From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: School Choice (was Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:24:32 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc

In article <Gaa-Gg+@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.191515.25651@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|> In article <TJZ-SwA@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>|> >In article <1992Aug6.164652.22911@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|> >
>|> >Every person has their own idea on what an education is.  If parents
>|> >of a child feel that it is in their best interest to send their child
>|> >to a religious school that should be their right.  
>|> 
>|> It *IS* their right.  What isn't their right is to get it paid for in
>|> public monies.
>
>Who exactly is the 'public'?  It consists of the individuals who 
>make up society.  

Yes, but it's not just a herd of individuals.

>When individuals are required to contribute funds
>to the 'public' treasury they still should have a say in how the
>money is spent, shouldn't they?  

Actually, not really, when you think about it.  In a representative
democracy (republic), the individuals get the say about who makes
those decisions about what gets spent where.  Each individual no more
can (or should) get to decide than they can decide not to pay in the
first place (without being penalized).

>All I am saying is that each taxpayer
>be allowed to specifically say how/where his/her education money should
>be spent.  

I understand what you are saying.  I disagree.

>Nobody is forced to pay for the type of education they
>disapprove of, whatever their reasons.  

In theory this might be true, but de facto I suspect it would become
common that people would wind up having to pay for religious education
that goes against their religious beliefs because that happened to be
the school that had the best classes or that happened to be the only
one around (the others having been unable to compete, pricewise,
because of the ability of the religious school to get cheaper
instructors, tax exemptions, etc.).

>Why must educational spending
>decisions be determined by the politically powerful?  

Gee, I don't know.  I haven't advocated that they should be (or seen
evidence that they are).

>With a tax
>credit proposal, every taxpayer wins, every parent wins, every
>child wins.  

Untrue.

>Taxpayers fund only those programs they support,

Except for those cases where they have to fund some religious program
because they have to send their child to school and that happens to be
the only one close enough to be available, or the have to fund to some
religious program because it goes with the classes in the core
education that they want their child to have.

>parents regain control over educational decisions for their children,

Not necessarily.

>and children get an education better suited to their individual
>needs.  

Not necessarily.

Also consider this, the federal government already subsidizes
>religious schools... at the secondary school level.  If it is
>okay to give students guaranteed loans, grants, etc. to attend
>private colleges and universities, why is it wrong to do the
>same for primary school children?

Because we require children to attend primary school, and because
getting ANY job pretty much requires completing primary school.


>
>|> 
>|> >If they get a
>|> >tax credit for the amount of money that would have been spent to send
>|> >their child to the 'public' school, the 'public' is not paying for
>|> >the education of the child, the parents are.  
>|> 
>|> Please explain to me the difference (other than semantics) between the
>|> government writing you a check for $X and the government giving you a
>|> 'tax credit' for $X.  There is zero difference and in both cases it is
>|> 'public money'.
>
>The government is not giving anyone anything.  The government has nothing
>that wasn't taken from the public to begin with.  All I am saying is
>let the people who make the 'contributions' determine where the money
>should go.

I understand what you are saying.  I disagree with you about the
actual effects of what you propose.  Your saying it many times doesn't
make it any clearer, convince me, or make it any more right or more
true. 

>
>|> 
>|> >This maximizes diversity
>|> >instead of requiring that everyone (except the rich) send their
>|> >children to a school which meets the requirements of the politically
>|> >powerful.  I prefer a system where noone has to support education
>|> >which they disapprove of.  I also prefer a system which gives the
>|> >parents the power to decide what is best for their child, rather
>|> >than the state.
>|> 
>|> But why must the religious training be MANDATORY at the school you
>|> send your child to?  Are you afraid your child will elect not to take
>|> it, or are you really THAT afraid of having your child associate with
>|> anyone who doesn't think exactly the way you think they should?
>|> 
>
>I am personally not advocating sending my child to a school with
>MANDATORY religious training.  However I am not so arrogant as
>to deny my neighbor that choice, if that is what they feel is
>best for their child.  Why do you insist on controlling the
>educational choices of parents when your money is not involved?

I don't.  I insist on the government not interfering monetarily in the
practice of religion.  What about that don't you understand?

