HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:52:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.162921.3246@colorado.edu> youngm@magma.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young) writes:
>The most significant objection to school vouchers seems to be that they 
>can be used in religious schools, and that this is a violation of 
>Separation of Church and State.  This is certainly a topic worthy of debate;
>that is, is it worthwhile to educate our students properly, at risk of 
>violating the Separation?

No, but I don't see vouchers as a violation of this principle: If the
religious and non-religious schools are on an equal footing and the
state makes on decisions about who gets the money, the the state
_is_ seperate from the church.

>Better than returning my taxes to me (minus service charge) would be simply
>letting me keep them in the first place.  This would eliminate the Separation
>problem entirely, but would drastically tilt the scales against poorer
>students, whose parents would have less money to keep in the first place.
>Thus the voucher system is actually intended to protect these students
>by maintaining a measure of Socialism in the process. Sounds like a good
>compromise to me.

Lower taxes and a need-based voucher system would be a better compromise
in my opinion.

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young)
Subject: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Originator: youngm@mica
Keywords: Education
Reply-To: youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young)
Organization: Center for Study of Earth from Space, U of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:21:47 GMT


Amendment 7 grants a voucher for each K-12 student in Colorado, 
to be redeemed by their parents at the school of their choice, whether
public, private, or in-home. Competition will improve our public
schools in the long run; alternatives will liberate our students today.
This may be the only way to fix our government's failure in education.

What do you think?



mY

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my
 employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: pack@acd.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Summary: Regulations and accreditation are needed
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Chemistry
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:57:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.022423.22187@ncar.ucar.edu> rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski) writes:
>
>Dick Dunn lists some reasons why School Vouchers are a bad idea:
>
>> 1. [Tax money] should not be handed over to parents as if it were "theirs"
>> to spend.  [...] Where is the logic (let alone the fairness) in taking money
>> from us and giving it to others, to spend at their discretion without any way
>> for us to say what's done with it?
>
>This is nonsense.  Unlike many government giveaway programs (e.g. welfare,
>AFDC, farm subsides) school vouchers will *not* be redeemable for beer,
>cigarettes, whores, or anything else not directly related to the cost of
>educating a child.  Sheesh.  Can't people learn a *little* bit before
>embarrasing themselves by flaunting this kind of ignorance?

The vouchers presumably will be redeemable for cash by the school.
If the school is a home teacher teaching only religious drivel to
their children, I think this is a poor use of scarce educational
funds.  If the school is a larger scale scam where parents take a
cut, then we have another misuse of funds.

Even if the "school" in question is not clearly a scam, it still
might be an educational joke.  Regulation and accreditation are
clearly needed.  The argument that competition between schools
will mean the best will win out assumes that parents are caring
and informed consumers.  Unfortunately, this is not always true
on either count.


--
Dan Packman     NCAR                             INTERNET: pack@ncar.UCAR.EDU
(303) 497-1427  P.O. Box 3000
                Boulder, CO  80307-3000        NSI/DECNET: 9583::PACK
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:37:17 GMT

As regards the seperation of church and state, the issue is moot: I
happened to be looking at the State Constitution today, and I 
noticed a _very_ specific provision in the Article dealing with
education. No state funds may ever go to any religious school or
organization. I presume this means that, should Amendment 7 pass,
vouchers may never be used for religious school tuitions (unless
there is some specific language in Amendment 7 overruling this).
As such, the seperation of church and state is not an issue, and
can not reasonably (or honestly) be raised as an objction to the
Amendment.

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:14:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.060411@eklektix.com> rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>>[the religious-school objection]...To those concerned about using taxpayer
>>dollars for religious indoctrination in private schools I ask: Are you not
>>equally concerned about *government* indoctrination with taxpayer dollars in
>>government schools?...

>You bet I am!
>The dismantling of the US Constitution over the last two decades (which is
>when most, but not all, happened) would not have been possible without
>massive indoctrination, and it's done in the public schools.

