From: bwg@teal.csn.org (Bryan Griffin)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:13:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.053636@eklektix.com> 
           rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>Where is the logic (let alone the fairness) in taking
>money from us and giving it to others, to spend at their discretion
>without any way for us to say what's done with it?

   This was written about vouchers, but doesn't it apply much better to
having the government take money from us and spend it with little say from 
us as to whats done with it (except very indirectly through electing people 
once in a while)? This goes for government programs in general, including
operation of schools.

  It seems that vouchers give the people most directly involved in the 
education process, the parents, more say about how the money is spent on 
their own children. Perhaps people without children don't have input, but 
isn't it better at least to have some level of control by concerned people 
instead of just bureaucrats? 


> 3.  I *do* believe in paying my share to help educate the country.  But,
>for what I pay in taxes, I should have some say in how it's run!  Everyone
>should have some influence, not just the parents.  If education really is a
>general public need (and I can't see how the hell you can run a democracy
>without it!), and it's to be financed by general taxes, then the money
>better be allocated and spent in such a way that the public controls it.

  How much say do you really have in how schools are run now? There are 
accreditation procedures for private schools, so the state will have some 
input into how these schools are run. Even theoretically,how much real 
control, in practical terms, can one individual voter have on how the schools 
are run? Why do you want this control? Isn't the purpose of publicly funded 
education to get the best possible education for the children involved, and 
not to get the most people possible involved in running the schools by 
committee? Isn't it the results, which would be controlled by the 
accreditation process, what is important to control and not the means to 
achieve those results?

>If they're private schools, they can set whatever criteria they want (sub-
>ject to usual non-discrimination guidelines, but that's not the point).  If
>they want to be able to advertise that 20% of their graduates end up at Ivy
>League schools, they'll just skim the cream of the students.  Since there's

  Why do you assume this? Currently private schools are a luxury item and 
usually the only time parents wish to spend money on a private school are to 
ensure that better students get a level of education the public schools can't 
provide. When people don't need to spend their own money to send their 
child to a private school, then the private schools aren't a luxury anymore. 
Everyone will want to send their child to a better school, and schools will 
open up to admit students of all levels of ability. If there is money to be 
made, someone will attempt to fill the market niche. When considering
a change in society, such as the implementation of a voucher system, you
can't assume that the rest of society will stay the same. It will adapt to
the change, new private schools will open. 

Bryan Griffin
bwg@csn.org
Newsgroups: co.politics