>
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> Extending the concept, we should all just be responsible for educating
>|> >|> our own kids, and f**k those people who don't happen to have the
>|> >|> money.
>|> >
>|> >We already do that to some extent.  The people with money are able
>|> >to choose the type of school their children go to, either by moving
>|> >to a 'good' neighborhood or by sending their children to private 
>|> >schools.  Those who don't have the money are stuck with what the
>|> >state gives them.  The system you allude to would probably be
>|> >better than what we currently have now.  It would certainly be
>|> >more honest.
>|> 
>|> Oh yes, that would be MUCH better.  Just not educate people who happen
>|> to have poor parents (who are probably poor because they were poorly
>|> educated).  Can you say 'hereditary underclass'?  I thought you could. 
>|> 
>
>With a tax credit system anyone can pay for anyone elses education.
>You wouldn't have to have rich parents.  Wealthy people could establish
>scholarships at schools to help others attend.  (It happens with
>Universities, why not primary schools?)

And of course, everyone gets to attend universities, don't they?
Don't they?

>
>|> >
>|> >So, they are paying for the education of a child.  After all, getting
>|> >children education *is* the point of all this, isn't it?
>|> 
>|> Yes, it is.  And the religious indoctrination of their relatives is
>|> NOT the point.  I don't get to pick and choose how the rest of my
>|> taxes get spent (or on who).
>
>So?  Are you saying that if it were resonable to pick and choose
>how the rest of your taxes get spent that you would consider that
>to be a bad idea?  

No, I'm saying that I consider it a bad idea because it isn't
reasonable, due to the side effects it has.

>Education is one area where it is very easy
>to pick and choose, and I believe we should allow it.  

I'm saying I consider it a bad idea because it will likely involve the
government de facto interfering monetarily in the practice of
religion, and that is a violation of the First Amendment.

>I find it
>no different than contributing to the United Way.  

Then you haven't thought it out.

>|> >
>|> >Getting a tax credit because I choose to spend my education 
>|> >contribution on a school other than a public school is hardly
>|> >a 'break'.  If my taxes are $1000/year for education, I'm out
>|> >$1000 if my child goes to public school and I'm out $1000 if
>|> >my child goes to private school.  The big difference is that
>|> >in the second case my money is actually going to support the
>|> >type of education that I believe in.
>|> 
>|> Hmmm, looks like a little training in arithmetic is in order.
>|> Currently, if you pay $1000 in school taxes and your child goes to
>|> your nice, whitebread religious academy for $1000/year, you are out
>|> $2000 (not $1000).  AFTER your little tax credit scheme, you are now
>|> only out $1000, the money that you had to pay in taxes.
>
>Okay, using the standard Congressional/Media definition of 'cut' you
>are correct that if I were to send my child to a private school
>for $1000/year and my taxes were $1000/year I would be spending $2000
>but under a tax credit proposal I would only be spending $1000.  My
>point is that I should have to pay for education twice.  I'm still
>paying for education just like everyone else.  All I ask is that I
>be able to send my child to the school that best meets his/her
>needs.

Yes, using simple arithmetic, you would get a 'cut' from what you
would have now if you did what you say you want to do.  No special
definitions are necessary.

>
>|> So, in
>|> essence, you have arranged things so that your tax dollars go to a
>|> school which REQUIRES religious classes.  And it is at that point that
>|> we part company.  If you don't like the Constitutional separation of
>|> Church and State, I suggest you change the Constitution.  Don't hide
>|> it under 'school choice' issues.
>|> 
>
>The Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion or placing
>restrictions on the free exercise of religion.  If the state required
>students to attend schools with mandatory religious training, this
>would be in violation of the Constitition.  

This would likely happen, de facto, under the kind of choice system
you are proposing.  I consider that a Bad Thing.  I am opposed to this
idea. 

>However, allowing me (or
>anyone else) to contribute their own money to the school of their
>choice and allowing me to send *my* child (not anyone elses) does
>not violate the Constitution one bit.  

Coupled with the requirement that children attend school and schools
that require religion being paid from government funds, you get a de
facto violation (even though it isn't a violation in theory).

>The public is not paying for
>my childs education, I am (or any other people who voluntarily wish
>to contribute).  In essence the government is simply passing a law
>which states that people must contribute some percentage of their
>income (or property value, etc.) to support education, but the choice
>of where to spend that money is completely up to the individual.  This
>hardly violates the Constitution.  In fact, it comes closer to
>meeting the goals of the Constitution than our current system.

No, it does not.  Since you seem to think that repetition is the way
to truth, I'll say it again.  This leads to a de facto violation.

