1. IrvingSnodgrass - Dec. 11, 1998 - 8:02 AM PT
A new Slate Dialogue pits Michael McConnell against Kathleen M. Sullivan on the topic of School Vouchers. Read the dialogue, and share *your* thoughts here.
Are vouchers the answer to education problems in the USA? Are they a violation of the separation of church and state? What do you think of the Milwaukee experience?
2. ScottLoar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 8:11 AM PT
Vouchers, please. In this city of Chicago which is popularly acclaimed as having the worst public school system in the U.S. the number of parochial schools is unsurprisingly the largest in the nation. To gain for their children that parochial education parents must pay dearly (although far from the average, my daughter's primary and middle schoool yearly tuition is equivalent to that of many universities) even as the parochial schools suffer from lack of funding. Vouchers would help relieve that and enable more students to gain a quality education in the innercity.
3. lowlife - Dec. 11, 1998 - 8:23 AM PT
Vouchers are the only solution to an otherwise corrupt system of patronage and top-down bureaucracy. That unions gravitate toward the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to the issue of trapping minority children in dangerous schools, is not about liberalism per se. Each party has its interests, which corrode the integrity of the political process. In short, excess power begets corruption. Witness Bill Clinton's Arkansas or Britain's Tories. Still, children deserve, to borrow language from the Democratic Party, a right to choose.
4. cllrdr - Dec. 11, 1998 - 8:25 AM PT
School vouchers? The educational equivalent of "Partial-Birth Abortion."
5. OhioSTOPAS - Dec. 11, 1998 - 8:32 AM PT
School vouchers: A scam to use taxpayer money to improve private education, and benefit those who would be enrolled in private education anyway, at the expense of public education and the students enrolled there.
6. Enodiputs - Dec. 11, 1998 - 8:32 AM PT
Vouchers are the method the gov needs to get their hooks into private schools. We don't need vouchers, we need less taxes.
7. jonesatlaw - Dec. 11, 1998 - 8:42 AM PT
Private schools beware, with public funds come government restrictions. For example, you may be forced to provide due process in discipline, educate the handicapped, the emotionally disturbed, meet state curriculum standards etc.
Many conservatives think that this will be the salvation of education. It is true that many parochial schools are superior to public ones. It is true that their students routinely score higher on various achievment tests. Part of this is due to self selection. If parents value their child's education enough to directly pay for it, then they are more likely to protect their investment by being involved in their child's studies, (the strongest correlation between student success is parental involvement) and supporting the school in matters of discipline, in supporting facilities and demanding capable faculty.
Public schools must take all comers. Many handicapped children have siblings that attend parochial schools and the handicapped child attends public schools. This results in higher per pupil costs for public schools. If vouchers are accepted, they cannot be used to support a disciminatory institution. Remember Bob Jones University ( how'd that scoundrel get the name, must be an alias).
8. mariagleason - Dec. 11, 1998 - 8:55 AM PT
Lest we forget, there are not enough private schools to accommodate a huge influx of students. If they start sprouting up like mushrooms in a field of cows, 'taking all comers' as jonesatlaw succinctly stated, they'll be public schools in sheep's clothing.
9. mintcar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 8:56 AM PT
"In this city of Chicago which is popularly acclaimed as having the worst public school system in the U.S. the number of parochial schools is unsurprisingly the largest in the nation. To gain for their children that parochial education parents must pay dearly (although far from the average, my daughter's primary and middle schoool yearly tuition is equivalent to that of many universities) even as the parochial schools suffer from lack of funding"
ScottLoar: This is interesting. I was wondering how much is spent per pupil in "the worst public school system in the U.S.," relative to budgets elsewhere. A lot? Not much? I would guess that in a city with that many parochial schools there would be little support for school bonds and other forms of funding, since fewer tax payers receive any benefit from, or having any connection to, the public schools. Is this true in Chicago? Or are the public schools failing for reasons unrelated to funding?
10. gravel - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:06 AM PT
No vouchers. Children probably do better in private schools because of the greater discipline, but likely the greatest influence on them is from their parents (and it doesn't end at the end of the school day). Remember how Lincoln studied? We don't need another bureaucracy.
11. Wombat - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:09 AM PT
Oh boy!
The Republicans now want us to make our educational system as efficient and well-run as our health system! Parallel government bureaucracies, multiplied by the number of localities using vouchers!
