Another view of "public" education

[happybrew]

web page

[Thumper]

"Catholic and other dissenting parents . . . taxpayers all . . . must ask their legislators why their Johnnies and Annas .... are denied a share of the education tax. And we must not allow legislators to use the fraudulent excuse that the State is offering these students a legitimate educational opportunity when in fact it is offering schooling that is controlled by the "private" ideology of Secular Humanism."

Basically this fellow wants all private, at least religion-based, schools to get an equal slice of education tax revenues. He is swimming upstream, for sure.

Can you imagine a dilution of education tax dollars to support every private school? That would spell the end of the public school system for sure.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Thumper:

Can you imagine a dilution of education tax dollars to support every private school? That would spell the end of the public school system for sure.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Which is exactly the mission of more than a few people in this country. I am not saying this is so with this church, (not saying it's not, either) I don't know that. I do however know there are significant numbers of people that would like to see that happen.

[happybrew]

I think the more important beef the author has is that in the name of not promoting a religion, the public education system is promoting an outlook that undermines the religious beliefs of those in the public school system, and it's paid for by everyone's tax dollars. Those who choose not to participate still pay for it, and receive no support for the education of their children, even though this is a tremendous public good. I know that I receive no tax credit, even a small one, for homeschooling my kids, even though I save the state a tremendous amount of money by doing so. So does everyone sending their kids to a private school. I'm not griping, as it is my choice to do so, but just because I'm not griping that doesn't mean it's a just situation. Furthermore, while Oregon is pretty good about it, many states have rather oppressive homeschooling laws, interfering with the rights of parents to educate their children as they see fit, thereby strictly enforcing a state monopoly on education. I don't think the issue is one of reducing available funds for education, rather it is one of equitably distributing those funds. Right now, homeschoolers and private schoolers are in effect providing a tremendous subsidy for public education by freeing up resources for the public education system. They are foregoing their share of the tax pie, leaving more for everyone else. A voucher or tax credit system wouldn't really reduce the funds for education, because those funds would be going for the education of those who choose an alternative to the state monopoly.

happybrew

[ 12-19-2003, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: happybrew ]

[Hoosier Daddy]

Doesn't the fact that they do not get public money have just a little bit to do with why they are called "Private" schools?

[Straydog]

We have several private and home schooled kids participating in co-curricular activities in our District.

We have some home schooled kids that are getting some of their education at home while still getting some from the public schools.

Our district and the local ESD provides resources to home school parents to help them in their mission.

While I understand Happybrews basic premise, to say all private and home schooled kids are denied benefit from their parents tax dollars going to education is not entirely accurate.

[ 12-19-2003, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Thumper]

Originally posted by happybrew:
A voucher or tax credit system wouldn't really reduce the funds for education, because those funds would be going for the education of those who choose an alternative to the state monopoly. happybrew

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Wow. I doubt that you will get many to agree with that.

In a perfect world, there would be plenty of funding to go around. Whether you chose to send your kids to a public school or to a private school wouldn't matter. Funds would be available under a voucher system to pay for either approach. It sounds great, and gets a lot of votes too.

Alas, it is not a perfect world. Any voucher dollars that you take from public school financing will drive that system toward the brink. Some would say that the brink is already in sight.

The main beneficiaries of a voucher system would be the parents who are now spending twice. But that doesn't change the realities of the public school funding crisis. There just aren't enough dollars to do both.

Right now it costs about half as much to educate kids in a private school. But those kids are carefully selected for "educability". They don't include the chronic truants, many of the the learning-impaired, the troublemakers, the kids who don't speak English, etc. It takes fewer dollars per kid, and while there are areas to cut the cost of public schools (as we argue here a lot), the fact remains that it just costs more to do the job in the public schools.

Vouchers are not the answer, except in very, very small amounts.

[BrokeItOff]

Thumper [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Shane

[roadsend]

"Right now, homeschoolers and private schoolers are in effect providing a tremendous subsidy for public education by freeing up resources for the public education system."

This is a true statement and only goes to point out the precarious funding levels of our public schools.
My daughter was a foreign exchange student in South America a number of years ago. While there, she and the other exchange students attended Catholic schools, even though most of them were not Catholic. This was due to the fact that the underfunded public schools were unable to provide a reasonably good education to the very poor children, who were their sole clientele. Anyone who could afford the tuition went to the Catholic school.
At the current level of school funding any major diversion of funds would risk the creation of a stratified two tier system, where the poor folks attend the public schools, and kids from families of means attend whatever private school they can afford. Family income would, even more than it does now, dictate educational and future professional achievement leading to a much more economically stratified society than we now have.
I have nothing against Catholic schools as my children, my wife, and I attended them; but those who choose to attend them must realize that if we don't want to live in a highly economically stratified society such as is found in South America we all have an obligation to maintain and support a strong public school system.

[OuhtforTrouht]

I'm going to vote a straight "Thumper" ticket next election!! You make a lot of sense! [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Thumper:
Wow. I doubt that you will get many to agree with that.

