"Failing schools" and vouchers

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Your argument is akin to stating a person can't take a portion of their tax return and donate it to a Church. Or stating a government employee couldn't donate his or her hard earned $$ to a Church. Ludicrous by any standard.

This is exactly what they would advocate.

I think religion is a total waste of time. But I think more strongly, that this is my opinion and I shouldn't force others that disagree with it to fit my mold. This tangent is all about personal bias, not fairness, nor about what's best for the kids.

I suspect the next step is to require all government workers to be atheists.

just in case

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

How, in this case is the government "establishing a state religion"?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Establishing a state religion, while not allowed, is not relevant to the current discussion.

Any church or religious school is "an establishment of religion." To offer tax monies to those establishments requires legislation. Any legislation allowing said monies to be directed to religious schools is, in fact, respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn't matter a bit if we are talking about schools of hundreds of different respective religions, or just one, for example, Catholicism. It requires a law that respects an establishment of religion, clearly prohibited by the first (and the fourteenth) amendment(s).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Nuts - the voucher system would allow direction of vouchers at the discretion of parents. At that point it is out of their (Congress) hands.

If congress passed a law that said vouchers shall be directed only to Catholic schools as alternates to direct public school funding, then you have an extremely good position.

(here's a bone thrown your way - I think that the 'tax exmept' status of religions should be completely stripped so they play on equal footing as any other type of 'consulting' business. Tax exempt churches is travesty of a concept. That's a much more blatant argument on the first than an organization "which happens to be religiously founded" that chooses to run a private school under the same rules as everyone else.)



What if the private school teachers are all strongly religious?

What if the retired teacher co-op is composed entirely of pastafarians?

What if the muslim school changes the sign out front to "Coca Cola" but doesn't change the curriculum?

this is an interesting discussion. glad you are playing

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Nuts - the voucher system would allow direction of vouchers at the discretion of parents. At that point it is out of their (Congress) hands.

I disagree. I believe that, short of a tax repeal, Congress would be violating the first amendment allowing vouchers to be redeemed by religious churches. (I'm against vouchers across the board, but that's not relevant to my position in this discussion.)

Quote

If congress passed a law that said vouchers shall be directed only to Catholic schools as alternates to direct public school funding, then you have an extremely good position.

If it is an establishment of religion, or a bunch of different establishments of religion, I believe my position to be valid. I don't think that potentially showing preference to a single religion is the issue, although I believe that would also be unacceptable.

Quote

(here's a bone thrown your way - I think that the 'tax exmept' status of religions should be completely stripped so they play on equal footing as any other type of 'consulting' business. Tax exempt churches is travesty of a concept. That's a much more blatant argument on the first than an organization "which happens to be religiously founded" that chooses to run a private school under the same rules as everyone else.)

Here we agree.

Quote

What if the private school teachers are all strongly religious?

Not a problem provided the education they provide is strictly secular. Of course, private funding (not tax monies or vouchers) would make it a non-issue.

Quote

What if the retired teacher co-op is composed entirely of pastafarians?

retired teacher co-op? Please clarify.

I will say that I believe Pastafarians should be treated like any other religious group.

Quote

What if the muslim school changes the sign out front to "Coca Cola" but doesn't change the curriculum?

If they are privately funded, they can do what they want to do, to the extent that certain minimum standards of education are met. (ie. no school should be turning out illiterate grads, etc.)

Quote

this is an interesting discussion. glad you are playing

Agreed on the first point. I feel likewise on the second.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

I hate these big strings, but last one

1 - I believe that, short of a tax repeal, Congress would be violating the first amendment allowing vouchers to be redeemed by religious churches. - We have to disagree on this, I think that interpretation is way off. The application of specific educational requirements would be the way to ensure it

2 - I'm against vouchers across the board, but that's not relevant to my position in this discussion. I don't believe that either, I think it's the heart of your position. But that's opinion, nothing to discuss here either

3 - If it is an establishment of religion, or a bunch of different establishments of religion, I believe my position to be valid.the fundamental difference in that I consider it a bunch of different organizations, and religions are just another company, nothing more

4 - Here we agree. it happens a lot

5 - What if the private school teachers are all strongly religious? Not a problem provided the education they provide is strictly secular.so why can't the same apply in a different building for the 'core' requirements? electives are none of our business

6 - Of course, private funding (not tax monies or vouchers) would make it a non-issue.it's a moot point in this thread, but does support my read of your bias in #2 above

7 - retired teacher co-op? Please clarify. Just another hypothetical structure of people that want to teach in private format and have eligibility for vouchers (a bunch of teachers get together and open a private school, why can't they get vouchers?)

