Ab_Normal

Oh, goodie, another voucher thread!

Gar, my difficulty with vouchers to private schools is four-fold:

1) When given to religious schools, it provides tax money for religious indoctrination.

2) Under most voucher programs, the private schools are not accountable for either the money or their students' performance. For example, and if I understand correctly, in Florida students in private schools do not have to take the same performance assessments as the students in the public schools. There's no way to really know if the private school kids are indeed getting a better education.

3) Most voucher programs do not provide enough money to pay for the entire tuition. Therefore, families with better financial resources are more likely to take advantage of vouchers. This directly counteracts the stated intent of many voucher programs to provide options for kids from poorer neighborhoods.

4) Private schools can cherry pick the best students, and do not have to accomodate special needs students. Children with learning disabilities or discipline problems currently have difficulty finding private school spots.

butswana

Isn't one of the goals of that wedge strategy thing to disband the public school system?
So you convince people that public schools are shit(that old tell a lie enough times and people will believe it thing).
Take money from the system through vouchers.
Instate federal guidelines that financially punish schools if they don't meet them, while not providing any extra money to help meet said guidelines.
Cut funding for education because the money is needed elsewhere(war).
Public schools become an irreconcilable mess. No more public schools.
Most private schools are sectarian.
Only the wealthy can afford secular private school(the three in Indy cost about $8-10,000 a year).
The church schools are the only alternative. They make it so that in order for most kids to get any education the family must join the church.
An entire generation of Christian nation reconstructionist/creationists.
The fundies win. The Great Experiment is a failure.

keitht

Tax money is collected to aid in the education of children. Who has the primary duty to raise children? The parents. By not giving parents the option to use their education aid for the education they want their children to receive, then you've taken the primary responsibility away from the parents and given it to the state. I hear it endlessly, "parents have to be involved in the education of their children", "parents and teachers have to be partners in education", blah, blah, blah. That's like saying I have to be involved with the resturant that's cooking my dinner, or I have to partner with the mechanic that's fixing my car. The schools are providing a service to me, the parent, by educating my children. I'm the customer and if I don't like the service I should be free to take my business elsewhere. That doesn't happen in the public schools. You take what you're given. One size fits all. If you don't like it, tough.
How is allowing a parent to use education aid to send their kids to a religious school any different than a senior citizen donating their old age welfare (I mean social security) to a church? Education tax money today is used to support a government enforced monopoly of the public education industry. Arguments that private schools are too expensive, or won't accept everybody, etc., are based on the corrupt monopoly system that exists today. What happened to the telecommunications industry after the Ma Bell monopoly was ended? What do you think will happen once every parent has a voucher good for so much education of their children. There will be competition for that money springing up like weeds and those providers will have to perform or that money will walk out the door as fast as it walked in. The public schools that can compete will do just fine and if they can't, then we were wasting our money. Until you get the money out of the hands of the bureaucrats and into the hands of the customers (the parents), all of the education reform in the world will only be a band aid.

Keith

Ab_Normal

How do you square giving tax money to religious institutions with the First Amendment? That's the sticking point and the issue relevant to this specific forum.

Also, I'd feel better about voucher programs if the schools receiving vouchers had to meet the same standards as the public school system. Right now, there's no guarantee that the children will receive any better education.

Toto

Bad example. Telecommunications overexpanded, and a big chunk of the industry is in bankruptcy or has laid off most of their employees.

Market solutions do not always work.

And in telecom, there were genuine technological advances. There have been no comparable technological advances in education. Kids still need to be raised and educated in a labor intensive manner.

Buffman

keitht

How is allowing a parent to use education aid to send their kids to a religious school any different than a senior citizen donating their old age welfare (I mean social security) to a church? Education tax money today is used to support a government enforced monopoly of the public education industry.

Simple! That "education aid" is taxpayer money...whether you have children in school or not. It doesn't belong to one set of parents/parent. I have agreed to be taxed to pay for a secular education for every child. ..not a religious indoctrination.

A senior citizen is using "their," not every taxpayer's, money if they wish to donate it to a religious organization. If they want to they could buy Lottery tickets instead, or just throw it out the window of a tall building. If you wish to discuss whether SS is delayed "earned income," upon which taxes are paid, this is not the appropriate forum.

The U.S. Military is a government controlled and enforced monopoly. (I want my own Nuke and the means of delivering it. I paid for it.) I bet you are against the government ("We the People") owning (controlling/enforcing) anything. (Let's strip mine every federal and state park if there's a chance that someone can make a buck. Let's pollute the air, ground and water if there's a chance that someone can make a buck. Let's privatize public education if there's a chance that someone can make a buck. Who cares if they teach Creationism rather than Evolution...superstition and myth rather than verifiable facts and science. Let's go back to the good old days when only the rich kids could afford to go to the best non-denominational private schools. Besides, all our children will ever need to know can be found in the Bible. Reagan and Bush told me so...and look how well they did. ) :banghead:

keitht

This is not correct. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no link between the tax money collected under Social Security and the benefits paid out (Flemming v. Nestor (1960), and Helverigh v. Davis (1937)). The idea that Social Security is some sort of retirement insurance or "delayed earned income" is nothing but political marketing. Congress could vote to stop all benefits tomorrow and continue the taxes and it would be perfectly legal (although probably political suicide). They probably will do this in the near future for the richest of us and I don't see anything wrong with them making these political/fiscal decisions, but to call Social Security "their" money is simply not correct. Taxes for education and Social Security are the same (which I believe the Supreme Court has also said). If the spending decision is made by an individual for their own benefit, there is no difference.