In a perfect world, there would be plenty of funding to go around. Whether you chose to send your kids to a public school or to a private school wouldn't matter. Funds would be available under a voucher system to pay for either approach. It sounds great, and gets a lot of votes too.

Alas, it is not a perfect world. Any voucher dollars that you take from public school financing will drive that system toward the brink. Some would say that the brink is already in sight.

The main beneficiaries of a voucher system would be the parents who are now spending twice. But that doesn't change the realities of the public school funding crisis. There just aren't enough dollars to do both.

Right now it costs about half as much to educate kids in a private school. But those kids are carefully selected for "educability". They don't include the chronic truants, many of the the learning-impaired, the troublemakers, the kids who don't speak English, etc. It takes fewer dollars per kid, and while there are areas to cut the cost of public schools (as we argue here a lot), the fact remains that it just costs more to do the job in the public schools.

Vouchers are not the answer, except in very, very small amounts.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">YES!!!!! [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] Well said and I agree.

I had a conversation with an ex-board member the other day. He was telling me that when his daughter was in middle school, he asked her, if the teacher was able to just teach and not have to deal with the trouble makers and special needs kids, how long would she figure she would have to be in school a day to get the material she was currently getting. She replied that it would probably take 2 to 3 hours which, I am told, is about the average time a home schooler is "in school" each day.

Selective education is much more effective, much less time consuming and much less expensive. It is also contrary to the notion of a free society and equal opportunity for all.

[ 12-19-2003, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[happybrew]

Thumper, I don't get it. If it costs half as much to educate a kid in a private school, if they received public funding, wouldn't they be able to thereby serve those they cannot serve now due to prohibitive cost and affordability issues? And if they served more at lower cost, wouldn't that free up more funding for public education? If they simply received a quarter of the funding that public schools receive, they could serve more people better than they are currently able to, and the remaining resources could provide an increase in per-student funding in the public schools. Sorry, but that argument just doesn't wash with me. Furthermore, private schools and homeschoolers do serve people who are disadvantaged in some way, either by poverty or disability.

Straydog: That's true in Oregon, but I don't think it's true in all or most states. I like Oregon's approach to homeschooling, so I'm not going to gripe about it, but Oregon is an exception.

Roadsend: Although it's not as bad as other countries, there are parts of the U.S. that are highly stratified. Washington DC and Mississippi come to mind.

happybrew

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by Straydog:

Selective education is much more effective, much less time consuming and much less expensive. It is also contrary to the notion of a free society and equal opportunity for all.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Equal opportuntity is nice, but there is a much more pragmatic reason to maintain public education. Kids who get an education can get jobs, and progress in society. They are hugely less likely to turn to crime, are socially more successful, and will make more money and pay more taxes. Everybody benefits from public education, including those with no kids.

[TheRogue]

Originally posted by Thumper:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Originally posted by happybrew:
A voucher or tax credit system wouldn't really reduce the funds for education, because those funds would be going for the education of those who choose an alternative to the state monopoly. happybrew

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Wow. I doubt that you will get many to agree with that.

In a perfect world, there would be plenty of funding to go around. Whether you chose to send your kids to a public school or to a private school wouldn't matter. Funds would be available under a voucher system to pay for either approach. It sounds great, and gets a lot of votes too.

Alas, it is not a perfect world. Any voucher dollars that you take from public school financing will drive that system toward the brink. Some would say that the brink is already in sight.

The main beneficiaries of a voucher system would be the parents who are now spending twice. But that doesn't change the realities of the public school funding crisis. There just aren't enough dollars to do both.

Right now it costs about half as much to educate kids in a private school. But those kids are carefully selected for "educability". They don't include the chronic truants, many of the the learning-impaired, the troublemakers, the kids who don't speak English, etc. It takes fewer dollars per kid, and while there are areas to cut the cost of public schools (as we argue here a lot), the fact remains that it just costs more to do the job in the public schools.

Vouchers are not the answer, except in very, very small amounts. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Jack, we may not agree in a lot of things, but we do in this one!! (for once, you're finally right! :grin: :grin: )

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

TR

[Straydog]

Very good points, SH.

Happy Brew,

If you make private education available to "the masses", you will soon lose the advantages the private schools have by eliminating the exclusivity of the private schools.

In my opinion, you would simply be creating another arm of public education.

Further, once you make private schools accessable to public funding, you will have similar strings attached as the public schools do today. Again, likely undermining the benefits now enjoyed by the exclusivity of private schools.

Private schools are succesful due to the selectivity afforded them both directly ("we don't want your child in our school, he is a slow learner") and indirectly (Johnny's dad is on welfare and mom left with daddy's best friend, daddy can't afford private school for Johnny). Take those advantages away by offering public dollars to attend private school and you have eliminated their advantages.

[ 12-19-2003, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Thumper]

Happybrew --- Consider this. Let's say that the costs of operating the public schools now total $100. And the total costs of operating the private schools is $10. Combined total is $110.

If you allow vouchers to cover the cost of private school education, I assume that the private funding (your contribution) would go away; i.e., if you now pay $5,000 a year to the private school for Johnny I suspect that tuition will not go to $10,000. So you will keep the $5,000 you are now spending and use the voucher. You save money, but the public school system loses big-time.

