From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.education
Subject: Re: School Vouchers: Constitutionality?
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:55:44 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: mnemonic@eff.org's message of 16 Oct 92 12:28:53 -0400

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
In article <1992Oct16.140919.20549@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon
Noring) writes:
>>In real dollars per student, the public schools today receive more
>>than at any other time in history.  Thus, throwing more money at
>>schools is not going to solve anything.
>
>This is certainly true, as is the criticism about school bureaucracy.

Yes, it is very true, though it should be considered separately from
the ongoing argument over whether we spend more on education (per
capita) than any other nation.  Bush says we do; Clinton says we
don't.  Both are right--Bush is including higher education and Clinton
is considering only the public compulsory school system.  However, it
is also absolutely true that quality of education is not particularly
correlated to $$$ spent on education.  (Q:  What state has the highest
SAT scores?  A:  New Hampshire, with the lowest *state* expenditures
and the 16th-lowest *overall* expenditures per student.)

>>The voucher system is an idea whose time has come.  Though there are
>>problems with it, it is the lesser of two evils.  I believe, too, that
>>a properly setup system can pass Supreme Court scrutiny.  The only
>>drawback could be if the Government starts meddling too much in the
>>affairs of the private schools.
>
>That's not the only drawback. The drawback is that a voucher for the
>amount of money given to a child in a public school is nowhere near
>enough to pay tuition at a private school. Hence, a voucher system
>*increases* the division between rich and poor we have now (by making
>it even easier for the wealthy to send their kids to private schools
>since their tuition is subsidized by the vouchers), while leaving the
>poor to compete, with their vouchers, among public schools that no
>longer draw upon the wealthy as part of their tax base.

You have a point, but you've also missed a point and made a
misstatement:

1)  The point you have is that the proposal won't help the *truly*
    poor who aren't within $1000 of being able to afford a private 
    school for their kids.  (How this "increases the division 
    between rich and poor" is a vague matter better left to more
    philosophical discussions.)

2)  The point you've missed, Mike, is that there are a LOT of people
    in the margin described above--i.e., within $1000 of being able
    to afford it but still not able to afford it.  Also, the point
    (and Pres. Bush hammers this home every chance he gets) is that
    the competition this will engender will be good for *all*
    students, public and private.  This hasn't exactly been proved to
    my satisfaction, but it is true that the fastest way to get a
    bureaucrat's attention is to mess with his budget.

3) ". . . among public schools that no longer draw upon the wealthy as
   part of their tax base."  This is just plain misleading!  I don't
   know what per-family expenditures of tax $$$ are on the public
   schools among the "wealthy" but I'd bet my ass it's >> $1000!  The
   public schools, spending $6500/student (I'll accept that as a ball-
   park figure) are only going to lose $1000 per student that bails
   out of the system.  If anyone were talking about forgiving the
   property taxes of anyone who leaves the public school system, you'd
   have a point.  (Yes, I know that a fairer guesstimate would be the
   *marginal* cost of educating an additional student, but I don't
   know that such a figure can even be reliably determined.)  My own
   position is that $1000 is fair as a *minimum*.

>>I've also noticed another aspect to the public school debate.  Why is
>>it that people who obviously are very liberal deeply oppose anything
>>that would elevate private schools?  Is it because the liberals fear
>>private schooling since they would have less ability to promote their
>>various agendas?

I think it's skepticism about this "competition" and "marketplace"
concept being applied to what is effectively a public monopoly.  I
don't share their skepticism on this point (well, maybe a little), but
they do have some points.  What they DON'T have a point about is that
religious schools should be excluded from this competition (more about
that in a minute).  I believe that their attitude on this part comes
(in many cases) from a mindless anti-religion bias.

Jon's point here about promotion of agendas and school-based
"indoctrination" is probably more appropriately applied to the
education establishment itself (which happens to be politically
liberal), rather than to liberals as a whole.  It's not the same
thing:  one is a subset of the other.

>Why not just suggest that liberals are the willing henchmen of the
>Devil and be done with it?

Oh, come on.  That wouldn't be fair.  Liberals are about evenly split
between the kinds who are willing and unwilling henchmen of the devil.

>It should be noted that Ross Perot, your candidate for president,
>devoted considerable energy to improving the public school system in
>Texas. He favors vouchers, but doesn't think that vouchers alone will
>be sufficient.

Yes, but he is despised by the education establishment (did you hear
his crack about textbook selection in debate #2?), and that recommends
him *very* highly to me (not highly enough to vote for him).

As for the "religious schools" issue: should parochial schools be
included in this plan?  You bet!  They, collectively, make up one of
the few bright spots in our education system.  Is this
unconstitutional?  Hell no (though it might be held so by the Supreme
Court--an entirely different matter from being actually
unconstitutional).  Is this contrary to American tradition?  Even less
so.

Now, I could wait for some asshole to take the ad-hominem.net.bait and
call me a right-wing fundamentalist bent on remaking Amerika into his
personal ideal of a Christian nation (as if my motivation had anything
to do with the merits of the argument), but that would be childish (if
fun).  

The fact is, I'm a card-carrying atheist.  Well, OK, I left my card in
my other pants, but I *am* an atheist.  That doesn't prevent me, like
many rationalist atheists (Murray Rothbard comes to mind) from seeing
the benefits some religious institutions have to offer our society.
Parochial schooling is one such benefit.

As for constitutionality and American tradition, we have only to go
back to the GI Bill.  After World War II, millions of servicemen
returned home and went to college at the taxpayers' expense.  They
were provided with cash payments for attending college, and no one
screamed "separation of church and state" when they went to SMU,
Georgetown, Notre Dame, Brigham Young, Brandeis, etc. (all religious
schools, in case the point was lost on any of you).  In what
fundamental, constitutional sense is the current situation any
different?  

Or is it that the constitutional standard is different today from
then?  In that case, I'd appreciate being filled in on the
applicability of Amendments XXII - XXVII to the subject, since those
are the only ones passed since then.  Oh, what's that you say?  The
Supreme Court has changed since then?  Sorry, but that's *not* what
defines the *true* constitutionality of an idea.  I admit it is
critical as a practical matter, but irrelevant to whether vouchers are
a good idea.

So, until someone demonstrates to me what real, practical harm more
kids in religious schools (a side effect of the voucher plan I freely
admit) is going to do to the secular character of our Republic, I will
continue to support school vouchers and school choice *fervently*.  In
fact, I feel so strongly about the subject that it almost--almost!--
caused me to vote for Pres. Bush.  Alas, in the end, his lukewarm
support of the idea (I'm talking about non-rhetorical support here)
didn't quite put him over the top for me and I was unable to do so.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.education