|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
 Posted - 02/20/2002 : 21:01:19
|
Right now on this web site they are asking what we think of school vouchers. There are not enough choices for me. I agree and disagree with both of the arguments below (copied from that site). Help me out, a discission must be made. 
http://www.vote.com/
Pro :
The vast majority of school vouchers are used for religious schools. Thomas Jefferson hailed the First Amendment for "building a wall of separation between church and State." That wall is violated when the State funds religious educational institutions.
Con :
Vouchers let parents choose among nonreligious and religious schools; the government doesn't have a say. Justice Antonin Scalia said, "Unless there's an endorsement of religion, I don't see why it matters if [government] money goes to a religious school."
*
Earth is the insane asylum for the universe.
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2002 : 06:29:23 [Permalink]
|
First of all, I think this little poll misses the major point of why many people are opposed to vouchers. Many in the ranks of the poor and the working class see this legislation as welfare for the rich, whether or not it actually is. The poor and working classes often could not come up with even the incidental expenditures of sending their children to a private school, unless the vouchers paid for 100% of the education, including everything from uniforms, to books, to transportation, to hot lunches. Furthermore, the money spent on vouchers may take badly needed resources from the public school sysytem. I am working class, and these sentiments are quite common.
Anyway, as far as Justice Scalia is concerned, I'll reserve my opinion of him as a human being, and stick to the topic at hand. Giving government money to a religious organization, regardless of the nature of that organization, is an endorsement of that same organization. If nothing else, it is an endorsement of that religious school over any other school that does not qualify for for the receipt of the same vouchers. Does anyone really believe that "The School of Satanic Arts" will qualify for government vouchers? What about Branch Davidians, Scientologists, or Rastafarians? I could even conceive the notion that the 'School of Atheistic Instruction' would be hard pressed to become acredited, even though the local Catholic Schools would be raking in the cash to augment their already tax exempt profits.
Does anyone really believe that the Fed will give parents vouchers, and say, "Here you go. You can send your kids to any darned school you please, regardless of little things like acredidation, and the methods of instruction." I somehow don't think teaching kids how to properly dance naked around a bonfire is going to help a school earn government acceptance. But, on the other hand, dunkin' them kids in the nearest river probably won't hurt.
Furthermore, once a religious or a private sector school turns in their earned vouchers, the government will be loathe to tell those institutions how to spend their money. If any profit is earned the funds can be used for missionary work, and self promotion. After all, if we told the churches that they can't use their voucher money to convert wayward souls, we would be violating the 'Exercise Clause' of the 1st Ammendment.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 07:09:57 [Permalink]
|
I haven't looked into how they propose vouchers to work. But in all practicality, it's not government money!
I don't understand why they want vouchers. Why don't they just deduct a percentage off peoples' taxes who choose to opt out of the public school system? Why collect the money, just to give it back? This is why I don't want vouchers.
They claim to know how much money is spent per child in every district. So if it is $5000 per kid, if you opt out, you get $5000 off your taxes. Simple. Where the parents send their kids should be of no concern to anyone in this discussion.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 07:15:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
First of all, I think this little poll misses the major point of why many people are opposed to vouchers. Many in the ranks of the poor and the working class see this legislation as welfare for the rich, whether or not it actually is. The poor and working classes often could not come up with even the incidental expenditures of sending their children to a private school, unless the vouchers paid for 100% of the education, including everything from uniforms, to books, to transportation, to hot lunches. Furthermore, the money spent on vouchers may take badly needed resources from the public school sysytem. I am working class, and these sentiments are quite common.
Anyway, as far as Justice Scalia is concerned, I'll reserve my opinion of him as a human being, and stick to the topic at hand. Giving government money to a religious organization, regardless of the nature of that organization, is an endorsement of that same organization. If nothing else, it is an endorsement of that religious school over any other school that does not qualify for for the receipt of the same vouchers. Does anyone really believe that "The School of Satanic Arts" will qualify for government vouchers? What about Branch Davidians, Scientologists, or Rastafarians? I could even conceive the notion that the 'School of Atheistic Instruction' would be hard pressed to become acredited, even though the local Catholic Schools would be raking in the cash to augment their already tax exempt profits.