>
>|> 
>|> >Society benefits because the child is more
>|> >likely to receive an education that is appropriate for him/her
>|> >than he/she is likely to receive from some government run 'factory'
>|> >school.  
>|> 
>|> No, the child is more likely to receive an education THAT THE PARENT
>|> thinks is more appropriate, while being hived off with people who only
>|> think the way the parent think the child should think.  Society
>|> suffers because an intollerant citizen has probably been produced.
>|> 
>
>Society benefits from diversity, not homogeneity.  Different opinions
>make society stronger, not weaker.  It seems to me that you're the
>one being intollerant.

Not at all.  I am simply saying (one more time) that you cannot
publicly fund schools at a level where school attendence is required
if those schools also require religious instruction.  If a school
elects to have religious classes available for those who elect to
attend them but does not require them, that is a different situation.
So, who is intolerant?  The person who wants mandatory religious
instruction at a government-funded school, or the person who wants it
to be optional so that only people who want it have to take it?

>
>|> >Under a choice plan using tax credits, everyone still has
>|> >an obligation to support education.  At the same time, everyone 
>|> >has the opportunity to support the type of education that they
>|> >think is appropriate.  You don't want to support religious indoctrination,
>|> >neither to I.  Imagine, however, that the religious right became
>|> >the majority in this country and they passed ammendments to the
>|> >Constitution requiring religious training.  
>|> 
>|> It takes much more than a simple majority.  See your Constitution for
>|> details.  In any case, if that happened I could no longer complain,
>|> could I?  I personally think it would be a sad day for this country,
>|> but that would be the way it is.  Until it IS that way, you can't fund
>|> schools requiring mandatory religious education out of the public
>|> pocket. 
>|> 
>
>And if the majority (or super-majority) advocated a return to slavery
>you would simply think that this was a sad day for the country but
>that would be the way it is?  You truely don't care about what is
>'right'?

When you can define 'right' in an unambiguous and provable way, get
back to me with this discussion.

>
>|> Also, note some difference in the 'reverse' position you present when
>|> compared to mine.  I say that public money cannot be spent in schools
>|> which REQUIRE religious education.  Note that a school which had
>|> religious classes which were not required (i.e., were over and above
>|> the 'core' requirements and which the students could not be required
>|> to take -- like 'electives' in college) would be eligible for
>|> 'vouchers' and such under the system I would accept.  Such a system is
>|> unacceptable to the religionists among us.  WHY?  I am not forbidding
>|> them their religion, but they would like to force theirs on me.  There
>|> is your difference.
>
>Let me see if I understand you, you are not opposed to a choice system
>which is founded on vouchers or tax credits as long as the money
>can't be spent on schools which *require* religious training.  Is
>this a fair statement.  

That's what I've been saying all along.

>Is this the only restriction you would
>place on education or would their be others?  

Yes, there would be others.  A school would have to teach a certain
minimum set of knowledge in order to qualify.  This is the same thing
we do with schools now (accreditation), so I don't see it as a major
problem.  Schools would have to not discriminate on who they let in
based on religious, racial, gender, etc. reasons.  They could,
however, discriminate accademically if they chose to do so.  In other
words, if you fail they could boot you.  They could also discriminate
based on someone being disruptive and interfering with other students
in class, or with people who break laws on school property.  Teachers
would have to NOT base the non-religious academics on religion or
religious principles (teaching reading by requiring the Book of
Mormon, for example, would be against the rules).  Things like that. 

>I can live with
>the first restriction, what I fear is that it would not be the
>only restriction.  I fear that the government would continue to
>place new restrictions based solely on political reasons.  

If you want government money, you live with government restrictions.
Otherwise, pay your own way somewhere else.  Note that this does NOT,
however, exempt you from having to contribute funds for education to
the government regulated programs.  In other words, it would work just
like it does now, except that there would be more choice of schools.
Those who elect to have their children go to 'non-approved schools'
still get to pay twice.  Those with no children still get to pay once. 

>This
>is why I prefer that there be *no* restrictions, when you add
>the first restriction you open the door to many more.

That door got opened when you decided to accept public money.  It
became public money because society decided that educating everyone to
a certain level, whether they were rich or poor, was a thing that
should be done.


-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1492 alt.politics.marrou:772 talk.politics.misc:39545 alt.politics.elections:10530 talk.politics.theory:3663