The practical result is that with vouchers, total funding (in our example) is going to go from $110 down to $100 because you are keeping your current contribution. The public school portion will therefore go down to $90, a reduction of 10%.

Big trouble for the public school system.

Vouchers only work if total funding stays constant. And I don't know of a voucher system that does that.

Straydog's comment is correct:

"If you make private education available to "the masses", you will soon lose the advantages the private schools have by eliminating the exclusivity of the private schools.

In my opinion, you would simply be creating another arm of public education."

[ 12-19-2003, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[El Shaddai]

Thumper~ Typically I agree with your posts...but not this time...I have little time today so I will revisit this post later.....suffice to say, most anti choice premises listed above are wrong and easily disproved...in fact, I have laid it out in detail before....

Public schools are in crisis....scores down, cost up etc....the NEA and government are at the heart of it...Happybrew's article makes an interesting point....and I am not Catholic.

[ 12-19-2003, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: El Shaddai ]

[DanS]

ES,

Disproved using your standards, maybe. Of course, I'm sure your view is based on the "absolute truth", just like it always is.

[ 12-19-2003, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: DanS ]

[Lured In]

What I find interesting is that if you read the article, the premise is not just that tax dollars should be equitably distributed among all schools, but that in fact, the public school system is not public for the very reason they claim to be. The 'sectarian' principle offers some interesting insights into the history of public schooling and I found it rather educational. The reality is that, in an effort to teach the masses, nothing is being taught that is actually relevant to the masses.

For example, the often touted 'religous separation' provides a spiritual void in school that does not exist in life. In life we have many faiths, religions and philosophies. Those are largely ignored in public school. So tell me, how does ignoring religion teach kids to be accepting and understanding of people with different faiths? Or how do we expect them to deal with failure when they loose a job opportunity because someone else was more talented? Or what if someone makes more money because they studied harder and got a better job? Are not these the realities of the world? They are not present in our public school system.

I cannot argue that the demands placed on the public school system outstrip most private schools. The question is why? The integration of distinctly different learning abilities, those with clear learning disabilities and the unending acceptance of poor behavior, have crippled public schools. In an effort to make students 'feel' equal (when we know they are not), creates the exact scenario Straydog describes. Ineffective and inefficient teaching.

IMHO, a minority of the 'public' is largely responsible for this. Those who say "we know Johnny has a discipline problem, but he needs to feel included. We don't want him to go to a 'special' school." Or maybe he is not developing his reading as quickly or whatever.

Should these children be excluded? Absolutely not. Should they be taught different material or in a different setting? IMHO, I would say so.

Our public schools have become so preoccupied with being 'inclusive' that have neglected the very principle of individuality that our country was founded on.

We are allowing our children to be educated in an environment that increasingly looks less and less like the real world. They see no religion, they see no excellence and they see no failure.

Our children must be taught to excell to the best of their abilities. Not just to the standards set by the state. That means schools will have to start being judgemental about which students belong in which classes. (OH NO!) Additionally schools need to start being measured on the progress of students relative to where they start in learning, not just where they end.

I realize the challenges that teachers and administrators face must be overwhelming. But, I don't believe the public school system is beyond help. And no, I don't think it takes more money to accomplish this.

Would I support the initiative for vouchers? Unless the public school system is revamped, yes I would.

[Lepper]

I've had the opportunity to "fill-in" teach at a couple of private schools.. also had the opportunity to sub at a public school.. a lot of private schools don't come close to the education a person can get in a public school..

If they want to give money to the private schools then they need to make all the teachers be certified. one school down the road has 1 teacher that actually has a bacherlors degree..

They want the money then they should at the minimum meet the standards that public schools have.. and personally they should exceed the minimums the public system has..

Better idea close the private schools and send them all to the public schools that would atleast give a few more dollars to the public school.
d

[crabbait]

Easy......let's not degrade a good discussion.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Originally posted by Straydog:
If you make private education available to "the masses", you will soon lose the advantages the private schools have by eliminating the exclusivity of the private schools.

In my opinion, you would simply be creating another arm of public education.

Further, once you make private schools accessable to public funding, you will have similar strings attached as the public schools do today. Again, likely undermining the benefits now enjoyed by the exclusivity of private schools.

Private schools are succesful due to the selectivity afforded them both directly ("we don't want your child in our school, he is a slow learner") and indirectly (Johnny's dad is on welfare and mom left with daddy's best friend, daddy can't afford private school for Johnny). Take those advantages away by offering public dollars to attend private school and you have eliminated their advantages.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Exactly. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] Makes perfect sense to me.

[Lured In]

Thumper...while I agree that the public school system would "lose" 10% in your example, they are actually making 90%, because only the cost of the private school was removed, and the public school now has one less student to pay for.

I'll use a bigger example. (This assumes only the actual cost per student is transferred in the voucher.)