Does anyone really believe that the Fed will give parents vouchers, and say, "Here you go. You can send your kids to any darned school you please, regardless of little things like acredidation, and the methods of instruction." I somehow don't think teaching kids how to properly dance naked around a bonfire is going to help a school earn government acceptance. But, on the other hand, dunkin' them kids in the nearest river probably won't hurt.
Furthermore, once a religious or a private sector school turns in their earned vouchers, the government will be loathe to tell those institutions how to spend their money. If any profit is earned the funds can be used for missionary work, and self promotion. After all, if we told the churches that they can't use their voucher money to convert wayward souls, we would be violating the 'Exercise Clause' of the 1st Ammendment.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson
The California Wiccans are in favor of vouchers. It would allow them to open a religious school. When vouchers were an issue in California, the Wiccans came out and told people why they were in favor of it. The Catholics rallied and swiftly put down the law they proposed in the first place.
I, personally, am against vouchers for a different reason. It violates the first amendment. The section that the prayer in school bunch forget about all the time. "shall make no law respecting or abridging freedom of religion". Funny how they remember the abridging but not the respecting. Giving government funds to religious institutions respects that religion. Therefore, violating the first amendment.
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 07:57:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I, personally, am against vouchers for a different reason. It violates the first amendment. The section that the prayer in school bunch forget about all the time. "shall make no law respecting or abridging freedom of religion". Funny how they remember the abridging but not the respecting. Giving government funds to religious institutions respects that religion. Therefore, violating the first amendment.
Oh, Val, this is the first misstep I recall seeing you make.
The 1st Amendment actually reads thus:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I lean towards allowing vouchers because I don't seem them as unconstitutional nor do I see them as skeptically objectionable, and I do see them as a possible incentive to increase public school quality, though to be honest I haven't researched this idea enough to hold to my opinions too strongly as yet.
I can, however, see objections politically, as outlined by Tim in his description of how the vouchers will be perceived.
On the mechanics of implementation, I think Tokyo may be on to something with the tax credit or refund or whatever.
I also take issue with the issue (whoever said it) that vouchers will take badly needed money from public schools. Conceding that financial matters aren't quite as simple as this makes it sound, if the public school receives x dollars to teach a kid, the school should not miss x dollars if it doesn't have to teach that kid. I understand the vagaries of planning staffing levels and contractual issues, etc., but this argument strikes me as bureaucracy justifying itself. "We need more money because we're big, but if we weren't so big we'd still need more money."
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 08:21:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I haven't looked into how they propose vouchers to work. But in all practicality, it's not government money!
I do not know how the program, if passed into law, will be implemented, but essentially I think that it is government money, or more precisely, all our money.
The vouchers would presumably originate with the Federal or State Government, and then allocated to the general population. Well, like all government programs, such as AFDC and medicare, (or medicaid, I forget which) the government attaches many strings. So, even though food stamps, for instance, may be available for the beneficiary to use at their own discretion, these food vouchers are distributed, and regulated by the government. And, I feel these vouchers could be regulated in the same way. This, of course, would create another problem--Who gets the vouchers, and who decides who gets the vouchers. This goes for both the individual and the school.
Whether one religious organization is for school vouchers, and another is against school vouchers is beside the point. If vouchers are offered, most for profit schools will rush to get on the bandwagon. And, just like you can't buy cigarettes with food stamps, legislators will try to decide what schools are okay for you to spend your vouchers on.