Interesting, but this dismantling started in 1937, with the Roosevelt 
Spureme Court appointees (who basically let the government do whatever
it wanted, to deal with the then-current economic emergency.)

>A friend of mine who went to a sort of "boy's academy" private school when
>he was young got a very different introduction to American history.  He got
>something pretty close to the real scoop on Lincoln, for example.  (Ol' Abe
>may have been effective, but he wasn't a nice guy.)  He got a clear picture
>early on of "our founding fathers": a rabble-rousing motley crew of British
>traitors.  A lot of his history lessons were given in the cold clear light
>of day, not the Saturday-morning cartoon parodies that pass for history in
>our public schools.  If *any* schools predictably gave that sort of edu-
>cation, I'd support pushing money toward them.  (I'd donate my own money
>rather than advocate diverting tax money, but that's another discussion.)
>But they don't.  There's no safe bet what a school is going to teach; if we
>have to fund them, we can at least beat on the public school system to do a
>more honest job.

No, by the very nature of the public schools, they can _never_ do an 
honest job. They have to deal with, and take into consideration, the
complaints of everyone in the community. That means they can not teach
anything that _any_ sizable group objects to. The result is a bland,
inaccurate, but inoffensive education.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:51:59 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Oct8.160506.15559@claven.ucar.edu> woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>I was surprised to find that even the ACLU (yes, George, I am a "card-carrying
>member") is opposing Amendment 7. The ACLU's main objection is that vouchers
>that can be used at religious schools violate the separation of church
>and state as required by the first amendment to the United States
>Constitution. If parents want to indoctrinate their children in a 
>particular religion, that is their right, but they shouldn't be doing
>it with *my* tax money.
>
>The Libertarian in me likes the idea of vouchers and dislikes the very 
>concept of government-run schools period. But I consider the omission
>of a prohibition against using public money to support religious schools
>to be a fatal flaw. I will reluctantly have to vote against Amendment 7.

   1st Amendment
   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
   religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Many people (and the ACLU) conveniently ignore the fact that the free 
exercise of religion is constitutionally protected in the same sentence
that separates church and state.  If people want to use their vouchers 
for religious schools, that's their business, not the government's.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: sercely@convex.com (Ron Sercely)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 14:41:13 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Just another way of viewing the amendment.
(BTW, I do intend on voting for Amendment 7)

Why does the average American think that Public Education is a wonderful
thing that must be preserved at all costs, yet Public Housing is a 
disaster?

Many of us agree that it would be nice if everyone had a nice place to live,
but experience seems to show that when Housing is provided by the government,
the residents TEND to not appreciate it, and the housing suffers.  After all,
as soon as there is an announcement that any kind of Public Housing is to be
built in a neighborhood, NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard!) takes over with a
vengence.  

If private housing "works" in some sense, why not support private education.
The welfare of the country is on the line in both instances.

Ron Sercely

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: swoodcoc@oldcolo.com (Steven Woodcock)
Subject: Re: How should I vote?--A Radical's Perspective on Amendment 1
Organization: The Good Guys, Inc.                                               
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:46:49 GMT

   Sound reasoning.  I too am going to vote 'Yes' on Doug Bruce's
Amendment One.  I am tired of the legislature raising taxes for every little
thing, and the recent United debacle was particularly revolting.  Here in
the Springs we voted in a tax limitation amendment for the city last year,
and it's been a great success.

   Vote yes on One!!!


Steven W.
One of the Good Guys

-- 
    "...Men will awake presently and be Men again, and colour and laughter and
 splendid living will return to a grey civilization. But that will only come 
 true because a few Men will believe in it, and fight for it, and fight in its
 name against everything that sneers and snarls at that ideal..."
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:56:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.190231.6274@ncar.ucar.edu> vicki@steam.atd.ucar.edu (Vicki Holzhauer) writes:
>I think that public schools can be made to
>work and that encouraging movement of students out of those schools
>will only make it less likely that anyone will take the time and
>effort to fix them...

People have been trying to "fix" the public schools for decades, with no
success. Since there is no real competition, there is also little real
incentive for public school administrators to innovate.
  
