Turning home schools into public schools
protect_h...@my-deja.com
A look at the Draper School Voucher Initiative
The recent announcement that Silicon Valley millionaire Tim
Draper's school voucher initiative has qualified for November's ballot
should send a chill up the spine of every California home school parent.
But why, you ask? The official ballot title -- School Vouchers.
State-Funded Private and Religious Education. Public School Funding.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment -- doesn't include me. I teach my
children at home, I'm not affiliated with a charter school, my child is
not even on any kind of official list. What the public and private
schools do doesn't affect me.
Unfortunately, if the voucher initiative passes, that will no
longer be true. Home schooling will be directly in the line of fire.
Here's why:
Those who currently choose to educate their children at home, do
so because they believe it is worth the sacrifice -- not because there
is a financial reward for doing so.
But all that is about to change.
If the Draper Voucher initiative passes, public school parents
will have the option to pull their children out of school - whether they
seriously intend to teach them at home, or not -- and collect an
immediate $4,000 per child check from the government.
In other words, public school parents are going to be offered a
$4,000 "bribe" to have their children drop out of school. Undoubtedly,
there may be many public school parents who will legitimately attempt to
home school, but the $4,000 "carrot" will attract many, many more whose
least concern will be the education of their children.
To make matters worse, there is currently no mechanism by which
the state can compare the list of home schooled children to those
enrolled in public schools. Public school parents can claim the $4,000
per child, pocket the money, and then register their child in the local
public school anyway.
How long will that go on before outraged taxpayers demand
"accountability" -- in the form of a statewide registry of children?
How long before these truly abandoned children are used to justify the
imposition of state-mandated curriculum for home schools. In the worst
case scenario, the option of home education itself will come under
direct assault, fueled by public disgust with the "home school voucher
scandal."
This will happen whether you and your family choose to accept a
government subsidy, or not. The reason why is that many others will
take the handout. Today, most parents who make the choice to educate
their children at home also make a choice to sacrifice financially -
even while continuing to pay the taxes that run the public schools. The
all-too-human tendency to rationalize - to believe that they're finally
"getting back" the taxes they've paid all those years - will be too
strong for many. A family with three children - Dad working outside the
home and Mom forgoing that second income - will have to convince itself
that government funding is going to hurt the quality of their parenting
and teaching and that it would be bad for their children. In home after
home, well-meaning but stretched parents will find a way to take the
money.
Remember this - if you take public money, you're a public
school. Oh, the initiative may promise there will be no regulation, but
who believes that? Will the education establishment sit silently by
while "their" dollars disappear into our homes? Our most cherished,
long-held, long-exercised Constitutional rights can be taken away by a
5-4 court majority. Remember, our liberty to teach our own children does
not lie in the promises of politicians or the fine print of initiatives
- it lies in our vigilant and consistent defense of the boundary lines
God has set to separate the family and civil government.
Parents who've never considered homeschooling and who have no
intention of homeschooling will take the voucher and do nothing to help
their children, or they will enroll them in a public school and rip-off
the taxpayers. Taxpayers will - rightly - be outraged and will demand a
change in the law -- starting with a state-mandated registry of
homeschooled children.
Do you see why I say that this initiative should send chills up
our spines? We have, without our seeking it, been made part of the
argument over public versus private schooling. The coming battle between
the millionaire "reformers" and the state bureaucrats is going to be
fought in our homes. Our way of life, our right to educate our children
and our liberty will be the casualties. Once this initiative passes, we
will be the pawns.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
JT
>
> Remember this - if you take public money, you're a public
> school.
Bingo. That's the way it works. Voucher supporters don't seem to
understand that one.
-- Jack Tarkaan -- mailto:tar...@bigfoot.com
-- Return address intentionally broken. Remove NOSPAM to reply.
SUSUPPLY
>> Remember this - if you take public money, you're a public
>> school.
>
>Bingo. That's the way it works. Voucher supporters don't seem to
>understand that one.
Is a grocery store taking public money via food stamps a public grocery store?
A construction company building highways a public construction company, a
landlord accepting Section 8 housing vouchers a public housing project, Boeing
a public aerospace company?
bellaluna
governmental demand/scrutiny/licensing, etc. To accept foodstamps, a store
must meet certain criteria and submit to government review of records, etc.
The hoops construction companies go thru for govt contracts are horrendous,
I am told. Landlords accepting section 8 must similarly meet criteria,
follow strict guidelines, and submit to audits. (note, I am not saying this
is how it works in practice, I am well aware of fraud in these situations,
but the rules ARE different).Bottom line, taxpayer money brings government
regulation, and rightfully so. Taxpayers are supporting the idea of an
educated populace, in accordance with their current definitions. Now, it can
be argued these definitions are short-sighted, if not idiotic, it can be
noted that these definitions frequently shift and expand (we now feed,
medicate and psychoanalyze thru the schools), and it can be argued that the
whole basis of state interest is bogus. But as long as the taxpayers are
paying, they, through the government, rightfully expect accountability on
their own terms. If you don't like those terms, you can choose you own path,
but you can not fairly expect to take these funds, and expect no
intervention or control by, or accountability to, the taxpayers. I fail to
see why this is so hard to understand.
"SUSUPPLY" <susu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000707122431...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
Donna Metler
accepting government money. Do homeschoolers really want to have to go through the
accountability audits which are one of the reasons why public schools are such a
mess??
SUSUPPLY wrote:
> JT tarkaan...@bigfoot.com says:
>
> >> Remember this - if you take public money, you're a public
> >> school.
> >
> >Bingo. That's the way it works. Voucher supporters don't seem to
> >understand that one.
>
> Is a grocery store taking public money via food stamps a public grocery store?
> A construction company building highways a public construction company, a
> landlord accepting Section 8 housing vouchers a public housing project, Boeing
> a public aerospace company?
--
Donna Devore Metler
dmme...@bellsouth.net
www.math.ttu.edu/~dmettler
www.funfelt.com/donna
Asst. Director, Educational Programming, Peabody Place Museum
Faculty, Academy of the Performing Arts, early childhood and applied music
Children's educational advocate
SUSUPPLY
>I believe in all of these cases the businesses in question are subject to
>governmental demand/scrutiny/licensing, etc.
[snip]
>I fail to
>see why this is so hard to understand.
I fail to see why my question was so hard to understand. It was not whether or
not these businesses were subject to regulation or licensing. EVERY business
is, whether they accept government money or not.
The question was:
SUSUPPLY
>All of the below accept government regulation and oversight as a requirement
>of
>accepting government money. Do homeschoolers really want to have to go
>through the
>accountability audits which are one of the reasons why public schools are
>such a
>mess??
Huh? Grocery stores "are such a mess"???
Alex
> If the Draper Voucher initiative passes, public school parents
> will have the option to pull their children out of school - whether they
> seriously intend to teach them at home, or not -- and collect an
> immediate $4,000 per child check from the government.
Do you know what one can do with 4000$ per child annually?
25 children in a class, 4000$ each makes 100 000$. 20 000$ for supplies and
leasing classroom, and teacher gets 80 000$ sallary, kicks asses of all the
bureaucrats who make him do everything, but teaching, adapts whatever
curriculum he and parents see fit, has enough money to pay insurance against
"malpractice" suits, and generally teaching gets the prestige of medicine or
law professions.
> In other words, public school parents are going to be offered a
> $4,000 "bribe" to have their children drop out of school.
Well, "dyslexia" and "ADD" programs alredy make a bigger bribe to the poor
parents (who are the most likely to swallow the hook). They collect 500$ of
Social Security money every month. It makes 6000$ a year bribe for
discouraging reading and encouraging disruptive behaviour.
4000$ will definitely add up to that bribe, but wont be something
qualitatively new.
> To make matters worse, there is currently no mechanism by which
> the state can compare the list of home schooled children to those
> enrolled in public schools. Public school parents can claim the $4,000
> per child, pocket the money, and then register their child in the local
> public school anyway.
There is a mechanism. Social security number.
> How long will that go on before outraged taxpayers demand
> "accountability" -- in the form of a statewide registry of children?
> How long before these truly abandoned children are used to justify the
> imposition of state-mandated curriculum for home schools.
That I want to see! Teachers, who get 80 000$ annually, parents, who
finally have a say in defining curriculum, the public at large will mare it
impossible to decide upon curriculum inside the "educationist"
establishment. They will have to debate this curriculum in public, and not
treat upscale suburbs and inner city ghettos separately. They will get the
most intelligent critics, and the most universal domain of application. This
will definitely spell the end to "math for black", "math for poor",
"consumer's math" etc.
> In the worst case scenario, the option of home education itself will come
> under
> direct assault, fueled by public disgust with the "home school voucher
> scandal."
And this attack will not make a Big Bang, to the contrary it will be the
last fart of the corrupt system that debilitates American children today. If
the poor quality of American schools forced millions of parents to
homeschool no amount of the media brainwash will stop it.
> Remember this - if you take public money, you're a public
> school. Oh, the initiative may promise there will be no regulation, but
> who believes that?
Gee, may be it is a dream I have for the past 4 years to become a public
school! I want to live in an educated, happy, and just society. You really
chose a wrong scarecrow! Oh, I don't mind regulations, to say you more I
insist on imposing regulations, but I want to have a say in what these
regulations are. I mean direct say, not through elected officials propelled
to public offices by someone's else money, not through the mass media owned
and managed by someone else, but directly. It is not a limitation of
freedom, it is the way everyone can benefit the society.
Here is but one example. Currently sex education in public schools is so
nasty that regulations say that children should not take textbooks home, or
tell their parents what they are told in sex ed lessons. Such regulation is
nonsense if applied to homeschoolers! The fact that the government have to
make its regulations known to the public greatly limits possibility of
abuse.
> Will the education establishment sit silently by
> while "their" dollars disappear into our homes?
Will we sit silently while our dollars disappear...
Who is the majority? There are not really too many "educators" around if we
speak about the ideologists of education. Teachers will most probably be
happy to do away with them as long as their job security doesn't depend on
them, and their sallaries double.
> Our most cherished,
> long-held, long-exercised Constitutional rights can be taken away by a
> 5-4 court majority.
5-4 majority makes no sense. You can not push through a project opposed by
half of the population, even if their resistence is passive. It will
necesserely be putting issues aside. But rest assured - resistence will not
be passive.
> Remember, our liberty to teach our own children does
> not lie in the promises of politicians or the fine print of initiatives
> - it lies in our vigilant and consistent defense of the boundary lines
> God has set to separate the family and civil government.
I don't think God sets any boundaries.
You set them, and you defend them.
> Do you see why I say that this initiative should send chills up
> our spines? We have, without our seeking it, been made part of the
> argument over public versus private schooling. The coming battle between
> the millionaire "reformers" and the state bureaucrats is going to be
> fought in our homes. Our way of life, our right to educate our children
> and our liberty will be the casualties. Once this initiative passes, we
> will be the pawns.
Sorry, but you try to manipulate us willingly or unwillingly. It is not a
"battle between the millionaire "reformers" and the state bureaucrats". It
is a battle between the public and elite. The "millionaire reformers" are
trully dissidents among millionairs. The rest of them support the currently
existing system through donations for the campaigns of politicians who
created it, through private and state funding of "educationist"
establishment, through virulent anti-Christian and anti-intellectual hype in
the private mass media.
Being a millionaire doesn't automatically make one bad. Majority of
millionaires are on the other side any way, and your attempt to hide them
behind their instruments - bureaucrats doesn't hold water. Simply put you
want us stone our allye instead of welcoming his valuable support, and
working together to resolve few easily fixable problems (good education for
all, job security for teachers, chapeing out public view on desirable
regulations, preventing penetration of the big business in the field of
education, which could substitute direct dictatorship for inderect one
currently carried out through the state apparatus).
Alex.
Donna Metler
plant, OSHA, safety) but without the restrictions on their "products", I would
not be worried. However, schools are much more regulated as to what their
"product" is, who they can legally employ, and are evaluated on not only their
"sales" but the outcome of the "sales", regardless of how the "consumer" uses the
product.
If a grocery store sells an unbalanced diet to a food stamp recipient, and the
person gets sick, the store is in no way liable. If a school regularly is low
performing, there will be some questions asked, whether or not the "consumers"
are using the resources appropriately.
I can easily see that by allowing homeschools to recieve public funds, you are
opening the door for the state to say that you must use the same curriculum lists
as the public schools, teach to the same standards, and that teachers must be
certified by the state. This would negate many of the advantages of
homeschooling. Worse yet, if there are too many "low performing" homeschools, the
state could theoretically step in, as they can with a "low performing" public
school, and add still more restrictions.