8 - I will say that I believe Pastafarians should be treated like any other religious group.but they just "call" themselves a religion in mockery of religion. So now it's all about the label? or the sign on the building?

9 - If they are privately funded, they can do what they want to do, this is about their eligibility to get vouchers under the hypothetical proposal. So your response is moot again

simple proposal - whatever your core structure, whatever your politics, moral basis, leadership structure, size, etc. As long as you can effectively teach a defined core curriculum to the student, then you can redeem vouchers (if a parent chooses to bring them to you for little johnny's education). Be prepared to PROVE it.

As far as electives, it's no different than sending little johny to bible school AFTER he leaves public classes.

It requires the government to define the basic educational requirements, and it requires the government to audit the private and public schools for compliance.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I hate these big strings, but last one

1 - I believe that, short of a tax repeal, Congress would be violating the first amendment allowing vouchers to be redeemed by religious churches. - We have to disagree on this, I think that interpretation is way off. The application of specific educational requirements would be the way to ensure it

2 - I'm against vouchers across the board, but that's not relevant to my position in this discussion. I don't believe that either, I think it's the heart of your position. But that's opinion, nothing to discuss here either

3 - If it is an establishment of religion, or a bunch of different establishments of religion, I believe my position to be valid.the fundamental difference in that I consider it a bunch of different organizations, and religions are just another company, nothing more

4 - Here we agree. it happens a lot

5 - What if the private school teachers are all strongly religious? Not a problem provided the education they provide is strictly secular.so why can't the same apply in a different building for the 'core' requirements? electives are none of our business

6 - Of course, private funding (not tax monies or vouchers) would make it a non-issue.it's a moot point in this thread, but does support my read of your bias in #2 above

7 - retired teacher co-op? Please clarify. Just another hypothetical structure of people that want to teach in private format and have eligibility for vouchers (a bunch of teachers get together and open a private school, why can't they get vouchers?)

8 - I will say that I believe Pastafarians should be treated like any other religious group.but they just "call" themselves a religion in mockery of religion. So now it's all about the label? or the sign on the building?

9 - If they are privately funded, they can do what they want to do, this is about their eligibility to get vouchers under the hypothetical proposal. So your response is moot again

simple proposal - whatever your core structure, whatever your politics, moral basis, leadership structure, size, etc. As long as you can effectively teach a defined core curriculum to the student, then you can redeem vouchers (if a parent chooses to bring them to you for little johnny's education). Be prepared to PROVE it.

As far as electives, it's no different than sending little johny to bible school AFTER he leaves public classes.

It requires the government to define the basic educational requirements, and it requires the government to audit the private and public schools for compliance.

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

There has been some confusion over the past fifty years or so about what constitutes "establishment of religion." 35 years, the SCOTUS used the test of "excessive entanglement" - meaning that the government can be involved, but not excessively entangled.

In 2002, in a remarkable show of clarity (normally, the courts and especially the SCOTUS fudges these things up greatly), the SCOTUS majority (5-4) announced a test for voucher programs in Zellman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 USC 639. It seems to make sense to me.

For a voucher program not to violate the establishment clause:
1) the program must have a valid secular purpose (education is a secular thing);
2) aid must go to parents and not schools (the parents decide where the money goes);
3) a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered (not just one or two religious denominations);
4) it must be neutral with respect to religion (to ensure that no one religion is being given preferential treatment); and
5) there must be adequate nonreligious options (i.e., the parents can send their kids to other public schools).

From a political and policy (not necessarily legal) standpoint, I don't have an issue with parent choice. If parents think their kids will get a better education through School X than School Y, I dont' think the government should be telling the parents they are wrong and won't help them.

BTW - I know that many of you dislike Clarence THomas, I'm not one of them. This case is but another example of why some like him and some hate him.