>The voucher concept seems basically elitist
>anyway ... from what I've read, parents will get a voucher for
>$2200-2500 to use as they choose, but private school tuition is
>considerably higher than that.  This means that poorer parents will
>still be forced to send their children to public schools.

This is also completely false: There are _some_ privare schools with
a tuition above $2500, but a large number of private schools have
tuitions under this amount. If you read any newspaper article or
letter to the editor on the subject, which is not hostile to the
idea of vouchers, you will probably see a list of several such
private schools.

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: youngm@magma.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Originator: youngm@magma
Reply-To: youngm@magma.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young)
Organization: Center for Study of Earth from Space, U of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:29:21 GMT


The most significant objection to school vouchers seems to be that they 
can be used in religious schools, and that this is a violation of 
Separation of Church and State.  This is certainly a topic worthy of debate;
that is, is it worthwhile to educate our students properly, at risk of 
violating the Separation?  REMEMBER, THOUGH, THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
DOES NOT EXPLICITELY STATE THAT VOUCHERS CAN BE USED AT RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS,
AND THAT ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY WOULD ONLY BE TESTED IF THE MEASURE PASSED.
THUS, THE AMENDMENT COULD PASS, BUT USE OF FUNDS FOR RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS COULD
BE EXCLUDED UPON IMPLEMENTATION.  THE ACLU NEEDS TO CONSIDER THIS...

Better than returning my taxes to me (minus service charge) would be simply
letting me keep them in the first place.  This would eliminate the Separation
problem entirely, but would drastically tilt the scales against poorer
students, whose parents would have less money to keep in the first place.
Thus the voucher system is actually intended to protect these students
by maintaining a measure of Socialism in the process. Sounds like a good
compromise to me.

mY
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:48:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.191411.22323@colorado.edu> wolniewi@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WOLNIEWICZ RICHARD H) writes:
>Despite this, I have yet to hear of a serious argument against vouchers that would
>not also argue against government subsidies to students at private universities.
>The main argument one hears is that this will somehow bankrupt the public education
>system (as it is put in the Democratic platform).  This is surprising, since CU and
>other public colleges do very well in this state despite competition from Colorado
>College and others in the state, where students can receive subsidies as well.

The source of this objection, is that public schools (unlike public colleges) 
are required to admit "problem" students, who require additional resources.
Private schools can reject such students, and are therefore at an advantage
over public schools. 

This argument doesn't really apply to the voucher system: Under Amendment 7,
the public schools still would receve substantial additional funding. The
vouchers would only contribute _part_ of their budget. Therefore, the
public schools would have the necessary resources to deal with such "problem"
students. Another solution, though one which isn't in Amendment 7, would
be for "problem" students to receve larger vouchers, in proportion to their
greater needs.

Once the issue of such students is taken into account, the objection to vouchers
becomes an admission that the public schools are a complete and total 
failure: They would only bankrupt schools that are extremely wastefull of
money, or to which no parent would want to send their childern. That is,
a failure. If this does describe public schools, they perhaps they _should_
go bankrupt.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: bwg@teal.csn.org (Bryan Griffin)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:01:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.053717.17620@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>As regards the seperation of church and state, the issue is moot: I
>happened to be looking at the State Constitution today, and I 
>noticed a _very_ specific provision in the Article dealing with
>education. No state funds may ever go to any religious school or
>organization. I presume this means that, should Amendment 7 pass,
>vouchers may never be used for religious school tuitions (unless
>there is some specific language in Amendment 7 overruling this).
>As such, the seperation of church and state is not an issue, and
>can not reasonably (or honestly) be raised as an objction to the
>Amendment.