Finally, of course School Vouchers may violate the 'Establishment Clause', but the interpretation of the court is debatable. For instance, Cheif Justice Renquist seems to be of the popular opinion that the Establishment Clause refers to a State or National Church, probably through some twisted interpretation of Jefferson's 'separation of church and state', When actually the constitution mentions nothing of a national, state, or any other type of church. The 1st Ammendment says that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
It appears that some of our Supreme Court Justices mirror the opinion of Rush Limbaugh on this issue. "Only a lawyer could claim not to understand the plain meaning of those words. The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, . . . but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion." Which seems to include state support of religion as long as the state does not pick a favorite.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
Blair Nekkid
New Member
Canada
20 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 09:55:48 [Permalink]
|
I don't believe that vouchers set a very healthy precident. The logic supporting vouchers seems to be 'If I place no burden on the public school system then I have no obligation to support it!'. If a parent can divert their school taxes from public education, why are those of us who are child free required to pay school taxes at all?
It is my understanding that school taxes are, well... TAXES, not user fees. Everyone pays whether you use it or not.
Just my 2 cents (canadian 1.2 cents US)
Blair
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 10:15:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
why are those of us who are child free required to pay school taxes at all?
Those of us without kids should get a discount. I know that it is to everyone's benefit to have public education (I'm against it philosophically, but not practically, which is overriding  ), so I have no problem paying taxes that go directly to public education. But I shouldn't have to pay as much as a family with one kid, who shouldn't have to pay as much as a family with 3 kids, etc.
And to add insult to injury, we have these "child tax credits". I don't begrudge the people receiving them, but I think single people or married couples without kids should get a "less burden on social services" tax credit or something.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 02/21/2002 10:16:22 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 11:57:45 [Permalink]
|
I'm for school vouchers and not for them. First, if the child isn't in the school there is less burden on the public system to support that child in the school system. However, as was pointed out, even those who do not have children are required to pay school taxes. So the money doesn't just come from that particular family and would therefore be required to come from other tax payers who may or may not agree with vouchers and the educational system into which children are placed.
Returning to an individual the taxes paid for schools would amount to what filthy pointed out, a tax credit for the wealthy, who would payout more in taxes, while the average working individual would not pay enough in taxes to receive back enough to pay for most private schools.
Colorado's voucher proposal was based on a sliding scale of need. IOW, those who had the lowest earning income would receive money form the voucher fund first and the would scale the amount of funds received based on earnings. Which was designed to put the most 'at-risk' students in the position to receive vouchers.
Having had my child in private school, I can't say I wouldn't have minded vouchers for self serving reasons. However, vouchers would have interfered with my financial aid through the school itself. So, in essense what I would have paid would have been the same unless the voucher was large enough to cover more than my financial aid.
Vouchers have both good and bad around them. In some cases the voucher would not directly impact the out of pocket expenses a family would pay out to send their child to a private school.
---
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 13:08:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I, personally, am against vouchers for a different reason. It violates the first amendment. The section that the prayer in school bunch forget about all the time. "shall make no law respecting or abridging freedom of religion". Funny how they remember the abridging but not the respecting. Giving government funds to religious institutions respects that religion. Therefore, violating the first amendment.
Oh, Val, this is the first misstep I recall seeing you make.
The 1st Amendment actually reads thus:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I lean towards allowing vouchers because I don't seem them as unconstitutional nor do I see them as skeptically objectionable, and I do see them as a possible incentive to increase public school quality, though to be honest I haven't researched this idea enough to hold to my opinions too strongly as yet.
[/quote]
I recognize my misstatement of the first amendment. Your quote of the amendment is accurate. The meanings of both statements are similar.
But by funding the schools by vouchers, they are supporting (respecting) an establishment of religion. There are no guidelines to prevent government funds from being used for missionary work nor prostelyzing. In this way, school vouchers violate the first amendment. There is a case currently before the Supreme Court addressing this issue. It should be interesting to see how the court splits on this one.
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 13:23:16 [Permalink]
|
Frankly, I don't think it does violate the 1st Amendment, but I agree it will be interesting to see the Supreme Court take. What's the case?
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I don't think the actual phrasing of the amendment: "Congress shall pass now law respecting an establishment of religion..."
is the same as your paraphrase: "shall make now law respecting...religion."