12. jonesatlaw - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:16 AM PT
I also wonder about the level of public support vouchers will have when the "Servants of Satan" open up Lucifer High, (don't panic I made them up) or the Aryan Nation opens up Jesus Christ, Christian school. (panic, these guys are real)
13. ScottLoar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:18 AM PT
Mintcar, good questions that you can answer by doing some webtime. My understanding is that the expense per student is not low, that the failure of Chicago schools is popularly recognized at all levels regardless of income or ward (the city of Chicago is divided into administrative wards) or neighborhood, and that the Board of Education was severely revamped to allow some measure of local and popular authority with mixed results. Corruption and inefficiency was rampant in the old system, but all this is naught but anecdotal without the facts. Chicago parents (at least a sufficient number to qualify as an overwhelming majority for the lawyerly and quibbling in this forum) want quality education for their children, a theme our mayor understands and repeats to standing ovations regardless of the political stripe, colour or neighborhood of his audience. Further, it is my impression that most all residents want a literate populace in this city, a refrain repeated by business owners large and small, and that few have reservations about money for education except that it directly contribute to the education of the student and not to further enfief the school administration which metastasizes upon that body. Chicago ain't a retirement village where the residents selfishly vote against all proposals aiding those under 50.
14. bubbaette - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:19 AM PT
Are schools like Marcus Garvey Highschool in Washington what the voucher supporters wish to fund? If not, then how do you keep them out?
15. MizPhys - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:25 AM PT
I am adamantly opposed to school vouchers. They go against the very idea of public education. The result of a voucher system would be to bring public schools' problems to private schools and drastically worsen the problems of public schools.
Private students perform better than public students because they probably have involved parents ,and private schools have much more authority in disciplining or expelling disruptive students.
I am outraged that in New York,transportation and textbooks are already provided for private schools from local school district funds. Private schools are free to choose the most expensive textbooks available, because they are paid for by the local school district, which has no say in the private schools' choices. Meanwhille, public schools go without or with outdated books.
16. bubbaette - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:31 AM PT
Phyzzie
Virginia has a similar situation with Chapter One by-pass funding. Va's constitution prohibits spending on church-based schools. The feds say the state has to provide chapter one remedial reading and math services to parochial school students. The solution they came up with is to allow the parochial schools first cut at the state's chapter one funds to provide direct services. Since the provision of chapter one by parochial schools cost three times as much and the program is not funded enough to serve all eligible, for every kid served in parochial schools, three eligible public school kids dont receive services at all.
17. mariagleason - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:35 AM PT
MizPhys,
Out of curiosity, can you substantiate your comments regarding the ability of private schools to obtain the most up-to-date and expensive text books by feeding at the public trough?
During my years at a private high school (1970-74), we shared textbooks with the public schools in our district. Except for religion classes, we got what they got, or we bought the books. This mode of operation was due to the Regents' curriculum shared by most schools in NY.
I am not in favor of vouchers, but the system that I described was not a burden on taxpayers because our parents were taxpayers too. We also shared transportation with the public schools, adhering to their schedule.
18. Super80 - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:51 AM PT
As a taxpayer, I am opposed to vouchers. I am paying to fund *public* education, not provide scholarships for those who are unhappy with the schools.
If vouchers were enacted, I would advocate dissembling the public school system in my community, and let the schools run as a stand alone, private entity, like private hopsitals.
19. msivorytower - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:55 AM PT
If we want to move toward a privatized educational system, where parental choice is given the center stage over community goals in education, I'm supportive.
The way to do this, however, is to eliminate all property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes that go to fund public education, and simply let consumers find educational services for their own children.
If it's efficiency and "quality" choices people want, then that's the way to go.
There is absolutely no rationale for taxing people to pay for schooling that meets only parental needs, not collective needs of the state.
20. MizPhys - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:58 AM PT
Maria
I admit that it's hearsay--at a school where I was teaching, the Department Head was complaining bitterly about the fact that the budget didn't permit the purchase of ne textbooks, yet a local private school had just been granted funds for new books that were very expensive, because (according to him) the school board must, by law, provide them.
Why should public funds be used for private education at all?!
21. Enodiputs - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:59 AM PT
Super80
I like the dissembling part.
22. mariagleason - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:02 AM PT
MizPhys,
'Why should public funds be used for private education at all?!'
Because opting out of the public schools doesn't mean rejecting all services due each child. Those that pay to attend private schools constitute a net gain to the public school system.
23. Enodiputs - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:02 AM PT
msivorytower, I wish you could snap your fingers and make #19 come true. I think it would save our country.
24. msivorytower - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:03 AM PT
MizPhys
I know that private schools can receive ut to $2500 per year from Title I monies to replenish their libraries (and I think this money can be used for textbooks too), but am unaware of any Federal mandates that require the State to pay for textbooks for private schools.
