← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Happy Hacker
Thread ID: 6230 | Posts: 22 | Started: 2003-04-18
2003-04-18 14:49 | User Profile
"DENVER, Colorado (Reuters) -- Colorado Gov. Bill Owens Wednesday signed into law a bill creating the first school voucher program since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled public funds can be used for tuition at private schools including religious ones."
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/04/17/colorado.voucher.reut/index.html]http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/04/17/co...reut/index.html[/url]
Why any conservative opposes vouchers is beyond me. The worries of the increased oppertunity of the government getting its hooks into private schools is a miniscule concern vs the need to liberate those children in government schools now. I know of no other proposal than vouchers that offers as much oppertunity to change the course of this nation.
The US Supreme Court has already okayed everything in this voucher program. But, the Colorado courts have yet to okay it. Of course, the lying leftist bigots will say this voucher program violates the Colorado consitution which according to them forbids any money going to religious schools. But, what the applicable part of the Colorado Constitution actually says is:
"Aid to private schools, churches, sectarian purpose, forbidden. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian society, or for any sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatsoever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money or other personal property, ever be made by the state, or any such public corporation to any church, or for any sectarian purpose."
Vouchers are not "aid" to schools. Vouchers are not money "appropriated" to religious schools. Vouchers do not have a "sectarian purpose." Vouchers are not "to help" religious schools. There is no intent in the voucher law to help religion or religious schools. The intent of vouchers is to improve education and empower parents, without regard for religion.
To ban vouchers from religious schools has all the logic of banning people from using public roads to drive to church because that would violate "Separation of Church and State."
BTW, the next section of the Calorado constitution is titled "Religious test and race discrimination forbidden" This applies to admission into public schools for teachers and students. But, the intent is to ban discrimination on the grounds of religion and this is exactly what leftists want for vouchers.
2003-04-18 18:32 | User Profile
go with the jews
2003-04-19 14:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by Happy Hacker@Apr 18 2003, 14:49 ** Why any conservative opposes vouchers is beyond me. The worries of the increased oppertunity of the government getting its hooks into private schools is a miniscule concern vs the need to liberate those children in government schools now. I know of no other proposal than vouchers that offers as much oppertunity to change the course of this nation.
**
Well put.
Our tribal enemies infiltrated our institutions and made them bastions of their power - the public schools, teachers unions, our great colleges and universities, the medical and legal professions, corporate board rooms, the media - none of these bedrock institutions are any longer ours, and we need to get out from under their power as a fist step to liberation.
Vouchers would deal a body blow to the teachers unions and the bloated educational bureaucracy, and thus by extension would be bad for the Inner Party. It would also allow us to educate our children in our own traditions using what is after all our own money.
Vouchers are a great thing. We don't control the state, so separation of school and state is for now a good thing for us. The Freepers will for their own psychological reasons feel compelled to couch all of their argumens for vouchers in high-sounding universalisms, but the ethnic nature of the conflict is obvious to all with eyes to see.
CCW statutes are another great conservative cause. They're good for whites because they limit lawfual access to concealed weapons to those not convicted of felonies. Since something like one third of all black men will be convicted of a felony - a vastly higher rate than for whites - these CCW statutes have the salubrious effect of arming whites and disarming blacks. That's good. It's also why the NAACP uncer the black nationalist Kweisi Mfume (spelliing?) fights CCW so strenuously, although again like their white proponents they feel compelled to couch the arguments in ersatz universalisms.
Cutting income taxe rates are generally good for whites. Rep. Charles Rangel said something to the effect that white racists don't wear hoods and burn crosses now they just try to cut taxes, and he's right of course - money that stays in white hands is moneh that doesn't get transferred to blacks and others. Again, the Freepers don't have the moral courage to look the truth in the eye, but on the other hand they do work hard and well to cut taxes.
Freepers support both causes actively, which is why I say that they do a great service despite the terrible frustration I feel with them and their inability to recognize their obvious motivations.
Walter
2003-04-19 15:26 | User Profile
I know one racialist Catholic who's vehemently opposed to vouchers because he thinks they'll make it easier for minority parents to transfer their disruptive little monsters into functioning, mostly White private schools. Makes sense to me.
2003-04-20 01:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by Recluse@Apr 19 2003, 15:26 ** I know one racialist Catholic who's vehemently opposed to vouchers because he thinks they'll make it easier for minority parents to transfer their disruptive little monsters into functioning, mostly White private schools. Makes sense to me. **
A private school has a right to kick out disruptive little monsters. And, a private school will also have the right to reject vouchers if they don't like the strings.
Recluse, you're not thinking about the big picture. Most minorities don't want to go to schools with whites. They do that now because public schools are about the only choice and they're forced to cater to minority interests. If your little private school throws up a confederate flag, or simply is unapologetically eurocentric, those minorities won't come knocking.
Most people who buy RAP CDs are whites. While your Catholic friend is worried about his kid in his private school, all his white neighbor kids who go to public schools are learning to be black and worship Micheal King (MLK Jr.). And, those white neighbor kids will grow up and force that old private school to give racial preferences to black students.
