VOUCHERS

buckeye-ELO · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 171

Legalizing School Vouchers

The Bush Administration is a big proponent of school vouchers. The door was
at least partially opened for vouchers after a 2002 Supreme Court ruling in
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris.

Opponents of school vouchers believe they will force citizens-Christians,
Jews, Muslims, and atheists-to pay for religious indoctrination of school
children at schools with narrow parochial agendas. Estimates are that 80
percent of vouchers will be used in schools whose central mission is
religious training. Religion permeates these schools in the classroom, the
lunchroom, even on the athletic fields. Channeling public money in this
direction, opponents believe, flies in the face of the constitutional
mandate of separation of church and state.

The Zelman v. Simmons-Harris case did not give a green light for all school
vouchers programs, only ones designed in a similar way to the Cleveland
School District's voucher program. The Court ruled a legal voucher program
must:

* Be a part of a wider program of multiple educational options including
magnet schools and after-school tutorial assistance,

* Offer parents a real choice between religious and nonreligious education,

* Not only address private schools, but ensure benefits go to schools
regardless of whether they are public or private, religious or not.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris also was narrowly decided on a split 5 to 4
decision. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the court with
Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joining. Justice O'Connor
also wrote a concurring opinion joined by Thomas. Souter filed a dissenting
opinion joined by Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer. Stevens filed his own
dissenting opinion and Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Stevens
and Souter.
The Complete Idiot's Guide to The Supreme Court. Lita Epstein, J.D. Alpha
Book, (2004) p. 182-3

Archived from group: alt>parenting>spanking

Edgar A Pearlstein · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
: Legalizing School Vouchers
:
: The Bush Administration is a big proponent of school vouchers. The door was
: at least partially opened for vouchers after a 2002 Supreme Court ruling in
: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris.
:
: Opponents of school vouchers believe they will force citizens-Christians,
: Jews, Muslims, and atheists-to pay for religious indoctrination of school
: children at schools with narrow parochial agendas. Estimates are that 80
: percent of vouchers will be used in schools whose central mission is
: religious training. Religion permeates these schools in the classroom, the
: lunchroom, even on the athletic fields. Channeling public money in this
: direction, opponents believe, flies in the face of the constitutional
: mandate of separation of church and state.
:
: The Zelman v. Simmons-Harris case did not give a green light for all school
: vouchers programs, only ones designed in a similar way to the Cleveland
: School District's voucher program. The Court ruled a legal voucher program
: must:
:
: * Be a part of a wider program of multiple educational options including
: magnet schools and after-school tutorial assistance,
:
: * Offer parents a real choice between religious and nonreligious education,
:
: * Not only address private schools, but ensure benefits go to schools
: regardless of whether they are public or private, religious or not.
:
: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris also was narrowly decided on a split 5 to 4
: decision. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the court with
: Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joining. Justice O'Connor
: also wrote a concurring opinion joined by Thomas. Souter filed a dissenting
: opinion joined by Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer. Stevens filed his own
: dissenting opinion and Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Stevens
: and Souter.
: The Complete Idiot's Guide to The Supreme Court. Lita Epstein, J.D. Alpha
: Book, (2004) p. 182-3

Edgar A Pearlstein · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

SCHOOL VOUCHERS? LOOK A LITTLE DEEPER

The most far-reaching scheme to get tax financing for religion is that
of school vouchers. The idea is for parents of school children to get
government money with which to enroll their children in non-public
schools.

Motivations of those who favor the idea are in many cases religious,
sometimes genuine concern for education, sometimes part of a general
philosophy in favor of "privatizing" more and more government services,
perhaps sometimes racial. All of these motivations are misdirected.
Here are the specific claims:

* That parents who send their children to non-public schools shouldn't
have to pay for the public schools, since their children don't
represent cost to the public schools. Sounds fair? Let's look a
little deeper:

What about people who don't have children? Should they be excused
from school taxes?

An extension of this pro-voucher reasoning could apply
to other government services: Should someone who hires private
police get a voucher from the public treasury to help pay for it? Or
if one joins a private country club, should the dues be paid for with
a voucher, on the grounds that this would mean less use of public
golf courses and swimming pools? Should one who owns a large wooded
estate get a refund of that part of his taxes that pays for public
parks? Should one whose house is on high ground be excused from
that part of taxes used to pay for flood control and storm sewer
projects?

* That a voucher plan would encourage "competition" among
private and public schools, which would result in improvement for
both. Competition sounds good? Let's look a little deeper:

There can be competition only to the extent that the competitors have
the same rules.

