From: jdoskow@ichinen.Tymnet.COM (Jonathan Doskow)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:11:57 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Apr15.224041.9002@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>In article <1548@tymix.Tymnet.COM>,
>jdoskow@ichinen.Tymnet.COM (Jonathan Doskow) writes:
>>>What on earth is the source of this information?
>>>
>>I'ld like to repeat the question Michael.  What is the source of this
>>information.  As the debate on the "Parents Choice" intiative heats up,
>>facts are likely to be bent somewhat.  Witness Ms. Genis' recent
>>assertion that there was a voucher program in East Harlem.  I don't know
>>what mechanism was used.  Perhaps parents were issued a piece of paper
>>which they could take to the public shool of their choice.  The vouchers
>>being proposed in CA are a different animal.
>
>The Harlem system is properly classified as a voucher system, but it
>was a voucher limited to schools certified as part of the public
>system.  It did however include a mechanism for creating new schools
>under that system so that students were not limited to the existing
>schools in making their choice.  This was the major benefit of the
>program, that it generated many new educational options for students
>who in the past has been receiving substandard education not
>suitable to their needs.
>
There is at least one proposal in CA, somewhere between legislature and
law, that would have this effect, allowing a group of teachers to form a
Charter School.  I don't know much about it beyond that, and will try to
find and post more information.

I've heard rumors of School Based Management trials in L.A.  Depending
on the setup, it is possible to re-organize schools, create new ones,
and close bad ones.  Again, I'll try to find and post more info on this
development.

>One of the problems with this discussion has been that we've been
>mixing general discussion of the voucher concept (for which everyone
>probably has a different starting model in mind) with the specific
>terms of the initiative currently in circulation.  I don't think
>anyone should assume that any particular model applies unless the
>author says so.   I think most of the time we've been using the term
>to mean a right granted to parents to enroll their children in a
>other than one for which there are currently eligible under the
>public school system.  Most people probably also use it to mean
>"including private schools" because that is the intent of the
>initiative.  Where there is ambiguity we should just ask people to
>clarify what they mean rather than get on our high horses and
>accuse each other of trickery and deception.
>
Why be different?-)

My question to Michael (about his post, which  you deleted) stands.
When someone posts something that you believe to be factually and
demonstrably inaccurate, requesting the source is in order.  When
offered A as an example of the viability of B, it is worth pointing out
that A and B are different, and that if A was successful in its own
right, the additional features of B might be unnecessary to achieve the
stated goals.  Then, one might  inquire what the stated goals are.
Are they to improve education?  Are they to accomodate someone's notion
of ideological purity?  Are they to help someone get re-elected?

On that last, does anyone remember the flap over Thanksgiving last year
when Mr. President's microphone was left on after a closed-circuit
televised address to a group of parochial school editors?  Mr. President
was at his petulant best because the planted questions were asked out of
order.  Fortunately, he had been listening ;-) to the questions, and was
able to give the correct pre-planned answers to the planted questions.
One of those answers was, yes, he was pushing for vouchers so that
public money could be used to fund private (religions) education.  As
Mr. President struggles to keep the coalition that elected him together,
its worth wondering.

Also beating the drum of the CA initiative is the well known
liberal-fascist anti-freedom anti-Bill-of-Rights Drug Czar, Bill
Bennett.

Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.

Take two ;-) and call me in the morning.

+----------------------------------+

Anger and none can heal it slides through the metal detector
Like a mole in a motel, slide in a slide projector.

Opinions expressed are those of the author.  jdoskow@Tymnet.COM
Xref: sparky ca.politics:3323 ba.politics:2576 talk.politics.misc:17018