Public School attendance 100 Students
Cost per student $100
Total School budget revenue $10,000
Revenue per student attending: $100

Private School attendance: 100 students
Cost per student $50
Total School budget revenue $5000
Revenue per student: $50

Now lets assume that 20 students want to transfer to private school and the vouchers are only for the amount it costs that private school ($50)

Public School attendance: 80
Cost per student: 100
Revenue from attending students: $8000
Revenue from non-attending students (20 x $50) $1000 (This is the delta in cost of the voucher vs. current tax funding)
Total Revenue: $9000
Revenue per attending student ($9000/80 students): $112.50

That results in a net increase in funding per child of 12.5% in public schools. Not a decrease.

Now if the total cost of public school funding was given in vouchers, the school would loose revenue, but the are also cutting costs in the form of fewer students = fewer teachers.

Am I wrong?

[ 12-19-2003, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Lured In ]

[Thumper]

Isn't this fun?

Lured In --- In your example you decreased the public school's enrollment by 20%, but kept the same cost per student at $100. Good trick if you can do it.

Oh, and you said:

"I cannot argue that the demands placed on the public school system outstrip most private schools. The question is why?"

Let me give you one simple example. My gal Soozy teaches in a public elementary school in Portland. 57% of her students (Russian and Hispanic) do not speak English. None. Zero. Nada.

Try to teach them in the private setting for half the cost.

[ 12-19-2003, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[Straydog]

The reality is that, in an effort to teach the masses, nothing is being taught that is actually relevant to the masses.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Can you eloborate on this statement? At face value, as I interpret it, I would have to strongly disagree.

For example, the often touted 'religous separation' provides a spiritual void in school that does not exist in life. In life we have many faiths, religions and philosophies. Those are largely ignored in public school. So tell me, how does ignoring religion teach kids to be accepting and understanding of people with different faiths?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">My experience in my daughters' schools do not support this statement. In fact, at my youngest daughter's school's Christmas Program this week, they did songs and kids read explanations of how several different religions celebrate Christmas, or their respective holidays.

I cannot argue that the demands placed on the public school system outstrip most private schools. The question is why? The integration of distinctly different learning abilities, those with clear learning disabilities and the unending acceptance of poor behavior, have crippled public schools. In an effort to make students 'feel' equal (when we know they are not), creates the exact scenario Straydog describes. Ineffective and inefficient teaching.

IMHO, a minority of the 'public' is largely responsible for this. Those who say "we know Johnny has a discipline problem, but he needs to feel included. We don't want him to go to a 'special' school." Or maybe he is not developing his reading as quickly or whatever.

Should these children be excluded? Absolutely not. Should they be taught different material or in a different setting? IMHO, I would say so.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

You have very clearly, in my opinion, described the crux of our difficulties in schools today.

I just returned from spening a couple of hours observing in one of our Elementary schools. In one classroom, the teacher now has 26 first graders in her class. Of these, there is one severly physically and mentaly handicapped child. One autistic child and one the principal simply described as "slow". I am sorry, I am not without empathy for these children, but it is indeed distracting and a disservice to the other first graders in the class when one child is slobbering, has uncontrolable body movement and demands almost constant attention from her aide that accompanies her all day.

They also have a classroom for the kids that have more issues even than the three in the "regular" classroom. As the Principal and I were talking with a table full of children, an aide walked up and whispered in the Principal's ear. The Principal motioned for me to follow her and we went behind a partition in the classroom. Behind the partition was one little boy violently kicking and hitting as one of three aides was strapping him into a stroller-like chair. The other two aids were very calmly and very, very patiently trying to calm the child and get him to stop hitting and kicking them. This was clearly not a child that, if it were legal, a swat on the butt would bring into compliance. The poor little guy was out of control. The Principal calmly held the boys feet from kicking as an aide tried to hold his arms so he would stop hitting the Principal. The Principal attempted to distract the boy by reminding him Santa was coming today and he needed to be good. It worked to a very small degree......he stopped hitting and began trying to tear his shirt to pieces.

Once we had left the area the Principal explained that four days a week this child is only in school until 11 am. However, since his mother is unable to afford child care 5 days a week, he stays all day on Friday so that the school can provide the child care......

This is taking place in many of our schools everyday. This one child was keeping one teacher and three aides busy while the other kids in the class, about 6, were being tended to by a parent volunteer. These three aides and one teacher cost us money, lots of money when extended district wide.

At the risk of sounding cold, we are wasting a ton of resources "mainstreaming" children that, in the real world as adults, will not function well in mainstream society.

So, now the question becomes, in my mind, "how do we bring about the change needed to bring some sense to this situation?"

[El Shaddai]

DanS~ Actually common sense and facts......both of which you have had little success in refuting...

[Lured In]

Thumper...unless I am mistaken...in OR they mandate how much the school/district will receive per student based on attendence. Not based on the cost of running the school. (I could be wrong on this, but I thought that was one of the issues that came up in the last tax round for OR.) Yes, schools have fixed costs that do not go down, just because they have fewer stundents. But, costs such as teachers, would also decrease.

Stray...my thought on that first quote of mine you posted, was a tie in to the end. Basically that in many ways (not just religion), public schools do not reflect the reality of society. In you child's school, you have the pleasure of a "Christmas" program. (WOW!). We get a holiday program here that highlights all major holidays and cultures around this time of year. (Good in my opinion, but not likely to last). There has been much publicity about schools that have nothing in an attempt to not offend, or worse yet to leave anybody out. After all, why should the athiest celebrate or sing about ANY religous holiday?