Public schools must accept anyone, while private and parochial
schools can accept and eject students as they please. They need
not, although some do, take or retain students with mental or
physical handicaps,the "wrong" religion, severe behavior problems,
or parents who don't care. They can exclude children from poor
families just by making the tuition a little higher than the voucher
maximum. Excluded students would, of course, be relegated to the
public schools because they would have no choice, vouchers
notwithstanding, making it all the more desirable for other students
to leave.

* That we should feel sorry for people who, for religious reasons,
feel that they must send their children to non-public schools, and
who incur a financial burden thereby. Doesn't that sound fair? Let's
look a little deeper:

Whether to adhere to a particular religion is their own choice (the
parents', not the children's). The law and government agencies quite
properly neither encourage nor discourage that choice. If the choice
involves financial or other obligations to a church, so be it. It is
not the government's business, and the government can not release
people from their normal citizens' tax obligations.

Actually, there already is a lot of public financial help for
parochial schools, in that they do not pay property taxes but still
get municipal services such as police protection, fire protection,
street lighting, storm sewers, snow removal, and maintenance of
local roads. Also, people who donate to parochial schools get a
government refund of part of their money through our income tax
systems.

* That the public schools are terrible, and we must do something radical
about it. We have heard it so many times; doesn't it sound true?
Let's look a little deeper:

Yes, students in some public schools do poorly. (There are disturbing
anecdotes about some parochial schools, too.) That is no reason,
though, to trash the whole system.

Sometimes a school is "bad" not because of poor teaching or
administration, but for other reasons. For example, there is an
elementary school here in Lincoln where more than 90% of the kids
come from low-income families, more than 23 % are in special
education, and 39% moved into or out of the school in a year (data
for second- and fourth-grade students in 2002).

Other disadvantages sometimes occurring are that a student might be
surrounded by violence at home and in the street, or he might come
from a home where education is not valued, and which doesn't have a
single book in it.

Note that if many of the parents in a school district send their
children to private or parochial schools, there could be a lot less
political support of things like school bonds and taxes, thereby giving
the public schools even more financial difficulty than they now have.

There have been some small-scale pilot programs at a few places. The
results are not yet conclusive, but even if they should give
encouragement to the pro-voucher side, we should not jump to the
conclusion that a full-scale program would be successful.

It's a simple political reality that once a foot-in-the-door plan gets
going, there will be pressure on the government to spend more and more
on it. Also, we should learn from the experience after World War II,
when the GI Bill of Rights provided tuition for trade schools, which
sprang up like weeds and some of which were frauds.

Gray Shockley · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 15

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:33:50 -0500, buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:

> Zelman v. Simmons-Harris also was narrowly decided on a split 5 to 4
> decision. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the court with
> Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joining. Justice O'Connor
> also wrote a concurring opinion joined by Thomas. Souter filed a dissenting
> opinion joined by Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer. Stevens filed his own
> dissenting opinion and Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Stevens
> and Souter.
> The Complete Idiot's Guide to The Supreme Court. Lita Epstein, J.D. Alpha
> Book, (2004) p. 182-3

I've got the "Dummie's Guide" instead of the "Idiot's Guide".