Your same "indoctrination" arguement could be used by the fundies to say you're indoctrinating their children into secularism. Indoctrination is in the eyes of the beholder. The goal is to educate the children and the primary control of (and responsibility for) that education should fall to the parents, not the state. If it's not the parents responsibility and under their control, then we've truly adopted statist indoctination program for our education system.

I'm not sure what the military, pollution, or parks have to do with religion and education. I don't support creationism, or any other similar euphemism, but our Constitution does allow for people to believe any stupid thing they want. Forcing you own version of indoctrination on silly people who would rather believe in silly things, will create more opposition than converts. Holding the entire population hostage to a poorly designed education system solves nothing.

Keith

Buffman

This is not correct.

If you say so. However...

http://www.poop.org/Breaking/jan-03/br-1.html

Your same "indoctrination" arguement could be used by the fundies to say you're indoctrinating their children into secularism. Indoctrination is in the eyes of the beholder. The goal is to educate the children and the primary control of (and responsibility for) that education should fall to the parents, not the state. If it's not the parents responsibility and under their control, then we've truly adopted statist indoctination program for our education system.

Two religiously motivated views about "secularism."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13676a.htm

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/...annenberg.html

(Extracts)
What people look for in religion is a plausible alternative, or at least a complement, to life in a secularist society. Religion that is "more of the same" is not likely to be very interesting.

The plausible and persuasive presentation of Christian distinctives is not a matter of marketing. It is a matter of what the churches owe to people in our secularist societies: the proclamation of the risen Christ, the joyful evidence of new life in Christ, of life that overcomes death.

As this is not an argument for traditionalism (keeping in mind Jaroslav Pelikan's useful observation that tradition is the living faith of the dead while traditionalism is the dead faith of the living), so it is not an argument for fundamentalism. Admittedly, the term fundamentalist is loosely used today to condemn any religion that seriously offends secular sensibilities. But by fundamentalism I mean religion that, in an unwarranted claim to certitude, refuses to engage the human capacity of reason. The opposition of Christian proclamation to the spirit of secularism must always seek an alliance with reason. This is in keeping with the classical Christian tradition that, since the time of the early Church, forged an alliance with reason and true philosophy in order to contend for the universal validity of the Christian teaching.

Secularists are right to expose irrationality, fanaticism, and intolerance when they appear in the name of religion, even if the secularists sometimes do so in order to discredit religion as such.

My argument is that, if we think it is necessary to protect divinely revealed truth from critical inquiry, we are in fact displaying our unbelief. Such inquiry, while it may at times pose difficulties, will finally enhance the splendor of the truth of God. Confidence in that truth-a confidence exhibited in proclamation and life-is the only adequate and worthy response to the challenge of secularism.
(End extracts)

I'm not sure what the military, pollution, or parks have to do with religion and education.

Nothing. They were merely chosen as comparable extensions (examples) of your education monopoly position.

I don't support creationism, or any other similar euphemism, but our Constitution does allow for people to believe any stupid thing they want. Forcing you own version of indoctrination on silly people who would rather believe in silly things, will create more opposition than converts. Holding the entire population hostage to a poorly designed education system solves nothing.

My goodness. You presume a great deal. First, the issues between the teaching of Creation Science/Intelligent Design and Evolution are valid ones. They are fiction versus fact. A secular education is designed to teach fact, not fiction. Even a religious education must teach fact or create a graduate who is ignorant of accurate knowledge and will ultimately find that the modern world has moved beyond the superstitions and myths of the past. Second, educating students with verifiable and accurate knowledge is not "my version" of indoctrination. If someone wishes to believe that the earth is the center of the universe, even though the evidence proves otherwise, that's their choice. However, I don't want that individual teaching that erroneous belief in a classroom just because of religious freedom. I would hope that the more accurately knowledgeable people would "adamantly" oppose such a teaching. Finally, you have offered no verifiable evidence to support your claim that the public school system is poorly designed. As a matter of fact, I'm not even sure what you mean by such a statement.

keitht

It makes no difference whether you or I or anybody "adamently" oppose the teaching of what you and I consider "fiction". My premise is that the parents have the overriding right to control the type of education their children should receive, even if that education is being paid for through the state. If you don't agree with this premise, then you've removed the parents and installed the state as the parents. The present public education system does exactly this. It is a monopoly controlled by the state and the parents have virtually no say and no choice in the system. A system with no choice and no alternative is poorly designed. It makes no difference whether certain parts of the monopoly actually work well now. It is an inherent characteristic of all monopolies to be inefficient.

I'm curous how you would feel if we still had today the public schools of fifty years ago. Wouldn't it have been nice if O'Hair and Schempp, and others that felt the same way, could have just walked out the door with their money to find or form another school that didn't offend their beliefs? Are you so sure that the public schools couldn't go back to the old days? If there's choice in the system, then would we have to worry?

Keith

rmadison

I don't think the "secularism indoctrination" is that tenable though. I mean, there is a distinct separation of church and state in our constitution.

Is being born in America equal to being indoctrinated in secularism?

No, of course not.

So, I don't think they actually could make that argument. At least not with any credibility.