I asked these questions in Jeff's education forum, but they found themselves off-topic in a history lesson. Education ranks as the top issue that concerns Americans right now. The Republican candidate has offered "vouchers" as a solution to the problems that people find in the educational system. The issue becomes blurred because Dubyah has thrown out politically emotional terms such as 'choice' and 'freedom'. Hell, who doesn't like choice or freedom right? Well, before we let these terms turn us into drivelling idiots, let us ask ourselves a few questions. 1) How do vouchers work? 2) Are they constitutional? 3) What will be the aftermath? Will private schools become swamped and appeal to the recently unemployed teachers to fill their needs? <HR> As a sidenote: Immanuel Kant's "categorial imperative" states that you should only act (pardon the paraphrase) "when you can only imagine each and every other person on the planet doing the same thing in the same circumstance". It is impractical to imagine the 300 high schools on my block (j/k, but Utah is very young) unleashing all of their kids upon the Catholic school up the street. Irregardless of the mantra, ask yourself this simple question (again) will the damn things work? ------------------ "At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived." --Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush. (Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00) Dubyah Speaks
I'll attempt to answer..but it may not be perfect. 1. They work by returning the money that it costs to send a student to a public school back to the student's family. That family then uses that money as a credit for private education...he may also use it for any other public school, under some proposals. Obviously all schools should be improved...but what do you do in the meantime?? Leave kids in public schools that are failing them?? No...you give them a choice to go elsewhere. This argument sells very well in the inner-cities...those from those areas that are polled on the issue overwhelmingly support the use of vouchers. They're still experimental, though. 2. If no religious school is involved, I can't see how they wouldn't be constitutional. I can't think of a line of argument that would make them unconstitutional. It's simply a return of your own money. If religious schools are involved then that becomes an issue. Personally, as long as the choice is ultimately left to the student and his/her family, I don't see how this violates the Establishment Clause. This is not the government establishing a religion as the state's religion...especially if kids choose to go to religious schools other than just Christian schools. If it's the parent's choice, how is the government showing any preference for one religion?? But, leave that to some of the federal judges and I'm sure they'll find a way to disagree with me. These are the same federal judges who think it's fine to allow a woman to birth a baby, leaving half of the child still inside, and using razor blades and vaccuums to suck the baby's brain out as it enters the world. 3. What will happen is the beauty of market economics. As private schools are able to make more money, they will build new facilities, hire new teachers, etc. Instead of forcing children to go to their crappy local school, they'll have choice. Competition will be introduced. My ideal is that you'll ultimately get to choose a high school like you choose a college. You'll go around the town and get booklets from every school you're interested in which highlight the amenities and programs they have to offer. "we have a great drama department and we emphasize college prep work." "we offer these athletic programs and we have an extensive science lab." "we have a coordinated program with a local hospital where students can make rounds with doctors and we have X number of teachers who have earned masters degrees." etc, etc, etc. Obviously you'll hear the other side..but I think this is a revolutionary approach. It's bold and it empowers the people who are most affected, the families, to choose where their child will be educated. ------------------
I don't know that much about it, but I read that private schools do not have to accept anybody they don't want. Just because you have a voucher does not give you the right to choose where you go. You have to be accepted first. ------------------
I won't try to answer the question. I just have some observations: 1. I don't like choice and freedom. So there's one for you. 2. I think it unwise to pattern your decision-making on the philosophy of Kant. Go ahead if you like, but I try to avoid it. 3. I don't think money or vouchers or any other such band-aid solution will greatly improve education in America. Crappy public schools are a symptom of class division and will not go away until the class war is rectified. However, on the issue of class, it won't go away and we're headed in the wrong direction anyhow. 4. Somehow, someway, I actually generally agree with Madmax on a political issue (the sky must be falling). If the school system is going to improve, it will have to be from deregulation and privatization -- along with government subsidization. The public schools are running into the same problem that the USSR faced in almost every aspect of their economy: they cannot be efficient without competition, and they can't compete as long as the government has a monopoly (which the government has when it comes to educating the poor). As far as the complaints about church and state and whatever, I think they are mostly methods to persecute Christians and a gross misreading of the Constitution for personal gain. But if you are going to let the govt pay for private schools, I don't think you can allow half measures: you have to gradually abolish public education. ------------------ Rockets Draft Obligations Summary http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/
MadMax makes some good points... 1. Basically as he described. But I have some porblems with actual implementation. This has only been experimented in limited areas. Does everyone get vouchers? Think of the red tape! The vouchers do not make private schools free. Parents would have to cover the difference - meaning the poor could still have trouble. They would have the taxes that they pay given back through vouvhers - breaking even, then would have to use that for the privates, plus covering the difference. Almost the same. Public schools could never compete. They already cannot with private because of the money. Now money would be taken away from them and given to the privates. Te only way for the publics to cath up would be to raise taxes for the remaining families - won't happen. This could very well cripple the pubs. 2. MadMaxanswered well. 3. It would be ideal, as MadMax said for there to be true choice like college. But I do not see it. Also, privates can not let people in for whatever reason they want. They can because they are private - if the goverment were to interfer, then they would not be private and that would be unconstitutional. Discrimination would be very easy. ------------------ Play the Piano Drunk Like a Percussion Instrument Until the Fingers Begin to Bleed a Bit