Is the above paragraph hers or yours? ++ Gray //

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 16

Edgar A Pearlstein wrote:...
>
> SCHOOL VOUCHERS? LOOK A LITTLE DEEPER
>
> The most far-reaching scheme to get tax financing for religion is that
> of school vouchers. The idea is for parents of school children to get
> government money with which to enroll their children in non-public
> schools.
>
> Motivations of those who favor the idea are in many cases religious,
> sometimes genuine concern for education, sometimes part of a general
> philosophy in favor of "privatizing" more and more government services,
> perhaps sometimes racial. All of these motivations are misdirected.
> Here are the specific claims:
>
> * That parents who send their children to non-public schools shouldn't
> have to pay for the public schools, since their children don't
> represent cost to the public schools. Sounds fair? Let's look a
> little deeper:
>
> What about people who don't have children? Should they be excused
> from school taxes?
>
> An extension of this pro-voucher reasoning could apply
> to other government services: Should someone who hires private
> police get a voucher from the public treasury to help pay for it? Or
> if one joins a private country club, should the dues be paid for with
> a voucher, on the grounds that this would mean less use of public
> golf courses and swimming pools? Should one who owns a large wooded
> estate get a refund of that part of his taxes that pays for public
> parks? Should one whose house is on high ground be excused from
> that part of taxes used to pay for flood control and storm sewer
> projects?
>
MK. Dunno what "should" means. If taxpayers benefit, in terms of
gaining more of what they are trying to buy with their subsidies for
good or service X, from a voucher-subsidized competitive market for X
than from a State agency producing X, why not subsidize X through
vouchers? Isn't this what we do, in effect, with subsidies for home
improvements (insulation, heating oil, etc.) or nutrition (Food
Stamps)? Suppose some unpopular figure (a Madalyn Murray O'Hare, for
example) wins a judgment against your city for police protection.
Suppose, further, that your police department estimates the cost of
round-the-clock protection to be $D/month. Suppose the person agrees
to waive liability if the your city subsidizes a private protective
service for some amount $G < $D. Wouldn't it make sense to accept this
offer?
>
> * That a voucher plan would encourage "competition" among
> private and public schools, which would result in improvement for
> both. Competition sounds good? Let's look a little deeper:
>
> There can be competition only to the extent that the competitors have
> the same rules.
>
MK. Not at all. Competition is a matter of degree. It does not have to
be all-or-nothing to spur improvement. Lions compete with other
carnivores whose ranges overlap but are not coextensive and which do
not use the same hunting tactics. Gazelle compete with other
herbivores, which do not browse exactly the same range of plants. The
Dallas Cowboys compete with the Houston Astros for the sports' fans
dollars.
>
> Public schools must accept anyone, while private and parochial
> schools can accept and eject students as they please. They need
> not, although some do, take or retain students with mental or
> physical handicaps,the "wrong" religion, severe behavior problems,
> or parents who don't care. They can exclude children from poor
> families just by making the tuition a little higher than the voucher
> maximum. Excluded students would, of course, be relegated to the
> public schools because they would have no choice, vouchers
> notwithstanding, making it all the more desirable for other students
> to leave.
>
MK. The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools) do not
"take everyone". The cartel's schools are segregated by age (try
enroll, as an adult, in your local elementary school. Try enroll your
bright 12-year old in high school). The cartel's schools are
segregated by income (it's called "assignment by district"). Some of
the cartel's schools are segregated by ability (Magnet school like
Bronx Science and Stuyvesant High). Most of the cartel's upper-level
schools (intermediate and high) are segregated by ability --within-
the school (try enroll in Alg II if you cannot add fractions). Most of
the cartel's schools are segregated by race, in effect, since race is
strongly correlated with income.
>
> * That we should feel sorry for people who, for religious reasons,
> feel that they must send their children to non-public schools, and
> who incur a financial burden thereby. Doesn't that sound fair? Let's
> look a little deeper:
>
> Whether to adhere to a particular religion is their own choice (the
> parents', not the children's). The law and government agencies quite