I am in a state (TN) which already regulates homeschooling to a higher degree
than most-homeschoolers must have at least a high school diploma, must register
with the local school district or an accredited private school, and must undergo
standardized testing at certain levels. I'd hate to see more restrictions added.
SUSUPPLY wrote:
--
Beth Clarkson
> Turning home schools into public schools
> A look at the Draper School Voucher Initiative
>
> The recent announcement that Silicon Valley millionaire Tim
> Draper's school voucher initiative has qualified for November's ballot
> should send a chill up the spine of every California home school parent.
>
> Unfortunately, if the voucher initiative passes, that will no
> longer be true. Home schooling will be directly in the line of fire.
> Here's why:
>
> Those who currently choose to educate their children at home, do
> so because they believe it is worth the sacrifice -- not because there
> is a financial reward for doing so.
>
> But all that is about to change.
>
> If the Draper Voucher initiative passes, public school parents
> will have the option to pull their children out of school - whether they
> seriously intend to teach them at home, or not -- and collect an
> immediate $4,000 per child check from the government.
I don't think this is the case. As I read the initiative at
http://www.localchoice2000.com/initiative.html
I interpret it that schools, not parents, would recieve the actual funds.
There are a number of requirements that a school much meet in order to be
eligible for the scholarships (vouchers).
They are required not to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, color
or national origin. They cannot advocate unlawful behavior. They may not
provide any false or misleading information about the school. They cannot
employ anyone convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, lewd or
lascivious conduct, molestation or abuse of a child. At the high school
level, it must be an accredited school.
In addition, the school must prepare a statement of financial condition that
lists the revenues, expenses and debts of the school and administer
nationally normed reference tests, mandated to be taken by pupils enrolled
in public schools.
These requirements would seem to make homeschools, if not ineligible, at
least rather difficult for them to recieve the funds.
Beth
Alberto
JT wrote:
> protect_h...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Remember this - if you take public money, you're a public
> > school.
>
> Bingo. That's the way it works. Voucher supporters don't seem to
> understand that one.
My money is my money - not public money.
Alberto.
JT
Let's see if we can slow down and understand this basic concept from
Civics 101:
In a society, enough people agree that a certain 'thing' is necessary.
If the thing is an object, it should be built a certain way, if the
thing is a process, it should be done a certain way. In order to carry
those things to term, we pass an initiative through our legislature (the
people we have chosen to represent us). The legislators pass a measure
that each person shall give a small amount of their income to fund this
thing, thereby creating a thing that is much larger, much better, or
much more efficient than any one person could build with private
funding (that is the intent). The money that is collected is called a
'tax'.
The tax people pay for the thing constitutes an agreement between the
people and the government that the thing will be built/done in a certain
way. This is what the people agreed upon in the first place. If the
government decides to go cowboy and do the thing contrary to what the
people have agreed to, the people can take the government to task for
that.
One example is this: The people have agreed that their taxes are to be
used for the secular education of children, believing that education is
necessary to a free society, and that the government shouldn't be paying
to sponsor a religion. Giving tax money to religious schools goes
against the very fibers of the Constitution, to be hyperbolic. It's not
right, and it's not what I agreed to when I agreed to pay my taxes.
angrypr...@educrat.net
>Do you know what one can do with 4000$ per child annually?
>25 children in a class, 4000$ each makes 100 000$. 20 000$ for supplies and
>leasing classroom, and teacher gets 80 000$ sallary, kicks asses of all the
>bureaucrats who make him do everything, but teaching, adapts whatever
>curriculum he and parents see fit, has enough money to pay insurance against
>"malpractice" suits, and generally teaching gets the prestige of medicine or
>law professions.
A small town in Virginia received higher test scores than any other
county in Maryland, DC, or Virginia, but receives the least amount of
money of all the counties surveyed. Throwing money at crippled
schools doesn't raise test scores.
Joni J Rathbun
On Sat, 8 Jul 2000 angrypr...@educrat.net wrote:
> A small town in Virginia received higher test scores than any other
> county in Maryland, DC, or Virginia, but receives the least amount of
> money of all the counties surveyed. Throwing money at crippled
> schools doesn't raise test scores.
That very well may be, but your story doesn't provide any proof of
that. Think about it.
(BTW, I work at a school that received additional funding and
raised test scores. Another school in town just received accolades
for doing the same thing.)
sf
Higher Scores = Less Money
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alex
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 22:42:04 -0500, Alex <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>
> >Do you know what one can do with 4000$ per child annually?
> >25 children in a class, 4000$ each makes 100 000$. 20 000$ for supplies and
> >leasing classroom, and teacher gets 80 000$ sallary, kicks asses of all the
> >bureaucrats who make him do everything, but teaching, adapts whatever
> >curriculum he and parents see fit, has enough money to pay insurance against
> >"malpractice" suits, and generally teaching gets the prestige of medicine or
> >law professions.
> A small town in Virginia received higher test scores than any other
> county in Maryland, DC, or Virginia, but receives the least amount of
> money of all the counties surveyed. Throwing money at crippled
> schools doesn't raise test scores.
Exactly. American schools are wonder machines for safe defusing of billions
of education dollars. Education spendings were boosted after Sputnik, and prove
hard to cut down again. So ingenious ways of getting rid of them were invented.
Today American school can digest any sum of money without teaching anything. But
neither teachers nor parents need it. The system uses divide and conquire
approach. It makes teacher scorn parents and vice versa, monopolizes job security
and education science. All of it will come to an end.
Schools turned to teacher cooperatives will not be interested in wasting
money. They will not trade children's morality for job security by approving and
implementing "sex ed" and other trashy brainwash programs which are forced upon
them now. Teachers will not try to flatter or bribe children, but will work hard
to satisfy parents. School will not see parents or churches as enemies, but as
allies.
Alberto
JT wrote:
> One example is this: The people have agreed that their taxes are to be
> used for the secular education of children, believing that education is
> necessary to a free society, and that the government shouldn't be paying
> to sponsor a religion.
No, that's not what the people have agreed. The people have agreed that
education is a personal choice and needn't be any more secular than it is
religious. The people have agreed that they should, individually, be able to
decide on the degree of religion to be present in their own children's
education. The people have agreed that *any* intrusion of the government
into religion - not just "sponsoring" - is undesirable. The people have
agreed that their freeedom of worship is one cornerstone of a system of
citizens' rights.
> Giving tax money to religious schools goes
> against the very fibers of the Constitution, to be hyperbolic. It's not
> right, and it's not what I agreed to when I agreed to pay my taxes.
Giving tax money back to the people doesn't go against the Constitution. But
constraining the people on how they will spend THEIR OWN money is NOT a
right granted by "we the people" to the Federal Government.
Alberto.
panther
susu...@aol.com (SUSUPPLY) wrote:
>
MK. Discussion deleted (Vouchers, homeschool assistance, and regulation
of recipients of State money)...
>
> I fail to see why my question was so hard to understand. It was not
whether or
> not these businesses were subject to regulation or licensing. EVERY
business
> is, whether they accept government money or not.
> The question was:
>
> >> Is a grocery store taking public money via food stamps a public
> >> grocery store?
>
>
MK. Now that the USSC, in Mitchell versus Helms, clarified the
Constitutional question (vouchers distributed on religiously neutral
criteria are OK), we can focus on more immediate issues. The meaning of
"public" isn't important, unless people are confused (quite a few are).
Neither is the meaning of "responsible", as in "the voters are
responsible", important unless, again, people are confused (quite a few
are). More important is the real-world impact of policy.
>
MK. Alaska subsidizes homeschooling, and counts those homeschoolers who
take the subsidy as enrolled in the State school system. The State
provides financial accountability by limiting the level of support to
$3000/student-year (last I read), and maintaining oversight (e.g., a
parent could buy a music student a trombone, but not a grand piano).
This looks intrusive. North Dakota makes a homeschooling curriculum
available. A State cannot support education without a definition of
"education". Currently, in most States, for most children, "This child
is being educated" means "This child occupies a seat in a State-owned
building staffed by dues-paying members of the public workers' unions".
>
MK. On average, parents will do a better job than formal institutions,
in educating children. Many children suffer lifetime reduction in the
value of their human capital through confinement in State schools.
Although the fear that prompted this thread, of State intrusion into
homeschooling (and voucher-receiving schools) is legitimate,
compassionate (or far-sighted) voters and legislators will balance that
concern against the devastation wreaked on current inmates of the
NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools. So: how to combine financial and
performance accountability for State funds with parent control and
minimal State intrusion?
>
The proposal:
>
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=537272956&search=thread&CONTEXT=9432206
36.1544683525&HIT_CONTEXT=943220636.1544683525&hitnum=270
>
MK. Nothing in this proposal -requires- parents to submit to State
regulation. -If- you want the subsidy, you must subject yourself to
this (minimal) oversight. Since there are no stipulations on the means
by which parents accomplish the goals specified in the proposal,
parents could homeschool, hire grandma or the neighbor's daughter, or
pay tuition to an independent school. This leaves independent schools
free of State DOE intrusion.
>
MK. Anyone got a better idea?
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
JT
>
> JT wrote:
>
> > One example is this: The people have agreed that their taxes are to be
> > used for the secular education of children, believing that education is
> > necessary to a free society, and that the government shouldn't be paying
> > to sponsor a religion.
>
> No, that's not what the people have agreed. The people have agreed that
> education is a personal choice and needn't be any more secular than it is
> religious. The people have agreed that they should, individually, be able to
> decide on the degree of religion to be present in their own children's
> education.
Right, and in Public Schools, parents have the freedom to present
their children with as much or as little of whatever religion they
wish. The government won't get involved. Public money won't get
involved. By supporting vouchers you are supporting the government
in taking money from me and giving it to the Catholics, a religion
that I do not support.
> > Giving tax money to religious schools goes
> > against the very fibers of the Constitution, to be hyperbolic. It's not
> > right, and it's not what I agreed to when I agreed to pay my taxes.
>
> Giving tax money back to the people doesn't go against the Constitution. But
> constraining the people on how they will spend THEIR OWN money is NOT a
> right granted by "we the people" to the Federal Government.
Oh, but it is. Later on, we granted the government permission to charge
tax and duty, being that it was necessary and proper for the government
to do so in order to keep freedom alive. An educated people is more
free, but since we can't all agree on one flavour of religion, we can't
have religion as part of the educational picture. If we give our tax
money (which was contributed willfully and lawfully by the people in
order to educate the population) and to the Catholic Church, we have
forgotten that government supported religion is what forced most of our
fathers here in the first place.
Robert Seward
: protect_h...@my-deja.com wrote:
:>
:> Remember this - if you take public money, you're a public
:> school.
: Bingo. That's the way it works. Voucher supporters don't seem to
: understand that one.
As my pastor would put it, "If you take the kings' money, you are the
king's man."
Robert Seward
: JT wrote:
:> protect_h...@my-deja.com wrote:
:> >
:> > Remember this - if you take public money, you're a public
:> > school.
:>
:> Bingo. That's the way it works. Voucher supporters don't seem to
:> understand that one.
: My money is my money - not public money.
Who said that it is your money? I'm serious.
: Alberto.
--
Robert Seward
: One example is this: The people have agreed that their taxes are to be
: used for the secular education of children, believing that education is
: necessary to a free society, and that the government shouldn't be paying
: to sponsor a religion. Giving tax money to religious schools goes
: against the very fibers of the Constitution, to be hyperbolic. It's not
: right, and it's not what I agreed to when I agreed to pay my taxes.
That is what homeschool parents and parents who send their kids to private
schools say, too. Vouchers are not the answer, though.
Robert Seward
: wish. The government won't get involved. Public money won't get
: involved. By supporting vouchers you are supporting the government
: in taking money from me and giving it to the Catholics, a religion
: that I do not support.
When the parents and the schools and the parents are teaching the complete
opposites of one another, then the govt. is involved. Public schools are
agents of the government.
FrankR
That is huge logical and factual fallacy.
The tax money we pay toward public schools is for the purpose of
building a system to educate ALL children who wish to attend,
for the purpose of having an educated society.
The tax money we pay in is based on our income and/or property
values, NOT on the amount of children we have.
Let's say there are four houses in a row on the same block.
