Lee <leedoesnotreadt
...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The recipients are currently getting something for their tax
> money, as are childless people. They're getting the benefit
> of an educated society.
EXACTLY. What you are paying for isn't for the education of your
own children, but you're paying to ensure we have an EDUCATED SOCIETY.
It's our job to make sure ALL children have some base level of learning.
Having an educated populace:
- reduces unemployment and welfare (not many jobs for illiterates who
can't count; and the more education the better paying (and better) jobs)
- reduces crime (I don't recall the statistics, but I thought that crime
was partly related to economic status; if schooling yields better
jobs, the higher pay will reduce the need for crime)
- better elected officials (this may be wishful thinking, but an
educated electorate theoretically would make better choices)
You can educate your kids almost any way you want -- public, private or
home schooled. The system ensures that your neighbors' kids get an
education too.
> The real arguments against vouchers include the facts that they:
> 1. violate the anti-establishment clause of the Constitution.
> 2. siphon resources away from public schools (even though the
> money is nominally "in addition" to public school funds).
What's more, providing vouchers for private religious schools would be a
first step in government intervention in religions.
You don't believe me?
Well, do you think that school vouchers should apply to ANYTHING that
calls itself a school?
If so, an enterprising con artist could easily establish a "school"
where he warehouses kids in front of a TV set for 8 hours a day, and
splits the tuition money with the parents.
Would you want your tax money going to support such a scheme?
If not, then you need to establish some standards, setting guidelines
that schools must follow to receive government money. These could
include student-teacher ratios, curriculum standards, and so on...
This would quickly violate the establishment clause in many ways:
Curriculum standards would force religious schools to teach subjects
antithetical to their beliefs, such as evolution or the Big Bang.
If we take steps to prevent cherry-picking in admissions, then schools
could be forced to accept students who violate their beliefs, such as
gay children, or children from interracial or gay families.
Some states have minimum requirements on how many hours students
spend in certain subjects, which would cause problems for schools
with different time priorities. [Minimum requirements in math,
science, English & history may not leave much time for Talmud &
Hebrew.]
Get the picture? If the government doesn't establish standards, our tax
money would go to warehouses, militias, cults, and other crackpot "schools."
If the government does establish standards, then it's interfering with
private religious practice. It's a no-win situation.
--
----------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <----------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