> properly neither encourage nor discourage that choice. If the choice
> involves financial or other obligations to a church, so be it. It is
> not the government's business, and the government can not release
> people from their normal citizens' tax obligations.
>
> Actually, there already is a lot of public financial help for
> parochial schools, in that they do not pay property taxes but still
> get municipal services such as police protection, fire protection,
> street lighting, storm sewers, snow removal, and maintenance of
> local roads. Also, people who donate to parochial schools get a
> government refund of part of their money through our income tax
> systems.
>
MK. School vouchers would still leave the cartel's schools as the
default option. A voucher good for a fraction 0 < a/b < 1 of the
cartel school's per-pupil budget would leave them with an enhanced
budget for every student who remains, if school vouchers come from the
district's budget.
>
> * That the public schools are terrible, and we must do something radical
> about it. We have heard it so many times; doesn't it sound true?
> Let's look a little deeper:
>
> Yes, students in some public schools do poorly. (There are disturbing
> anecdotes about some parochial schools, too.) That is no reason,
> though, to trash the whole system.
>
> Sometimes a school is "bad" not because of poor teaching or
> administration, but for other reasons. For example, there is an
> elementary school here in Lincoln where more than 90% of the kids
> come from low-income families, more than 23 % are in special
> education, and 39% moved into or out of the school in a year (data
> for second- and fourth-grade students in 2002).
>
> Other disadvantages sometimes occurring are that a student might be
> surrounded by violence at home and in the street, or he might come
> from a home where education is not valued, and which doesn't have a
> single book in it.
>
> Note that if many of the parents in a school district send their
> children to private or parochial schools, there could be a lot less
> political support of things like school bonds and taxes, thereby giving
> the public schools even more financial difficulty than they now have.
>
> There have been some small-scale pilot programs at a few places. The
> results are not yet conclusive, but even if they should give
> encouragement to the pro-voucher side, we should not jump to the
> conclusion that a full-scale program would be successful.
>
MK. Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez, ["Organization and
Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical findings", pg. 16,
"Comparative Education", Vol. 36 #1, Feb 2000]. "Furthermore, the
regression results indicate that countries where private education is
more widespread perform significantly better than countries where it
is more limited. The result showing the private sector to be more
efficient is similar to those found in other contexts with individual
data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987; Jiminez, et. al, 1991).
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that
reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education".
>
> It's a simple political reality that once a foot-in-the-door plan gets
> going, there will be pressure on the government to spend more and more
> on it. Also, we should learn from the experience after World War II,
> when the GI Bill of Rights provided tuition for trade schools, which
> sprang up like weeds and some of which were frauds.
>
MK. This "simple political reality" describes the NEA/AFT/AFSCME
cartel's response to the power they enjoy from their exclusive
position in receipt of the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy. Notice
how the span of compulsory attendance keeps growing. Hiram Maxim, the
famous American inventor, left school at 13 and was apprenticed. The
great American physicist Joseph Henry left school at 13 and was
self-taught until he entered college. Benjamin Franklin had two years
of school. Abraham Lincoln had one year of school. Bertrand Russell
was homeschooled.
>
MK. Fraud is rampant in the cartel's schools. The most effective
accountability mechanism humans have yet devised is the ability of
unhappy customers to take their business elsewhere. School vouchers
would enhance the US education system.
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
>
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky
comment on school. Please read this.)
http://www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
http://www.thegantelope.com/archives/cat_school_choice.html
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/index.html
http://www.edreform.com/_upload/NineLies.pdf.
http://www.nlpc.org
http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm

