From: niepornt@beam.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: equality of opportunity  (was: Re: State Income Tax)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 16:54:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.110452.17001@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>In <1993Jan17.211147.21480@rpp386>, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan16.155735.17843@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:

>> This is classic liberal doublespeak.

>	So you start in with classic conservative doublespeak?

>> Vouchers will INCREASE equality of oppportunity by increasing the
>> opportunity of poor people to attempt private schools.  If before
>> vouchers 10% of the population could afford private schools, and
>> after vouchers 20% of the population can afford private schools, I'd
>> say we have greatly increased "equality of opportunity."

>	In theory, yes.  However, this "opportunity" is not simply based on
>whether you have a voucher in hand.  Other factors are involved in moving your
>child from school to school (like transportation between home and school).
>While your 10% to 20% may be the case,  you postulate a 100% increase in
>private school attendence, which I doubt the private institutions could 
>withstand such an increase and still maintain an acceptable level of quality.

Why not?  They won't be any worse than the bad public schools, I'm sure.

>>>That is no reason to subsidize the wealthy to send their kids to
>>>expensive private schools, at the expense of those who cannot afford it.
>>>We don't need to and cannot afford to give any handouts to the rich.

>> This is a non-sequitor.  We aren't subsidizing on the wealthy - we are
>> subsidizing the POOR who today cannot afford a decent school for their
>> kids.  The rich can already attend any school they like, the poor can't.

>	Actually, Tom is correct.  Currently, the rich pay for the poor schools
>through taxes, and pay ADDITIONALLY to place their child in private schools.
>With vouchers, the rich can take that money AWAY from the poor schools, and
>give it to private institutions, thus reducing the amount they pay for that
>private education.  The poor would have less funding that they have today.
>You have increased the value of education for 10% more of the population, but
>have hurt it for the remaining 80%.

No, you haven't.  By this logic, if the rich person decides to go to a
public school, he's "taking money from poor people." The rich aren't taking 
any money away from the poor people.  They're taking ONLY the money that 
went to educate their own kids, anyway.

>	Of course, you are for vouchers since they will benefit you and let you
>control where your tax money goes (which, unless you were lying again, you have
>stated is your main personal interest), so don't pretend you agree to this
>because your worried about the poor.

*I* will, then.  My liberal credentials are still intact, I think.  I
think it will improve the education for some of the poor.  Not all, of
course.  I don't think it will have either all the good effects promised
by the pro-voucher people or all the horrible consequences threatened by
the anti-voucher people.  But I don't think it can hurt.  You can't make
the bad schools any worse than they are now.

>>                                          We've realized that the public
>> school system is deficient, and we want the poor to have the same chance
>> to attend good schools as the rich.

>	Sure, the problem is obviously with the school, not the fact that
>teachers are just plain scared shitless because students show up with guns,
>drugs, knives, etc...  The problem is with the local community, which is not
>going to be solved with a voucher system.  Again it gets back to the "You can
>lead a student to a class, but you can't make them learn".  You put vouchers
>in place, the poor public schools will collapse leaving the poor with nothing.

Well, if we'd end this silly WOD, there'd be a lot less
guns/drugs/knives in those schools.

Look, right now, those poor are stuck in bad public schools with
guns/drugs/knives/etc.  Those poor students can't *get* any worse.  It
isn't a panacea, but it can't hurt them.  

One problem is that we try to educate those people who don't want to
learn, even when they disrupt it for everyone else.  I don't like the
idea of writing off anyone, but it might make sense to.  Kick them out,
keep the good students.

>>                                       After all, we are paying for those
>> children to attend low-quality public schools, we might as well send
>> the money to private schools instead.  

>	Yeah, let's send the money to the school your child goes to, since
>it's a waste to woory about the poor that can't afford it, can't get their
>kids there, or the school won't let the kid even get in the door (Hey, you 
>are disruptive and can't pass the entrance exam, so go back to your poor
>school.  There isn't one?  Too bad...).

Oh, come on.  No, you're not going to see many poor black ghetto kids
going to Exeter.  But if they have money, there are going to be private
schools who will take them.

Not the disruptive ones, no.  But why *should* they?  They don't *want*
to be in school, and are just making it harder for everyone else.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: tx.politics