I can't believe you actually agree with me on the "integration of learning abilities". I honestly figured you were going to come back at me for it. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[kayakfisher]

Teaching tolerance in public schools does not require teaching religion...and by the way, I went to a parochial school...and in no way did that encourage an open mindedness toward other religions. As a kid my parochial school pretty much encouraged the thinking that any religion other than the one taught was wrong, wrong, wrong...and also encouraged us kids to think that we were somehow better than the people who practiced other religions.

I went to a public school for my last year of hight school...and that school was in fact a better educational year. The teachers were better trained to teach, also better trained in the subjects they taught. The average student in the classes I took in my last year also were in fact, on the average, better performers than in the parochial high school, which was considered to be a college prep school, that i attended. The average SAT scores at that parochial school are not at this time any better than the average SAT scores of the public schools in the same community either, in spite of the fact that the private school boots out those who misbehave.

All in all...my public education was superior in many ways to my parochial experience.

I cannot support a voucher system in general...because I have seen no evidence that such a system can or will result in a better educated citizenry. I have seen evidence that by kids public school, in the evergreen district in vancouver, is doing a very fine job...and the the teachers and students run of the full range of poor to excellent. My kids have to live in a real world, with real people that are not just like them...and in a private school they will be exposed to a monoculture. A private school experience is fine for those who want it enough to pay for it...but I am not interested in sending other peoples kids to a private school at my expense. Vouchers are public money to fund private agendas....

M.

m.

[roadsend]

Straydog
"These three aides and one teacher cost us money, lots of money.... At the risk of sounding cold, we are wasting a ton of resources "mainstreaming" children..."

We need to start with proper accounting of expenditures. Calling the kind of medical, custodial, and social services you describe by the term "education" is a misnomer. Calling the community entertainment aspects of extracurricular activities "education" is also a misnomer. I am not saying that these expenditures and others like them are not valuable and important, but I think that the public needs to know just how much of the "education" dollar goes into areas other than the mainstream classroom. The public might then better understand why the $X,000/student costs are in their perception so high. The public has no idea what it costs to meet the requiements of the various "unfunded" mandates and sacred cows, be they state, federal or community.

[happybrew]

Rather than get off on the tangent of funding or the quality of an education, let me ask you all this, as it addresses the real issue the writer of the article was trying to bring up.

Johnny's parents are Baptist. They believe in creationism, as opposed to the evolution being taught at their local school. They don't believe in dancing, but there are frequently dances at the local high school, and it's considered a rite of passage. They believe in abstinence before marriage, but the "health" class at the school instructs the kids in the nuances of fornication, and how to avoid the natural consequences thereof. They have to pay, however, for these things they believe are wrong, even if they send their kids to a private Christian school. If they can't afford to pay for a private Christian school, they must send Johnny to the local public school. Despite the constitutional guarrantee of freedom of religion, they are required to send Johnny to a public institution where Johnny's religious upbringing will be undermined, either by example or by instruction. Does freedom of religion not mean also the freedom to raise one's children in a religion? Does the government have the right to break down Johnny's religious upbringing by activities and instruction contrary to that of the parents?

Johnny's next door neighbor Sally comes from a Catholic family. They believe that artificial birth control, abortion, sex outside of marriage, and ************ are moral evils that have a detrimental effect on society and on the individual. Yet Sally's "health" class teaches that these things are all good, contrary to young impressionable Sally's religious upbringing. Furthermore, the school nurse or counselor will refer Sally to a local Planned Parenthood clinic if Sally so requests for birth control pills or an abortion. Do Sally's parents have a right to raise her in a religion that teaches these things are wrong without interference from the state? According to the constitution, they do, but according to the government, unless they can homeschool or afford a Catholic school, the government has the right to indoctrinate Sally any way they darn well please.

The kid across the street from Sally and Johnny is Vladimir. Vladimir's family are Russian Old Believers, whose grandparents fled the Soviet Union in 1917, settling in China until the communist takeover there, and finally ending up in Oregon, all so that they could continue to practice their faith without government interference. They are told they must send their kids to public school, and being a culture rather insulated from the outside, but knowing they are allowed to practice their faith in the U.S., they send their kids to public school. Unbeknownst to them, however, the local school has heavy drug use, and Vladimir has been experimenting with meth. His parents don't even know what meth is. They have no idea what drug abuse looks like, and all they know is they sent their kids to public school because they were told they had to, or the social worker would take their kids away, and didn't understand that they could have taught their kids at home or started their own church school, as had been done for generations. Did ignorance of their options mean that Vladimir's parents didn't have the right to raise their children in an atmosphere conducive to passing on their culture and religion?

People keep focusing on funding. Funding is an ancillary issue. The real issue is freedom, especially freedom of religion. Large segments of the American population are being required to both pay for and send their kids to be indoctrinated by a secular humanist philosophy that is at odds with their religious beliefs. Furthermore, if they wish to have their kids educated in a different manner, they are forced to forgo the benefit of a publicly funded education, and pay their own way, thereby being denied a public good that everyone who doesn't wish to exercise their rights is entitled to.

