From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 06:04:11 GMT

rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski) writes:
[my objection]
>> 1. [Tax money] should not be handed over to parents as if it were "theirs"
>> to spend.  [...] 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 is nonsense.  Unlike many government giveaway programs (e.g. welfare,
>AFDC, farm subsides) school vouchers will *not* be redeemable for beer,
>cigarettes, whores, or anything else not directly related to the cost of
>educating a child.  Sheesh.  Can't people learn a *little* bit before
>embarrasing themselves by flaunting this kind of ignorance?

Jim, your will to misunderstand me is a little too strong.  OK, I thought
people could read what I wrote in context of the issue; I was wrong.

I mean that there is very little control over the curriculum of a private
school, and even less over "home-school".  (Digression: what is the minimum
standard for the curriculum, and how is it measured?  I see nothing in the
wording of the amendment to tell me what qualifies a school to receive the
voucher money--is this something already established elsewhere?)

As long as some minimum standard is met, they can teach whatever else they
want.  A school run by fundamentalists can teach that the earth was created
8000 years ago, the Jews killed Jesus, Greek Orthodox are pagans, Darwin
was the antichrist, and anyone with long hair is a drug addict.  Of course,
they can teach all that right now--but at least I don't have to *pay* them
to teach it!

>[the religious-school objection]...To those concerned about using taxpayer
>dollars for religious indoctrination in private schools I ask: Are you not
>equally concerned about *government* indoctrination with taxpayer dollars in
>government schools?...

You bet I am!

The dismantling of the US Constitution over the last two decades (which is
when most, but not all, happened) would not have been possible without
massive indoctrination, and it's done in the public schools.

In fact, I can lump one concern about public-funded schooling for private
and public schools together: I'm as concerned about what they *shouldn't*
be teaching as I am about what they *should* be.

>...Personally, I find teachings such as the Pledge of Allegience and the
>biased patriotic portrayal of American history which exist in public
>schools just as offensive as the teaching that Jesus died for my sins.

OK, fine.  Two wrongs are still two wrongs; we don't fix one by admitting
the other.  Let's try to subtract problems instead of adding them.

A friend of mine who went to a sort of "boy's academy" private school when
he was young got a very different introduction to American history.  He got
something pretty close to the real scoop on Lincoln, for example.  (Ol' Abe
may have been effective, but he wasn't a nice guy.)  He got a clear picture
early on of "our founding fathers": a rabble-rousing motley crew of British
traitors.  A lot of his history lessons were given in the cold clear light
of day, not the Saturday-morning cartoon parodies that pass for history in
our public schools.  If *any* schools predictably gave that sort of edu-
cation, I'd support pushing money toward them.  (I'd donate my own money
rather than advocate diverting tax money, but that's another discussion.)
But they don't.  There's no safe bet what a school is going to teach; if we
have to fund them, we can at least beat on the public school system to do a
more honest job.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
   ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.