From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.education,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: School Vouchers: Constitutionality? Necessity!
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:02:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.Bw81wC.DJE
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <23033@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
>It would seem to me that if school vouchers were legal, then within a year
>there would be a Supreme Court case in the works regarding its
>constitutionality.
>A similar question was raised in the case Everson v. Board of Education.
>This case dealt with the constitutionality of refuding the transportation
>costs that were incurred to parents by sending their kids to parochial
>schools.  The Court found that it was in fact constitutional because it
>didn't violate the Establishment clause.  However, in their decision, they
>stated that it didn't violate the Establishment clause because the aid was
>given to the parents, in a manner which was outside of the school itself,
>i.e. transportation.  However, if the aid were given to the parents
>which more than just got their children to school but got them through
>the doors too, i.e. school vouchers, then on the basis of stare decisis
>in the Court's Opinion I would tend to think that the Supreme Court would
>strike down any "school voucher" laws.
>Since many private schools are parochial, every private school would have
>to be treated equally.  It wouldn't be just to say that, provided school
>vouchers were legal, if it's parochial, you can't have a voucher, but if
>it's a non-parochial private school, then vouchers are o.k.
>Thus, the test derived in the case Lemon v. Kurtzman would have to be
>used in any future Supreme Court case, whether or not the school was 
>parochial.  And, in doing so, the "school voucher" law would not pass the
>second prong of the test, of whether or not religion is advanced or 
>inhibited.  This is because if parents were not given school vouchers,
>then they would be relying on scholarships provided by the school.  But if
>they were given vouchers, then schools would throw away scholarship
>programs because they wouldn't be needed.  And this would indirectly
>"advance" (so to speak) the parochial school, i.e. religion.

>Furthermore, the idea of "school vouchers" is utterly ridiculous.  If it
>is proposed because it will give the chance for parents to send their
>children to good schools, then doesn't this send a message that our
>public school system is not adequate?  Instead of worrying about giving
>parents school vouchers, why doesn't the government put that money into
>the public school system.

>Any comments, criticisms?

This has been discussed often, but it seems that there are new readers
around who have not seen it.  Calling our school system inadequate may
be the greatest understatement of the century; it has been inadequate
almost from the time that the current school of educationists got in
power in the 1930s.  It was just adequate then, and everything has gone 
downhill since.

So why not kick these guys out and reform it?  This could possibly have
been done at the time of Sputnik, but was not; at this time we have another
problem, namely, few competent teachers.  These teachers are certified as
meeting certain standards, some set by the educationists, and in principle,
academic departments could maintain reasonable standards in their subjects.
In practice, the academic departments cannot; a mathematics department could
not politically continue to have a say over the qualifications of prospects
to teach mathematics in the schools if it flunked 70-90% of them.  I do not
exaggerate here; it is fully that bad.

I do not intend to give a litany of all that is wrong with the schools.  But
any decent educational system must at least attempt to give each child the
opportunity to learn as much and as fast as is reasonably possible.  The
differences in ability, particularly within a single subject, are immense.

So why vouchers?  For one thing, we should not have a political body, even
the family's neighbors, dictating what and how a child should learn.  For
another thing, there are not enough decent teachers, and so those who want
their children to learn mathematics and grammar and world history and a
strong science curriculum should not be restricted by those who are more
interested in sports and socialization, which can be handled by the current
baby-sitters.  Also, a public school is restrained by all sorts of political
considerations, part of which is the requirement of monolithic labor contracts,
and part of which is the current requirement that students, regardless of 
ability, are not to be discriminated against!  This latter is indictment
enough of the system.  We must protect the ones willing and able to learn
from those who are not, and not try for equality of results.

We could teach those who really should be going to college the basics of what
is now covered by a college degree sooner than they now get a high school
diploma.  Our public school curriculum may have the same course designations
as those of a half-century ago, but the content is not there, and the teachers
could not deliver that content.  Nor can the teachers be found; there are not
enough unemployed defense industry people, most of whom could do a far better
job than the current teachers.  At the present time, they would not be allowed
to teach, anyhow; they do not have the educationis qualifications.  This is
needed with a voucher system, also; the right to have those who know the
subject, but have not been through the schools of education brainwashing,
to teach.


-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)