This is not just. This is an injustice. It is a violation of the rights of parents to raise their kids as they see fit, especially as regards religion. On the one hand, they have their children being taught things contrary to their faith. If they choose to avoid that, then on the other hand they are denied a public good to which everyone else is entitled, solely because of their faith. It is unjust on both counts. Yet in addressing this issue, the most common resonse seems to be "Giving you justice would take away funding", which because the funding is for something that is an injustice to those who dissent, becomes "Giving you justice would take away funding from our doing you injustice." This is truly an absurdity.

happybrew

[Thumper]

Originally posted by happybrew:
People keep focusing on funding. Funding is an ancillary issue. The real issue is freedom, especially freedom of religion.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Funding is not only the focal issue. It is the only issue.

I know of no one who would deny your families a voucher system if it was possible to fund an excellent public school system and still have tax money left over to support private schools. But that is not reality.

How high would you like your Oregon State income tax to be? It is at 10% now (11.25% in Multnomah County). Would you like everyone to pay 12%? 15%? How high? What do you suggest? And how many Oregonians would agree to pay the increase. I think you will find out shortly.

And be careful what you wish for. As Straydog points out above --- private schools are only points of excellence because they can pick and choose. Take away their exclusivity by making vouchers available to all, and you run the risk of simply re-growing and distending the public school system and its shortfalls.

If they enjoy access to public funding, private schools will have to assure access to all. And I'll bet that those functionally illiterate and learning-impaired kids that Soozy now tries to teach would just love to attend Catlin Gable, Central Catholic, etc.

I'll make you a little wager. If $5,000 vouchers ever become a reality, the first thing that will happen is that the $5,000 private school tuition bill will soar to $10,000. And the reason will be that, after all is said and done, private schools don't want the social responsibility --- accessibility --- that will come with vouchers.

It is truly an imperfect world. :depressed:

[ 12-20-2003, 05:17 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[happybrew]

So you're telling me that a bill couldn't be written that would accomodate all of the concerns that have been brought up here? They can't make payment contingent on having a special ed program in place?

Sorry, Jack, but the issue is still freedom and parental rights. Could you see a Southern state government in the 60's arguing that they couldn't afford to educate black children because it would break their already strained budget, and take funding away from the po' white kids? It wouldn't wash, would it? Or how about if the state said "No more ballot inititiatives" because they cost too much? While there are certainly schools that would not want to educate people with different needs, I think you paint with too broad a brush. I've had, and still have, special needs kids in my evening class. When I went to Catholic school, we had the same issues facing public schools, including a few juvenile delinquents, several ADD students, physical disabilities, etc. In fact, many parents of ADD kids sent their kids there because the public schools did a horrible job with them in my town.

happybrew

[El Shaddai]

[quote] Some would say that the brink is already in sight.[QUOTE]

Correct....which is exactly why something radical needs to happen.

[QUOTE]The main beneficiaries of a voucher system would be the parents who are now spending twice. But that doesn't change the realities of the public school funding crisis. There just aren't enough dollars to do both.

Wrong...the kids are the primary beneficiary and the crisis in funding is about waste not inadequate funding levels. Plenty of money exists today.

Right now it costs about half as much to educate kids in a private school. But those kids are carefully selected for "educability". [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Very common argument but more and more examples clearly refute this.....even in the LA public school system, where many parts of one teachers unique approach is being universally adopted by charter and choice schools across the country. He has the worst of the worst and with very little funding is producing amazing results....of course his own union and the NEA are trying to shut him down because he is bucking the establishment....

[Straydog]

Happybrew,

First of all, I feel your hypothetical example is not in keeping with the reality of the curriculum used, at least in our district.

It seems to be a popular notion that the attitude towards sex ed. is how you described and there is some truth to that except, at least in our district, abstinence is taught first and is very much part of the curriculum. The secenario you describe seems to overlook or ignore that fact.

I am also wondering where you would have the line drawn.

Let's say Sammy's parents are Vegans or Vegetarians and believe that a diet based on one of these beliefs is the way to raise their children. Yet, along with the concepts of veganism and vegetarianism, the school teaches that the basic food pyramid as the healthiest way to maintain proper nutrition. The school is now, as you say, "undermining" the beliefs of the parent.
Do we allow them a tax credit to send their child to a private school or home schooling that supports veganism?

What about the issue of immunization and drug enhanced health care. Let's say a family does not believe in immunization or the use of any drug to maintian family health. Yet the schools will likely teach the historical success of immunization and vitamin supplementation along with the benefits of aspirin or other durgs. The family's beliefs will be undermined. Are you willing to let them take their chunck of tax dollar and let them teach their kids only in the beliefs they hold?

If we start making exceptions for every belief that comes along I see the makings of a chaotic, out of control system with little or no guidelines or consistancy.