Curly Surmudgeon · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 33

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 12:33:50 -0400, buckeye-EL wrote:

> Legalizing School Vouchers
----------snip------------

I think we have the cart before the horse here, where is any
Constitutional requirement for public schooling? Even worse is the
mandatory nature, that's coersion, of attending school even if you feel
that the teaching, subject matter, or indoctrination is wrong.

Now, I agree that educating our children is a primary requirement of
parents but government is not mom or dad.

Vouchers use the existing invasion in to our lives to minimize the damage
done. How about abolishing public education altogether? Sure would have
helped my family who paid tuition from Kindergarten on to avoid the
inherent problems of public education.

By using tax money much is squandered long before the child enters the
classroom. Bureaucratic overhead can easily eat half the available funds.

-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

SS · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

Tuition tax credits are far better. Parents should be given a choice of
where to send their children to school and not have to pay "twice" so to
speak. But again, tuition tax credits are better, as long as there are no
programmatic strings attached to the Christian schools.

"Edgar A Pearlstein" wrote in message$c1s$1@unlnews.unl.edu...
|
| SCHOOL VOUCHERS? LOOK A LITTLE DEEPER
|
| The most far-reaching scheme to get tax financing for religion is that
| of school vouchers. The idea is for parents of school children to get
| government money with which to enroll their children in non-public
| schools.
|
| Motivations of those who favor the idea are in many cases religious,
| sometimes genuine concern for education, sometimes part of a general
| philosophy in favor of "privatizing" more and more government services,
| perhaps sometimes racial. All of these motivations are misdirected.
| Here are the specific claims:
|
| * That parents who send their children to non-public schools shouldn't
| have to pay for the public schools, since their children don't
| represent cost to the public schools. Sounds fair? Let's look a
| little deeper:
|
| What about people who don't have children? Should they be excused
| from school taxes?
|
| An extension of this pro-voucher reasoning could apply
| to other government services: Should someone who hires private
| police get a voucher from the public treasury to help pay for it? Or
| if one joins a private country club, should the dues be paid for with
| a voucher, on the grounds that this would mean less use of public
| golf courses and swimming pools? Should one who owns a large wooded
| estate get a refund of that part of his taxes that pays for public
| parks? Should one whose house is on high ground be excused from
| that part of taxes used to pay for flood control and storm sewer
| projects?
|
| * That a voucher plan would encourage "competition" among
| private and public schools, which would result in improvement for
| both. Competition sounds good? Let's look a little deeper:
|
| There can be competition only to the extent that the competitors have
| the same rules.
|
| Public schools must accept anyone, while private and parochial
| schools can accept and eject students as they please. They need
| not, although some do, take or retain students with mental or
| physical handicaps,the "wrong" religion, severe behavior problems,
| or parents who don't care. They can exclude children from poor
| families just by making the tuition a little higher than the voucher
| maximum. Excluded students would, of course, be relegated to the
| public schools because they would have no choice, vouchers
| notwithstanding, making it all the more desirable for other students
| to leave.
|
| * That we should feel sorry for people who, for religious reasons,
| feel that they must send their children to non-public schools, and
| who incur a financial burden thereby. Doesn't that sound fair? Let's
| look a little deeper:
|
| Whether to adhere to a particular religion is their own choice (the
| parents', not the children's). The law and government agencies quite
| properly neither encourage nor discourage that choice. If the choice
| involves financial or other obligations to a church, so be it. It is
| not the government's business, and the government can not release
| people from their normal citizens' tax obligations.
|
| Actually, there already is a lot of public financial help for
| parochial schools, in that they do not pay property taxes but still
| get municipal services such as police protection, fire protection,
| street lighting, storm sewers, snow removal, and maintenance of
| local roads. Also, people who donate to parochial schools get a
| government refund of part of their money through our income tax
| systems.
|
| * That the public schools are terrible, and we must do something radical
| about it. We have heard it so many times; doesn't it sound true?
| Let's look a little deeper:
|
| Yes, students in some public schools do poorly. (There are disturbing
| anecdotes about some parochial schools, too.) That is no reason,
| though, to trash the whole system.
|
| Sometimes a school is "bad" not because of poor teaching or
| administration, but for other reasons. For example, there is an
| elementary school here in Lincoln where more than 90% of the kids
| come from low-income families, more than 23 % are in special
| education, and 39% moved into or out of the school in a year (data
| for second- and fourth-grade students in 2002).
|
| Other disadvantages sometimes occurring are that a student might be
| surrounded by violence at home and in the street, or he might come
| from a home where education is not valued, and which doesn't have a
| single book in it.
|
| Note that if many of the parents in a school district send their
| children to private or parochial schools, there could be a lot less
| political support of things like school bonds and taxes, thereby giving
| the public schools even more financial difficulty than they now have.
|
| There have been some small-scale pilot programs at a few places. The
| results are not yet conclusive, but even if they should give
| encouragement to the pro-voucher side, we should not jump to the
| conclusion that a full-scale program would be successful.
|
| It's a simple political reality that once a foot-in-the-door plan gets
| going, there will be pressure on the government to spend more and more
| on it. Also, we should learn from the experience after World War II,
| when the GI Bill of Rights provided tuition for trade schools, which
| sprang up like weeds and some of which were frauds.
|
|
|

Curly Surmudgeon · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 33

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 01:53:41 -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 12:33:50 -0400, buckeye-EL wrote:
>>
>>> Legalizing School Vouchers
>>----------snip------------
>>
>>I think we have the cart before the horse here, where is any
>>Constitutional requirement for public schooling?
>
> In the state constitutions of every state.
>
> Your state appears to be CA, from your website:
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_9 >

> <
>

> > the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the > intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural > ...
> > which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each > least six months in every year, after the first year in > has been established.
>
>
>>Even worse is the
>>mandatory nature, that's coersion, of attending school even if you feel
>>that the teaching, subject matter, or indoctrination is wrong.
>
> Also in the state constitutions of many states, and the state laws of the
> rest justified by clauses such as section 1 quoted above.
>
> For CA, that is:
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=5996084134+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
> > >

> <
> <48200. Each person between the ages of 6 and 18 years not exempted
> >

> > to compulsory continuation education not exempted under the > Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 48400) shall attend > full-time day school or continuation school or classes and > time designated as the length of the schoolday by the > the school district in which the residency of > guardian is located and each parent, > control or charge of the pupil shall > full-time day school or continuation > time designated as the length of > the school district in which > guardian is located. < Unless otherwise provided for in this code, a
> pupil shall not be > established by law.

Note that I'm posting from alt.politics.usa.constitution. Well
researched, your right that the California Constitution has stringent
requirements on forced education however I, and this newsgroup, were
speaking about Federal the federal level. A number of us are fighting the
California laws, some with their feet, others politically but that is not
relevant to this thread.

>>Now, I agree that educating our children is a primary requirement of
>>parents
>
> Not according to the above. Their responsibility is to send them to the
> public school. They can gain certain exemptions from this responsibility
> by providing an alternate qualifying education, but that is not a
> requirement of a parent.

It is a social and moral prerequisite. If you're going to reproduce than
have the decency to be responsible for your offspring.