Each of them has the same income and property value. Yet one
has three grown children, who attended private school, but are
now out of high school. The second home has no children. The
third home has two children, yet because of their special needs
or other issues, have been rejected by private schools; they
MUST be accepted and educated by public schools. The fourth
home is YOUR home, and you have two children attending private
school. These four families are all placing the same amount of
"their" money into public schools, yet YOU are the only one who
can take $8000 a year out of the system. Where's the fairness
in that?
You'd also be eligible to take $8000 a year of "your" money out
of the system, even if you were on welfare and paid no tax of
any kind.
Simply put, the money going to public schools isn't "your" money
in the sense you meant it.
Similarly, our taxes, assessed based on our income and property
value, go toward public transportation and public safety. If I
pledge not to use the bus for the next year, should I get a
$2000 voucher for use to buy a private car? If I don't have a
car and "don't use the public streets," should I get a $400
refund?
If I promise not to call the police, I suppose you'd argue that
I should get a $600 voucher toward the hiring of a private
security guard?
Frank
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Robert Seward
I hope that you are mailing this to all of your homeschooling friends. I
think that you have a good point here.
: Turning home schools into public schools
: A look at the Draper School Voucher Initiative
: The recent announcement that Silicon Valley millionaire Tim
: Draper's school voucher initiative has qualified for November's ballot
: should send a chill up the spine of every California home school parent.
: But why, you ask? The official ballot title -- School Vouchers.
: State-Funded Private and Religious Education. Public School Funding.
: Initiative Constitutional Amendment -- doesn't include me. I teach my
: children at home, I'm not affiliated with a charter school, my child is
: not even on any kind of official list. What the public and private
: schools do doesn't affect me.
: Unfortunately, if the voucher initiative passes, that will no
: longer be true. Home schooling will be directly in the line of fire.
: Here's why:
: Those who currently choose to educate their children at home, do
: so because they believe it is worth the sacrifice -- not because there
: is a financial reward for doing so.
: But all that is about to change.
: If the Draper Voucher initiative passes, public school parents
: will have the option to pull their children out of school - whether they
: seriously intend to teach them at home, or not -- and collect an
: immediate $4,000 per child check from the government.
: In other words, public school parents are going to be offered a
: $4,000 "bribe" to have their children drop out of school. Undoubtedly,
: there may be many public school parents who will legitimately attempt to
: home school, but the $4,000 "carrot" will attract many, many more whose
: least concern will be the education of their children.
: To make matters worse, there is currently no mechanism by which
: the state can compare the list of home schooled children to those
: enrolled in public schools. Public school parents can claim the $4,000
: per child, pocket the money, and then register their child in the local
: public school anyway.
: How long will that go on before outraged taxpayers demand
: "accountability" -- in the form of a statewide registry of children?
: How long before these truly abandoned children are used to justify the
: imposition of state-mandated curriculum for home schools. In the worst
: case scenario, the option of home education itself will come under
: direct assault, fueled by public disgust with the "home school voucher
: scandal."
: This will happen whether you and your family choose to accept a
: government subsidy, or not. The reason why is that many others will
: take the handout. Today, most parents who make the choice to educate
: their children at home also make a choice to sacrifice financially -
: even while continuing to pay the taxes that run the public schools. The
: all-too-human tendency to rationalize - to believe that they're finally
: "getting back" the taxes they've paid all those years - will be too
: strong for many. A family with three children - Dad working outside the
: home and Mom forgoing that second income - will have to convince itself
: that government funding is going to hurt the quality of their parenting
: and teaching and that it would be bad for their children. In home after
: home, well-meaning but stretched parents will find a way to take the
: money.
: Remember this - if you take public money, you're a public
: school. Oh, the initiative may promise there will be no regulation, but
: who believes that? Will the education establishment sit silently by
: while "their" dollars disappear into our homes? Our most cherished,
: long-held, long-exercised Constitutional rights can be taken away by a
: 5-4 court majority. Remember, our liberty to teach our own children does
: not lie in the promises of politicians or the fine print of initiatives
: - it lies in our vigilant and consistent defense of the boundary lines
: God has set to separate the family and civil government.
: Parents who've never considered homeschooling and who have no
: intention of homeschooling will take the voucher and do nothing to help
: their children, or they will enroll them in a public school and rip-off
: the taxpayers. Taxpayers will - rightly - be outraged and will demand a
: change in the law -- starting with a state-mandated registry of
: homeschooled children.
: Do you see why I say that this initiative should send chills up
: our spines? We have, without our seeking it, been made part of the
: argument over public versus private schooling. The coming battle between
: the millionaire "reformers" and the state bureaucrats is going to be
: fought in our homes. Our way of life, our right to educate our children
: and our liberty will be the casualties. Once this initiative passes, we
: will be the pawns.
: Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
: Before you buy.
--
sf
haven't seen the initative you refer to (it's not big news here in the
Bay Area) .
I don't have a clue about your adgenda, but it's highly unlikely
something like that will ever happen in a place like Silicon Valley.
On average, parents there are highly paid professionals who work 80 or
more hours per week and those people are too busy working to
homeschool. So, I doubt they have the time or the inclination to
entertain the idea, especially for a measly $4,000.
Most Silicon Valley parents earn $4,000 in a couple of weeks at most.
Why would they do something stupid like giving up high paying jobs to
homeschool their children when they can pay $0 to $15,000 for trained
professionals to do it for them?
They prefer to have someone else to educate their children. Their
goal is for their children to attend the most prestegious colleges and
universities in the country so that they will have the ability to earn
even more than their six figured salary parents do. The thought of
ultimately attending local city and state colleges simply will not do.
I see hysteria, but no logic to your arguement. Homeschooling is
regulated. You need to form a "private" school to be unregulated and
there you go with those darned schools again.
Due to compulsory attendance statutes, homeschoolers in California who
participate in private independent study programs
1. need to be supervised in some way by the public school system
2. need to follow grade level curriculum guidelines
3. need to be able to pass standardized, grade level proficency
examinations.
Those who don't know what the official homeschool guidelines are in
California can refer to
http://homeschooling.about.com/education/homeschooling/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.hsc.org/legalops.html
Otherwise, you can stifle a huge yawn and move on to the next message.
:-D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 11 Jul 2000 22:05:41 GMT, Robert Seward <robe...@uidaho.edu>
wrote:
SP Administrator
> protect_h...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Turning home schools into public schools
> > A look at the Draper School Voucher Initiative
> >
> > The recent announcement that Silicon Valley millionaire Tim
> > Draper's school voucher initiative has qualified for November's ballot
> > should send a chill up the spine of every California home school parent.
> >
>
> > longer be true. Home schooling will be directly in the line of fire.
> > Here's why:
> >
> > Those who currently choose to educate their children at home, do
> > so because they believe it is worth the sacrifice -- not because there
> > is a financial reward for doing so.
> >
> > But all that is about to change.
> >
> > If the Draper Voucher initiative passes, public school parents
> > will have the option to pull their children out of school - whether they
> > seriously intend to teach them at home, or not -- and collect an
> > immediate $4,000 per child check from the government.
>
>
> http://www.localchoice2000.com/initiative.html
>
> I interpret it that schools, not parents, would recieve the actual funds.
> There are a number of requirements that a school much meet in order to be
> eligible for the scholarships (vouchers).
>
> They are required not to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, color
> or national origin. They cannot advocate unlawful behavior. They may not
> provide any false or misleading information about the school. They cannot
> employ anyone convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, lewd or
> lascivious conduct, molestation or abuse of a child. At the high school
> level, it must be an accredited school.
>
> In addition, the school must prepare a statement of financial condition that
> lists the revenues, expenses and debts of the school and administer
> nationally normed reference tests, mandated to be taken by pupils enrolled
> in public schools.
>
> These requirements would seem to make homeschools, if not ineligible, at
> least rather difficult for them to recieve the funds.
>
> Beth
There's an easy way to fix the targeting of home schoolers in California
-- move the hell out of there. Most of the current migration coming into
Texas right now is from California, New York and Ohio, in that order.
All of these are liberal, high-tax states from which corporations and
people are flowing like crazy. Texas is extremely conservative, pro-gun,
generally pro-life and VERY popular for the home schooling crowd. If
Bush/Cheney wins in November (probable at this point), it's gonna be
Katie Bar The Door in Dallas and Austin. I don't know where we're going
to put everyone.
Please God, let there be enough water..............
FrankR
That's one of the biggest fallacies in the whole debate.
You don't pay taxes to send YOUR child to public school; you
pay taxes to make public schools available to all, including
those children who won't be accepted in private schools.
Do you expect to get a voucher to buy a car if you promise not
to use public transportation? Or get a voucher to hire a
private security guard if you promise not to call the police?
I pay the same property taxes whether I have children or not,
much less irregardless of how many school-age children I have.
FrankR
>
>Giving tax money back to the people doesn't go against the
Constitution. But
>constraining the people on how they will spend THEIR OWN money
is NOT a
>right granted by "we the people" to the Federal Government.
This is the same fallacy in different words.
Vouchers are not based on the amount of tax any one person pays
in. You'd get $4000 for private school whether you paid $30,000
in taxes or $0 in taxes. However, the only way you get that mis-
named "tax refund" is to have a school-age child. It's not a
"refund," but a "give-a-way" to a certain class of folks, most
of whose kids are already in private schools.
Once "your" money is collected as taxes, it's no longer "your"
money, but everyone's money.
Old Teacher
<decem444...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
> >
> >My money is my money - not public money.
>
> That's one of the biggest fallacies in the whole debate.
>
> You don't pay taxes to send YOUR child to public school; you
> pay taxes to make public schools available to all, including
> those children who won't be accepted in private schools.
>
> Do you expect to get a voucher to buy a car if you promise not
> to use public transportation? Or get a voucher to hire a
> private security guard if you promise not to call the police?
>
> I pay the same property taxes whether I have children or not,
> much less irregardless of how many school-age children I have.
>
> Frank
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
This is a good reply for the rationalization of government schools and any
other tax supported organization for that matter.
It does beg the question, however, that "is this government service
necessary in the first place", especially when most of the tax payers have
little or no say in how it functions. This is taxation without
representation and I believe we had this dicussion with King George III
and his government some time back.
BTW, Frank, there is no such word as "irregardless"-it is just "regardless".
Regards, Gerhard
--
Recte Faciendo Neminen Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
Joni J Rathbun
On 29 Jul 2000, Old Teacher wrote:
> In article <2273c8e0...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>, FrankR
> <decem444...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >My money is my money - not public money.
> >
> > That's one of the biggest fallacies in the whole debate.
> >
> > You don't pay taxes to send YOUR child to public school; you
> > pay taxes to make public schools available to all, including
> > those children who won't be accepted in private schools.
> >
> > Do you expect to get a voucher to buy a car if you promise not
> > to use public transportation? Or get a voucher to hire a
> > private security guard if you promise not to call the police?
> >
> > I pay the same property taxes whether I have children or not,
> > much less irregardless of how many school-age children I have.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is a good reply for the rationalization of government schools and any
> other tax supported organization for that matter.
>
> It does beg the question, however, that "is this government service
> necessary in the first place", especially when most of the tax payers have
> little or no say in how it functions. This is taxation without
> representation and I believe we had this dicussion with King George III
Parents are represented by the school board, no? Folks they
vote for to represent their concerns and interests? It's also been my
experience that parents (and citizens who aren't parents) are
invited to serve on textbook adoption committees, curriculum
committees, site councils, so on and so forth. It may not be
this way everywhere but it has been that way everywhere I've
been.
M. Kilgore
mark
"Old Teacher" <heat...@kalama.com> wrote in message
news:heatscan-290...@pm1-05.kalama.com...
> In article <2273c8e0...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>, FrankR
> <decem444...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >My money is my money - not public money.
> >
> > That's one of the biggest fallacies in the whole debate.
> >
> > You don't pay taxes to send YOUR child to public school; you
> > pay taxes to make public schools available to all, including
> > those children who won't be accepted in private schools.
> >
> > Do you expect to get a voucher to buy a car if you promise not
> > to use public transportation? Or get a voucher to hire a
> > private security guard if you promise not to call the police?
> >
> > I pay the same property taxes whether I have children or not,
> > much less irregardless of how many school-age children I have.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is a good reply for the rationalization of government schools and any
> other tax supported organization for that matter.
>
> It does beg the question, however, that "is this government service
> necessary in the first place", especially when most of the tax payers have
> little or no say in how it functions. This is taxation without
> representation and I believe we had this dicussion with King George III
FrankR
>
>It does beg the question, however, that "is this government
service
>necessary in the first place", especially when most of the tax
payers have
>little or no say in how it functions. This is taxation without
>representation
Not so -- you do have representation. You're free to vote for
those candidates you agree with, and against candidates you
disagree with.