In his concurrence, Thomas raised the issue of the Fourteenth Amendment's protects of privileges and immunities, and equal protection, and incorporation of the Constitutional Protections to the states. I like Thomas because he'll strip stuff down. He said that the law that governed the vouchers that was discussed was "content neutral" - it did not advocate religion at all, just education. In adding that it is usually inner city minorities who are the most likely to benefit from programs like this, he wrote:
***These programs address the root of the problem with failing urban public schools that disproportionately affect minority students. Society's other solution to these educational failures is often to provide racial preferences in higher education. Such preferences, however, run afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition against distinctions based on race. See Plessy, 163 U. S., at 555 (Harlan, J., dissenting). By contrast, school choice programs that involve religious schools appear unconstitutional only to those who would twist the Fourteenth Amendment against itself by expansively incorporating the Establishment Clause. Converting the Fourteenth Amendment from a guarantee of opportunity to an obstacle against education reform distorts our constitutional values and disserves those in the greatest need."

I like his philosophy - don't grant preferences based on race. Instead, do things that help everybody regardless of race, and the ones in need of most help, usually minorities, will benefit the most.

Thomas is great at seeing things as "content-based" or "content-neutral." Content-neutral, to me, is good. Content-based is bad.

Just my opinion.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

"Converting the Fourteenth Amendment from a guarantee of opportunity to an obstacle against education reform distorts our constitutional values and disserves those in the greatest need."

that's all I'm saying, but them thar edumucated types sure to talk all flowery and such

Quote

For a voucher program not to violate the establishment clause:
1) the program must have a valid secular purpose (education is a secular thing);
2) aid must go to parents and not schools (the parents decide where the money goes);
3) a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered (not just one or two religious denominations);
4) it must be neutral with respect to religion (to ensure that no one religion is being given preferential treatment); and
5) there must be adequate nonreligious options (i.e., the parents can send their kids to other public schools).

this is really obvious

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TheAnvil 0]

You're still not getting it.

In school vouchers programs, the $$ the state intended for use for a student's education is given to that student's parent or guardian. Then the guardian makes the choice of which school gets that $$. The $$ is limited to expenditure for education, but the $$ is that of the parent or guardian to expend - not the state. Taxpayer money was collected and disbursed for a purpose.

Taxpayer money is collected to pay government employees - and in some cases to give tax refunds as well. What the recipient of those taxpayer $$ does with that money is their concern and nobody elses. Just as the use of the $$ given to a parent under a voucher scheme. Money is NOT directly appropriated to an institution, rather to a parent for use in the education of their child. Because money is not directly appropriated to a school that might happen to be secular or non-secular, no law affecting an establishment of religion is made when a voucher program is in place.

Rehmwa has it correct - those opposing school voucher programs do NOT have the best interests of the children, whose parents fought to get vouchers for their children, in mind. They have their own political agendas in mind and would rather keep that kid in a substandard school - to his/her detriment - than have their own interests take a back seat. Disgusting.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[narcimund 0]

Quote

the $$ is that of the parent or guardian to expend - not the state. Taxpayer money was collected and disbursed for a purpose.

Why are only parents allowed to retrieve their school taxes and redirect? Shouldn't non-parents be allowed to redirect their school tax money to reflect their values too?

That's some serious discrimination against those who don't breed.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

They have their own political agendas in mind and would rather keep that kid in a substandard school - to his/her detriment - than have their own interests take a back seat. Disgusting.

I won't go that far, I think people like jcd and Nightengale truly believe that any religious institution, NO EXCEPTION, will do a disservice to the kiddies'

I like to take it one school at a time

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TheAnvil 0]

Those with kids have a far greater vested interest and responsibility towards the education of their child.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

Add a 'the majority of...' to my original post and it's a correct statement.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Why are only parents allowed to retrieve their school taxes and redirect?

First - think about the unfairness of paying to educate someone else's kid.

Second, they should be allowed to redirect the taxes for the same reason people who receive food stamps are able to retrieve tax dollars and redirect those monies to the stores of their choice and for the items of their choice. Imagine if the situation were such that the government did not give food stamps but instead provided the food for them - they get what they get regardless of their needs because the board will tell them what they need, and you may only go to the food center in your neighborhood - lateral transfers and enroolment is not permissible.