2003-04-20 10:24 | User Profile
A private school has a right to kick out disruptive little monsters. And, a private school will also have the right to reject vouchers if they don't like the strings."
I can already see the headline: "Justice Dept to investigate disciplinary policies of schools accepting voucher students, alleges minorities disproportionately suspended, expelled." The time to reject them is now.
Recluse, you're not thinking about the big picture. Most minorities don't want to go to schools with whites.
It doesn't take many Antwans who've decided to quit "acting White" to wreck a school. The conservatives who are trying to sell voucers are always telling us that the idea has widespread support in minority communities, if not with their NEA-controlled leadership, and let's face it, there aren't a lot of successful, mostly black private schools for them to choose from. And one of the things I resent most about non-Whites is their refusal or inability to see the damage they do to White communities and institutions (there are a very few exceptions, Larry Elder and Walter Williams writing about interracial crime comes to mind, but that hasn't led them to the logical next step, calling for an end to forced integration) so you know when little Rashad gets out of control his parents are going to blame Whitey, which means the schools are going to have to devote a lot of time and resources to dealing with it and the education of the White kids will begin to suffer.
They do that now because public schools are about the only choice and they're forced to cater to minority interests. If your little private school throws up a confederate flag, or simply is unapologetically eurocentric, those minorities won't come knocking.
Those kinds of schools would be nice, if extremely rare, but I'm dealing with the real world here, mostly Whites schools that aren't openly racial, places where White parents are working their tails off to provide a decent education for their kids. Those are the places that will be destroyed by vouchers.
Most people who buy RAP CDs are whites. While your Catholic friend is worried about his kid in his private school, all his white neighbor kids who go to public schools are learning to be black and worship Micheal King (MLK Jr.). And, those white neighbor kids will grow up and force that old private school to give racial preferences to black students.
*They're not going to stop watching MTV just because they've transferred to a private school, but I will certainly agree that getting White kids out of public schools is a good thing. Of course, if the parents of these little Wiggers haven't realized that by now, why would vouchers suddenly wake them up? I suspect the number of racially aware Whites whose children are only in public schools because they can't afford to place them in private schools, the ones we want to help with vouchers, is pretty small. But that's one of the great things about state's rights, you have a lot of different laboratories to try these experiments in, so we'll get a chance to see how who's right, hopefully before this idea does too much damage. *
2003-04-20 16:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by Recluse@Apr 20 2003, 10:24 **
Those kinds of schools would be nice, if extremely rare, but I'm dealing with the real world here, mostly Whites schools that aren't openly racial, places where White parents are working their tails off to provide a decent education for their kids. Those are the places that will be destroyed by vouchers.
**
You're forgetting the magic of the market place. A full-tilt voucher program would put $7500/year in the hands of parents to spend on their children's education as they see fit. Small schools will spring up like mushrooms after a spring rain catering to every conceivable niche. There will be special schools for discipline problems, besides schools for math whizzes, budding mucisians, and jocks.
You're also forgetting that human groups want to live separately. It's natural for blacks to want to be with blacks, whites with whites.
Which isn't to say that the problems you foresee won't be there, but they'll be manageable and will grow more manageable over time.
The main thing is to kill the teachers' unions and expand choices for all parents.
Walter
2003-04-20 17:48 | User Profile
Vouchers while not a perfect system, would surely be a step in the right direction. One must bear in mind, too, that the liberal education establishment and its allies in the legal system and academe will attempt to blunt any positive benefits of a voucher system. The aforemention claques know that supporters of vouchers have a large constituency of racially conscious whites and haters of the educational establishment and its teachings. In brief, voucher supporters are the enemy, a tag we wear with pride.
2003-04-20 17:49 | User Profile
Property prices around good public schools would drop too, giving more choice to white parents where to live. Private schools getting more affordable would put a great obstacle to the indoctrination children go through. With white parents having relatively few children while paying disproportionately for public schooling of Hispanics and blacks, sending their children to private schools will be a relatively more affordable choice.
Of course, it sounds too good to be true. The government will probably find the ways to make it more "fair".
