doing so. Assault weapons are under attack.

Given reason, a gag order may be placed on me.

Largish assemblies require permits in many cases, which again may be restricted.

All these restrictions and qualifications of basic rights exist because these rights carry a component of responsibility to oneself and others.

The right to privacy can be lost and violated with cause for the same reason.

If the government has failed in its duty to responsibly use the tax funds designated to educate our children, then people have both the right and the responsibility to seek to change the system.

If such a system as vouchers can address and remedy the problem to some degree, and if it is the best solution to the problem, then it should not be dismissed out of hand due to SOCAS restrictions.

Two possibilities exist:

1. The Socas problems could be remedied.

2. The SOCAS “line of entanglement (my phrase,”) may be redrawn to some degree in the interest of the greater good, as the line has been redrawn in the other freedoms mentioned above, for the greater good, and to reflect the changing nature of our society.
   Or, perhaps there is a better solution. Or, perhaps the problem isn’t that bad.

I’m not arguing that either isn’t true. I’m just saying that dismissing vouchers out of hand due to SOCAS issues alone is not the reasonable and correct standpoint.

::checks ass::

Really David, considering the practice you’ve had, it’s taking surprisingly long to kick my ass here

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
Include [parochial schools], and you are supporting them in violation of SOCAC. Exclude [parochial schools] and you are discriminating against them, also in violation of SOCAC.

One of these two premises is incorrect. See if you can guess which one. (Hint: Refer to what the Lemon decision was all about in the first place.)

[Scylla]

Can I choose “C?”
I agree, and even referred to such entanglement extending both ways.

I don’t feel too terrible about mentioning this anyway, as somehow, based on yesterday’s actions, I think we are about to have that issue reconsidered to some degree.

[David_B]

Scylla said:

You’ve stated that your primary objection to vouchers is SOCAC. I’m assuming (perhaps falsely,) that this stance results from the cunundrum of the role of parochial schools within a voucher program. Include them, and you are supporting them in violation of SOCAC. Exclude them and you are discriminating against them, also in violation of SOCAC. Therefore, we can’t consider vouchers.

Nope. Number 2 is incorrect. Excluding them means we are avoiding church/state entanglements. It also means that, for all practical purposes, the program would be dead because those who are pushing for vouchers want it specifically for religious schools, and would likely stop pushing for such programs should such schools be excluded.

The qualified given of great need doesn’t merit further entanglement, as we may never tamper with our Constitutional rights and freedoms simply for expedience, or because the ends justify the means.

Correct.

You give examples of other freedoms which may not be restricted: The right to bear arms, Free Speech, and Assembly.

The truth is these rights are restricted. I may not buy or carry a handgun without a permit, and I may be prohibited from doing so. Assault weapons are under attack.

Requiring a permit is not “infringing” the right to keep and bear arms. Unless, of course, the government used that permit to prevent people from getting the weapons. As far as assault weapons, that’s a whole other discussion, and I don’t think we want to take that tangent right now. Suffice it to say that just because it’s being done doesn’t make it right.

Given reason, a gag order may be placed on me. Largish assemblies require permits in many cases, which again may be restricted.

But the “restrictions” would not be due to the type of assembly or speech – such things have been ruled unConstitutional many times over (such as when the Nazis want to march and cities try to deny them the permits to do so). Sure, it may be convenient to tell the Nazis that they have dangerous views, but it’s also illegal. Would the ends justify the means by shutting up groups with whom we disagree? I hope you will say “no.”

All these restrictions and qualifications of basic rights exist because these rights carry a component of responsibility to oneself and others.

Yes. And the right to freedom of religion includes the responsibility that you respect the similar rights of others. Taking my tax dollars and using it for your religious teaching does not respect my rights in this way.

If the government has failed in its duty to responsibly use the tax funds designated to educate our children, then people have both the right and the responsibility to seek to change the system.

Yes, they do. But not by violating the First Amendment of the Constitution. Is there really no other way you can think of to reform education in this country besides giving tax dollars to religious groups? That sure seems to be what you’re implying.

If such a system as vouchers can address and remedy the problem to some degree, and if it is the best solution to the problem, then it should not be dismissed out of hand due to SOCAS restrictions.

Yes, actually, it should. Just as taking away the free speech rights of groups we dislike should be dismissed out of hand, even if doing so could address and remedy the problem to some degree.

Two possibilities exist:

1. The Socas problems could be remedied.

2. The SOCAS “line of entanglement (my phrase,”) may be redrawn to some degree in the interest of the greater good, as the line has been redrawn in the other freedoms mentioned above, for the greater good, and to reflect the changing nature of our society.

So to reflect the changing nature of our society, you’d force people to support the religions of others? What a bizarre notion.

Or, perhaps there is a better solution. Or, perhaps the problem isn’t that bad.

Indeed.

I’m not arguing that either isn’t true. I’m just saying that dismissing vouchers out of hand due to SOCAS issues alone is not the reasonable and correct standpoint.

And I’m saying (and showing) that you’re 100% wrong.

::checks ass::

Really David, considering the practice you’ve had, it’s taking surprisingly long to kick my ass here

Hey, I told you from the outset that I didn’t have the time to properly devote to this. Besides, one problem is that your ass is so numb from repeated kickings that sometimes you don’t realize that it’s already been beaten and bruised.

[Scylla]

David B:

(Re:excluding parochial schools from voucher programs)It also means that, for all practical purposes, the program
would be dead because those who are pushing for vouchers want it specifically for religious schools, and would likely stop pushing for such programs
should such schools be excluded.

Neither true, nor does it follow. Wisconsin had a healthy voucher program for several years. Only in the last few years have parochial schools been allowed to participate.