>BTW, Frank, there is no such word as "irregardless"-it is just
"regardless".
If you check the Random House Compact Unabridged, you'll find a
lengthy entry for "irregardless." The word is called
"nonstandard," but it's noted that "Those who use it, including
on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add
emphasis. 'Irregardless' first appeared in the early 20th
century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio
program of the 1930's." You'll find it in the Congressional
Record, and it's been used in the New York Times.
Language evolves; this grammar lesson provided free of charge.
:-)
Herman Rubin
>>It does beg the question, however, that "is this government
>service
>>necessary in the first place", especially when most of the tax
>payers have
>>little or no say in how it functions. This is taxation without
>>representation
>Not so -- you do have representation. You're free to vote for
>those candidates you agree with, and against candidates you
>disagree with.
When you are voting on candidates, they are running on a
good dozen issues. This is why the question of whether a
government service is necessary should require a super-
majority to decide.
There is no more need of "giving" all of the same age the
same education than there is of giving them all the same
meals. A local school district is unlikely to be able to
make the necessary changes, anyhow. Should those who
prefer winning athletic teams to honest academics be able
to dictate to those who want the academics?
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Brian Moore
FrankR <decem444...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
>>
>>My money is my money - not public money.
>
>That's one of the biggest fallacies in the whole debate.
>
>You don't pay taxes to send YOUR child to public school; you
>pay taxes to make public schools available to all, including
>those children who won't be accepted in private schools.
>
>Do you expect to get a voucher to buy a car if you promise not
>to use public transportation? Or get a voucher to hire a
>private security guard if you promise not to call the police?
>
>I pay the same property taxes whether I have children or not,
>much less irregardless of how many school-age children I have.
>
>Frank
>
>
>
Frank, thanks for the comments! I agree that working against
the "its my money" argument is very important in the school
reform debate in general. Too often comments like this are
just let go unchallenged.
In my experience, when someone says "its my money" in the context
of public schools what he/she is really saying is just I don't want
to pay for education. Or even further, among the Lib/anarchist crowd,
I don't want to pay for any government at all. Those are both
valid views to have, but they should be framed as such and not hidden
behind a seemingly transparent cliche like its my money.
--
Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie--The Behrend College
bg...@psu.edu , (814)-898-6334
Brian Moore
Old Teacher <heat...@kalama.com> wrote:
....
>This is a good reply for the rationalization of government schools and any
>other tax supported organization for that matter.
>
>necessary in the first place", especially when most of the tax payers have
>little or no say in how it functions. This is taxation without
>and his government some time back.
>
Little or no say!? Huh?
In the district I am in the tax payers most definitely have their
say. The anti-tax crowd here has taken control of the board in
the last term and we are in a pitched battle with them now.
I'm trying to see how that translates into "no representation" ?
M. Kilgore
under the control of the community it serves. I and my fellow good neighbors
have little trouble having our voices heard. Those of us that are willing
can put a little more effort in to it and move past the point to where not
only are our voices heard, but the system responds to our voices.
While not being exactly a "piece of cake," this business of getting your
government to respond to your desires isn't a hard as many have it cracked
up to be. It's pretty simple - you get a good idea and then convince your
good neighbors that it's an idea worth pursuing. Once you done you've got
some good neighbors agreeing with you then you go to your government and set
about adapting it to your purpose. It's pretty much just as they laid it out
in your HS civics class except maybe a few points were glossed over.
You row is harder to hoe if you can't garner the support of your good
neighbors, but even then it's not impossible to tweak your government to
your purpose if you've got the time and energy to expend on your cause.
Patience is key when you're working with no public support and desire to
keep your head at the end of your journey. If you're impatient then you can
always throw a coup - but history tells us that few coup throwers are able
to maintain change.
In my piddly ol'mind, much of the problems we talk about in relation to
local government services are a result of neglect by the people those
governmental entities were designed to serve. My own system suffered because
my good neighbors and I were secure in the knowledge that "someone" was
watching over our school system - they weren't, though. Once we realized
that the thing was running without direction, then we started watching the
school system again and things started getting better. We'll probably get
the thing running so well that people will stop watching the thing, again,
and it will then lose its direction in the coming decade. But we always have
the possibility of representation... whether we choose to realize that
possibility is another question altogether.
mark
"Old Teacher" <heat...@kalama.com> wrote in message
news:heatscan-310...@pm12-38.kalama.com...
> Sounds as if you live and work in a great district. It is not the norm
> though. Perhaps I'll move there. Sounds like my kinda people.
>
> Regards, Gerhard
>
>
> In article <8m4eju$f3i$1...@onsager.bd.psu.edu>, bg...@psu.edu wrote:
>
> > In article <heatscan-290...@pm1-05.kalama.com>,
> > Old Teacher <heat...@kalama.com> wrote:
> > ....
> > >This is a good reply for the rationalization of government schools and
any
> > >other tax supported organization for that matter.
> > >
> > >It does beg the question, however, that "is this government service
> > >necessary in the first place", especially when most of the tax payers
have
> > >little or no say in how it functions. This is taxation without
> > >representation and I believe we had this dicussion with King George III
> > >and his government some time back.
> > >
> >
> > Little or no say!? Huh?
> >
> > In the district I am in the tax payers most definitely have their
> > say. The anti-tax crowd here has taken control of the board in
> > the last term and we are in a pitched battle with them now.
> >
> > I'm trying to see how that translates into "no representation" ?
> >
>
> --
Joni J Rathbun
Oh, heh. I thought he wanted to move there because the tax reformers
had taken over. Where isn't it possible for parents and other
community members to be represented?
M. Kilgore
level of government has taken away control of the district from the local
community simply because the community neglected the system. Even in those
cases, though, the first step in regaining control is for the good neighbors
of the community to stand up and start showing they are, indeed, concerned
about their once locally controlled school system and are willing to put in
the effort required to return the control of the district back to those
local neighbors. In theory, this is easy to do - in practice, however, it's
damn near impossible when all the good neighbors want to do is sit back and
recite catchy phrases about how no one will let them be represented.
Indeed, we do have tax reform in our district. Such reform, however, doesn't
stop us from willingly imposing new levies on ourselves when we are
satisfied that the monies thus gained have a high possibility of
accomplishing the task(s) they're purposed toward. Over the past decade, my
community has become much better in husbanding its resources, so we no
longer dismiss money issues out of hand.
I'm generally agin' the tax-reformers. Too often it seems that greed is
behind much of what they propose and do. My own state's chief tax reformer
and chief fiscal responsibility agent, Republican Governor Mike Foster, -
has, through what I assume is good conservative reform measures, taken the
$200 millions surplus that existed when he took office and turned it in to a
$600 millions shortfall. It must take a lot of skill to do something like
that. Our governor has taken steps, though, to correct the problem by
closing hospital facilities, closing rural heath units, and substantially
increasing the cost of our cane pole fishing licenses so that the poor
people that fish for their support will have to scrimp and save to get their
next license. I guess it must be some of that passionate conservatism at its
best.
As a side note: Through some quirk of the system, some reformers in the stat
e have local community issues that I get to vote on. Every tax they propose,
I vote against. I call it "compassionate old fartism," e.g., let'em lie in
the bed they made for awhile before I step in and start helping them out.
It's perverse, I guess, but I am, after all just doing what the tax
reformers demanded in the first place.
mark
"Joni J Rathbun" <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.SUN.3.96.100073...@compass.oregonvos.net...
Old Teacher
Brian Moore
Old Teacher <heat...@kalama.com> wrote:
>Sounds as if you live and work in a great district. It is not the norm
>though. Perhaps I'll move there. Sounds like my kinda people.
>
>Regards, Gerhard
>
Right. Also then you admit you were wrong in what you said, then, hmm ?
C'mon on down. We could use more entertainment. The current crop of
yahoos we've gotten used to.
Brian Moore
Here's a "local control" story for you--
The rightwing faction, narrowly defeated in the last board election,
goes out and finds a national charter school company and presents
a very rough-hewn proposal, basically out of spite as far as I
can tell.
Big doings ensue in the district. Long meetings, people lined up to
have their say until long into the night; overwhelming opposition.
The board votes down the application.
Now it goes to the "state charter school appeal board."
The charter company has something like a 9/10 record of getting
past the appeal board.
So we are in the position of having the charter school imposed
on us, against the wishes of the local community.
And this is thanks to the right-wing, "local control" crowd which
espouses charters so much. It was really ridiculous to see an
idea like charters, which is supposed to give local people more
control over their schools, turned exactly on its head and
used exactly the other way.
Herman Rubin
>Here's a "local control" story for you--
>The rightwing faction, narrowly defeated in the last board election,
>goes out and finds a national charter school company and presents
>a very rough-hewn proposal, basically out of spite as far as I
>can tell.
>Big doings ensue in the district. Long meetings, people lined up to
>have their say until long into the night; overwhelming opposition.
>The board votes down the application.
>Now it goes to the "state charter school appeal board."
>The charter company has something like a 9/10 record of getting
>past the appeal board.
This is what is WRONG with local, or in fact any other
type, of control.
Why should some people be able to dictate to others the
typs of school their children should be attending? This is
one place where we need a considerable variety of choices,
not "one size fits all".
We will never have decent education if a community has
the right to prohibit affordable education, instead only
providing a single monolithic choice. If we had affordable
choices, there is a good chance that the small minority
which opposed the "reforms" of the educationists would
have been able to show what can be done if an alternative
to age grouping and "lowest common denominator" approaches
are possible.
At that time, the public schools COULD have changed back to
what they were doing before, with modifications to allow
for not all being comparable. It cannot be done now.
This does not mean that I consider charter schools to be a
reasonable alternative. We are too far gone for something
that simple.
Old Teacher
Juvenile Hall. There I can be assured of accomplishing my goal of giving
my grandchildren the best education and perhaps salvaging some of the
youth that have fallen(or been kicked out) of the government schools.
Sorry, you will need to find another yahoo.
Regards, Gerhard
In article <8m6k36$ft7$1...@onsager.bd.psu.edu>, bg...@psu.edu wrote:
> Here's a "local control" story for you--
>
> The rightwing faction, narrowly defeated in the last board election,
> goes out and finds a national charter school company and presents
> a very rough-hewn proposal, basically out of spite as far as I
> can tell.
>
> Big doings ensue in the district. Long meetings, people lined up to
> have their say until long into the night; overwhelming opposition.
> The board votes down the application.
> Now it goes to the "state charter school appeal board."
> The charter company has something like a 9/10 record of getting
> past the appeal board.
>
> So we are in the position of having the charter school imposed
> on us, against the wishes of the local community.
>
>
> And this is thanks to the right-wing, "local control" crowd which
> espouses charters so much. It was really ridiculous to see an
> idea like charters, which is supposed to give local people more
> control over their schools, turned exactly on its head and
> used exactly the other way.
--
Brian Moore
Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
....
>
>Why should some people be able to dictate to others the
>typs of school their children should be attending? This is
>one place where we need a considerable variety of choices,
>not "one size fits all".
Look, we went round this before. You're for dumping the public
education system whole, and more than that, basically now engaging
in demonizing little-old-lady kindergarten teachers as immoral
corrupt totalitarian oppressors.
I know you are not supportive of a democratic process, but I
am. God I hope that there are people in this country
who still are as well. The rightwing here was able to jam
the charter down our throats, basically just as a political
payback tactic. That goes against any kind of "local control"
idea that most (sane) reformers should be supporting.
I know your idea of "local." It is the locality of the individual.
M. Kilgore
children to school? Around my part of the woods parents have the choice of
sending their children to public school, private school, or homeschool.
Don't you have a similar choice in your community.?
mark
"Herman Rubin" <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:8m6sm9$32...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> In article <8m6k36$ft7$1...@onsager.bd.psu.edu>, Brian Moore <bg...@psu.edu>
wrote:
>
> >Here's a "local control" story for you--
>
> >The rightwing faction, narrowly defeated in the last board election,
> >goes out and finds a national charter school company and presents
> >a very rough-hewn proposal, basically out of spite as far as I
> >can tell.
>
> >Big doings ensue in the district. Long meetings, people lined up to
> >have their say until long into the night; overwhelming opposition.
> >The board votes down the application.
> >Now it goes to the "state charter school appeal board."
> >The charter company has something like a 9/10 record of getting
> >past the appeal board.
>
> This is what is WRONG with local, or in fact any other
> type, of control.