Have whites in the US become akin to Jews, without their homeland where they can live among people culturally, mentally and temperamentally close to them? What about a reservation for white people? :th:
2003-04-20 21:33 | User Profile
Well, I think this voucher system is fraught with peril. The neocons are selling it as a panacea for the problems of urban public schools and it has the stench of tikkun olam all over it. They're desperate to get those embarrassing black and brown test scores up and if they have to destroy every White private school to do it they won't hesitate for a moment. More here on government interference:
Conservatives are going to wake up one morning to discover that theyââ¬â¢ve won the battle and lost the war over vouchers. Unable to stem the continuing decline of our government schools in spite of hard-fought (and many victorious) battles over condoms, health texts, the Pledge of Allegiance, and phonics, many conservatives have chosen to rally behind the banner of school choice, better known as vouchers. Voucher proponents have predicted that the ââ¬Åfree marketââ¬Â competition resulting from vouchers will improve government schools and simultaneously ââ¬Åbreak the back of the unions.ââ¬Â
Conservative belief in the efficacy of vouchers to cure school ills has made support for vouchers a litmus test in many elections. Conservatives who oppose vouchers are sometimes considered traitors to the cause and maybe even moles for the NEA. Conservative voucher supporters either ignore or downplay arguments against vouchers based upon their negative effects upon private schools. The third position, which supports neither vouchers nor the NEA protectionist position, has received little attention in the major media. Nevertheless, the third position has been slowly turning the tide. Particularly among conservatives, many now see the damage that vouchers will cause and no longer support efforts to promote them. Unfortunately, many key organizations remain committed to vouchers. Perhaps theyââ¬â¢ve staked too much of their reputation on this issue, and itââ¬â¢s embarrassing to reverse themselves at this point. But if they donââ¬â¢t, their embarrassment promises to be much greater when the whole movement is co-opted by the liberals. And co-opted it will be.
Liberals have been masterful at turning conservative issues to their benefitââ¬âtaking the original concept, then tweaking it to achieve their own purposes. Witness welfare reform. Weââ¬â¢re finally moving people off the welfare roles and into employment. But to accomplish it the liberals have gained tremendous expansion of daycare/childcare programs, taxpayer-financed job training, and guaranteed health care. Welfare reform thus far has simply traded off one form of socialism for a number of others.
Liberals are beginning to realize that the NEAââ¬â¢s opposition to vouchers speaks for only a fraction of their constituency. As blacks and other minority groups have discovered the possibilities of vouchers, they have begun to clamor for these tickets out of their ââ¬Åghettoââ¬Â schools. Polly Williams, the Wisconsin state legislator, former welfare mother, and former campaign manager for Jesse Jackson, led the way, almost singlehandedly pushing through the landmark Milwaukee voucher program.
But Polly Williams was only the first of many liberal Democrats to support vouchers. Hugh Price, head of the National Urban League, recognizes that a good education is absolutely essential for blacks to compete successfully in what he calls a ââ¬Åcapitalist democracy.ââ¬Â Before a mostly black audience at their national convention, Mr. Price suggested that voucher programs are a viable alternative to public schools (Riley, Jason L., ââ¬ÅThe Quota Cultureââ¬â¢s Slow Demise,ââ¬Â The Wall Street Journal, August 13, 1997). Mr. Priceââ¬â¢s remarks only slightly preceded the release of a Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll showing that 64% of black Americans support taxpayer support for children to attend any school, including religious institutions (ââ¬ÅPopular Support for Parental Choice Grows,ââ¬Â Ed Facts, Family Research Council, August 29, 1997).
Recently retired Representative Floyd H. Flake, a black, Democratic congressman from New York, has been one of the first to recognize the demands of his constituents on this issue and has led the charge to try to get vouchers for low-income families approved by Congress (ââ¬ÅFederal File,ââ¬Â Education Week, November 19, 1997).
Columnist Donald Lambro warns, ââ¬ÅGrowing support for school choice plans in the black community is being matched by growing support among Democrats in Congress. Other Democrat members of Congress who have also supported tuition vouchers for the poor (although that doesnââ¬â¢t guarantee they will support all vouchers) include New Jersey Senator Bob Torricelli, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, Louisiana Senators Mary Landrieu and John Breaux, and Delaware Senator Joe Biden (Lambro, Donald, ââ¬ÅSchool choiceââ¬â¢s time is coming soon,ââ¬Â Orange County Register, November 3, 1997).
Around the country, other Democrats are following suit. In Texas, Democratic Lieutenant Governor, Bob Bullock agreed to serve as honorary chairman of ââ¬Å...that stateââ¬â¢s leading pro-voucher group, Putting Children First.ââ¬Â Pennsylvania Representative, Dwight Evans, another Democrat, ââ¬Åsponsored a bill to give students in Philadelphiaââ¬â¢s low-performing schools publicly funded $5,500 scholarships to attend private schools. A seventeen-member Pennsylvania panelââ¬âthe Legislative Commission on Restructuring Pennsylvaniaââ¬â¢s Urban Schoolsââ¬âhad among its members both Republicans and Democrats, two university presidents, six lawmakers, and representatives of business, teachers, and school administrators. The panel included among it recommendations, the provision of tuition vouchers for poor children. The recommendations are intended to be used as the basis for legislation in the next few monthsââ¬Â (Hendrie, Caroline, ââ¬ÅPanel Proposes Breaking up Phila. District,ââ¬Â Education Week, January 14, 1998).