Perhaps the monies were Title I and flowed through the school district to the private schools in its area.
25. philistine - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:06 AM PT
Fizzie -
They shouldn't, obviously. I wonder why anyone thinks less funding for public schools is going to make them better. I wonder if anyone is going to be willing to place private schools in poor neighborhoods, accessible to the students who need improved educaational institutions most of all. Most of all, I wonder about the ability of religion based private schools in particular to accurately teach anything resembling science.
26. philistine - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:08 AM PT
Eno da putz -
Yeah, sure it would. Unless you are too poor to afford an education, in which case you and your descendents can just pick cotton forever, right?
27. mariagleason - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:10 AM PT
philistine,
In NY state private religious schools who wish to retain accreditation by the State Board of Regents teach what the Regents' curriculum dictates.
28. MizPhys - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:11 AM PT
Maria
Then I guess that people who opt not to have children constitute an even bigger gain!
MsIt
It was my understanding that this was a NY law.
29. mariagleason - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:13 AM PT
MizPhys,
As a non-parent, boy, do I agree! But you know what? I support my local public schools.
30. msivorytower - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:18 AM PT
MizPhys
Well, that is more probable, I just wanted to clarify for the readership that I doubt this is a federal mandate. States, of course, are free to do whatever they choose wrt funding private education as long as the policies don't discriminate.
You have no one to blame then, but your legislature that has bowed it's head to the special interests in the state. Nice to have the public teat to suck on for these private schools AND be able to exclude many students from their doors.
Seems like a sweet deal for those partaking of it.
31. MizPhys - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:19 AM PT
MsIT
Which is exactly why it gripes my groin.
32. mariagleason - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:19 AM PT
If it's true, the Ms.
33. Enodiputs - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:20 AM PT
fillystink
It costs me $600 per year to educate my kids. But you are free to pick cotton if you want. But now days they have green machines called cotton pickers.
34. LadyChaos - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:20 AM PT
I would feel a lot better about the $1,500 of my property tax money that goes to public schools (not to mention lotto funds and sales taxes - Just how much to they need?!), if public schools were not so completely oriented toward those students who are performing at the bottom. I would prefer a European system, where the wheat is separated from the chaff at regular intervals, and the smart kids and the dummies are put in separate environments, thus giving talented students a better environment for learning. After all, I don't think that it's fair to put the burden on talented students to "lift up" their less achieving peers when those peers don't give a rip about education. The only result of mixing the nerds with the dummies is that the nerds get beat up a lot and they have to endure constant other disruptions.
Some call this "elitist." Well, as John D. MacDonald said, "I'm an elitist."
35. MizPhys - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:28 AM PT
LadyChaos
I'm an elitist too. I suffered from homogeneous grouping as a student, and as a teacher I see the horrendous diservice done to the brightest students who spend so much time waiting for their peers to catch up.
36. ScottLoar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:33 AM PT
re Message #25, "I wonder about the ability of religion based private schools in particular to accurately teach anything resembling science." You suppose that a parochial school cannot divorce the Catholic catechism from science? If that's true, then you would surely find no winners of regional and state science awards from Catholic schools, would you? Or in math? Or science? And the state Talent Searches and SAT scores would also reflect that bias would they not? And is that, in fact, what you find?
37. msivorytower - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:33 AM PT
You want homogeneous grouping? Go to a private school.
This is the issue. Why should we pay for schools under a scheme where parents get to fund their children's education at private schools at the public expense?
I say, lets eliminate all public support for schooling, go back to the pre-1850's public school movement and make education a private function. Nothing wrong with that at all. Then parents can take the monies they save in taxes to pay for private schools, choose the kind of education they feel most appropriate for them, and be as elitist as they want.
38. Philistine - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:33 AM PT
Eno -
This may come as a shock to you, but there are a lot of people for whom $600 is a lot of money, more than they can afford, in fact.
39. msivorytower - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:36 AM PT
"If that's true, then you would surely find no winners of regional and state science awards from Catholic schools, would you?"
Hmmm, I don't know about not finding any, but you should find porportionately *fewer* from private schools that offer less science curriculum than public schools. And I think this is the case.
SAT's aren't a good measure, since they don't include any science in their testing (as a category of academic knowledge), but perhaps ACT's might work if all students took the science exams.