>>but government is not mom or dad.
>>
>>Vouchers use the existing invasion in to our lives to minimize the damage
>>done. How about abolishing public education altogether?
>
> No.

Do you like federal coersion into the most intimate recesses of your
personal life? That's a leading and loaded question I admit but by
forcing people who might even agree with you on many aspected you pit them
against your programs. Nobody liked being coerced. Well, that's not
quite true, a few weirdos like being forced but not the vast majority of
thinking beings.

>>Sure would have
>>helped my family who paid tuition from Kindergarten on to avoid the
>>inherent problems of public education.
>
> That presumes that there ARE inherent problems which are avoidable.

No, it's a fact which I'd be more than happy to discuss at length.

>>By using tax money much is squandered long before the child enters the
>>classroom. Bureaucratic overhead can easily eat half the available
>>funds.
>
> Proof by unsupported assertion.
>
> CA spends approximately 8% on "bureaucratic overhead", the last numbers
> that I saw. Many private businesses aren't so efficient. There are funds
> spent other than in the classroom. Custodians, cafeterias, libraries,
> school buses use a lot of personnel, and education costs are largely
> driven by personnel costs.

Assertion with evidence when necessary. Let me give you one small example
by auditing the numbers: California spends some $7,700 per student year.
For an average classroom that's about $262,000 per classroom year.

Assume that the average teacher is paid $45,000. Not true but I'm being
conservative. Further, assume that their burdened overhead runs an
additional 30% for a total of $58,500.

Typical office space hereabouts is $1.25/sq ft. For a 30' x 30' classroom
that's $13,500 per year, janitorial included. Add in insurance and
utilities of say $1,500/month for another $15,000 (10 month schoolyear. Be
generous and add a kilobuck per month for material, that's anotehr $10k.
Now we're up to $97,000 per classroom year in expenses or 37.05% of the
tax burden.

No bureaucracy is efficient. Every bureaucracy by definition is
inefficient. They all mutate or evolve into self-serving platforms for
bureaucrats who are unelected power-mongers out for their own benefit even
if they began life at the bottom of hte totem pole with good intentions.
The system corrupts them quickly.

-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob LeChevalier · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 350

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 12:33:50 -0400, buckeye-EL wrote:
>
>> Legalizing School Vouchers
>----------snip------------
>
>I think we have the cart before the horse here, where is any
>Constitutional requirement for public schooling?

In the state constitutions of every state.

Your state appears to be CA, from your website:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_9

<

....

>Even worse is the
>mandatory nature, that's coersion, of attending school even if you feel
>that the teaching, subject matter, or indoctrination is wrong.

Also in the state constitutions of many states, and the state laws of
the rest justified by clauses such as section 1 quoted above.

For CA, that is:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=5996084134+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

<
<48200. Each person between the ages of 6 and 18 years not exempted

< Unless otherwise provided for in this code, a pupil shall not be

>Now, I agree that educating our children is a primary requirement of
>parents

Not according to the above. Their responsibility is to send them to
the public school. They can gain certain exemptions from this
responsibility by providing an alternate qualifying education, but
that is not a requirement of a parent.

>but government is not mom or dad.
>
>Vouchers use the existing invasion in to our lives to minimize the damage
>done. How about abolishing public education altogether?

No.

>Sure would have
>helped my family who paid tuition from Kindergarten on to avoid the
>inherent problems of public education.

That presumes that there ARE inherent problems which are avoidable.

>By using tax money much is squandered long before the child enters the
>classroom. Bureaucratic overhead can easily eat half the available funds.

Proof by unsupported assertion.

CA spends approximately 8% on "bureaucratic overhead", the last
numbers that I saw. Many private businesses aren't so efficient.
There are funds spent other than in the classroom. Custodians,
cafeterias, libraries, school buses use a lot of personnel, and
education costs are largely driven by personnel costs.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

buckeye-ELO · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 171

Gray Shockley wrote:

>:|On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:33:50 -0500, buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
> Neutral

>

> Zelman v. Simmons-Harris also was narrowly decided on a split 5 to 4
> Neutral

> decision. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the court with
> Neutral

> Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joining. Justice O'Connor
> Neutral

> also wrote a concurring opinion joined by Thomas. Souter filed a dissenting
> Neutral

> opinion joined by Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer. Stevens filed his own
> Neutral

> dissenting opinion and Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Stevens
> Neutral

> and Souter.
> Neutral

> The Complete Idiot's Guide to The Supreme Court. Lita Epstein, J.D. Alpha
> Neutral

> Book, (2004) p. 182-3
> Neutral

>

I've got the "Dummie's Guide" instead of the "Idiot's Guide".
> Neutral

>:|Is the above paragraph hers or yours? ++ Gray //
> Neutral

The above paragraph was part of the entire section I quoted and cited with
the above cite. None of it was mine.