Yet another Democrat, Anita Nelam is organizing a state education summit to kick off a ballot drive to amend the Michigan state constitution to allow public money to go to private schools (Johnston, Robert C., ââ¬ÅSchool Choice Picks Up New Allies in States,ââ¬Â Education Week, December 10, 1997). Some might think Democratic support of vouchers a good thing. Doesnââ¬â¢t it help the cause if more people support vouchers? Well, it depends on what you want to accomplish with vouchers. If the goal is to make it possible for some children to move from horrible schools to better schools, then vouchers might accomplish that goal temporarily. If the goal is to provide free market competition among schools and a better education for all, then vouchers are not the solution, no matter who backs them. Vouchers will introduce into private schools some of the very problems we find in government schools. The difference between a short-term fix for a few children and long-term educational improvement for all becomes clear when we look briefly at the history of vouchers. Proposition 174 in California was one of the first major efforts. This was a ââ¬Åfire wallââ¬Â voucher that was supposed to protect private schools that took vouchers from any additional government intrusion. Most people failed to recognize the intrusion built into the voucher itself with its requirement that schools ââ¬Å...establish academic accountability based on national standards.ââ¬Â They also ignored the fact that the State Board of Education would be given the authority to ââ¬Å...require each... scholarship-redeeming school to choose and administer tests reflecting national standards....ââ¬Â (quoted from Proposition 174).
That initiative failed, and exit polls revealed that the major reason was the ââ¬Åfire wall.ââ¬Â Most people wanted more government control of private schools that accepted vouchers than was presently in place. One of the ploys used by voucher opponents in that campaign was the accurate observation that vouchers might be used to attend schools run by witches. **Ever since Prop 174 went down to defeat, the results of that poll have been taken into account with succeeding attempts. Thus we have seen restrictions against voucher use for religious schools and an increasing willingness to allow government intrusion and control of private schools that receive vouchers.
Many conservatives and liberals might think this a small price to pay to ââ¬Årescueââ¬Â children from some of the worst schools, especially in inner cities. But they ignore the consequences of government intervention in private schools.** Those at the local level of government-run schooling know about the unintended ill effects of outside interference from Sacramento or Albany or wherever the state capital happens to be located, or, in more recent years, all the mandates from the Feds out of Washington D.C. Having to accommodate all of the edu-fads and regulations from higher up consumes a huge amount of instructional time. Private schools have much greater control over their time and how it is used so that students spend more time on real learning tasks. Itââ¬â¢s no surprise they can do a better job. Start saddling private schools with the same sort of oversight your local public school endures and it wonââ¬â¢t take long for their results to follow the same academic nosedive and end up equally non-productive.
Watching the battle over vouchers for D.C. children last year demonstrated just how much private school autonomy Congress was willing to sacrifice for the sake of vouchers. The voucher-receiving schools would not be able to require students to attend religion classes or services. Thus, a Catholic school, whose mission includes training children in the Catholic faith, would be denied the ability to accomplish one of its primary missions. If they cannot teach children that the reason for truthfulness relates to pleasing God, they have undermined both their mission and their effectiveness as they lose their religious ââ¬Ålever of motivation.ââ¬Â How long do you think any religious school will continue to maintain high academic standards once deprived of the ability to teach religion and require students to at least act like they believe it?
Those who are not religious or those who believe that religion and education can and should be kept separate probably see no problem here. Many liberals will fall into these two camps. They would be happy to see private schools focusing on ââ¬Åreligion-freeââ¬Â academics that at least enable some children access to a better academic education. On the other hand, many conservatives are religious and are not eager to see religious schools denuded of their faith-based missions. Can you envision the clash as conservatives and liberals try to construct a voucher pleasing to both sides?
I predict that the liberals will win this one. Conservatives have put so much effort into popularizing the idea of vouchers that they will be reluctant to abandon their flagship. I expect that, like Congress, they will be willing to compromise a great deal rather than abandon an issue that has become a standard bearer for the conservative cause. Issues on which conservatives will probably cave in include demonstrations of faith, attendance or participation in religious practices or religious classes, inclusion of religion across the curriculum, testing requirements, and admission and expulsion policies. Typical of the rationalization that is already taking place is World magazine publisher Joel Belzââ¬â¢s statement: ââ¬ÅIn time of war, it is sometimes necessary to concede an otherwise sound position to gain a larger strategic advantage. Such a time has come in the funding of education. Yes, it would normally be unwise to let the state gain any leverage at all in private-school efforts. But if it helps bring down the statist system, which it will, it will be worth the temporary compromiseââ¬âand the short-term risksââ¬Â (Belz, Joel, ââ¬ÅTrustbusters,ââ¬Â World, January 17, 1998).