40. LadyChaos - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:39 AM PT
MsIT,
I essentially agree with the logic of your point; however, there will always be somewhat of a need for subsidizing the education of children from poor families. Even with all the potential tax breaks, and with the addition of more competition, a private education, here in Miami, would probably cost at least $1,500 to $2,000 a year, just for tuition. That's why I favor a European approach. Even the communist governments in Europe didn't swallow the notion that mixing dumb students with bright students would somehow create a more egalitarian society.
41. ScottLoar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:39 AM PT
re Message #34, "The only result of mixing the nerds with the dummies is that the nerds get beat up a lot and they have to endure constant other disruptions". Yes, that does seem to be typical at public schools, but atypical at parochial schools which enforce discipline, demand respect, encourage self-respect, and foster compassion and genuine tenderness among the students. Perhaps such quaint words now seem fabulous.
42. LadyChaos - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:40 AM PT
I scored in the 99th percentile in science on the ACT.
So why am I in law school?
43. msivorytower - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:44 AM PT
LadyC
We don't need to subsidize the education of the poor under such a private system. Nor would homogeneous grouping do anything more than what is already being done for these students, in fact, it'd do a whole lot less.
Naw, just turn them loose and make industry train them as needed.
44. Enodiputs - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:45 AM PT
LadyChaos,
The first time I heard of you everyone was trying to contact you because they were worried something happened to you.
Good thing nothing happened to you, your post #34 wouldn't be here if something had happened, and #34 is an excellent post.
45. mariagleason - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:47 AM PT
Homogenous grouping is intrinsically insipid; from a social standpoint it is disastrous, as it bears no resemblance to real life. Any additional work that a student is deemed capable of doing can be assigned as independent study, as was the case in my school. There is no better way to learn cooperation than to have a representative mixture of students in general classes.
46. LadyChaos - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:48 AM PT
Loar,
I got beat up a few times at the private schools I attended, as well. The worse was a military school, where many of the boarding students were complete morons who were there to be put out of the way by their rich parents. The level of hazing, even among the 11-year olds, was sometimes frightening. All this in spite of the spit 'n polish, drill three days a week, dress parade on mother's day and salute the ladies image the school had.
47. ScottLoar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:55 AM PT
re Message #39, I don't know where you will find a quality, parochial school that offers less or a poorer science curriculum than a public school; in fact, among the strongest schools IN ANY SUBJECT SAVE SPORTS parochial schools in the city of Chicago rank high. It is exactly the overpowering excellence of parochial schools in Chicago that local parents crave for their children.
Let me be very blunt, I'll match my daughter's parochial school curriculum and instruction with any you care to mention: French from grade 3, science and sociology projects requiring genuine research and formal presentation from grade 5, math instruction that I can't follow, expository writing severely graded, etc., with the purpose of making her school one of the best in the country having students commonly achieving 90%+ in statewide comparison scores. To categorize parochial schooling as backward and prejudiced against rational thought and the scientific methodology is the worst kind of uninformed bias.
48. ScottLoar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:00 AM PT
LadyChaos, the absolute extreme conduct is exactly in military schools with the attendant cult of masculinity and hazing; of course I'm not surprised students get beat up there, even more so than in poorly-disciplined public schools. But why do you insist your experience at a military academy negates my daughter's experience at at Catholic school in the city of Chicago?
49. Rivendell - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:01 AM PT
Of course not all parochial schools are backward WRT teaching science. I am the product of 12 years of parochial (Catholic) education and never, in all that time, did any of my science classes teach anything not in keeping with current for the time scientific thought.
However, regarding Message #41 and the statement, "...parochial schools which enforce discipline, demand respect, encourage self-respect..."
That's a lot easier to accomplish when you can expel the worst of the troublemakers from your midst. It also skews the perspective.
50. msivorytower - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:06 AM PT
ScottL
Forgive the lack of clarity. Nationally, catholic schools do not outrank public schools in science curriculum, and the porportion of public school students who win science competitions, or score high on science achievement exams is actually higher than for catholic students.
I think an important distinction to make when looking at catholic versus public schools is the differences in student bodies between the elementary and secondary levels. Almost all catholic secondary schools are very selective, pull only the top students, and are generally much less ethnically and economically diverse than catholic elementary schools.
If you compare the top students in public secondary schools (nationally), say the top 25%, with those in catholic schools the achievement differences virtually disappear. And more public school students in the top tier are represented in national science competitions than are those from catholic schools.
Where catholic schools show noticable achievement gains is in their elementary schools for economically disadvantaged children compared to public schools. In addition, the racial and SES achievement gap in catholic schools at all levels are smaller than those found in public schools. Now this is a serious critique of public schools, I think.
