← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Happy Hacker
Thread ID: 11357 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2003-12-04
2003-12-04 16:44 | User Profile
A Colorado district judge struck down the state's voucher program, saying "I see no way to interpret the voucher program statute in a way that does not run afoul of the principle of local control... Local control is what the framers of our constitution had in mind when they gave school boards control over the day-to-day decision-making in their respective districts." [URL=http://www.gazette.com/display.php?sid=688233]more[/URL]
Article IX of the Colorado Constitution begins "The general supervision of the public schools of the state shall be vested in a board of education... "
There is nothing in the Colorado Constitution to justify the judge's decision. The fact that the board of education is given a great deal of control of the public schools does not at all mean that the state cannot make use of private schools that are free of the control of the school boards. It takes a twisted mind to interpret a law dictating how a government entity is to be controlled as a law prohibiting the use of private entities.
The framers had in mind setting up a level of management of public schools. "The general supervision of the public schools of the state shall be vested in a board of education whose powers and duties shall be as now or hereafter prescribed by law." There is no priciple of local control (as the control is essentually the law, as in state law). But, if such a principle exists, the ultimate in local control is letting the parents choose the schools.
There is nothing more effective that you can do to help this nation than to support some form of School Choice. Public schools do such a poor job educating children because their primary function is no longer education, but leftist/neocon indoctrination. Children learn most of their values in public schools and what people first learn, they usually stick with the rest of their lives and no amount of reason can change them.
BTW, if a local community opened up a new public school, it would take away students and money from the existing public schools. Vouchers take away less money per student (not to mention that new school buildings cost millions to build), leaving the public school with more money per student. So, why do you always hear leftists complain about vouchers taking away money but you never hear them complain that new public schools taking away money? Answer: The money is a bogus argument; it's about control of your children.
2003-12-05 03:40 | User Profile
Happy Hacker,
You are most Right, what nonsense! When have the Courts ever protected "the principle of local control. . ." I point to Shelley v. Kraemer. Now that was the kind of local control I could go for!
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 1948 [url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=9959[/url]
I am also sue the same judge would have struck down the state's voucher program if it had been under the control of local school boards for some other reason.
2003-12-05 04:25 | User Profile
But, if such a principle exists, the ultimate in local control is letting the parents choose the schools.
They can choose all they want, as long as they're not choosing at taxpayer expense.
Vouchers are nothing but welfare couched in conservative terms. With any government funding of education will eventually come some form of government control, not to mention the lowering of private education quality.
Before everyone screeches at me for this "hardline" position, think real hard what you'd say if government started mandating "diversity" education or "holocaust studies" --or any other PC curriculae that people left public schools for in the first place--for all institutions accepting taxpayer-funded vouchers.
Some food for thought:
[url=http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/08-12-2002/vo18no16_voucher.htm]Warren Mass: Taking the Voucher Bait[/url]
[url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates59.html]Steven Yates: Refuting the Voucherites[/url]
[url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/voucher2.html]Lew Rockwell: Vouchers: Another Name for Welfare[/url]
[url=http://www.sobran.com/columns/020627.shtml]Joe Sobran: Church, State, and School[/url]
2003-12-06 06:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]They can choose all they want, as long as they're not choosing at taxpayer expense.
If you didn't know, when people choose government schools, it's at taxpayers expense.
Vouchers are nothing but welfare couched in conservative terms.
If you didn't know, public schools nothing but welfare. I want to make that welfare less expensive and less damaging.
With any government funding of education will eventually come some form of government control, not to mention the lowering of private education quality.
Why are you concerned about the small number of children in (non-elite) private schools but not about the huge number of children in public schools? You need to think about the big picture, not the small picture. What good does it do to preserve the quality of education of a very small number of students at the expense of the vast majority. If you have any desire to turn around this country and raise a generation of children more respectful of freedom and less brainwashed in diversity then you should be thinking about the big picture.
As it is, the government is already increasing its control of private schools. If you want any hope of turning that around then we have to do something about all the kids in public schools.
We can look at existing voucher programs. I don't see any strings that are too onerous. And, if any did exist, the school could just opt out of the voucher program.
For example, the Cleaveland voucher program requires all participating private schools to accept students randomly without religious discrimination and without requiring the students to participate in religious activites. SO WHAT.
If you run a fundamentalist Christian school, how many Atheists, Jews, or Episcopalians are going to want to send their kids there? So what if the kid can sit alone while all the other students go to chapel. So what if the kid can close his eyes and not look at all the Christian decorations on the wall. So what if the kid can plug his ears when a teacher starts class with a prayer. And, if the student is disruptive or failing to live up to the behavioral standards of the school, give him the boot. Until then, the school can look upon this as a great oppertunity to win a convert.
Sure, it would be better if the the school could require all new students to agree to a statement of faith, and some voucher programs will allow that. But, when the voucher program doesn't allow that, it's still doesn't make vouchers a bad deal.
One of your links has the quote "Before vouchers, we were a parish school. We catered to the kids in our parish. Now, we are really a community school. We serve a lot of kids from the area." Unfortunatly, I couldn't get any details for that claim. But, by itself, so what? It doesn't mean that they had to compromise any of their values. It only means they're reaching out to more students.
Suppose the state wants to require the schools to teach "diversity." It's your school, you'd teach "diversity" how you want to. Besides, there's no law requiring "diversity" education in public schools, so it's not going to happen that such a law would be passed for voucher schools.
Vouchers aren't the goal, they're just the most practical and realistic way to turn the country around. If we ever get a voucher system going, we can move on to something that continues to decrease government control.