>
> Why should some people be able to dictate to others the
> typs of school their children should be attending? This is
> one place where we need a considerable variety of choices,
> not "one size fits all".
>
Herman Rubin
>In article <8m6sm9$32...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
>Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
....
>>Why should some people be able to dictate to others the
>>typs of school their children should be attending? This is
>>one place where we need a considerable variety of choices,
>>not "one size fits all".
>Look, we went round this before. You're for dumping the public
>education system whole, and more than that, basically now engaging
>in demonizing little-old-lady kindergarten teachers as immoral
>corrupt totalitarian oppressors.
I am not for dumping it, as we cannot even hope to replace it.
Keeping children in inappropriate classes for them is one of
the horrors of the public schools. It was not always this
way, and it could be reversed. However, many people want it
to be the case so that their children get their "fair share".
Holding back even a normal child to what a room temperature
child can get is not seeing that each gets a a fair share.
>I know you are not supportive of a democratic process, but I
>am. God I hope that there are people in this country
>who still are as well. The rightwing here was able to jam
>the charter down our throats, basically just as a political
>payback tactic. That goes against any kind of "local control"
>idea that most (sane) reformers should be supporting.
Fortunately, the Constitution still puts SOME limits on the
government, including the majority. Otherwise, we would have
the police legally beating accused people into confessing, we
would have state mandated prayer in the schools, and lots more.
>I know your idea of "local." It is the locality of the individual.
You are quite right. It is the individual who is different
who provides for human advancement. Societies throughout
history have persecuted those who differ from "the right way",
and they suffer from it.
Herman Rubin
M. Kilgore <mkil...@mkilgore.com> wrote:
>Now, Herman, just who the heck is dictating where you should send your
>children to school? Around my part of the woods parents have the choice of
>sending their children to public school, private school, or homeschool.
>Don't you have a similar choice in your community.?
When our children were going to school, home schooling was
not recognized in most places. In fact, the school where
we were at that time recommended an academic private school
for our son, but could not find one within commuting
distance. This would still be the case.
I have argued that we need AFFORDABLE alternatives to schools
which do not make an attempt to educate each child according
to his or her mental capabilities. I am not sure if the
current legislation would even permit the public schools to
do this.
M. Kilgore
of the past or are you simply trying, in a libertarian way, of course, to
force others to redefine the educational system to fit your views.
As a practical matter, I doubt that you'll ever be able to convince the tax
base to pay for universal individualized instruction. Such a thing may be
pleasant to talk about, but I'm willing to bet that the conversation will be
over as soon as funding enters the picture.
mark
"Herman Rubin" <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:8m7bmq$f...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
toto
Rubin) wrote:
>In article <soe4as...@corp.supernews.com>,
>M. Kilgore <mkil...@mkilgore.com> wrote:
>>Now, Herman, just who the heck is dictating where you should send your
>>children to school? Around my part of the woods parents have the choice of
>>sending their children to public school, private school, or homeschool.
>>Don't you have a similar choice in your community.?
>
>When our children were going to school, home schooling was
>not recognized in most places. In fact, the school where
>we were at that time recommended an academic private school
>for our son, but could not find one within commuting
>distance. This would still be the case.
>
Yep. The public schools in your neck of the woods are quite awful
(Have you been in any in the past 4 years?)
Of course, we had more than one Purdue Professor end up at
a school in Chicago so that his chidren could attend Evanston's
public schools, you know. A public school is as good or as bad as
the local situation allows.
>I have argued that we need AFFORDABLE alternatives to schools
>which do not make an attempt to educate each child according
>to his or her mental capabilities. I am not sure if the
>current legislation would even permit the public schools to
>do this.
What current legislation prevents it? Sheesh, Herman there is
nothing in the law that says it cannot be done, the constraints are
because it costs *money.*
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
source unknown
Brian Moore
Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>In article <8m70ds$geo$1...@onsager.bd.psu.edu>, Brian Moore <bg...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
>>Look, we went round this before. You're for dumping the public
>>education system whole, and more than that, basically now engaging
>>in demonizing little-old-lady kindergarten teachers as immoral
>>corrupt totalitarian oppressors.
>
>I am not for dumping it, as we cannot even hope to replace it.
>
OK you are not for dumping it then. I can only conclude however
since you did not and have not ever said anything against my
second statement that you DO see the litte old ladies as
immoral and oppressors.
You are not for dumping it, but you are not for the idea
of public education, in any way, shape or form. This
I don't get....
Brian Moore
Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
...
>
>I have argued that we need AFFORDABLE alternatives to schools
>which do not make an attempt to educate each child according
>to his or her mental capabilities. I am not sure if the
>current legislation would even permit the public schools to
>do this.
Let me ask you this. Do you think that every child should be
guaranteed access to an education? I don't see how you can, as that
implies extorting money from people to pay for it, no matter how
it is delivered.
So your argument about affordable makes no sense. In your Lib.
world there are no taxes to pay for education. The poor just
do without. Any attempt to raise the money for them is either
charity (which we are told just hurts the poor) or taxation
for the purpose of public education, which you oppose on principle.
M. Kilgore
didn't fight the movement much as it would give us a chance to see what the
local control crowd could do and they'd still have to give charter school
students the same tests that the public school students take so that we
would have some data to make comparisons between the two types of schools.
The odd thing was that, once they got the right to have charter schools, the
local controllers around here were just too lazy to propose such a school.
Liberals, on the other hand, jumped right in and started proposing charter
schools all over the place that were based on, er, good liberal ideas. The
local controllers denied the charters so everyone went to court and the
liberals are getting their schools. It seems to me that the local
controllers around here are confused about local control when they get
some... they don't understand that there's a bit of responsibility involved.
Much of the local control stuff just seems to be political rhetoric that no
one is really supposed to take seriously.
mark
"Brian Moore" <mo...@onsager.bd.psu.edu> wrote in message
news:8m6k36$ft7$1...@onsager.bd.psu.edu...
>
> Here's a "local control" story for you--
>
> The rightwing faction, narrowly defeated in the last board election,
> goes out and finds a national charter school company and presents
> a very rough-hewn proposal, basically out of spite as far as I
> can tell.
>
> Big doings ensue in the district. Long meetings, people lined up to
> have their say until long into the night; overwhelming opposition.
> The board votes down the application.
> Now it goes to the "state charter school appeal board."
> The charter company has something like a 9/10 record of getting
> past the appeal board.
>
> So we are in the position of having the charter school imposed
> on us, against the wishes of the local community.
>
>
> And this is thanks to the right-wing, "local control" crowd which
> espouses charters so much. It was really ridiculous to see an
> idea like charters, which is supposed to give local people more
> control over their schools, turned exactly on its head and
> used exactly the other way.
>
>
>
lojbab
hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
> This is what is WRONG with local, or in fact any other
> type, of control.
>
> typs of school their children should be attending?
Because those "some people" are among those paying for the schools. If
you want free public schooling, then you lose some of the individual
choice. That is the tradeoff. If you pay for it yourself, you have
choice.
> This is
> one place where we need a considerable variety of choices,
> not "one size fits all".
You can only have the choice if there is enough demand for what you
want that someone will offer it.
> We will never have decent education if a community has
> the right to prohibit affordable education,
The community prohibits nothing.
> instead only providing a single monolithic choice.
The community provides what the taxpayers CHOOSE to provide. That is a
right that taxpayers have, one that we fought a revolution over around
225 years ago. You would apparently have the results of that
revolution negated, saying that tax money should go to individuals to
be spent on whatever form of education they want with the taxpayer
having no representation whatsoever in the decision. No thanks.
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-
0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
http://www.lojban.org
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Brian Moore
M. Kilgore <mkil...@mkilgore.com> wrote:
>The local control bunch in my part of the woods wanted charter schools. I
>didn't fight the movement much as it would give us a chance to see what the
>local control crowd could do and they'd still have to give charter school
>students the same tests that the public school students take so that we
>would have some data to make comparisons between the two types of schools.
>The odd thing was that, once they got the right to have charter schools, the
>local controllers around here were just too lazy to propose such a school.
>Liberals, on the other hand, jumped right in and started proposing charter
>schools all over the place that were based on, er, good liberal ideas. The
>local controllers denied the charters so everyone went to court and the
>liberals are getting their schools. It seems to me that the local
>controllers around here are confused about local control when they get
>some... they don't understand that there's a bit of responsibility involved.
>Much of the local control stuff just seems to be political rhetoric that no
>one is really supposed to take seriously.
>
>mark
>
Interesting comments. I have seen a bit of this here as well. They
seem much more interested in the ideological aspects of the charter
school than the actual details of gettting it up and going.
The Montessori school here is now applying for a charter. I'm still
not sure how I feel about that. I really think the charter law
in this state is being used as a proxy for what is really a
voucher.
This is not to say that there may be other parts of the state where
the law is being used as it was intended, but doesn't it bother
you to see the charter school industries springing up. Mosaica is
a national company basically in the business of just jumping
in and setting up charters. In return, the school agrees to buy
Mosaica's "management" contract. This is a far cry from local
control.
Alberto
FrankR wrote:
> Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
> >
> >My money is my money - not public money.
>
> That's one of the biggest fallacies in the whole debate.
>
> You don't pay taxes to send YOUR child to public school; you
> pay taxes to make public schools available to all, including
> those children who won't be accepted in private schools.
I'm not talking about tax money, I'm talking about vouchers. A
voucher is a payment to an individual.
> Do you expect to get a voucher to buy a car if you promise not
> to use public transportation? Or get a voucher to hire a
> private security guard if you promise not to call the police?
I expect to get a voucher, period, no strings attached. Anything
beyond that is undesirable government intrusion in my private
life.
> I pay the same property taxes whether I have children or not,
> much less irregardless of how many school-age children I have.
Me too. However, the fact that I pay tax doesn't mean I have the
right to barge into my neighbor's life - and that applies to
governments too.
Alberto.
Alberto
Brian Moore wrote:
> Frank, thanks for the comments! I agree that working against
> the "its my money" argument is very important in the school
> reform debate in general. Too often comments like this are
> just let go unchallenged.
First, Voucher money isn't tax money.
Second, we don't need school reform.
Third, we are not talking about school reform.
So, where's the point ?
> In my experience, when someone says "its my money" in the context
> of public schools what he/she is really saying is just I don't want
> to pay for education.
If you read my past posters, and I've been around in this ng for a while,
you will find that I'm the first to make the difference between tax money
and personal money. However, vouchers should NOT be tax refunds, therefore
if I get a voucher, yes, it should be MY money. Consequently, I should be
entitled to use it in whatever form of education I deem appropriate to my
children, and it should be no concern of the government which school I
pick.
> Or even further, among the Lib/anarchist crowd,
> I don't want to pay for any government at all. Those are both
> valid views to have, but they should be framed as such and not hidden
> behind a seemingly transparent cliche like its my money.
I am neither liberal nor anarchist, therefore your point is not relevant.
The point is, vouchers should NOT be a trojan horse for government
intrusion into the private lives of citizens - religion included. As a
matter of fact, I'd much prefer a tax credit: clean and free of strings.
Give me back what I pay for education, tax free, that's all I ask. And
don't stand between me and my religion, or between me and my children, that
is none of any government's business.
Alberto.
Alberto
FrankR wrote:
> Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
> >
> >Giving tax money back to the people doesn't go against the
> Constitution. But
> >constraining the people on how they will spend THEIR OWN money
> is NOT a
> >right granted by "we the people" to the Federal Government.
>
> This is the same fallacy in different words.
>
> Vouchers are not based on the amount of tax any one person pays
> in. You'd get $4000 for private school whether you paid $30,000
> in taxes or $0 in taxes. However, the only way you get that mis-
> named "tax refund" is to have a school-age child. It's not a
> "refund," but a "give-a-way" to a certain class of folks, most
> of whose kids are already in private schools.
Therefore, vouchers are NOT tax money. Your point, again, totally
misses the target - if there's a point in it at all.
> Once "your" money is collected as taxes, it's no longer "your"
> money, but everyone's money.
But we're talking about vouchers, not taxes. Next ?
Alberto.
M. Kilgore
entities. For instance, a few of the local controllers on the school board
thought it would be a good idea to bring in a company from Mississippi to
handle our pool of substitute teachers. The idea doesn't seem to be going
very far, though. Another example: Our governor, Republican Mike Foster,
wanted to dissolve one of his executive departments and recreate it as a
private corporation so it wouldn't have to be bothered with our "sunshine"
laws. I've a hard time understanding how freedom from reporting to the
people gives more local control - unless the locality is confined to a
backroom somewhere.