Great post MadMax... you've given me alot of things to think about. I've never read such a great advocation and explanation for Vouchers. The media usually falls into the abyss of Constitutional problems. If vouchers get past Constitutional concerns, then one can imagine a slew of schools popping up... and debates about punishment arising again. A friend of mine that teaches High School Biology is always quick to remind me that placing all of his current kids into a different setting isn't going to change anything... but I wonder. A private school would seem to have the ability to enforce punishments that a public school never could get away with. It would merely be a factor in the contract. "Oh, you want to go here, well... we bean the kid if he says any of the following words...". My Mother-In-Law teaches developmentally disabled kids, and her concern is that Vouchers would abandon her kids. There obviously would have to be one hell of a bridge to get to your ideal state, but there doesn't seem to be a reason why her kids would be abandoned. Developmentally disabled kids are more expensive, but it seems as if the Voucher could factor that in. I went to Christ Church Episcopal School for a period of my life, and I can't answer a simple question -- What are the regulations of private schools? My remaining concern about Vouchers is that children would find themselves in a 'vo-tech' world... but that, again, is mitigated by MadMax's vision... Blah, Blah, Blah... (sorry I'm babbling, but this is interesting). ------------------ "At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived." --Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush. (Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00) Dubyah Speaks
Interesting responses...though I expected Juan to finish with a big "WORKERS UNITE!!" Just a question, Juan...do you consider yourself to be a socialist? Just curious about your first response, which may have been a joke, that you don't think choice is good. I personally believe there is no society ever that will eliminate some form of class differences. The theory was in place in the Soviet Union, yet their class structure was even more rigid than ours...there was no middle class. You either had absolute power and privilige or you had none. All you can do is give the people as much liberty as possible to improve their condition. And one great way to do that is to come up with creative ways to encourage education. Man is inherently selfish...it's this premise that socialism misses entirely. There always has been class structure and there always will be. That war was fought and lost. behad -- you're right..though if the child is serious about learning and has demonstrated that, there is no private school in america that will turn down their money! It doesn't give you an absolute choice..but it sure puts you in a better position than being stuck with the status quo when the status quo is failing you! rimbaud -- You talked about the red tape if everyone had them...I foresee that as a problem as well. It may be that when actually implemented, vouchers are only given to those in lower income situations and in schools that are demonstrably failing. I'm not sure. Does that sound reasonable? Question for you: why don't you think it could eventually evolve into a system where you choose high schools like you do college?? Just curious..I happen to think a healthy dose of competition (which calls for accountability) is exactly what the schools need. As for the public schools' loss of resources as more and more students use vouchers to go to private school, I heard some interesting facts on this. SBISD studied this to see what would happen. What they learned was that, given X number of students leaving, they would gain disproportionate resources by having fewer students. It's not a 1-1 approach where if little Johnnie leaves with his voucher we have exactly that less number of resources necessary. It's not necessarily proportionate with the cost of education per student..and they found that they would actually be in a better position with more resources...maybe that has to do with class sizes and the elimination of some teaching positions in the public school. Maybe taking away five kids means one less teacher..so not only do they save on the students being gone, but at some point it disproportionately benefits them by eliminating the cost of hiring one teacher. I'm having a hard time communicating this...sorry for that!! Am I making any sense? I heard this at a meeting on vouchers with State Representative Culberson at an elementary school. Ultimately...I think the system is broken...it's time to repair it, and this is just one solution. I find it to be bold and creative...and Americans have seen the value of competition in creating our economy. Hopefully that could transfer over to education. I'm not sure it's the perfect solution...but I'm not hearing any better ideas from the other side. Interestingly enough, many inner-city democrats are jumping on the voucher bandwagon..hell, some of them have been calling for this for years. The thing I most like about it is that it brings up those in poor schools, instead of bringing down the better schools in the name of equity. That is the problem with socialism to me...by making everyone equal, it brings no one up..it merely pushes people down. sorry again for the rant and ramble! ------------------ [This message has been edited by MadMax (edited August 04, 2000).] [This message has been edited by MadMax (edited August 04, 2000).] [This message has been edited by MadMax (edited August 04, 2000).]
you mean it pushes rich people down right? this is an illogical statement. if the money is distributed evenly how can that bring "no one up"? what about us taxpayers who don't have kids? do we get a choice of which school to send our tax dollars to?
fair enough...how about this..it brings everyone to mediocrity. I'm not sure about what should be done with tax money for those without kids...I mean, I have a child, but he's not in school yet. What happens to the school taxes I pay...do I have any choice with them. I don't think I should, quite frankly. I think this is where representative government takes over and its left up my elected representatives to decide how my money gets spent. The interest is only vested when you actually have a child who is utilizing the school system. That seems to me to be the only manageable way of making this work. ------------------ [This message has been edited by MadMax (edited August 04, 2000).]