It is probably important to take a quick sidestep to address Belzââ¬â¢s confidence in the downfall of the ââ¬Åstatist system.ââ¬Â I see no reason to place any confidence in vouchers to bring down the system. I have to assume that a major part of that system to be brought down is the teacher unions, since this has been a central goal from early on. The logic behind this assumption is that voucher-receiving schools will not be controlled by teachers unions. Vouchers will shift a huge percentage of students from government-run to privately-run schools, shifting thousands of teachers and their dues out from under the thumb of the NEA and its minions. However, the number of people who will actually move their children to private schools remains unknown; many people will select a school based on its proximity to home more than any other factor. Also, there is no guarantee that teachers in private schools will not join a union or form their own. Given the historically low wages for teachers in private education, faced with the influx of voucher dollars, there is bound to be tremendous pressure for teachers to get ââ¬Åtheir fair share.ââ¬Â Yet another factor that makes ââ¬Åbreaking the back of the unionââ¬Â debatable is the affiliation and probable eventual merger of the two largest teacher unions, the NEA with 2.3 million members and the AFT with 950,000 members (Archer, Jeff, ââ¬ÅNEA Leaders Agree in Concept To Affiliate With AFL-CIO,ââ¬Â Education Week, January 14, 1997). As the two unions move closer together, the coordination of their efforts will offset any reduction in the ranks brought about by vouchers.
Liberals, pushed by an immense black and minority lobby focused on academic opportunity rather than private school autonomy, will hold the trump card. It will be very difficult for conservatives to change position now based on their dawning realization of the potential harm to private schools. Minority groups might well accuse conservatives of suddenly opposing vouchers for racist reasons rather than to protect the educational integrity of private schools. They might try to paint private schools as bastions of racism and white segregation. Conservatives might well be trapped into either an embarrassing denunciation of vouchers or accepting those with restrictions required by the liberals.
The crucial issue that needs to be debated is private school autonomy. Private schools have long provided an absolutely essential option with their ability to provide a faith-based education that supports a theistic worldview. Those of us who see such an education as the only true education should not be willing to sacrifice such schools in this political shell game. Voucher proponents insist that private schools can drop out of the program if the regulation gets too intrusive. However, the reality is that if two private schools serve the same geographic area and offer an education that appeals to the same audience, if only one of those schools chooses to accept vouchers, the other is likely to go out of business. Very few parents will support the principle-based stand against taking government money by paying to send their children to the voucher-resistant school.
As for ââ¬Ådropping out,ââ¬Â I think it unlikely that most private schools would find themselves able to do so. The reality is that once they started receiving voucher money, they would increase teacher salaries (widely recognized as inadequate at most private schools) and expand their facilities to accommodate their larger student population. They might well build that gym theyââ¬â¢ve always wanted. Once contracts have been negotiated, loans have been obtained, and students are enrolled, itââ¬â¢s nigh impossible to go back to where they were. Consequently, as new regulations are imposed, private schools might well find themselves coerced by circumstances into a loss of freedom they never envisioned.
As far as the academics, private schools are likely to do a better job for some years. However, as regulations demand inclusion of politically-correct classes, and as class time has to be allocated to prep students for tests aligned with the national goals, even the academics will suffer. In the long run, private schools receiving vouchers are likely to become clones of their government-run counterparts. Essentially what will happen is that the school system will shift from being socialist (government-owned and operated) to fascist (privately-owned, but government-controlled) with the same end result: schools will exist to please and serve the government rather than families and students.
For evidence of what is likely to happen, we can look to a number of European countries where government funding of private schools has been in place for many years. Charles L Glennââ¬â¢s study, published by the U.S. Department of Education under the title Choice of Schools in Six Nations, describes how homogenous education becomes when the government picks up the tab. Illustrative is his description of the situation in France: ââ¬ÅHow much real choice exists in French education? Twenty years ago Didier Piveteau lamented that ââ¬Ëbecause of the close relationship created in 1958 between Catholic and government schools, it may be said that, apart from religion, the curriculum of the Catholic school has no distinctive features.ââ¬â¢Ã¢â¬Â He goes on to say that, ââ¬ÅBy 1981, Socialist Minister of Education Alain Savary pointed out, 14 percent of the Catholic schools provided no religious instruction at all and 24 percent of them regarded school climate alone as the essence of their religious instructionââ¬Â (p. 42).
Shifting to Great Britain, Glenn tells us, ââ¬ÅDespite this extensive accommodation of confessional diversity within publicly funded education, parents still may not enjoy sharply profiled choices among schools. The effect of supervision by local education authorities has led to a great deal of uniformity between council and voluntary schools, while secularization has weakened the confessional identity of many of the latter. ââ¬ËDenominational bodies, though they have won the right to receive considerable public aid whilst retaining the power to appoint teachers of a particular faith, now in practice often consider themselves fortunate to obtain a teacher or lecturer of any religion or of noneââ¬â¢Ã¢â¬Â (Glenn, p. 115, quoting James Murphy, Church, State, and Schools in Britain, 1800-1970, London 1971).
**Both logic and the history of government-funding of private schools in other countries demonstrate the likely results of adopting taxpayer-funded voucher systems. Conservatives need to reverse course before itââ¬â¢s too late. Vouchers are a Faustian bargain with an enormous, hidden price tag.[/] é
Cathy Duffy is the author of Government Nannies: The Cradle-to-Grave Agenda of Goals 2000 and Outcome Based Education and the two-volume Christian Home Educatorsââ¬â¢ Curriculum Manual.