Do you know why the achievement gap is lower in catholic schools? Because they don't track any students. All students receive the same curriculum. No homogenously grouped classrooms (although there may be homogeneous grouping that occurs within classrooms at times).
51. ScottLoar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:10 AM PT
Oh, hell, Rivendell, I'll make it simple. Catholic school discipline is legendary, and effective because the students simply will not tolerate bullying, especially of the lower school members. It is not the parents who enforce that discipline, not even the teachers, but the students themselves. No, it is not universally true, and there are exceptions (I look to LadyChaos to enumerate those exceptions ad nauseum), but the tenor of the student body is very much set by the students themselves and by what they hold dear. Compare this to the followers of the bully in most public schools and later on in life as well. I can testify that the student body in my daughter's parochial school knows they are getting quality education, after 8 years they have settled out all their early differences, and that they go to the wall for each other like marines.
52. ScottLoar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:12 AM PT
Corrigendum: it is not just the parents...not even just the teachers
53. msivorytower - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:14 AM PT
Jaysus
Forgive all the errors of grammar in my preceeding post.
Sheesh......
54. Rivendell - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:15 AM PT
Oh hell Scott, I'll make it simple.
Your example is great as regards your own personal experience. But to make a blanket statement that *all* Catholic schools have students who simply will not tolerate bullying is charmingly naive.
I can give the names and addresses of many of the bullies and troublemakers from my own elementary and secondary days and could add to that list the names of the ones my own children have to deal with. I think it's great that the schools your own children attend are that way, but it's not necessarily indicative of the whole.
55. ScottLoar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:23 AM PT
Oh hell, Rivendell, I'll make it simpler. I did not say "all", for to do so invites exactly the sort of comments that comprise your post. But to compare the classroom scene and attitudes in parochial schools in the innercity with those of public schools and to find no difference is, frankly, dumb beyond further explanation.
56. Rivendell - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:29 AM PT
Scott,
I'll make it simpler still (although why you find it necessary to make such unprovoked comments about my intellegence is a mystery to me).
If you can find in any of the little I have already posted on this subject anything that even remotely implies that I cannot see any difference between parochial schools and public schools - have at it.
I can see vast differences, but I am not so frankly dumb beyond further comprehension as to believe that they can be attributed to student enforcement of discipline.
57. ScottLoar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:39 AM PT
Unprovoked? No, not when you misinterpret "to make a blanket statement that 'all'" which is exactly what I did not do.
Also, you obviously do not see that the students themselves set the attitude of a school even as the students themselves form the mood of their class. Sure, administration and teachers propose and enforce, but students either buy into it or subvert it. So, in a school where bullies are respected chaos reigns, overtly or covertly in the locker rooms, showers, bathrooms, and just around the corner. In a school where the students share a common ethic of fair treatment and tacitly consent to kindness amongst themselves bullies are are made to reform to some level of accpetability or they are ostracized, left to hang out with a few followers.
In those schools having peer reviews I understand that the students themselves impose harsher penalties on their peers than the administration commonly does.
58. Slackjaw - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:47 AM PT
Philistine,
"I wonder why anyone thinks less funding for public schools is going to make them better."
Noone thinks that. The point is not to make public schools per se better, but education in general better, which is an entirely different argument.
Arguments like "it doesn't make sense to give *public* money to *private* schools" are empty. It's a false dichotomy, like the mantra "don't use a political solution for an economic problem." Again, what are we interested in? Public schools per se? Why? Has supporting them 'just because' become the goal, rather than quality education according to widely accepted standards? I am not surprised to see a public school teacher take that position, but what is the rationale for it?
I rather like Msit's solution.
59. Slackjaw - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:48 AM PT
Message #58
I should say, less funding might have the effect of making public schools better, but it would be a by-product of competition, not less funding per se.
60. ScottLoar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:50 AM PT
I recall some years ago a television expose (lovely word) on the goings-on in one East Coast prep school in which a drug ring was discovered among some part of the student body, and so they were expelled. Interviews of the students showed drug use was commonplace amongst most of the students, especially those lauded as student leaders by the administration, while interviews of the faculty and administration was notable for absolute ignorance of this fact known to all the students. Hell, one of my friends was expelled from prep school for selling drugs; his idiocy in most of the students' minds was getting caught. The administration and faculty proposed, but the student body disposed.
I did not go to a prep school and did not intend to imply otherwise.
61. Rivendell - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:50 AM PT
Scott,
The word "all" does not appear in my message #49 when I make reference to your #41 and yet you felt it necessary to make things simple for me in your #51. I can deal with the condescension, but don't act like you're not doing it.