if those with kids are the only ones with a choice then they should have to pay higher taxes. vouchers would mean the load of supporting the public schools would increase for everyone else. i don't think losing a few teacher salaries are enough to offset the loss of those tax dollars.
outlaw -- it's a fair point, but why do you say that?? If it costs $2 to educate little Johnnie..and then little Johnnie takes his $2 and goes to another school, where is the loss? The cost of educating each student remains the same...what I heard, essentially, at this meeting I went to was that actually the cost of education per student decreases as the numbers diminish. I'm not sure how that works, and I didn't conduct the study myself. I'm simply relaying info on that. But I still can't get past the premise that if your debits and credits are the same, it's a zero-sum game. No loss..no gain at the very least. ------------------
What if Johnny has 4 brothers and sisters all in school? his parents still pay $2 in taxes but it's costing $10 to educate all 5 kids.
Excellent point...this is where my knowledge falls short. Sorry...I'll see if I can find more info on Milwaukee's plan. ------------------
MadMax makes some good points concerning underprivileged children being the primary focus of any Voucher system. I am reminded, however, that on two or three different occasions I saw the Republicans appealing to people to solve their local problems, not the government (Powell, Dubyah, and ....). It is perhaps in these economically deprived scenarios that private schools can take care of their own local areas (this isn't far fetched if you have any idea as to the magnitude of the Mormon welfare program... 10% tithing takes care of the misfortunate in times of need). Incidentally, I hit a wall thinking about this when I came to the conclusion that nothing will change using Vouchers. It is the capitalistic way to take advantage of a situation... my shoes blow out after a few months, Arby's will get cheap w/ their 'new chicken finger' gig as soon as people develop the routine to drive to Arby's. Companies generally do not maintain a good product that is worthy of its associated price. The companies that maintain standards are, of course, significantly more expensive than the run of the mill companies. It seems safe to conclude that most private schools in the Voucher world will be recycled public schools. So how does this bear on the educational system? Those of us that can afford it will pay the extra fees (that have now grown to factor in the Voucher) to send our kids to the schools that actually develop a good product (we currently call these 'private schools'). This is exactly what is happening now; the only difference is that my mom will be able to make sure my little brother is now learning about GOD at a subsidized rate at some cheaper school. ------------------ "At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived." --Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush. (Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00) Dubyah Speaks
"The issue becomes blurred because Dubyah has thrown out politically emotional terms such as 'choice' and 'freedom'. Hell, who doesn't like choice or freedom right?" Which is why pro-abortion is called "pro-choice", or supporting the "right to choose". Who wouldn't be for that, right?
I'm sorry to pull the conversation back to the USSR, which was not my intent. Madmax just brings it out in me. I actually do thik about other things on occasion. To answer your question, Max, I'm not sure if I'm a communist or a republican. Actually, somewhere in college I became incredibly embittered with all politics and now don't claim an allegiance. I'm certainly not a socialist, though I recognize the problems they try to address. As for point 1 about freedom and choice: I didn't mean it in a policy sort of way; I meant I try to avoid having freedom and choice in my own life. ------------------ Rockets Draft Obligations Summary http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/
pro-abortion... HAHAHAHAHAAAAAA You're funny... but you're right about the political terminology. Social conservatives would do themselves an injustice if they started an ad campaign entitled 'anti-choice' and the same would be said for socially liberal people choosing the term 'pro-murder' or 'pro-abortion' (hey everybody, make sure you get an abortion! god that's too funny). Pro-abortion, you're now on my funny list (CriscoKidd, Smeg... and introducing theFreak!). ------------------ "At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived." --Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush. (Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00) Dubyah Speaks
Pro-abortion describes the position a lot more accurately than pro-choice does. Pro-choice could mean everyone should have the right to choose to rape someone for all I know. People hide behind the term "pro-choice" because they're afraid to say they don't oppose abortion.
Uhhhh... I thought you were kidding. You're not on my funny list anymore. I disagree. Pro-abortion describes a stance that is anti-birth... that is that no human beings should ever have a baby again. It actually sounds as if it encourages pregnancy, merely to be terminated by abortion. I'll agree with that. I think a better term(s) would be pro-choice-on-abortion-or-having-your-kid. But as such, the social-Conservatives will have to change the term describing their stance on abortion to anti-abortion. Why are anti-abortion activists called 'pro-life'? Do people always have to be for something? If you oppose someone's acts you shouldn't be pro the antonym of their actions... you're anti-whatever. How ridiculous. Sorry, I have digressed from the original topic on Vouchers. ------------------ "At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived." --Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush. (Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00) Dubyah Speaks
Last post off-topic, sorry... I have no problem with "anti-abortion". I don't see that as a negative at all (gee, have you guessed my position yet?). Pro-life and pro-choice are both bad descriptions. I actually heard Bill Press call it "anti-choice"! Can you believe that! What a clown!