[url=http://www.chef-missouri.com/Articles/CD_1.htm]http://www.chef-missouri.com/Articles/CD_1.htm[/url]
2003-04-20 21:40 | User Profile
Recluse,
I agree with you that the idea will be subverted and "improved" to be counter-productive for the interests of white parents.
2003-04-21 05:17 | User Profile
Recluse:
There are no panaceas in life.
Vouchers won't solve all of our problems, and there will be problems in their implementation as you say. However, like CCW statutes and the flat income tax, vouchers are tactical maneuvering against the Racial Extortion Coalition that has us in its grips.
Remember that the main battles lie ahead - the best guess I've read for CWII is around 2020. In the meantime, vouchers will afford us a little separate space and some time to repair the spiritual damage to the white sense of self wrought by 40 years of relentless anti-white indoctrination. CCW statutes will help to arm us and to disarm the black and brown criminal elements. The flat income tax would help us to keep more resources in our families and communities and thus away from blacks and browns.
And when the battle does come, we'll be in a better positon to fight and win it.
Walter
2003-04-21 19:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by Recluse@Apr 20 2003, 21:33 ** Liberals have been masterful at turning conservative issues to their benefitââ¬âtaking the original concept, then tweaking it to achieve their own purposes. Witness welfare reform. Weââ¬â¢re finally moving people off the welfare roles and into employment. But to accomplish it the liberals have gained tremendous expansion of daycare/childcare programs, taxpayer-financed job training, and guaranteed health care. Welfare reform thus far has simply traded off one form of socialism for a number of others.**
I can't see that welfare reform as a bad thing, even if it has been somewhat of a trade of one form of socialism for another (welfare vs. daycare). Daycare is axiomatic with welfare reduction because welfare queens can't run off to work without someone to care for their little broodlings. However, maybe with these animals working, they'll have less time and incentive to make more babies. And, the daycare is doing a much better job raising their children they they would have done (unless the daycare runs BET and MTV all day).
However, it is not axiomatic that vouchers will cause public schools to be replaced by another socialism. Vouchers leave liberals in a very disadvantaged position. And, liberals have no hope of benefiting from vouchers as much as they benefit from the lack of vouchers.
As blacks and other minority groups have discovered the possibilities of vouchers, they have begun to clamor for these tickets out of their ââ¬Åghettoââ¬Â schools
Members of the Stupid Party insist that blacks are really conservative. They provide us the example of blacks supporting vouchers. But, blacks support vouchers not out of conservative values but out of hating whitey. They want to get their kids into all-black schools. Their black kids couldn't do any worse than now. And, whites aren't helped by blacks in the classroom. You don't disagree, do you? White liberals are overwhelmingly against vouchers.
If the goal is to provide free market competition among schools and a better education for all, then vouchers are not the solution, no matter who backs them. Vouchers will introduce into private schools some of the very problems we find in government schools.
Some voucher laws insist standardized tests. Talk about whining about gnats. These tests are pretty harmless and conservatives should fight to keep these tests focused on core academic subjects. These certainly don't offer any significant reason to object to vouchers. And, the government (and taxpayers) have some right for an obective measure to see that they're getting what the vouchers are paying for (an education).
** (Proposition 174) failed, and exit polls revealed that the major reason was the ââ¬Åfire wall.ââ¬Â Most people wanted more government control of private schools that accepted vouchers than was presently in place. **
"Most people who voted against it" wanted more government control. But, the reason it still failed is because of lack of support from those deluded conservatives who voted against it. And, the reason any large number of people wanted more government control is because they didn't go to voucher schools but to public schools that taught them the importance of Big Brother. GET THE POINT?
The voucher-receiving schools would not be able to require students to attend religion classes or services. Thus, a Catholic school, whose mission includes training children in the Catholic faith, would be denied the ability to accomplish one of its primary missions.
The students who already go to Catholic School will still continue to go to the religion classes. Many of the new students who arrive via vouchers will also want to attend religion classes else they would choose to take their vouchers to a non-catholic school. These are new people for the Catholic school to reach with its mission. And, even those students who don't want to attend religoius classes will still be exposed daily to Cathlic values and atmoshphere, and they can still be kicked out if they disrupt the Catholic school. Besides, the Catholic school can simply reject vouchers if it doesn't like that string.
This is not a reason to object to vouchers. Simply object to that string and fight for voucher laws that won't try to change the character of a religious school. Besides, it's more important to save kids from public schools than to worry that Johnny might lose his Catholic faith because little Max doesn't go to religion classes.
There is no guarantee that teachers in private schools will not join a union or form their own.
Sure there's a gurantee; unions cannot exist in competative industries. That's the reason that even though nearly every public school teacher in the country is in a union, virtually no private school teacher is. If the NEA could get their hooks into private school teachers, they would already have done so. If a private school unionized, it would almost certainly put that school out of business.
On the other hand, the NEA and AFT violatenly fight vouchers. And, I wouldn't be surprized if the author of the article I'm quoting is an NEA member (or otherwise sympathetic). Every teacher leaving public schools for private schools is a loss of power for the NEA.
