Organization: The American University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:42:04 EST
From:         Jim McIntosh <JIM@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Financing education (was Queens School Board

On Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:29:59 EST Marty Helgesen said:
>Jim McIntosh says "But that's not the purpose of the tax, is it? It's
>not intended as a tuition payment towards your children's education,
>but is instead a tax to support the running of a public education
>system.

Having thought about it overnight, I wish to change my position. I was
saying that the society needs to provide a "safety net" of educational
opportunities, and if you wish to expand on that you should pay for it
yourself. This bothered me as I wrote it since it sounded way too
"Reaganesque." I realized, as I was writing it, I sounded like a
government-limiting conservative and I'm too much of a socalist to be
comfortable with that. :-)

I think I was influenced by an article in last Monday's Washington Post
entitled "'Clustering' of White Students Divides Richmond Again". In it
the reporter says the Richmond (Virginia) public school system did not
integrate until ordered to by a 1970 (!) court order, and this prompted
widespread white flight from the schools. The Richmond public schools
today have 27,300 students -- 88.5% of them are black and 11.5% are white
(one would guess there are not many hispanic or asian kids in Richmond).
I think it is safe to assume that the white parents of Richmond would
love a voucher which would allow them to pay for some of the tuition at
their all-white private "Christian" schools. This I found distasteful.

The problem, as I see it, is that almost all public schools today are
under-funded. The current tax revenues are insufficient to pay for even
the maintenance of the current schools. In order to also pay for the
private school educations, as you are advocating, a tax increase would be
required.

Let's say the cost of sending a child to public shool in Richmond is "x".
Let's say the cost of a private school education is "2x". If one half of
the kids in Richmond are in public schools, and one half of the kids are
in private white schools the actual cost to educate the kids in Richmond
is three times the current allocation for the Richmond public schools.

In order for the government to pay the current tuition bill in Richmond
taxes would have to be raised by 200%! If the government provided
vouchers for "x" to the private schools, taxes would "only" increase by
100%. This is a fairly large increase in the tax burden on society, but I
suppose Richmond is not representative. Even if we have to increase taxes
by 15% or 25%, though, that is still a fairly hefty jump.

That's what the question here really comes down to... should the tax
burden be increased on the society to provide for the private (sometimes
religious) education of all children. To answer yes to this question is a
just one, and one I would agree with. All children deserve a good
education and society should pay for it regardless of whether it is in
a private school environment or a public school one.

>                 Tuition vouchers, tax credits, a "junior GI Bill" or
>similar proposals are ways of equalizing the contribution that par-
>ents who choose non-public schools are making to the education of the
>children of society as a whole.

Agreed. Well stated.

Jim McIntosh, SFO (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU