From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:43:19 GMT

In <1992Oct12.221506.12652@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:

>johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072) writes:
>>|>      The bill lacks such Bush initiatives as $1M grants for
>>|> experimental New American Schools and federal money to help low-
>>|> income parents send their children to private schools (Stout,
>>|> W.S. JOURNAL).

>>81% of the private schools in this country are run by churches. 
>>Churches get government subsidies galore through tax exemptions.  If
>>they expect to get MORE taxpayer money, they should lose their tax
>>exemptions and pay income tax as well.

>Perhaps if this measly $1M had gotten through Congress for these
>(certainly non-religious) experimental New American Schools, so we
>could try something new for once, more private non-religious schools
>would get some encouragement that the government is behind them.

Uh, that's $1M *PER SCHOOL*.  Each state would be eligible to have 2
of these 'New Amerikan Skools', so the total appropriation was for a
measly $100M.  The classic pork barrel if ever there was one.
Everyone gets a couple million to shower on the folks at home.  To
rephrase Senator Dirkson slightly, a million here and a million there
and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Have you read the 'America 2000' proposal?  Lots of ringing phrases,
lots of 'voluntary compliance' to proposed standards, no measurement
of if things are working, and the ASSUMPTION that everyone will comply
and things will somehow magically be better.  No thanks.

>Perhaps if these subsidies for poor kids got through, it would become
>economically feasible for some non-religious schools to start up.

And just how many poor people could have afforded to use those
'subsidies'?  Given the amounts and the realities of life, what this
amounted to was a way for MIDDLE CLASS PARENTS to send their kids to
private schools (primarily religious schools, since the overwhelming
majority of private schools are) with a government subsidy.

>Congress didn't attach a 'no religion' rider to the bill and pass it.
>They axed it because they are far more interested in making Bush look
>bad than in fixing the schools.

They axed it because it was ill-defined, inadequate to help the people
it was touted as helping, and amounted to yet another piece of
middle-class welfare for the religiuos right.  It was bad law, and
DESERVED to be axed.  

>>|> But it would establish several things Bush had
>>|> sought, such as standards for key subjects, model tests and
>>|> assessments, and increasing flexibility in government education
>>|> programs (AP/Balto. SUN).

>>Make no mistake:  Bush's real agenda is to Christianize the American
>>Education system.  That's why he vetoed this.  "School choice" is just
>>a smokescreen.

>Bush does not strike me as a zealot Christian.  I think you have zero
>evidence for this statement.  School choice worked in Harlem, it can
>work in Austin.  Our schools are a mess, we need to try it.

Perhaps not, but that is certainly his core constituency, and he
wanted to give them something in an election year to get them to turn
out for him.  *PUBLIC* school choice worked in Harlem.  That is hardly
what was being proposed.  What was being proposed was subsidizing more
'white flight' from the public schools system.  We need to try
SOMETHING, but what Bush proposed definitely wasn't 'it'.

>Your comments fall right in the lap of the NEA like a gift from the
>sky.  Don't give those assholes any more ammo.  They are against any
>significant reform in the educational system, (except increased teacher
>pay of course, and more administrators.)

>The NEA just loves Clinton, by the way.

>I don't want to see our school system 'christianized' either.  I just
>want it fixed.  I'd be happy with a non-religious voucher system, but
>the NEA and Bill Clinton don't want that either.

That's right.  Bill Clinton favors PUBLIC school choice, like that
which worked in Harlem.  The last thing we need to do is subsidize or
encourage more white flight from the public school system.  That just
establishes even more firmly a de facto class society, where everyone
but the poor can get a reasonable education.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.