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O’Connor,
Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. O’Connor, J., and Thomas, J.,
filed concurring opinions. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Souter,
J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer,
JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens and
Souter, JJ., joined.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1751.ZS.html

buckeye-ELO · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 171

epearlst@unlserve.unl.edu (Edgar A Pearlstein) wrote:

> Neutral

>

SCHOOL VOUCHERS? LOOK A LITTLE DEEPER
> Neutral

>

The most far-reaching scheme to get tax financing for religion is that
>:|of school vouchers. The idea is for parents of school children to get
>:|government money with which to enroll their children in non-public
>:|schools.
> Neutral

>

Motivations of those who favor the idea are in many cases religious,
>:|sometimes genuine concern for education, sometimes part of a general
>:|philosophy in favor of "privatizing" more and more government services,
>:|perhaps sometimes racial. All of these motivations are misdirected.
>:|Here are the specific claims:
> Neutral

>

* That parents who send their children to non-public schools shouldn't
> Neutral

have to pay for the public schools, since their children don't
> Neutral

represent cost to the public schools. Sounds fair? Let's look a
> Neutral

little deeper:
> Neutral

>

What about people who don't have children? Should they be excused
> Neutral

from school taxes?
> Neutral

>

An extension of this pro-voucher reasoning could apply
> Neutral

to other government services: Should someone who hires private
> Neutral

police get a voucher from the public treasury to help pay for it? Or
> Neutral

if one joins a private country club, should the dues be paid for with
> Neutral

a voucher, on the grounds that this would mean less use of public
> Neutral

golf courses and swimming pools? Should one who owns a large wooded
> Neutral

estate get a refund of that part of his taxes that pays for public
> Neutral

parks? Should one whose house is on high ground be excused from
> Neutral

that part of taxes used to pay for flood control and storm sewer
> Neutral

projects?
> Neutral

>

* That a voucher plan would encourage "competition" among
> Neutral

private and public schools, which would result in improvement for
> Neutral

both. Competition sounds good? Let's look a little deeper:
> Neutral

>

There can be competition only to the extent that the competitors have
> Neutral

the same rules.
> Neutral

>

Public schools must accept anyone, while private and parochial
> Neutral

schools can accept and eject students as they please. They need
> Neutral

not, although some do, take or retain students with mental or
> Neutral

physical handicaps,the "wrong" religion, severe behavior problems,
> Neutral

or parents who don't care. They can exclude children from poor
> Neutral

families just by making the tuition a little higher than the voucher
> Neutral

maximum. Excluded students would, of course, be relegated to the
> Neutral

public schools because they would have no choice, vouchers
> Neutral

notwithstanding, making it all the more desirable for other students
> Neutral

to leave.
> Neutral

>

* That we should feel sorry for people who, for religious reasons,
> Neutral

feel that they must send their children to non-public schools, and
> Neutral

who incur a financial burden thereby. Doesn't that sound fair? Let's
> Neutral

look a little deeper:
> Neutral

>

Whether to adhere to a particular religion is their own choice (the
> Neutral

parents', not the children's). The law and government agencies quite
> Neutral

properly neither encourage nor discourage that choice. If the choice
> Neutral

involves financial or other obligations to a church, so be it. It is
> Neutral

not the government's business, and the government can not release
> Neutral

people from their normal citizens' tax obligations.
> Neutral

>

Actually, there already is a lot of public financial help for
> Neutral

parochial schools, in that they do not pay property taxes but still
> Neutral

get municipal services such as police protection, fire protection,
> Neutral

street lighting, storm sewers, snow removal, and maintenance of
> Neutral

local roads. Also, people who donate to parochial schools get a
> Neutral

government refund of part of their money through our income tax
> Neutral

systems.
> Neutral

>

* That the public schools are terrible, and we must do something radical
> Neutral