I also see a very questionable outcome for society as a whole.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by roadsend:
We need to start with proper accounting of expenditures. Calling the kind of medical, custodial, and social services you describe by the term "education" is a misnomer. Calling the community entertainment aspects of extracurricular activities "education" is also a misnomer. I am not saying that these expenditures and others like them are not valuable and important, but I think that the public needs to know just how much of the "education" dollar goes into areas other than the mainstream classroom. The public might then better understand why the $X,000/student costs are in their perception so high. The public has no idea what it costs to meet the requiements of the various "unfunded" mandates and sacred cows, be they state, federal or community.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Very good point! The umbrella of "education" has been expanded dramaticly yet we seem to keep making budgetary comparisons based on the past rather than the reality of today.

El Shaddai,

You make reference to a teacher that takes the worst of the worst and helps them out. You reference and "he" and I am not aware of him. However, I thought you might be interested in this gal, a public school teacher. I was fortunate enough to hear her speak and to see a documentary about her work. There was not a dry eye in the crowd of hundreds. There is a movie in the making and I strongly enourace all to see it. One dedicated person can make such a profound difference. Never believe otherwise.

Yet another teacher/ hero.

[ 12-20-2003, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[happybrew]

Straydog, I would support the right of both groups to either homeschool or private school without losing the benefit of a publicly funded education. My wife was raised Seventh Day Adventist. Many of them are vegans, based upon their religious beliefs. My wife went to an Adventist boarding school where they served a vegan menu. Of course, in so doing, they lost the funding benefit that everyone else gets, and primarily because they chose to exercise their freedom of religion. You seem to be arguing this from the perspective of accomodating all beliefs in a public school. Obviously, this is impossible, and this is precisely why it would be more just to allow parents a choice in their school. It would allow people to exercise their liberty without being penalized financially for it. When people are penalized for exercising their liberty, their liberty is reduced.

happybrew

[Straydog]

My point is that I do not believe it is possible to cater to all beliefs, whether in a public school or via an unorganized, random and chaotic education "system" such as you seem to support.

That is, if our goal is to have a well educated society.

[ 12-20-2003, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Thumper]

Originally posted by happybrew:
Straydog, I would support the right of both groups to either homeschool or private school without losing the benefit of a publicly funded education.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I keep asking --- How do you propose paying for it? And please don't say that it will not increase costs. How much do you want the taxpayers of Oregon to pay? Pick any reasonable increase, then ask yourself if the voters will approve the increase.

Ain't gonna happen, and we all know that. :depressed:

[El Shaddai]

SD` Did you see the special commentary last month on Fox News....Education Crisis in America? Very broad topic and 1 hour can't do it justice....but it clearly outlined our broader issues and showed real life solutions in charter, private and public school forums. School choice is showing great potential even in low income areas.....there is a public school teacher in CA (Watts?) that is being incredibly innovative and is posting great results...several charter schools are adopting his principles and techniques.....

I do agree that ONE person can make a HUGE difference....

[Straydog]

ES,

I did not see the Fox news special.

To be honest, I watch virtually no network news. Heck, I watch virtually no television at all.

In times of earth shaking special events, such as the Capture of Saddam, I will watch the news, otherwise I get my news from print and radio.

[happybrew]

Thumper: do you believe that parents have the right to raise their children consistent with their religious and moral values without being penalized by the state? If so, do you believe that the exercise of our rights are contingent upon funding?

Straydog: You wish to bring order, rather than chaos? Order is good. Mussolini brought order out of chaos and made the trains in Italy run on time. (Technically, I don't lose this one, because the reference was to Mussolini, not Hitler. The first person to bring up Hitler loses, but Mussolini is technically okay. :tongue: )

happybrew

[Straydog]

Happybrew,

Ok, you win by Technical default.............

I'm gonna go cut wood now! :tongue: :grin:

[ 12-20-2003, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Thumper]

Originally posted by happybrew:
Thumper: do you believe that parents have the right to raise their children consistent with their religious and moral values without being penalized by the state? If so, do you believe that the exercise of our rights are contingent upon funding?
happybrew

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yep, they do have that right, and they should certainly not be penalized by the state for doing so.

The question is whether the use of public education, paid for by all of us in concert, constitutes a penalty for those parents.

Apparently the courts have never felt so.

[happybrew]

It's not that the use of public education is a penalty. It's that the choice is either decline to exercise your right and receive the financial benefit, or if you do choose to exercise your right, then you don't receive that benefit. I certainly don't need it, but there are others who do. Think of a single mother making close to minimum wage. If that mother wants to raise her children in her faith, she has the option of A. Having the state teach her child to live contrary to her faith. B. homeschool her kids... oh wait a minute. She's working 50 hours a week. Can't do that. C. Send her kids to a private school... oops, can't do that either. She makes $20,800 a year working two $8 an hour jobs for 50 hours a week. Rent is $8400 a year, utilities $1500 a year, car payment, insurance, and gas are $3600 a year, food is $5,200 a year. This leaves $1300 for clothes, child care, medical and dental, etc. Tuition is $5000 per year for both kids if she finds a spot in the cheapest private school, so that's out too. Her only option therefore is A., unless she wants to give up the apartment, the car, food, whatever. Yes, she is penalized severely if she wants to exercise her rights.

happybrew

[Thumper]

Happybrew --- What do you suggest be done?