**Voucher proponents insist that private schools can drop out of the program if the regulation gets too intrusive. However, the reality is that if two private schools serve the same geographic area and offer an education that appeals to the same audience, if only one of those schools chooses to accept vouchers, the other is likely to go out of business. **
Nonsense. If the schools are fundamentally the same then it is absurd to posit that one school accepts vouchers and the other one doesn't. If one school doesn't accept vouchers it will be because of an onerous string. And, that onerous string is the distinction that will win it students and keep it in business -- just like how private schools today compete against "free" public schools.
The liberal who wrote this article completely ignores the hugely important factor of liberating the children already in public schools. It's simply wrong to object to vouchers because of a few small threats while ignoring the vouchers' massive oppertunity to improve education and society. America is going down the toilet, do you have anything to offer that might turn America around?
2003-04-21 23:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by Happy Hacker@Apr 21 2003, 13:55 The liberal who wrote this article completely ignores the hugely important factor of liberating the children already in public schools. It's simply wrong to object to vouchers because of a few small threats while ignoring the vouchers' massive oppertunity to improve education and society. America is going down the toilet, do you have anything to offer that might turn America around?
Home schoolers who are opposed to Goals 2000 are liberals? :blink: That's going to be a big surprise to everyone who's involved with or who knows anything about that movement. No one here has a solution, but I think the wisest course of action would be for Whites to keep building alternatives to public schools with as little interference from ZOG as possible, and vouchers mean more government control, not less.
2003-04-22 01:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by Recluse@Apr 21 2003, 23:30 ** Home schoolers who are opposed to Goals 2000 are liberals? :blink: That's going to be a big surprise to everyone who's involved with or who knows anything about that movement. No one here has a solution, but I think the wisest course of action would be for Whites to keep building alternatives to public schools with as little interference from ZOG as possible, and vouchers mean more government control, not less. **
No, vouchers mean less government control. You should spend more time looking that the 90% of kids who attend public schools vs. the minority of the minority of kids in conservative public schools who might end up taking standardized tests (saving their parents thousands of dollars) and their still conservative school.
The article is twisted and I handily refuted its arguments. When one's arguments are so weak, one suspects disingenuousness.
It's real simple, the status quo is killing this country. And, it's sad to object to vouchers on the grounds that while they might liberate the children of public schools and thus change the way the whole country thinks and the direction we're going, private schools will be tempted to take the money even if there are a few very small strings attached and that will cause those private schools to be destroyed. NONSENSE and petty.
EDIT: The article appears on the Christian Home Educators Fellowship. I suspect what the author really fears is losing home schoolers to private schools. After all, many home schoolers are people who can't afford private school. Homeschoolers cannot benefit from vouchers. And, as far as I know, the author is a neocon nut who is wrong about numerous issues because he's blinded to practical reality by flag and bible waving.
2003-04-22 02:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by Happy Hacker@Apr 21 2003, 19:07 **The article is twisted and I handily refuted its arguments. When one's arguments are so weak, one suspects disingenuousness.
It's real simple, the status quo is killing this country. And, it's sad to object to vouchers on the grounds that while they might liberate the children of public schools and thus change the way the whole country thinks and the direction we're going, private schools will be tempted to take the money even if there are a few very small strings attached and that will cause those private schools to be destroyed. NONSENSE and petty.
EDIT: The article appears on the Christian Home Educators Fellowship. I suspect what the author really fears is losing home schoolers to private schools. After all, many home schoolers are people who can't afford private school. Homeschoolers cannot benefit from vouchers. And, as far as I know, the author is a neocon nut who is wrong about numerous issues because he's blinded to practical reality by flag and bible waving.**
Who are you trying to convince here? Let the readers decide. I think she - yes, SHE, makes her case very well for a - what is she this post, a liberal or a neocon? Stop trying to demonize these people. I've heard them before and they're just decent Americans trying to keep the government from destroying their children's future. What is it about vouchers that turns you into a hate-filled f*cking zhid?
2003-04-22 22:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by Recluse@Apr 22 2003, 02:54 ** What is it about vouchers that turns you into a hate-filled f*cking zhid? **
It's the absolute absurdity of continuing to force everyone to pay for the school of the government's choice because if parents get to choose where to spend their tax money, oh my gawd, the government might want a standardized test or might not allow the money to be used for religion class.
It's the absolute absurdity so support of flushing this nation down the toilet because you're against the one thing that actually offers some hope of changing the course of this nation. It is primarily the schools that train the population how to think and what to believe. But, you spend your time blowing at the smoke (problems you see in society) while the liberals and neocons get to use your money to indoctrinate everyone to be against what you claim to stand for. I can't see that position as anything but brain-fked. If the standardized test is too much, opt out and pay what you're paying now anyway, but don't fk everyone else, including your childen who will have to grow up in the world of people educated by government schools. But, OOH NOO, you can't opt out, getting back some control of thousands of your tax dollars in exchange for a standardized test is just too tempting.