The actual phrasing is specific and does not prohibit the acknowledgment or even respecting of religion itself, only establishments of it. And I don't see how vouchers equate to a law respecting an establishment of religion; rather, I see voucher laws as allowing citizens to exercise their freedom of religion.
I go back, though, to my reservations about the mechanics of implementation, just to give myself an out...
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 13:44:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I don't think the actual phrasing of the amendment: "Congress shall pass now law respecting an establishment of religion..."
is the same as your paraphrase: "shall make now law respecting...religion."
Garrette, you are correct, this is the heart of the debate over the Establishment clause, and an in depth discussion of the intent of the founding fathers, and common law would naturally follow. However, I, personally think, (and I hate comitting to an opinion--I may have to defend it later), that in this particular instance a church school would qualify as an "establishment."
As far as my tax money being spent to support this program is concerned, what's new? Portions of my personal income go towards the payment of all sorts of things that I get no benefit from. It's called paying my taxes.
Still, my biggest problem with vouchers lies within the realm of fair regulation.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 13:48:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Frankly, I don't think it does violate the 1st Amendment, but I agree it will be interesting to see the Supreme Court take. What's the case?
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I don't think the actual phrasing of the amendment: "Congress shall pass now law respecting an establishment of religion..."
is the same as your paraphrase: "shall make now law respecting...religion."
The actual phrasing is specific and does not prohibit the acknowledgment or even respecting of religion itself, only establishments of it. And I don't see how vouchers equate to a law respecting an establishment of religion; rather, I see voucher laws as allowing citizens to exercise their freedom of religion.
I go back, though, to my reservations about the mechanics of implementation, just to give myself an out...
My kids still love me.
The cases are Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 00-1751; Hannah Perkins School v. Simmons-Harris, 00-1777; Taylor v. Simmons-Harris, 00-1779.
link to news story
http://www.msnbc.com/news/710166.asp?0dm=C218N
A religious school tends to indicate an established religion. If the government gave you a check payable to you for education, then there wouldn't be the 1st amendment issue I see. It is the fact that money flows directly from the government to a religious institution which makes the voucher program unconstitutional. Direct financial support for a religious institution implies a support (respect) for that established religion and therefore violates the first amendment.
I agree that the implementation of this program is key to its constitutionality. It could concievably be run by a non-secular holding and accrediation company. There is also a question of whether people who home school their children are eligible for funding.
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 14:18:16 [Permalink]
|
Okay, with the further explanation, I agree with you.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 15:54:07 [Permalink]
|
The State of Florida implemented vouchers 2 years ago. At that time, there were only 2 schools that received a failing grade on the initial comprehensive test (both in Pensacola), which was implemented to provide a relative scale with which to assess which schools were going to be eligible for vouchers. The vouchers were given out via lottery and a few students (I don't recall how many exactly but I don't think it was more than 12) were on their merry ways to Pensacola Christian Academy or wherever. Last year after testing, both 'F' schools became 'B' schools and the voucher money taken away. There was grumbling about teachers stopping all normal instruction and doing practice tests all day for two weeks but little came of it.
It seems to me that situations like this will make no difference one way or the other from an economic or poitical standpoint. Six kids leaving a school will hardly affect its budget and if it motivates the faculty, so much the better. I think the problems will come when twenty or thirty kids are eligible. It's unclear whether a cost-per-kid includes school maintenance and teacher salaries. These are the things that won't change and will be much more difficult to pay for.
Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. You cannot win.
2. You cannot break even.
3. You cannot stop playing the game. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2002 : 17:32:21 [Permalink]
|
Consider the limiting case: all students leave a school district except one. Now the school system has only $5000 to provide an education for that student. Won't even pay for a teacher's salary, let alone a physical plant, books, supplies, and administrative paperwork.
Of course vouchers reduce the funding of public schools! It makes things worse for all the students who remain behind, and the more that leave, the worse it gets.
I think most of those who favor vouchers aren't interested in improving public schools. They're more interested in helping people, who otherwise couldn't afford it, send their kids to private religious schools where they can be force-fed prayers and creationism.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