   Actually, this isn't entirely clear. The Legislative Council of the Colorado
General Assembly puts out a booklet, "An Analysis of 1992 Ballot Proposals",
which describes the amendments, effects, and arguments pro and con. When
describing the provisions of the amendmant, it states that it will 
"supersede the provisions of the state constitution prohibiting state money
from being used for private, religious, and sectarian schools". Also, I 
attended a meeting sunday where the head of the local League of Women
Voters was describing all the ballot initiatives, and arguments pro and con,
and she stated that any amendmants passed supersede existing parts of the
constitution, and although I'm not positive, I think she explicitly mentioned 
that the voucher proposal would provide money for parochial schools. Someone
raised the fact that there might be some church and state seperation 
challenges to it.

 Someone raised the point here that passage of the voucher system may result
in heavier government regulation of private schools. This may still be 
possible, I need to find out more details, however the booklet does mention
that the amendmant will
"Prevent the General Assembly, or any state agency from creating any authority
over non-public schools, not existing prior to January 1,1991, except for
provisions in law which set minimum student achievement or proficiency
standards which may be no more stringent than for public schools"

Bryan
bwg@csn.org


Newsgroups: co.politics
From: weverka <weverka@drip.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6F98CC54601F816@mocha.colorado.edu>
X-Xxdate: Thu, 8 Oct 92 13:59:17 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:18:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.022147.19845@colorado.edu> Matthew Young,
youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU writes:
>Amendment 7 grants a voucher for each K-12 student in Colorado, 
>to be redeemed by their parents at the school of their choice, whether
>public, private, or in-home. Competition will improve our public
>schools in the long run; alternatives will liberate our students today.
>This may be the only way to fix our government's failure in education.

Yeah, and if it works we can use vouchers for Police too.

Today some people who can afford it, send their kids to private school,
just as some people who can afford it buy the services of a private
security firm to protect their house.  Just as these schools provide what
their patrons believe to be a better, more responsive education, the
private security firms provide rapid response to alarms, and periodic
drive bys for security.  If school vouchers work by allowing less well
off people to afford private schools, police vouchers ought to work in
the police system by providing private security for the less well off
people.  Of course people will be allowed to spend their vouchers on the
city police force as well.

and if it works we can use vouchers for the Military too.

Today some people who can afford it send money to private armies.  Under
the Presidents urging, Coors paid for the Contras support, in spite of
Congress' withdrawing U.S. support for this private army.  Military
vouchers would allow us all to support our own private armies.  The
competition between armies would provide a more efficient system. 
Private armies would be more responsive to the desires of the people.  We
could all support whichever government we choose to back up in foreign
conflicts, such as Kuwait.  And we could all choose, like Coors did,
which foreign governments we would like to topple.

-Ted
weverka@boulder.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: wicklund@intellistor.com (Tom Wicklund)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: Intellistor, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 22:25:19 GMT

In <1992Oct9.035757.202@ncar.ucar.edu> pack@acd.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.022423.22187@ncar.ucar.edu> rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski) writes:

>>This is nonsense.  Unlike many government giveaway programs (e.g. welfare,
>>AFDC, farm subsides) school vouchers will *not* be redeemable for beer,
>>cigarettes, whores, or anything else not directly related to the cost of
>>educating a child.  Sheesh.  Can't people learn a *little* bit before
>>embarrasing themselves by flaunting this kind of ignorance?

>The vouchers presumably will be redeemable for cash by the school.
>If the school is a home teacher teaching only religious drivel to
>their children, I think this is a poor use of scarce educational
>funds.  If the school is a larger scale scam where parents take a
>cut, then we have another misuse of funds.

I'm sure there will be an occasional home teacher teaching only
"religious drivel".  Or a school doing such.  Considering the number
of students the public schools pass out with high GPAs who are
functionally illiterate, I'm not sure which is worse.

By this argument we should abolish food stamps.  While they are only
usable for food, there's a large underground market converting them to
cash.  Government rules and regulations haven't abolished this market
and I doubt they've significantly reduced it.

This argument is based on the assumption that the general populace is
generally stupid, but we "smart" people know what's best.  Look around
-- you'll find that most parents do care about their children's
education, and most will make the right choice (even ghetto parents,
find some articles on the reforms in the East Harlem schools in New
York).
Newsgroups: co.politics