[quote]
Requiring a permit is not “infringing” the right to keep and bear arms. Unless, of course, the government used that permit to prevent people from getting the
weapons.
[/quote.]

Yes, and note that they do so on occasion. With a justified and accountable reason. Principle does bow to expedience, because we are not a country of fools. Our rules are not absolute parameters. There is some give built in, on, purpose. We are adaptive, not static, and we do not throw a potentially useful resource away simply because some people do not like it.

Sure, it may be convenient to tell the Nazis that they have dangerous views, but
it’s also illegal. Would the ends justify the means by shutting up groups with whom we disagree? I hope you will say “no.”

Unfortunately it’s subject to interpretation. If they want to have a political rally, we have no right to shut them up. If we know that they plan to conduct a seminar on how to build a nuclear bomb from household components, then expediance and responsibility say we have to. And we’ve made laws that supersede the right to free speech in such circumstances for the greater good.
(isn’t there a message board law about bringing up Nazis in a debate?)

Taking my tax dollars and using it for your
religious teaching does not respect my rights in this way.

I’m going to respond to this one at face value. Let’s say these parochial schools refuse to scale back, and even fail to respect opt out provisions. Wasting my tax dollars on an unacceptably inferior education (again, my OP) doesn’t respect any taxpayer, representational or citizens’ rights either. I’ve set up an either or proposition in my OP without wiggle room. Education and a stretching of SOCAC, or no education and unstretched SOCAC (Perhaps this is somewhat dishonest, but I sincerely wanted to know your feelings in such a situation.)

I’m sure it’s the fact your busy, but I don’t feel like we’re particularly getting anywhere. It also seems like we’re arguing for points for an audience.

I’m not trying to turn us into another Vatican city here. I can think of lots of reasons why vouchers suck that seem way ahead of SOCAC. I’m reacting to what I see as an inflexible antireligious stance. You’re standing on principle.

My hypothetical is getting increasingly far from any reality worthy of debate.

The reality in my mind is that these ideas are gonna get tested, real soon, and I’m not sure what I think is right.

[Shodan]

pldennison, thank you for your post.

I found the following especially interesting:

That last part is very important, because the Court found that entanglement was
unavoidable in this case, since the legislature “…has not, and could not, provide state aid on the basis of a mere
assumption that secular teachers under religious discipline can avoid conflicts. The State must be certain, given
the Religion Clauses, that subsidized teachers do not inculcate
religion.” Therefore, “…comprehensive, discriminating, and continuing state surveillance will inevitably be
required to ensure that these restrictions [on religious utilization of aid] are obeyed and the First Amendment
otherwise respected.”

I find this to be part of the greatest difficulty in implementing a voucher program. Courts in particular, would take this as an opportunity to change everything about private schools that causes their students to out-perform those in public schools. Courts would refuse private schools the opportunity to refuse admission to students, or expel them after they had been admitted. Lawyers would sue to change the curriculum to the same bland, watered-down mush that public schools have now. School discipline would have the anchor of due process tied around their necks. Teacher unions would absolutely refuse to cooperate with or work at any school employing more than zero non-union members. And teacher unions would continue their absolute, uncompromising opposition to any and all link between teacher performance and salaries. And having transplanted all the reasons public schools are failing to private schools, they would then trumpet from the housetops that private schools are worse than public schools, and they deserve a pay increase.

There is a solution, but it is one that no liberal is prepared to accept.

Regards,
Shodan

[PlanMan]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**I find this to be part of the greatest difficulty in implementing a voucher program. Courts in particular, would take this as an opportunity to change everything about private schools that causes their students to out-perform those in public schools. Courts would refuse private schools the opportunity to refuse admission to students, or expel them after they had been admitted. Lawyers would sue to change the curriculum to the same bland, watered-down mush that public schools have now. School discipline would have the anchor of due process tied around their necks. Teacher unions would absolutely refuse to cooperate with or work at any school employing more than zero non-union members. And teacher unions would continue their absolute, uncompromising opposition to any and all link between teacher performance and salaries. And having transplanted all the reasons public schools are failing to private schools, they would then trumpet from the housetops that private schools are worse than public schools, and they deserve a pay increase.

There is a solution, but it is one that no liberal is prepared to accept.

Regards,
Shodan **

I find this interesting, and similar to points made in the “Competition” version of a GD Voucher thread.

----snip—
*I have taken a look at “No Child Left Behind,” Pres. Bush’s plan to reform education. Although the Plan does not specifically mention testing in private schools that receive vouchers, it does say this,

Protects Homeschools and Private Schools.
Federal requirements do not apply to home schools or private schools. Protections in current law would be maintained.
(page 9 of the text, or p.11 of 31 in Acrobat)

Thus, parents trying to choose an “alternative” will have no objective way to tell how “good” a private school is. The same standards that give little Johnny a voucher don’t apply to the competition. Administrators, at the local, state, and Federal levels, without the same measuring stick, will have no way of knowing whether the students they are “helping” with vouchers are really being helped.

Which gets back to the OP, as currently presented, dubya’s plan furthers the unfair competition through vouchers. Until this point is corrected, vouchers are snake oil.*
/—snip—

Altho’ Shodan fears gov’t entanglement in private schools, I argue that the government MUST, as a condition of a school receiving vouchers, subject their students to the same standardized tests dubya is going to require of public schools. If there was a way to stop the nose-of-the-camel at standardized testing, we may have a winner. However, Shodan is CORRECT in fearing all of the other “entanglements” that will surely follow public money (vouchers) into private schools. Surely, the rest of the camel would soon be inside the tent. Thus, I cannot support vouchers.