What kind of attitude the students want to set for their class is certainly a factor in determining the ultimate quality of education. However, I think you rather blithely dismiss the hammer that expulsion can be. It makes setting a peaceful atmosphere in a parochial school infinitely easier than is possible in a public school.
And my own personal experiences in parochial education make me chuckle at your naivete regarding the ability of the parents and the teachers to make it come about as opposed to the ability of the students.
62. ScottLoar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:55 AM PT
You can laugh your ass off you hard-bitten realist you, but what exactly do you mean by "it"? Make what come about? State the subject.
63. Wombat - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:56 AM PT
Not all private schools are parochial schools, of course. I went to private elementary schools in NY. There was bullying, hazing, psychos, and idiots harder to throw out, since their parents were paying good money. Protestant "Christian Academies" are free to teach creationism, and under vouchers, parents would be free to send their kids to them at the public's expense. I DO NOT want my tax money going to that. I also do not want to fund whacko Afrocentrists such as the Marcus Garvey Academy.
MsIt: Your earlier proposal. Was it "modest" in a Swiftian sense? One of the reasons public schools were set up was the failure of the existing system to reach all those who needed education.
64. ScottLoar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:58 AM PT
Rivendell, reread the second paragraph of Message #57 and tell me exactly where we disagree, or where I am naive.
65. Rivendell - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:59 AM PT
It = "...setting a peaceful atmosphere in a parochial school [is] infinitely easier than is possible in a public school."
When did I change the subject to which I was referring?
66. ScottLoar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:03 PM PT
The Marcus Garvey Academy, Christian academies and the like will not continue unless they supply a need, and that need will be lessened as their graduates find the education they received ill serves practical purpose. Would you hire their graduates at any level unless you are a black nationalist or office manager of a Christian fundamentalist group? Some whacko schools like this will always be with us.
67. Rivendell - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:04 PM PT
Wombat -
Your experience at private, non-parochial, school can also occur in parochial schools. When the bully is the son/daughter of an important (in the administrator's mind) member of the parish/diocese then it is amazing what kind of behavior the school administration will tolerate.
68. ScottLoar - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:06 PM PT
Rivendell, just what the hell is your argument?
69. ChristiPeters - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:12 PM PT
Is it not in the public's interest to have an educated populace?
If education is completely privatized, doesn't that mean that those without the funds will go without the education?
If we have an underclass of illiterate citizens, will that not increase the crime rate? (Isn't that a factor in today's crime rate? - people who graduate high school still unabel to read or balance a checkbook.)
I wish I knew how to "fix" the school system, but I don't. I just don't think removing the public school and replacing them all with private schools will serve the public good.
70. Rivendell - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:13 PM PT
Scott,
My exchanges with you have centered on, forgive me if I am misrepresenting your statements, your belief that the discipline in Catholic schools comes about primarily as a result of student enforcement.
I am saying that any student enforcement is a product of what the schools and the parents have purposefully set up to occur. It's true that the more aggressive bullies and classroom disturbers get short shrift (generally speaking) in Catholic schools, but that is primarily because the schools can expel them. Public schools do not have that option.
If the students at a Catholic school then come to prize the learning atmosphere in their own classes and come to want to defend it then it is because expulsion was an option in the first place.
Remove explusion as an option and Catholic school discipline would be no better than in public schools. This would be true regardless of the prevailing student attitudes in the school.
71. ChristiPeters - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:13 PM PT
that's ...public schools and replacing ...
72. Wombat - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:13 PM PT
You are right Scott, some always will be with us. I do not want to subsidize them with my tax money, however.
73. AGupta - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:17 PM PT
I agree with ms. ivorytower. Most of the objections to her view are "what about the poor people"? There are a few replies to this, but first it is worth pointing out that this is NOT an argument for government-operated schools. When we think people are too poor to afford, say, food, we do not set up a system of U.S. grocery stores and farms. We give them food stamps. Similarly, if we think people are too poor to afford education, we should not let that serve as an argument to set up government schools. We should simply give out "education stamps" -- ie, vouchers.
But the argument also assumes that private schooling is more expensive than public schooling, which is just false. Now of course there is a redistributive aspect, since childless families nonetheless finance public schools. I don't know the extent of that redistribution, though. In any case, the average public school's cost per-pupil is $6,857. The average private school's tuition is $3,116. Now that includes parochial and sectarian schools, which have other sources of funds besides tuition. If one leaves sectarian schools out, the expenditure rises to $6,631 -- much higher, to be sure, but still cheaper than the average public school, especially when one reasons that all of the private schools' customers are in effect paying twice for education services.
