If you live in Utah . . .
November 1, 2007
. . . go vote on Tuesday for school choice (and social justice, and religious freedom, and common sense, . . . ). If you live near Utah, move there (and enjoy the best skiing in the world) and vote for school choice, one of the relatively few issues about which “there can be no debate.”
25 Comments
Comments are closed.
A new addition to the “non-negotiables”?
Quoting Seinfeld always wins the argument for me!
Why is it that conservatives can be counted on to support certain government give away programs (not that this is not a very good one), but fail to find anything good in other porgrams? Or are hesitant to support them?
Why is this a government give away program any more than public schools?
Maybe it’s because some programs work better than others.
Daniel – Simple. They’re inconsistent. Like in their “respect for life.”
Yes, because all politics is black and white. Either you favor eliminating all government programs, or you must favor of an expansion of all of them. It couldn’t be possible to take a pragmatic approach and determine that some programs are good, and deserve support.
What a great idea. Finally, parents will have choices that wealthy parents have always had. The resulting competition would create better private schools and even improve the government schools.-John Stossel
I will remember this next time someone brings up class warfare. As far as the second statement goes, the experience in Milwaukee is a mixed bag. The Catholic schools are less Catholic, in some cases significantly. The students are doing better overall. I’ll have to see if the Jounal Sentinel still has their big series on school choice online. It is some of the best reporting I’ve seen on the topic.
In fairness, I’m personally ambivalent on school choice, but leaning against, at least the common implementations. Equally subsidizing kids who go to the Catholic school system is one thing. Subsidizing every fly by night operation is another.
Here is the Journal Sentinel series.
http://www2.jsonline.com/news/choice/
M.Z.,
My impression is that a lot of Catholic schools already weren’t all that Catholic. I’m ambivalent about school vouchers as well, because with government money comes government regulation. Still, on the whole I think it’s a positive development.
The decline of Catholic schools is a terrible thing for those kids trapped in a bad environment who really want to learn and excel.
Personally, if we are going to spend all this money on Catholic schools and they are just going to be a charitable exercise for the less fortunate, I would rather just get the Church out of it. And yes Blackadder is correct that many of these schools had regressed. I have nothing against charity work. Running a school is pretty expensive thing however. Just because I could help transport people by buying a 15-passenger van rather than my commuter car doesn’t make my choosing not to do so an act against the less fortunate. Similarily, choosing to close down a parish school that for the most part doesn’t teach members of the parish isn’t an act against the less fortunate.
A key problem is the American system that funds schools locally. This leads to awful schools in economically deprived areas, magnifying pre-existing economic disparities. I would favor a pooling system for funding education, and state-wide standards and curricula that MUST be followed in all public schools, to prevent certain areas being left behind.
Michael — “Inconsistent”? Can you elaborate? (Of course, school-choice programs are not “give-aways”, but are instead remedies for the unjust practice of requiring parents who want to provide their children with integrated Christian education to, in effect, pay a penalty.) In any event, yes, I regard (appropriately crafted, of course) school-choice programs as non-negotiable. As did the Council Fathers who signed off on Dignitatis humanae.
MM,
You assume similiar aptitudes across student populations. What if this is not the case? If it were economic disparities as a main trouble issue, then wouldn’t those school districts that spent the most per child have the best results?
Look at NJ. Redistribution has been king since 1990. What have been the results?
To me, we need to move away from this notion that college is so much superior than learning a trade (which it isn’t, at all), and we also need to have much greater support for vocational and trade schools.
It seems to me that the last thing we need in schools is a one-size-fits-all curriculum created by government bureaucrats and educational academics (i.e. the people who brought us new math).
The sentence to which Rick refers, among others:
Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense. Dignitatis Humanae, p. 4.
Jonathan:
It’s not just money, it’s how its spent. DC spends the highest per capita on students for the worst outcomes. The reason is the money goes on overhead (kind of like the US health care system, actually). But money is only part of the problem, which is why I mentioned standards that must be attained.
I agree with you that many go to college who should not. I would like to see some middle-class kids enter vocational training, however, and more poor kids go to college. Ability is not related to income or class; opportunity is.
“Standards must be attained.” Well, okay, sure, but nobody has any idea how do this, and buckets of money have been spent…..
Would you be willing to face the uncomfortable possibility that about half the students are below average in intellectual capacity, and vocational training serves them best once they reach high school age?
Why, Blackadder? When you oppose “one-size-fits all”, do you think rich white suburban schools should have different curricula than poor black inner-city schools? I certainly don’t.
Prof Garnett,
And what about the Hebrew Schools? Why are they excluded? Should they receive some funding also, not just those who wish a Christian education? And if not, why would I even care to fund Baptist educations or Mormon educaitons? Or even the right wing version of Catholci educations? I have no interets in funding those Christian educations, faulty and defective as I see them. YEs, if the educational choice is defective, then pay the penalty.
I don’t see anything in Dr. Garnett’s argument that would suggest they shouldn’t receive funding.
I find such suggestions myself akin to complaints about not being able to go to a restaurant during Ramadan if Muslims did such and such. Those are the shakes of being a minority in a culture. BTW, restaurants being closed can be perfectly voluntary and not required by government for the example to hold. Lacking a warrant to compel people to direct their affairs differently, I don’t see this issue. It’s not like kids going to a Baptist school aren’t going to learn Baptist things in the home.
Morning’s Minion,
When I say that I’m against a one-size-fits-all approach, why do you assume I favor a two-size-fits-all approach (one curriculum for rich white schools, one for poor black ones)?
Anyone designing a curriculum is going to have to make choices about what is important to include and what isn’t. Should students learn Latin? Spanish? Japanese? Should they primarily read classics Dickens and Shakespeare, or is it better to read more modern authors like Morrison or Achebe? How much and what kind of instruction regarding computers is necessary? Is phonics the right way to teach reading, or should the “look-say” method be used? It seems to me that these questions are best answered at the local level, by people who know something about the students the curriculum is being designed for, who know about their aptitudes and interests, and who can more quickly make changes as needed, than they are by some group of bureaucrats in the state capitol.
Blackadder:
I agree with you on the importance of broad curricula. Students should indeed have a choice, as some are more suited to the humanities, than, say, science. But what is wrong with setting minimum standards in each subject, and setting a state-level examination that ALL students need to sit, at the same time, and pass before being able to move forward? This provides a clear benchmark against which to judge both teachers and schools, and avoids the temptation to “dumb down” the subjects in some (typically deprived) communities.
I’m fine with standarized tests that everyone has to take (yes, some schools will teach to the test, but for some schools even that will be an improvement). But there’s a difference between a state administered test and a state mandated curriculum. One legislates the end, the other the means.