I've not too tough on the charter school idea so long as they have to
participate in the same testing that the public schools do. Without that
basis for comparison, though, I won't tolerate charter schools. We just got
the results of our state's latest round of high-stakes tests in and the
results tell a small story. For instance, while 32% of the public students
in LA failed the math portion of the test, 51% of the students in the
Charter School System failed the math portion.The scores for the English
portion of the test weren't much better - while 13% of the public school
students failed that portion of the test, 28% of the Charter School students
failed that portion of the test. The real difference is greater because the
Charter School students are counted in the public school group and have the
effect of bringing the public school scores down slightly. I guess that
those that were looking to charter schools to teach the basic reading,
writing, and 'rithmetic are disappointed. It almost makes one think that
making a decent school isn't as easy as one might suspect on first view.
mark
"Brian Moore" <mo...@onsager.bd.psu.edu> wrote in message
news:8m90gq$1ne$1...@onsager.bd.psu.edu...
Herman Rubin
M. Kilgore <mkil...@mkilgore.com> wrote:
>So I guess I'm confused. Are you seeking retribution for a perceived wrong
>of the past or are you simply trying, in a libertarian way, of course, to
>force others to redefine the educational system to fit your views.
>As a practical matter, I doubt that you'll ever be able to convince the tax
>base to pay for universal individualized instruction. Such a thing may be
>pleasant to talk about, but I'm willing to bet that the conversation will be
>over as soon as funding enters the picture.
What voucher advocates have been requesting is a PORTION of
the tax funding for public schools to be used for any means
of education.
I believe eventually we will have individualized education,
with the classes arranged electronically. We can do it now
with little extra cost. In fact, many costs would be
reduced by doing so, including most transportation costs.
toto
<junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
>
>
>FrankR wrote:
>
>> Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Once "your" money is collected as taxes, it's no longer "your"
>> money, but everyone's money.
>
>But we're talking about vouchers, not taxes. Next ?
>
Your voucher is paid out of everyone else's tax money, Alberto. How
in the world can you separate the money paid to you from the fact
that it was collected from the rest of us as taxes?
Herman Rubin
toto <nob...@ozxxoz.com> wrote:
>On 1 Aug 2000 15:24:58 -0500, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
>Rubin) wrote:
>>In article <soe4as...@corp.supernews.com>,
>>M. Kilgore <mkil...@mkilgore.com> wrote:
>>>Now, Herman, just who the heck is dictating where you should send your
>>>children to school? Around my part of the woods parents have the choice of
>>>sending their children to public school, private school, or homeschool.
>>>Don't you have a similar choice in your community.?
>>When our children were going to school, home schooling was
>>not recognized in most places. In fact, the school where
>>we were at that time recommended an academic private school
>>for our son, but could not find one within commuting
>>distance. This would still be the case.
>Yep. The public schools in your neck of the woods are quite awful
>(Have you been in any in the past 4 years?)
>Of course, we had more than one Purdue Professor end up at
>a school in Chicago so that his chidren could attend Evanston's
>public schools, you know. A public school is as good or as bad as
>the local situation allows.
>>I have argued that we need AFFORDABLE alternatives to schools
>>which do not make an attempt to educate each child according
>>to his or her mental capabilities. I am not sure if the
>>current legislation would even permit the public schools to
>>do this.
>What current legislation prevents it? Sheesh, Herman there is
>nothing in the law that says it cannot be done, the constraints are
>because it costs *money.*
There is quite a bit of such legislation. There is even
the federal legislation on handicapped children; this is
usually interpreted to mean putting such children in a
"normal" class and advancing them at the "normal" rate if
they can manage to do some of the work. There are state
laws requiring that children not be more than one year
behind their age group, and the state mandated school
structure not only does not provide for alternate
education, but even mandates against it.
But even if the public schools COULD do it, there is still
a massive need for alternative schools. It was the public
schools who put in the "Dick and Jane" readers, and would
not provide alternatives; at that time, homeschooling was
not a clear legal alternative. Considering what comes out
of the schools of education, this can happen again. It
does happen when the state board of education limits a
curriculum to what the licensed teachers are capable of
teaching, or mandates that material has to be taught in
a given manner in a given grade. These do exist.
There is no reason why two children in the same block, or
even in the same family, should be given the same type of
education. The courts have ruled that there is no mandate
to educate a particular child.
M. Kilgore
are you after?
mark
"Herman Rubin" <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:8m9dv1$1s...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> In article <soei5e...@corp.supernews.com>,
> M. Kilgore <mkil...@mkilgore.com> wrote:
> >So I guess I'm confused. Are you seeking retribution for a perceived
wrong
> >of the past or are you simply trying, in a libertarian way, of course, to
> >force others to redefine the educational system to fit your views.
>
> >As a practical matter, I doubt that you'll ever be able to convince the
tax
> >base to pay for universal individualized instruction. Such a thing may be
> >pleasant to talk about, but I'm willing to bet that the conversation will
be
> >over as soon as funding enters the picture.
>
> What voucher advocates have been requesting is a PORTION of
> the tax funding for public schools to be used for any means
> of education.
>
> I believe eventually we will have individualized education,
> with the classes arranged electronically. We can do it now
> with little extra cost. In fact, many costs would be
> reduced by doing so, including most transportation costs.
>
Herman Rubin
>In article <8m7bfb$9...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
>Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>In article <8m70ds$geo$1...@onsager.bd.psu.edu>, Brian Moore <bg...@psu.edu> wrote:
...
>OK you are not for dumping it then. I can only conclude however
>since you did not and have not ever said anything against my
>second statement that you DO see the litte old ladies as
>immoral and oppressors.
If they act to keep children from learning according to
their abilities, they are certainly oppressors. What else
could you say about a teacher who keeps a child in a
classroom where the subject is known?
>You are not for dumping it, but you are not for the idea
>of public education, in any way, shape or form. This
>I don't get....
I am opposed to the limitation of a child's education to
what schoolteachers or legislators or bureaucrats can
understand. Publicly run education should have to compete
with real academics, which cannot include age grouping or
dumbing down a class to the level of those in it. Just
about everything that the present schools are doing is
wrong from the standpoint of learning, and they cannot
even be remedied at this time.
This should not have happened, and there were a small
number who saw the problem when the "reformers" claimed to
provide a better education for all. This was when they
introduced mandatory age grouping, instead of considering
academic progress. Then they lowered the classes to the
levels of those not well served before, now not serving the
majority well. There was much else they did to reduce
education.
Now what would have happened if there had been affordable
alternatives? Those who wanted their children to get a
quality education, and whose children were of the quality
which could progress at the higher rates, would have
removed them to the old-type schools. It would not have
taken long for the message to get across. There might
have been a needed reform; those who could not maintain
the "standard" pace would now have alternatives at an
earlier age, instead of just at high school.
We must not have even local monopolies here. Education
requires that the massively different talents be taken
into account; it is not even the case that the simplistic
views of the educationists that it is just a matter of
time and effort could achieve given results.
Herman Rubin
>In article <8m7bmq$f...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
>Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>...
>>I have argued that we need AFFORDABLE alternatives to schools
>>which do not make an attempt to educate each child according
>>to his or her mental capabilities. I am not sure if the
>>current legislation would even permit the public schools to
>>do this.
>Let me ask you this. Do you think that every child should be
>guaranteed access to an education? I don't see how you can, as that
>implies extorting money from people to pay for it, no matter how
>it is delivered.
>So your argument about affordable makes no sense. In your Lib.
>world there are no taxes to pay for education. The poor just
>do without. Any attempt to raise the money for them is either
>charity (which we are told just hurts the poor) or taxation
>for the purpose of public education, which you oppose on principle.
Libertarians are not opposed to charity. It is the social
hyperinfracaniphiliacs who take the attitude that charity
just hurts the poor, and therefore all should be given the
same.
The present type of charity, where the amount given is
adjusted by the government social workers so that the
recipient is at a given level, does hurt the poor, in
that it gives them no incentive to work up. But the
act of providing government boons does no better, and
in fact was one of the fears of those who established
the United States.
Herman Rubin
>In article <8m6sm9$32...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
> hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
.............
>> We will never have decent education if a community has
>> the right to prohibit affordable education,
>The community prohibits nothing.
No? It was a major legal effort to force the state to
allow homeschooling. Did not Horace Mann use the armed
power of the state to force a community to replace its
schools with the state "common schools"?
>> instead only providing a single monolithic choice.
>The community provides what the taxpayers CHOOSE to provide. That is a
>right that taxpayers have, one that we fought a revolution over around
>225 years ago.
This is NOT what the revolution was fought over. What you
have stated here is exactly what those who drew up our
Constitution feared; the power of the electorate to enact
boons. They knew ancient history, which our advocates of
the welfare state reject.
It was fought over the power of a government to restrict
the rights of individuals.
Beth Clarkson
> >> Once "your" money is collected as taxes, it's no longer "your"
> >> money, but everyone's money.
> >
> >But we're talking about vouchers, not taxes. Next ?
> >
> Your voucher is paid out of everyone else's tax money, Alberto. How
> in the world can you separate the money paid to you from the fact
> that it was collected from the rest of us as taxes?
>
> Dorothy
>
Gee, I don't know Dorothy, but the same argument might just as easily be
applied to the salaries of government employees. For example, one might
ask "How in the world can you separate the money paid to you (for
teaching in a public school) from the fact that it was collected from
the rest of us as taxes?" Apparently most, if not all, government
employees are able to do so. I don't see why vouchers would present any
more of a problem.
Beth
M. Kilgore
coffers for services they render to the community. What service do voucher
supporters render to the community in return for the vouchers children?
As a practical matter, most public employees are subject to considerable
strings when they accept their paycheck from our governmental entities that
employees outside the public sector aren't universally subjected to.
Examples just off the top of my head: drug screenings and background checks.
Do you suppose that voucher supporters would be willing to submit to similar
strings attached to their vouchers? If so, then maybe I might lend some
support to the voucher movement.
mark
"Beth Clarkson" <Be...@kscable.com> wrote in message
news:39887432...@kscable.com...
M. Kilgore
sending... I glad I a computer expert, otherwise such things would get me
down.
I dunno', Beth, generally government employees are paid from the public
coffers for services they render to the community. What service do voucher
supporters render to the community in return for the vouchers except create
Donna Metler
that service, just as my husband provides a service to his company. I am not
being given money with no labor attached. This is why I can't see vouchers
as a payment to the parents, unless the parent is providing home education.
A voucher would be a payment to the educating institution (which could be a
homeschool) for educating a child-not a payment to the parent simply because
they chose to have children, and its coincident that the parent is also
paying for the child education.
Beth Clarkson wrote:
> toto wrote:
>
> > >> Once "your" money is collected as taxes, it's no longer "your"
> > >> money, but everyone's money.
> > >
> > >But we're talking about vouchers, not taxes. Next ?
> > >
> > Your voucher is paid out of everyone else's tax money, Alberto. How
> > in the world can you separate the money paid to you from the fact
> > that it was collected from the rest of us as taxes?
> >
> > Dorothy
> >
>
> Gee, I don't know Dorothy, but the same argument might just as easily be
> applied to the salaries of government employees. For example, one might
> ask "How in the world can you separate the money paid to you (for
> teaching in a public school) from the fact that it was collected from
> the rest of us as taxes?" Apparently most, if not all, government
> employees are able to do so. I don't see why vouchers would present any
> more of a problem.
>
> Beth
--
Donna Devore Metler
dmme...@bellsouth.net
www.math.ttu.edu/~dmettler
www.funfelt.com/donna
Asst. Director, Educational Programming, Peabody Place Museum
Faculty, Academy of the Performing Arts, early childhood and applied music
Children's educational advocate
Herman Rubin
M. Kilgore <mkil...@mkilgore.com> wrote:
>I dunno', Beth, generally government employees are paid from the public
>coffers for services they render to the community. What service do voucher
Why do we demand that children go to school, or the equivalent?
It is because we consider their acquiring various types of
knowledge and ability to be of value. From this standpoint,
does it matter whether a public agency performs this activity
or those who use vouchers? If, as is usually the case, the
voucher is less costly than the cost to the public agency,
why not?
>As a practical matter, most public employees are subject to considerable
>strings when they accept their paycheck from our governmental entities that
>employees outside the public sector aren't universally subjected to.
The one providing educational services from the proceeds of the
voucher is better likened to the contractor.
Brian Moore
>hyperinfracaniphiliacs who take the attitude that charity
>just hurts the poor, and therefore all should be given the
>same.