A horde of useful tuition statistics can be found here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-025es.html
A very good article attacking government schools is here:
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/Public%20Schools/Public_Schools1.html
Finally, anyone interested in these issues should read E.G. West's wonderful "Education and the State." It contains, among other things, a lot of useful number crunching on literacy rates.
OK, I'll shut up now.
Ananda
74. AGupta - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:20 PM PT
sorry... the sentence in my second paragraph which reads:
"If one leaves sectarian schools out, the expenditure rises to $6,631 -- much higher, to be sure, but still cheaper than the average public school..."
should read:
"If one leaves sectarian schools out, the *TUITION* rises to $6,631 -- much higher, to be sure, but still cheaper than the average public school..."
Ananda
75. Ronski - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:22 PM PT
ChristiPeters,
I believe the argument is that no one is likely to go without an education for lack of funds in a (hypothetical) privatized system. In a market environment, schools would compete to keep costs low; parents would have more money than they do now because their property taxes would be considerably lower than they are today; and charities, including religious institutions, would educate the children of the very poor.
At least, that's the idea.
76. AuNaturel - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:22 PM PT
Message #19
OMYGAWD!!! I actually agree with MsIT! Will miracles never cease?
77. ChristiPeters - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:23 PM PT
" The average private school's tuition is $3,116."
Where!? where!?
I am sure you are stating what you have seen, but the only private school I have found since Lil' Darlin' reached school age that I considered academically *good enough*, charged $6,500/year, plus uniforms, and mandatory minimum volunteer time.
I sure wish *I* could find these good schools for $3,116.
78. msivorytower - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:23 PM PT
Wombat reMessage #63
Yes.
I'm also serious about the idea that public monies should not go to subsidize private choices that segregate, maintain hierarchies, fail to serve all students, etc.
I'm all for privatizing educational choices, but then I think the "public" rationale for paying for schools disappears, and I don't think taxing the collective to support private decisions is justified.
79. Rivendell - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:24 PM PT
Agupta -
I may have misread, but didn't MsIvoryTower propose that all taxation, which currently goes to support public education, cease - if vouchers are to be viable? If that's the case then from where will the gov't monies to aid the poor come?
80. msivorytower - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:25 PM PT
"especially when one reasons that all of the private schools' customers are in effect paying twice for education services."
Hogwash. They might be paying for a portion of public school costs, but not even half for most.
And one could argue that childless taxpayers are ripped off even more.
81. msivorytower - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:26 PM PT
Riv
I did. I don't know where these other funds might come from. Perhaps from the welfare budgets?
82. AuNaturel - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:27 PM PT
"If education is completely privatized, doesn't that mean that those without the funds will go without the education?"
No, it means they will have to send their children to charitable institutions or opt for home schooling.
83. msivorytower - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:27 PM PT
AuNatural
Don't panic, I've yet to agree with you. When that happens, we should worry.
84. Rivendell - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:28 PM PT
MsIt -
I didn't know you were still around and reading. Thanks for responding.
Doesn't this set up a class of people, a class which already exists, that would be unable to afford any education for their children at all?
85. Ronski - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:29 PM PT
An op-ed piece by Theodore Dalrymple (admittedly a cranky, reactionary, authoritarian conservative) in the Wall Street Journal a few days back makes the case with a good many anecdotes that British education in urban areas is as thoroughly lousy as is American education in the cities.
The overriding sense one gets reading the article is that no one, not the teachers, the administrators, the parents, nor the children themselves value education, and that is why kids don't learn. The most important people in their lives don't care if they do; and, subsequently, the kids don't either.
86. msivorytower - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:29 PM PT
Riv
Who cares?
87. msivorytower - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:30 PM PT
Btw, Riv
Gotta run right now, but I'll check in later......
Seasons Greetings!
88. Wombat - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:31 PM PT
There are movements in some communitities in the great southwest that do not want to pay to support public schooling. It is of no use to them, after all.
89. Rivendell - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:33 PM PT
MsIt -
I thought that's what was happening.
In that case you have effectively illustrated why I am opposed to vouchers and still willingly pay to send my children to a parochial school.
Season's Greetings to you as well.
90. philistine - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:33 PM PT
Misty -
Who cares? I'm not sure I believe I'm reading this. Who are you really?
91. AGupta - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:36 PM PT
MsIT - All I meant by "paying twice" was that if you pay for private schooling, you are not thereby allowed to refuse to pay for public schooling, despite the fact that you are no longer accepting the product.