You might as well take the next step and tell us how government schools actually preserve conservative values (you can find such articles around, such as on the NEA website).
After vouchers become normal then we can start fighting to bypass the voucher and allow people to deduct their education expenses from their tax liability and cut those small strings tied to the vouchers. Your thinking needs to become more pragmatic rather than de facto defense of the status quo -- unless you like where this nation is headed.
2003-04-23 11:30 | User Profile
My definition of absurdity is expecting the Democrat/Republicans to start handing out vouchers without destructive strings attached. Clearly, you trust them much more than I do. We'll see who's right soon enough. I'll support others having the option to use vouchers but if my son was still in a private school - and if I can take a kid out of public schools anybody can, and that was before vouchers - I'd be fighting tooth and nail to keep his school out of the voucher program. Trust Zog? Sure.
2003-04-23 18:56 | User Profile
Whatever your expectations from Democrats and Republicans, Recluse, vouchers come without 99% of the strings that public schools have. And, you and your private school can always continue as now, without vouchers. There's a huge upside and NO DOWNSIDE other than your worry of temptation to take vouchers ("stop me before I have a choice"). But, don't worry about being tempted, all existing voucher programs are only offered to students attending substandard public schools, so children already in private schools don't qualify.
The most onerous string of the Colorado voucher law is: THE NONPUBLIC SCHOOL DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ELIGIBLE CHILDREN IN ADMISSIONS, DISMISSALS, OR OTHER RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES OF PARENTS OR ELIGIBLE CHILDREN, ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, OR DISABILITY (exact words of the law)
Robert E. Lee Bible-Thumper Acadamy cannot declare a little atheist boy to be inadmissible if the school wants to take vouchers. If the school wants all students to agree to a Statement of Faith then they don't take the voucher. Real simple. But, even if the school still wants to take the voucher, so what?
To accept vouchers, they must accept the kid. But, the kid will still have to attend religion classes and chapel services! He'll still have to abide by the school's standard of conduct! And, he can still be kicked out for being disruptive! BUT, HE WON'T WANT TO GO THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!
And, even if the kid still wants to go, the school should look at it as an oppertunity to win him over. A few such kids in a school won't have any significant impact on the quality of the school.
Besides, once we get vouchers, we don't declare victory and go home. It's called progress, not a panacea. Just like liberals will be trying to add strings, we'll be fighting to remove strings. If the liberals are making progress with the strings, then more schools will reject vouchers. It would still be better than what we have now. And, getting rid of all the strings is very possible (e.g. tax credits and deductions for private colleges have no strings).
It seems to me that you must concede that vouchers are magnitudes better than public schools but that vouchers are not perfect and will tempt those in "perfect" (free of government influence) private schools into voucher schools. I can't think of any more self-sabotaging thinking. BTW, as far as I know, technically, private schools already are not allowed to discriminate in admissions against people for race, national origin, etc. (excluding religion). Private schools are not free of government influence, but a generation more respectful of private schools might be willing to cut back on government interference. Is this concept beyond you, because I have yet to see you pay the slightest notice of this monumental point.
Or, maybe you just like the government taking hundreds of billions of our dollars to indoctrinate in government temples the future adults of our nation.
2003-04-23 19:01 | User Profile
HH,
You got any contact info on that Robert E. Lee Bible-Thumper Academy?
B)
2003-04-26 05:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by Happy Hacker@Apr 23 2003, 12:56 ** BTW, as far as I know, technically, private schools already are not allowed to discriminate in admissions against people for race, national origin, etc. (excluding religion). Private schools are not free of government influence, but a generation more respectful of private schools might be willing to cut back on government interference. Is this concept beyond you, because I have yet to see you pay the slightest notice of this monumental point.**
Your reading comprehension problems surface once again. (Remember Mr. Cathy Duffy?) No one has claimed that private schools can discriminate, what I've said from the start is that vouchers will encourage non-Whites who are obsessed with discrimination to transfer to unsuspecting private schools, bringing their thuggish government bureaucrats with them. Vouchers will do nothing to diminish the size and influence of public schools because 1) most Whites who are dissatisfied with their local public schools have already found an alternative, it's not that difficult and 2) the Democrat/Republicans that you adore will ensure that any defections from public schools will be replaced by fresh infusions of Bantus and Mestizos. What vouchers will do is encourage people where school systems - now pay attention here, this is common sense and I know you have a problem with that - are the most dysfunctional, people who have Pavlovian reactions to government handouts, to grab the goodies and run to the nearest White private school. We've been there done that, and we don't want any part of it.
2003-04-27 14:31 | User Profile
School Vouchers?
Has anyone asked and answered the question ââ¬ÅAre school vouchers, or any federal school activity/funding, constitutional? Hell no, the federal is not constitutionally delegated any authority or power over local schools or the funding of them.
Rather than bicker over fires (issues) of disruption and diversion set by enemies of America and Americans why donââ¬â¢t American citizen simply support and enforce the Constitution? Allan