Oops. We have a neighborhood where there is a large percentage of people who are lactose intolerant. This presents a problem for the principal of the local food center. There are 20 food centers in the district, and each of them gets supplied equally with Lactaid products. 10 of them have no lactose intolerant people. 5 of them have two. 4 of them have 5 or less, but your center has 20.

Well, the principal cannot get you any more Lactaid products. Thus, because there is not enough Lactaid for 20 people, those 20 get less dairy products, which strains the health and development of the others.

They do have options - they can go out and purchase Lactaid on the market, or they can go buy food at other food centers, but they lack the funds to do so. The government could give vouchers to use, but a several of the stores are operated by religious people, including Christians, Jews and even Scientologists. A couple of the Christian store owners even have a "Jesus Saves" sign on the door.

In order to ensure that there is a clear separation between church and state, we cannot allow these people to have vouchers. It would deplete the resources of the "failing" food center, and also they may be used at a religious establishment.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

the $$ is that of the parent or guardian to expend - not the state. Taxpayer money was collected and disbursed for a purpose.

Why are only parents allowed to retrieve their school taxes and redirect? Shouldn't non-parents be allowed to redirect their school tax money to reflect their values too?

That's some serious discrimination against those who don't breed.

Yes; that's another way of making the point I've been making in this thread: that taxes are for the general welfare of the community, and people shouldn't have the right to compel line-item exemptions (or re-directions) of certain taxes to fit the services they personally do or do not use.

[drae 0]

Quote

First - think about the unfairness of paying to educate someone else's kid.

Second, they should be allowed to redirect the taxes for the same reason people who receive food stamps are able to retrieve tax dollars and redirect those monies to the stores of their choice and for the items of their choice. Imagine if the situation were such that the government did not give food stamps but instead provided the food for them - they get what they get regardless of their needs because the board will tell them what they need, and you may only go to the food center in your neighborhood - lateral transfers and enroolment is not permissible.

Oops. We have a neighborhood where there is a large percentage of people who are lactose intolerant. This presents a problem for the principal of the local food center. There are 20 food centers in the district, and each of them gets supplied equally with Lactaid products. 10 of them have no lactose intolerant people. 5 of them have two. 4 of them have 5 or less, but your center has 20.

Well, the principal cannot get you any more Lactaid products. Thus, because there is not enough Lactaid for 20 people, those 20 get less dairy products, which strains the health and development of the others.

They do have options - they can go out and purchase Lactaid on the market, or they can go buy food at other food centers, but they lack the funds to do so. The government could give vouchers to use, but a several of the stores are operated by religious people, including Christians, Jews and even Scientologists. A couple of the Christian store owners even have a "Jesus Saves" sign on the door.

In order to ensure that there is a clear separation between church and state, we cannot allow these people to have vouchers. It would deplete the resources of the "failing" food center, and also they may be used at a religious establishment.

BRAVO !!!! Very well explained!

[rehmwa 2]

Oh Great!! Now you are advocating that public schools be put in charge of feeding people?

( nice analogy, best one yet?)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[PhreeZone 20]

Vouchers here in Ohio are soon to be eliminated. There is a 15+% failure rate on schools that are opened to use the vouchers currently and due to some things that are changing another 10-15% are expected to close since they do not have the infastructure in place to meet the new demands. The voucher program has caused I believe 10 schools to go bankrupt in Columbus alone defaulting over $10 million in loans from the state government to start up with. One school just closed 2 weeks ago. The kids came in one day and found notices saying that Friday would be their last day and they needed to go find another school to go to since theirs was closing in the middle of March. In the paper they said only 40% of the kids were now enrolled in another school, the rest have not started at another school yet since the charter locked up all the students records and they have nothing to show for their progress this year or paperwork to show their grades until they were forced to leave.

That stibility of knowing that your school will be there next month is at least one thing that the public system offers.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

that taxes are for the general welfare of the community, and people shouldn't have the right to compel line-item exemptions (or re-directions) of certain taxes to fit the services they personally do or do not use.

What about food stamps? Why is it okay for that general welfare program to allow people to make line-item exceptions for products that they don't need?

I honestly do't see much of a difference between food vouchers and school vouchers.

My wife is hotter than your wife.