As for teaching creationism, well, I betray some of my politics here, but I think that government schools politicize education just as badly as would Bob Jones Private School. Some of the pop environmentalism that gets passed off as fact to uncritical young minds in government schools is unbelievable. (See "Facts Not Fear," by Jane Shaw, for details.) Now I'm not saying that would disappear if we got rid of government schools. But at least it would be subject to competitive pressure.
Second, when we worry about educating the poor (as condescending as that may be), introducing government has its pitfalls as well. REASON magazine did a great article on a private school in Durham, NC, where the tuition was rock bottom because almost every student came from an impoverished neighborhood. Nonetheless the kids were learning, and impressing their parents. Then the state authorities came and said that the school was segregated, since it was almost entirely black (90+%). The parents were not happy about this. For the first time, their kids enjoyed school, had homework to do, liked to read, etc., and the state was threatening to close the school and send them all back to the government schools because there weren't enough white kids there. So government oversight is not always a good thing.
Ananda
92. ChristiPeters - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:37 PM PT
If I sent Lil' Darlin' to the private school of my choice, the personal cost to me, out of MY pocketbook would be $6,500.
Sending Lil' Darlin' to public school cost me $2,100 in property taxes (when I had a propety).
Guess which one I can afford.
93. Rivendell - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:40 PM PT
Philistine,
Don't jump to conclusions too quickly.
94. elliot803 - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:44 PM PT
AGupta:
"Some of the pop environmentalism that gets passed off as fact to uncritical young minds in government schools is unbelievable. (See "Facts Not Fear," by Jane Shaw, for details.)"
I seriously doubt it.
"Now I'm not saying that would disappear if we got rid of government schools. But at least it would be subject to competitive pressure."
It's already subject to competitive pressure, and more importantly, it's subject to democratic control through local school boards and state education authorities.
"For the first time, their kids enjoyed school, had homework to do, liked to read, etc., and the state was threatening to close the school and send them all back to the government schools because there weren't enough white kids there. So government oversight is not always a good thing."
Massive racial segregation in K-12 education, whether by accident or design, is a very unhealthy situation, and should be rectified.
95. Ronski - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:47 PM PT
The $3000+ figure for an average cost of primary education is a nationwide number which includes all religious schools. Being only an average, the problem is that in many areas of the country no one can find a decent school of such low cost; but privatization proponents argue that that would change with privatization, i.e., costs would go down.
96. AGupta - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:48 PM PT
ChristiP -
So what you're saying is that if you were allowed to opt out of the fraction of property taxes that goes to government schools, you would be able to almost afford the school "of your choice" if you also had a $3,000 voucher (the most often-proposed amount). It sounds like you (and Darlin') would be winners under a voucher program.
To answer your earlier question, the sample for the stats I quoted is the 1995 Digest of Education Statistics, from the National Center for Education Statistics. Incidentally, it is worth pointing out that the numbers probably understate real public school costs, since they don't count capital outlays or pension obligations (of course, the private school numbers don't count things like fundraising campaigns or payments from churches, in the case of sectarian schools).
Ananda
97. Rivendell - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:49 PM PT
Agupta -
It could also be that the black students were in an atmosphere that did not put the pressures of racial prejudice on them and they responded accordingly. That's fine for those particular students, but it does nothing to address the problems black students face in the majority of schools where they are the minority. Segregating schools again is hardly a solution.
I agree with Elliot's description of that being an unhealthy situation.
98. Ronski - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:52 PM PT
Elliot,
The market is a greater force for accountability, and democratic influences, than the interlocking network of education bureaucracies (see NYC's Board of Education), the unions, and legislators who have far more to think about than public education alone.
But I suspect you will not agree with this premise, ever.
99. AGupta - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:56 PM PT
To elliot and rivendell --
I agree that racial segregation isn't healthy. But given that the alternative for these kids was going back to the public schools, with the attendant problems, I think that they were better off where they were. Their parents seemed to agree, and I am reluctant to second-guess them.
elliot -
Well, you and I disagree on environmental issues, and that's fine. I object to my tax dollars supporting your point of view, though, and you are perfectly justified in objecting to yours supporting mine. But with government schools, our differences are necessarily politicized. Rather than simply live and let live, we are forced to hash it out, with one of us getting his way and one not. I view that as a disadvantage of the government system.
As for democratic control, well, this isn't the time or place for a lecture on why democratic control isn't nearly as potent or reasonable as market forces are. See Paul Krugman's piece "Rat Democracy" in this very publication for an abbreviated introduction.
Ananda
100. Ronski - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:56 PM PT
The State should forbid black students from attending all-black academies if that is their wish or their parents' wish?