So you propose using charity to educate the poor. And no taxes,
by inference, as I presented that question to you, and you
let it lie. Hence you must be opposed to the idea that every
child be guaranteed access to an education, as charity alone
could never provide that guarantee.
To my mind, the guarantee part of it is important. Only the
government can provide iron-clad guarantees. It does it
inefficiently, sure, but the free-market and charity can
never guarantee that all children will have the chance for
a decent education.
I have no problem with tuning the system so that we let the free-market
work where it works best and the public system work where it
works best. But I just can't imagine dumping the public system
wholesale. I can only guess, but I think that would leave something
like 30% or more of kids going with no schooling at all.
M. Kilgore
educated, Herman. The general reason, I think, is that we all half-way agree
that a minimum education is required to make it in a minimal way in our
current society. Once we get past that general reason, however, I find that
some seem to send their kids to school to get them out of the way so
parent(s) can work. Others send their children to school to learn those
things the parent(s) wished they themselves had learned. Others send their
kids to school for the free lunch.
You haven't established that vouchers are less costly, Herman. The face
value of a voucher may be considerably less than what the public system
spends on a student, but as voucher supporters are unwilling to provide any
accountability for the results they gain with vouchers we will never really
know the hidden costs (if any,) of the voucher system. Voucher supporters
keep asking me "why not?," Herman, and I consistently respond "You don't
want to be accountable for the voucher, without accountability built in to
the voucher system you don't get my support."
You can call the ones providing educational services for the voucher system
anything you want, Herman, but you can't get around the fact that the
voucher comes from the public coffers and the public generally demands that
someone, be it the parent or the, er, "contractors" be accountable to the
public for their use of public monies. If you want to free the "contractors"
somewhat then maybe we could go with something like random drug tests and
background checks for those parents using vouchers, but I doubt many would
go along with that - it's far easier and less upsetting to the voucher
supports if the "contractors" provide the accountability, don't you think.
mark
"Herman Rubin" <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:8ma77a$21...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
Beth Clarkson
> (Corrected version - had some words highlight that I managed to delete while
> sending... I glad I a computer expert, otherwise such things would get me
> down.
>
> I dunno', Beth, generally government employees are paid from the public
> coffers for services they render to the community. What service do voucher
> supporters render to the community in return for the vouchers except create
> children?
They are used to educate children. That's the generally accepted purpose of
vouchers.
> As a practical matter, most public employees are subject to considerable
> strings when they accept their paycheck from our governmental entities that
> employees outside the public sector aren't universally subjected to.
> Examples just off the top of my head: drug screenings and background checks.
> Do you suppose that voucher supporters would be willing to submit to similar
> strings attached to their vouchers? If so, then maybe I might lend some
> support to the voucher movement.
Would depend on the strings I suppose. One of the more potent arguments against
vouchers in my opinion - i.e. with vouchers all schools would become government
schools. I would expect there to be some strings attached to the money at any
rate. That's usually how it works.
Beth
Brian Moore
Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
>
...
>
>First, Voucher money isn't tax money.
Hm? So what's the point of the voucher, then?
Are you suggesting a voucher system where your own "voucher"
is just your own tax contribution? What's the point, then?
Isn't that the same as just having no school taxes, then?
I understant that many, many people are advocating that. Fine.
But why use a voucher system to complicate it?
If the poor are going to get vouchers to go to school, the
money's gotta come from somewhere.
Brian Moore
....
>>
>> Vouchers are not based on the amount of tax any one person pays
>> in. You'd get $4000 for private school whether you paid $30,000
>> in taxes or $0 in taxes. However, the only way you get that mis-
>> named "tax refund" is to have a school-age child. It's not a
>> "refund," but a "give-a-way" to a certain class of folks, most
>> of whose kids are already in private schools.
>
>Therefore, vouchers are NOT tax money. Your point, again, totally
>misses the target - if there's a point in it at all.
>
I still don't get what you are driving at. Someone who gets
$4K gratis from the government is getting it from someone else
who is being taxed. It is tax money.
A voucher system is still an extortion of money from people in
the form of taxes and redistribution of it to other people.
What you want is just no school taxes period, as far as I can tell.
Brian Moore
Beth Clarkson <Be...@kscable.com> wrote:
...
>
>Gee, I don't know Dorothy, but the same argument might just as easily be
>applied to the salaries of government employees. For example, one might
>ask "How in the world can you separate the money paid to you (for
>teaching in a public school) from the fact that it was collected from
>the rest of us as taxes?" Apparently most, if not all, government
>employees are able to do so. I don't see why vouchers would present any
>more of a problem.
>
>Beth
>
Huh?
Goverment employees are paid out of a big pot that all our money
goes into. It is for the general good. It is this concept
(the pooling of money to do things of general good) that
I hear people railing against.
M. Kilgore
welfare system.
mark
"Brian Moore" <mo...@onsager.bd.psu.edu> wrote in message
news:8maa5f$270$1...@onsager.bd.psu.edu...
toto
wrote:
>toto wrote:
>
>> >> Once "your" money is collected as taxes, it's no longer "your"
>> >> money, but everyone's money.
>> >
>> >But we're talking about vouchers, not taxes. Next ?
>> >
>> Your voucher is paid out of everyone else's tax money, Alberto. How
>> in the world can you separate the money paid to you from the fact
>> that it was collected from the rest of us as taxes?
>>
>> Dorothy
>>
>
>Gee, I don't know Dorothy, but the same argument might just as easily be
>applied to the salaries of government employees. For example, one might
>ask "How in the world can you separate the money paid to you (for
>teaching in a public school) from the fact that it was collected from
>the rest of us as taxes?" Apparently most, if not all, government
>employees are able to do so. I don't see why vouchers would present any
>more of a problem.
>
>Beth
Um, I do not separate it. That is why teachers are considered
government employees are they not. If a teacher works in a public
school he is paid with tax money. I see no separation, though once
the money is paid, it is paid out... Same here, but it doesn't come
from some other place does it?
If I work for a private corporation, the corporation's money pays my
salary.. And so the corporation has a say over how I work.
If my salary is paid by the government, then the taxpayers have a
say over how I work. (Of course, since I also pay taxes if I am a
government employee I am also partly self-employed since I am paying
some small part of my own salary) Contradictory, but true..
M. Kilgore
voucher supporters give the public in return for the money? Government
employees at least nominally render a service for their salaries and if you
are to convince us that there's really no difference between a government
employee and voucher recipient, then you need to show what service the
recipient provides in return. As nearly as I can tell, the voucher
recipients (which I understand to be the parents) are offering no service to
the public in return for the money they want from the public coffers.
Yes, indeed, all monies that come out of the public coffers should have some
accountability that's tied in to the acceptance of the monies. After all,
even welfare recipients are accountable. I'm not recommending that voucher
recipients have to submit to cavity searches, but at least the "contractors"
(as Herman calls them,) should be subject to the same testing that the
public schools systems are so that we that are supplying the money can
measure how the various school systems are performing in relation to each
other.
mark
"Beth Clarkson" <Be...@kscable.com> wrote in message
news:3988AB30...@kscable.com...
Berty-Beau
Have you posted any of this over to some of the home schools forums?
Someone should cross-post to them, just to see how these implications
carry .....
--
Andrea Bocelli [midi] ~
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Woods/1327/creation.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Beth Clarkson
"M. Kilgore" wrote:
> Yes, I know the nominal purpose of vouchers, Beth. But what services do the
> voucher supporters give the public in return for the money?
It seems to me the 'service' they provide in return for the funds is to oversee
the education of the child, making sure that they recieve an appropriate and
effective education. Given that under the majority of voucher proposals, they
receive less to achieve that goal than the public school system does, it doesn't
seem a bad bargain to this taxpayer.
> Government
> employees at least nominally render a service for their salaries and if you
> are to convince us that there's really no difference between a government
> employee and voucher recipient,
I never said there was no difference, nor did I mean to imply it. My apologies
if you misunderstood me. What I said was that the argument regarding the whether
or not you can separate the money paid from the fact that it was collected from
the rest of us as taxes applies to the salaries of government employees just as
much as it does to vouchers. You can argue that neither or both can be
separated, but not that one is and one isn't. In fact, I misundersood the
original poster on that point.
Beth Clarkson.
Herman Rubin
>In article <8m9hhh$1r...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
>Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>Libertarians are not opposed to charity. It is the social
>>hyperinfracaniphiliacs who take the attitude that charity
>>just hurts the poor, and therefore all should be given the
>>same.
>So you propose using charity to educate the poor. And no taxes,
>by inference, as I presented that question to you, and you
>let it lie. Hence you must be opposed to the idea that every
>child be guaranteed access to an education, as charity alone
>could never provide that guarantee.
>To my mind, the guarantee part of it is important. Only the
>government can provide iron-clad guarantees. It does it
>inefficiently, sure, but the free-market and charity can
>never guarantee that all children will have the chance for
>a decent education.
What we have now guarantees that few will have the education
they can manage. This is the "guarantee" we get from the
public school, and it is not even that. It was in the case
of a poor child that the courts ruled that the schools have
no obligation to educate any particular child.
In this particular case, if it were not for the public
schools repeated telling her that her son was doing well,
his not well educated and not well off mother would have
seen to it that he learned, instead of graduating without
functional literacy. He was able to get to that state
by private tutors then.
>I have no problem with tuning the system so that we let the free-market
>work where it works best and the public system work where it
>works best. But I just can't imagine dumping the public system
>wholesale. I can only guess, but I think that would leave something
>like 30% or more of kids going with no schooling at all.
As I said before, we cannot dump the public system wholesale
now in any case. As for effective schooling, at least that
many are in this position. An even larger number, those who
are capable of college, are being badly shortchanged, and
may even not be able to use the reasoning abilities with
which they are born.
Those who want the present type of schools will be harming
their children, but it is their prerogative. The schools,
by claiming to benefit all, are harming most.
Brian Moore
Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
...
>
>What we have now guarantees that few will have the education
>they can manage. This is the "guarantee" we get from the
>public school, and it is not even that. It was in the case
>of a poor child that the courts ruled that the schools have
>no obligation to educate any particular child.
Like I said, it does it ineffeciently. I would like to see the
system tuned to minimize the ineffeciencies and leave them only where
they really are needed. But you disagree with the very idea
of providing a guarantee at all.
And the thing that really burns me is you deny the kids that do
get good educations in the current system (like myself). I know,
you will just say I am deluded. By your own circular reasoning,
since the government provided it, it must be bad.
>
>In this particular case, if it were not for the public
>schools repeated telling her that her son was doing well,
>his not well educated and not well off mother would have
>seen to it that he learned, instead of graduating without
>functional literacy. He was able to get to that state
>by private tutors then.
Huh? What "particular case?"
Some poor parents are motivated. Many are not. Without the
guarantee, many, many kids would just be going without any kind
of attempt being made to educate them at all. Near as I can
tell, you wholeheartedly support that. That is the libertarian
thing after all. Who are we to argue with the judgement of an
individual parent?
>
>>I have no problem with tuning the system so that we let the free-market
>>work where it works best and the public system work where it
>>works best. But I just can't imagine dumping the public system
>>wholesale. I can only guess, but I think that would leave something
>>like 30% or more of kids going with no schooling at all.
>
>As I said before, we cannot dump the public system wholesale
>now in any case. As for effective schooling, at least that
>many are in this position. An even larger number, those who
>are capable of college, are being badly shortchanged, and
>may even not be able to use the reasoning abilities with
>which they are born.
But this is crap. The point is you would if you could. You
are fundamentally opposed to the idea of public education on
principle and the idea of providing a chance for every kid
to be educated.
The right in our town hides behind this argument a lot too. They
use the big-bad-juggernaut image of the public schools and say oh
we are just two weak in the face of these horrible oppressors we
can only make a few small changes. That is crap. You and your rhetoric
are quickly becoming the common currency of reform in this country.
How can it be that if public education is so strong if we time after
time after time have to argue just for its existence? The arguments
and logic you use for your reform ideas could only end in the complete
elimination of the public schools.
On a more practical level, you might think about how effectice you
are being arguing for reform when you call hard-working conservative
members of the community theives, immoral, socialists etc.
Herman Rubin
M. Kilgore <mkil...@mkilgore.com> wrote:
>I don't know that it's safe to generalize why we require children to be
>educated, Herman. The general reason, I think, is that we all half-way agree
>that a minimum education is required to make it in a minimal way in our
>current society.
There are some who cannot achieve this, and there are some who
achieve this low level before the schools will even admit them,
or who could, if anyone tried to teach them.
