From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: School Choice:  It May Bring Regulation
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:49:24 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Nov16.222018.20421@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com 
(Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>
>                       =====  FOCUS  =====
>
>*9   SCHOOL CHOICE:  CONSERVATIVES WORRY IT MAY BRING REGULATION
>     Many conservatives "have begun to sour on the idea" of
>school choice, writes John Miller in a NEW REPUBLIC editorial.
>Miller:  "Patrick Buchanan, Charles Murray, and even the Heritage
>Foundation have all become increasingly skeptical of school
>choice."
>     Miller writes that the "conservative dissenters" turn the
>liberal argument -- that choice "would boost private schools at
>the expense of public ones" -- on its head.  Conservatives oppose
>choice because they fear it would "make private schools more like
>public ones," Miller says.  Llewellyn Rockwell, president of the
>Ala.-based Ludwig von Mises Institute said:  "What we're looking
>at is the deprivatization of private schools."
>     "The fear is that once federal voucher funds started flowing
>into private schools, the government would have a foot in the
>door," according to Miller.
>     Charles Murray, author of "Common Ground" and "In Pursuit:
>Of Happiness and Good Government" said:  "I used to think choice
>was a great idea, and I still support the concept.  But I'm
>beginning to wonder whether voucher programs would invite the
>kinds of regulations that have crippled our public schools."  And
>according to Chester Finn, a former asst. ed sec:  "There's no
>doubt in my mind that there will be some new regulations with
>voucher plans."
>     Calif. conservatives are working to put a private school
>choice initiative on the ballot to circumvent such government
>intervention, according to Miller.  He writes that under the
>amendment "government regulations could be enacted only with the
>approval of three-quarters of the state's legislators, or a two-
>thirds vote of a local governing body followed by a majority vote
>of the state's registered voters."
>     Former Ed Sec William Bennett said the amendment is
>"definitely the right way to go." (Week of 11/30)
>

This does point out a serious problem.  If the government defines 
the qualifying criteria for voucher eligibility to be too restric-
tive it can squeeze out schools that are deemed to be "Not Correct"
at any given time.

The Waldorf schools in Germany have this problem. They do have a
voucher system there, in that the students get government money
for tuition.  The curriculum requirements and the need for periodic
standardized testing are quite in conflict with Waldorf pedagogy,
which has been widely acknowledged to produce excellent results
without grades and without standardized tests.  Many German Waldorf
teachers are quite upset with the compromises that have had to
be made and feel that these well intentioned government requirements
to assure "excellence" etc., actually diminish rather than enhance
the quality of the schools.

However, there is no question that if I were living in Germany I would
send my kids to the Waldorf school, if I could get on the waiting
list in time.

One solution would be to keep federal money out of education
entirely and keep the funding strictly local or at most on
a state level. Another would be tax credits for those who 
choose not to send their children to state schools.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: tx.politics