[happybrew]

Heck, I have no idea! You mean, it's not enough just to point out the problem, I have to come up with a solution too?? :whazzup: [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

I really don't know. I started this thread to try to sort out my own ideas on the subject. It was a provocative article, and I wanted to see what people's comments on it were. I still don't know what my opinion is. I must admit it surprised me to see you and Straydog on the same side of an issue!

Without having any actual plan that can be pinned on me, these are my initial ideas. I reserve the right to completely change my mind on them at any time.

1. A straight voucher system would be horrendously expensive. Given the high overhead of public schools, it would certainly hurt. On the other hand, not all of the costs of public education are fixed costs. Many of them are variable.

2. Some people need help. Some people do not.

3. People shouldn't be penalized for exercising their rights, but neither should they be given a free ride to do whatever they want either.

4. I would advocate a partial subsidy for homeschooling and private schooling, based upon demonstrated need, the amount subject to budgetary constraints and tied to a percentage of the variable costs involved in running public schools.

happybrew

[STGRule]

I guess I don't understand fully. How is what is taught or said at school having more influence than what a child's Mom and Dad say and do? There was tons of stuff my parents didn't feel good about that I was exposed to in school. We talked about it all the time so I understood why. And now that I am an adult, there is nothing that I saw, learned or did that was contrary to what I found when I was on my own. School mirrored the world I found. The good, the bad, and the ugly. I had my parents advice and my experiences and had no surprises with life.

[happybrew]

STG, I've got an example from my own family that can illustrate it. My aunt sent her kids to a very good Catholic School. She had 12 kids. Ten of them are following their faith today. Did they encounter everything that we encounter when they became adults? Of course they did, but they did so when they were able to evaluate it from a mature mindset. My parents had ten kids. We went to a Catholic school for two years, but it was too expensive for us, so we ended up back in public school. Of my brothers and sisters, only four of us are practicing our faith today. I was away from it for quite a while. The reason was we spent all day being socialized to the dominant culture, and were told that things which we were taught in church were not true. We were not able to evaluate these things because we were not mature. We wanted to fit in. We didn't think to discuss them with our parents. We accepted what our teachers told us. When it was time to be confirmed, I and my brothers and sisters didn't do it. Only one sister was confirmed as a teenager. The other nine of us fell away, three of us being confirmed as adults.

Then a wonderful thing happened to me. I got married to a wonderful woman who was raised in a faith that is vehemently anti-Catholic. They would leave books and tracts behind which purported to show how satanic Catholicism supposedly is. I would read them, and discover that they didn't have it right. They ascribed beliefs to Catholics that Catholics don't hold. So we'd talk, and they'd insist that Catholics really do hold certain beliefs or do certain things, only it's hidden by something else. And on and on it would go. So I began to research the Catholic position on various things. After two years of study, reading every night, and trying to find some way to avoid Catholicism, I returned. The big stumbling block was birth control. It is automatically assumed in public school that everyone will use birth control. The idea that someone wouldn't is totally alien. Heck, Monty Python even made a song mocking the Catholic stance on it, and kids would go around in high school singing it! I am certainly glad that I did return, as reluctant as I was initially. I am firmly convinced after careful study of the truth of every tenet of the Catholic faith, and I studied the majority of them with a skeptical mind. Had I not had anti-Catholic in-laws, I'd probably still be away from the Catholic Church. But the public schools I went to did much to socialize me away from it at an age where I couldn't look at it in a mature manner. I don't want that to happen to my kids. It happened to me, and it happened to my brothers and sisters. Are the public schools totally to blame? Not by any means, as our religious instruction by the Church was severely lacking. We were told what to believe, but never why to believe it. There just wasn't time in one hour a week. I had to discover that on my own. My aunt's kids, though, were taught the basis for Catholic beliefs. They had the time in school to do that.

happybrew

[Straydog]

Originally posted by happybrew:
Hey, I didn't say I won, I just said I didn't lose! And winning on a technicality isn't really a win! I'll call it a draw.

happybrew

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Fair enough! :smile:

STG,

You say it very well! My experience is much the same. :smile:

[happybrew]

Hey, I didn't say I won, I just said I didn't lose! And winning on a technicality isn't really a win! I'll call it a draw.

happybrew

[kayakfisher]

Public schools do not undermine other people's religious beliefs...My kids' public school teaches respect, tolerance, and consideration of other people.

They also do not teach that abstinance is bad...interestingly enough however, the lowest teen pregnancey rate in the developed countries is The Netherlands...where the kids have the most in depth sex education taught in any public school system. In my book this is a very positive thing, and it illustrates how we should be doing a better job...sex education is not synonimous with promiscuity, nor is it a denial of other peoples religious beliefs, nor does it make these beliefs invalid.

M.

[happybrew]

Kayakfisher, the issue for a Catholic parent isn't pregnancy or promiscuity. Obviously, the schools promote neither. The issue is the teaching of birth control, which is contrary to Catholic teaching.

happybrew