about it. We have heard it so many times; doesn't it sound true?
> Neutral

Let's look a little deeper:
> Neutral

>

Yes, students in some public schools do poorly. (There are disturbing
> Neutral

anecdotes about some parochial schools, too.) That is no reason,
> Neutral

though, to trash the whole system.
> Neutral

>

Sometimes a school is "bad" not because of poor teaching or
> Neutral

administration, but for other reasons. For example, there is an
> Neutral

elementary school here in Lincoln where more than 90% of the kids
> Neutral

come from low-income families, more than 23 % are in special
> Neutral

education, and 39% moved into or out of the school in a year (data
> Neutral

for second- and fourth-grade students in 2002).
> Neutral

>

Other disadvantages sometimes occurring are that a student might be
> Neutral

surrounded by violence at home and in the street, or he might come
> Neutral

from a home where education is not valued, and which doesn't have a
> Neutral

single book in it.
> Neutral

>

Note that if many of the parents in a school district send their
>:|children to private or parochial schools, there could be a lot less
>:|political support of things like school bonds and taxes, thereby giving
>:|the public schools even more financial difficulty than they now have.
> Neutral

>

There have been some small-scale pilot programs at a few places. The
>:|results are not yet conclusive, but even if they should give
>:|encouragement to the pro-voucher side, we should not jump to the
>:|conclusion that a full-scale program would be successful.
> Neutral

>

It's a simple political reality that once a foot-in-the-door plan gets
>:|going, there will be pressure on the government to spend more and more
>:|on it. Also, we should learn from the experience after World War II,
>:|when the GI Bill of Rights provided tuition for trade schools, which
>:|sprang up like weeds and some of which were frauds.

Welcome back. Very good post.
BTW you other post is on our web site. In case you hadn't seen it:

The Christian Bible and the Foundations of the U.S.
http://candst.tripod.com/biblfoun.htm

buckeye-ELO · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 171

malcolmkirkpatrick@yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:

>:|Edgar A Pearlstein wrote:...

> Neutral

>
>

> SCHOOL VOUCHERS? LOOK A LITTLE DEEPER
> Neutral

>
>

> The most far-reaching scheme to get tax financing for religion is that
> Neutral

> of school vouchers. The idea is for parents of school children to get
> Neutral

> government money with which to enroll their children in non-public
> Neutral

> schools.
> Neutral

>
>

> Motivations of those who favor the idea are in many cases religious,
> Neutral

> sometimes genuine concern for education, sometimes part of a general
> Neutral

> philosophy in favor of "privatizing" more and more government services,
> Neutral

> perhaps sometimes racial. All of these motivations are misdirected.
> Neutral

> Here are the specific claims:
> Neutral

>
>

> * That parents who send their children to non-public schools shouldn't
> Neutral

> have to pay for the public schools, since their children don't
> Neutral

> represent cost to the public schools. Sounds fair? Let's look a
> Neutral

> little deeper:
> Neutral

>
>

> What about people who don't have children? Should they be excused
> Neutral

> from school taxes?
> Neutral

>
>

> An extension of this pro-voucher reasoning could apply
> Neutral

> to other government services: Should someone who hires private
> Neutral

> police get a voucher from the public treasury to help pay for it? Or
> Neutral

> if one joins a private country club, should the dues be paid for with
> Neutral

> a voucher, on the grounds that this would mean less use of public
> Neutral

> golf courses and swimming pools? Should one who owns a large wooded
> Neutral

> estate get a refund of that part of his taxes that pays for public
> Neutral

> parks? Should one whose house is on high ground be excused from
> Neutral

> that part of taxes used to pay for flood control and storm sewer
> Neutral

> projects?
> Neutral

>
>:|MK. Dunno what "should" means. If taxpayers benefit, in terms of
>:|gaining more of what they are trying to buy with their subsidies for
>:|good or service X, from a voucher-subsidized competitive market for X
>:|than from a State agency producing X, why not subsidize X through
>:|vouchers? Isn't this what we do, in effect, with subsidies for home
>:|improvements (insulation, heating oil, etc.) or nutrition (Food
>:|Stamps)? Suppose some unpopular figure (a Madalyn Murray O'Hare, for
>:|example) wins a judgment against your city for police protection.
>:|Suppose, further, that your police department estimates the cost of
>:|round-the-clock protection to be $D/month. Suppose the person agrees
>:|to waive liability if the your city subsidizes a private protective
>:|service for some amount $G < $D. Wouldn't it make sense to accept this
>:|offer?
> Neutral

>

Dear Mr. Pearlstein,

MK (Malcolm) is one of the resident pro voucher agenda driven trolls.
IN case you feel any need to reply to his post, the following will get you
up to speed on this fella.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Not+very+impressive+credentials+for+showing+a+objective+mind.&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=7hppg0du0rub75nsev1124grqhqftn84ml%404ax.com&rnum=1
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G68B237F8

buckeye-ELO · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 171