This minimum education, in any case, can be achieved at the
latest in elementary school, and this was the case before.
The only part of the current high school curriculum which
can be considered this are the courses in American history
and civics, which could just as easily be moved back to
elementary school, where they used to be.
Once we get past that general reason, however, I find that
>some seem to send their kids to school to get them out of the way so
>parent(s) can work. Others send their children to school to learn those
>things the parent(s) wished they themselves had learned. Others send their
>kids to school for the free lunch.
These were all instituted at the behest of the educationists.
They are essentially religious zealots, many, if not most, of
whom believe that they are using the Divinely ordained mantras
to set up society as they believe it is ordained.
>You haven't established that vouchers are less costly, Herman. The face
>value of a voucher may be considerably less than what the public system
>spends on a student, but as voucher supporters are unwilling to provide any
>accountability for the results they gain with vouchers we will never really
>know the hidden costs (if any,) of the voucher system. Voucher supporters
>keep asking me "why not?," Herman, and I consistently respond "You don't
>want to be accountable for the voucher, without accountability built in to
>the voucher system you don't get my support."
The schools provide no accountability now. We are having ads
on television with children complaining that they are not being
taught, because they are at risk for not meeting the currently
introduced "standards" for high school graduation. It is also
pointed out in those ads that this is a ninth grade level test.
No matter how you read it, the current schools are not doing
what they should be. If you look at it more carefully, they
are taking an approach which cannot do a good job. If the
current test is a test for graduation, give the diploma to
any child who can pass it, no matter what "grade" the child
is in.
>You can call the ones providing educational services for the voucher system
>anything you want, Herman, but you can't get around the fact that the
>voucher comes from the public coffers and the public generally demands that
>someone, be it the parent or the, er, "contractors" be accountable to the
>public for their use of public monies.
So what you are saying is to restrict the use of public
monies to those who we now are doing a bad job, because
we know what kind of a job they are doing.
M. Kilgore
children any more or less than non-voucher supporters, Beth. I find that
voucher supporters are pretty much like real people - some take parenting
responsibilities seriously and some don't. Surely you aren't trying to
advance the belief that voucher supporters are just naturally better people,
are you?
mark
"Beth Clarkson" <Be...@kscable.com> wrote in message
news:3989887B...@kscable.com...
M. Kilgore
minimal level of education. That's not really a problem for you, if I've
been following you correctly this year. Your problem seems to be that you
want to go past that minimal level of education and do it soonest. You
really won't be able to involve the community in that sort of thing until
you can convince them that their practical view of what constitutes a
minimal education needs to be upgraded.
I find that my local public schools do have a degree of accountability,
Herman. So do the local welfare recipients. So what makes voucher supporters
better than welfare recipients that they don't have to account for their use
of money from the public coffers?
OK, I'll bite, how does the aura surrounding devine educationalists differ
from the one surrounding devine libertarians?
mark
"Herman Rubin" <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:8mc7uc$23...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
Alberto
toto wrote:
>
> Your voucher is paid out of everyone else's tax money, Alberto.
Or maybe from my own money ?
> How
> in the world can you separate the money paid to you from the fact
> that it was collected from the rest of us as taxes?
Once the money is paid to me, it's mine, eh ? I don't want government
strings attached to it.
Alberto.
Alberto
> Huh?
>
> Goverment employees are paid out of a big pot that all our money
> goes into. It is for the general good. It is this concept
> (the pooling of money to do things of general good) that
> I hear people railing against.
Rail or not, it's written in the Constitution that the government has the
power to levy taxes.
Alberto.
Alberto
Brian Moore wrote:
> I still don't get what you are driving at. Someone who gets
> $4K gratis from the government is getting it from someone else
> who is being taxed. It is tax money.
> A voucher system is still an extortion of money from people in
> the form of taxes and redistribution of it to other people.
The Constitution gives the Government power to levy taxes. Therefore it
ain't extortion. Furthermore, tax money I pay is no longer mine, but
belongs to the community - and therefore it is subject to the control and
authority of the legally constituted and elected members of that
community's government.
> What you want is just no school taxes period, as far as I can tell.
What I want is no government strings - or other peoples', for that matter -
attached to how I spend my money.
Alberto.
Joni J Rathbun
No strings? Then I suggest we just let folks keep that portion of
their taxes that would actually have gone to schools and call it a
day.
M. Kilgore
children any more or less than the rest of we parents. Do you agree? Yet,
you seem to be offering such oversight as one of the things that make
vouchers a "good deal."
mark
"Beth Clarkson" <Be...@kscable.com> wrote in message
news:398A2B78...@kscable.com...
>
>
> "M. Kilgore" wrote:
>
> > In my view, voucher supporters won't be overseeing the education of
their
> > children any more or less than non-voucher supporters, Beth.
>
> Not voucher supporters - voucher users. They are not necessarily one and
the
> same. And you didn't ask me compare and contrast the efforts of the two
groups;
> you asked what service would be provided by parents in exchange for
vouchers. I
> described it - overseeing the education of their children. Do you
disagree that
> they would be performing that service?
>
> > I find that
> > voucher supporters are pretty much like real people - some take
parenting
> > responsibilities seriously and some don't. Surely you aren't trying to
> > advance the belief that voucher supporters are just naturally better
people,
> > are you?
>
> No. Do you really feel that position could be inferred from my post? Or
are
> you just having some fun with me?
>
> Beth
>
Beth Clarkson
FrankR
>In article <soh43...@corp.supernews.com>,
>
>Why do we demand that children go to school, or the equivalent?
>It is because we consider their acquiring various types of
>knowledge and ability to be of value. From this standpoint,
>does it matter whether a public agency performs this activity
>or those who use vouchers?
Yes, it does. It's turning private schools into public schools,
but without giving them the obligation to educate EVERYONE that
the public schools have.
I may decide to take the bus or my private car, and both methods
provide the "public service" of transporting me, but I _don't_
have a right to a "car voucher" because I choose to not use the
bus.
Frank
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
FrankR
>
> under the majority of voucher proposals, they
>receive less to achieve that goal than the public school system
does, it doesn't
>seem a bad bargain to this taxpayer.
It's no bargain. First, the private schools aren't obligated
to charge ONLY the voucher amount. An $8000 a year private
school can take $4000 from the voucher, and $4000 from the
parents. It's still an exclusive school, skimming the cream of
the easy-to-educate kids, and leaving the harder-to-educate and
kids to the public schools.
>I never said there was no difference, nor did I mean to imply
it. My apologies
>if you misunderstood me. What I said was that the argument
regarding the whether
>or not you can separate the money paid from the fact that it
was collected from
>the rest of us as taxes applies to the salaries of government
employees just as
>much as it does to vouchers.
The real issue is whether tax money collected from us all should
be handed out to benefit those who have school-age children and
wish to educate them in private schools. Why should they get a
benefit their neighbor with no children gets?
This has nothing to do with "separating the salaries of
government employees."
Frank
FrankR
>
>Once the money is paid to me, it's mine, eh ? I don't want
government
>strings attached to it.
So move to a place with no taxes. You live in this country, you
pay taxes.
FrankR
>
>you asked what service would be provided by parents in exchange
for vouchers. I
>described it - overseeing the education of their children. Do
you disagree that
>they would be performing that service?
It may be a service, but it's not a PUBLIC service.
Nor are the 30 minutes spent registering one's child in a
private school worthy of being paid a $4000 benefit. That's the
equivalent of $17,000,000 per year, based on the work performed.
Brian Moore
Alberto <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
>
...
>
>The Constitution gives the Government power to levy taxes. Therefore it
>ain't extortion. Furthermore, tax money I pay is no longer mine, but
>belongs to the community - and therefore it is subject to the control and
>authority of the legally constituted and elected members of that
>community's government.
I was using the word "extortion" facetiously. That is the word
the Lib/right uses. And I agree that the money belongs to the community
etc. What I don't understand still is what you said before that
somehow a voucher is not money coming from taxes.
>
>What I want is no government strings - or other peoples', for that matter -
>attached to how I spend my money.
>
The only way you can have that is to have no taxes.
Beth Clarkson
"M. Kilgore" wrote:
> I don't forsee voucher users (parents) overseeing the education of their
> children any more or less than the rest of we parents. Do you agree?
Yes. I have seen no evidence that those two groups would be substantially
different in that regard.
> Yet,
> you seem to be offering such oversight as one of the things that make
> vouchers a "good deal."
Yes. It isn't about whether one group of parents is better than the other.
It's about who is going to make better decisions regarding the use of those tax
dollars earmarked for the education of their children - the parents or the
public school officials.
On the one hand, you have parents who have a both vested interest and the
overall responsibility to raise a child to become a responsible,
self-sufficient, contributing member of society. While some of them must
achieve this goal under the burden of an insufficient education themselves,
they realize the benefits of education even as they struggle to be
self-sufficient contributing members of society themselves. Some of them have
lost this struggle. Some of them make poor decisions. Some of them are
incompetent. And a very small percentage of them purposefully make choices
damaging to the children in their care. Still, the vast majority are cabable
caring individuals doing their best. In addition, they are the people most
attuned to what works for their child and what doesn't. They will base their
decisions on the needs of the individual child.
On the other hand, you have trained professionals. Caring people who have
often dedicated their lives to providing educational opportunities for the
children of our society. Often they have devoted many years of their lives to
it, sacrificing better paying opportunities for themselves in order to 'make a
difference' as they see it. Unfortunately, these people must labor under the
burden of meeting all sorts of district, state, and federal requirements even
as they attempt to teach dozens of children simultaneously. Not an easy task
by any means. Some of them fail in their struggle to teach every child despite
these obstacles. Some of them make poor decisions. Some of them are
incompetent. And a very small percentage of them purposefully make choices
damaging to the children in their care. Still, the vast majority are cabable,
caring, well-educated individuals doing their best. But in addition, they must
base their decisions not simply upon the needs of the individual child, they
must balance those needs with the needs of the entire class/school/educational
system. That means that often the needs of the individual will be subordinated
to the needs of the many - and to the needs of the system itself.
Back to the original question, slightly rephrased: "Which group of people is
more likely to make decisions that will result in the most children recieving
the best education possible?" Well, I tend to favor the parents, but
realistically sometimes it will be the school officials, sometimes it will be
the parents. I don't think either group should have complete control of the
tax funds allocated to education. To this tax-payer, a split of the available
funds seems appropriate - a split such as the one proposed in the California
Voucher Initiative. I'm not a citizen of that state, but if my state were to
place a similar initiative on the ballot, I would vote for it.
In addition, I feel that there is another benefit to vouchers. The main
predictive factor for success in school/education is a parent who is active in
their child's education. To me, it seems that if we want to improve our
countries educational success, we need to figure out how to encourage, promote,
and facilitate parental involvement in their children's education Now, you
can't simply order parents to be more active and involved. Doesn't work that
way.
There are clearly many many factors that contribute to the problem of apathetic
uninvolved parents. If we examine what factors contribute to active
involvement and what factors contribute to apathy, one major contributing
factor is the power that individuals how to make significant decisions that
affect the outcome. This is true in many different situations, not simply
education - when individual wishes are ignored; when the only decisions that
an individual is allowed to make are trivial ones; there is a tendency for the
individual to become apathetic.
Vouchers would give many parents more real power over their children's
education. They would give parents more opportunities to make non-trivial
decisions. If we give parents that sort of power, we are creating an
environment that will foster more parental envolvement in their children's
education. While I don't think that vouchers will solve the problem of
uncaring apathetic parents - there are many other factors that contribute to
that problem - I do think that vouchers would result in an improved education
for many children, regardless of whether their parents choose to use vouchers
or choose to have their children attend public school. The fact that they have
made that choice themselves means they have become more involved in their
child's education.
Beth Clarkson
Herman Rubin
M. Kilgore <mkil...@mkilgore.com> wrote:
>I don't forsee voucher users (parents) overseeing the education of their
>you seem to be offering such oversight as one of the things that make
>vouchers a "good deal."
Speak for yourself. There are quite a few parents who
object to the time-wasting and trivia in the public
schools, and who are not willing to accept being put off
by saying the child is progressing satisfactorily, or the
socialization with others is more important. This
includes parents of the not so bright; we have at least
one public example of this.
The big difference with vouchers is that the parents
will have the power to do something about the situation;
the school will not be able to say that they have to
teach the "whole class", and cannot meet the different
needs of the child, or to tell parents who know something
about the subject, or can get information from others,
that the teacher is doing what the schools of education
say should be done for their children.