- comment
Cory Chandler - body
- Of course, you have school choice now: you can home school your children or enroll them in private school any time you like.
Your third point, therefore, isn't as much about "school choice" as "taxpayer-subsidized sectarian education." Otherwise, you'd be happy with a non-refundable credit for opting out of public education, up to the marginal, non-capital cost of educating the out-opted children.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Of course, that is an option for the rich or well-to-do. Not to mention families still have to pay for public education plus the education of their own children.
If an educated populace is the bedrock of a free society, then we shouldn't have any problems with student vouchers -- unless the goal is to hoard all education dollars into the hands of state bureaucrats.
The only - stress *only* - difference between school vouchers and driving all the money into public education is that parents are empowered to determine what institution their children will learn in the former. Not so in the latter.
Ergo, I have no problems with school vouchers at all, and am always shocked to discover that public school educators hate the idea so much.
- comment Cory Chandler
- body
- "Of course, that is an option for the rich or well-to-do. Not to mention families still have to pay for public education plus the education of their own children."
No, as I said, if you're not advocating taxpayer-subsidized sectarian education, a non-refundable credit would negate that argument: the credit returns to the lesser of (a) what he paid in tax, or (b) the marginal non-capital cost of his child's public education. Giving the taxpayer more for private education than he pays in tax (i.e., a refundable tax) is still a subsidy. Do wealthier people pay more in tax, resulting in greater value in the credit? Yes, but the poorer taxpayer with the smaller credit recapture is having his child's public education subsidized by the state anyway--and state subsidy is not appropriate for sectarian education.
After all, whether one can educate one's child in the school of one's choice is irrelevant to one's ability to educate one's child in the faith of one's choice, or to instill one's moral values in one's child--that can (and should) be done at home, in the church, in Sunday school, and the like.
Of course, as a Presbyterian educated in no small degree by Catholic nuns, I may be biased.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- state subsidy is not appropriate for sectarian education.
I disagree. Faith based organizations provide charitable services with federal and state funding.
Why not education?
- comment MR JMS
- body
- Tough call. For legal purposes though in Virginia you will only see a tax credit, not a voucher system.
All of your points are excellent. While I often label myself as a "moderate" it is simply because of the Choice and Gay Marraige issues. While I am pro-life and anti0gay marraige personally, I don't think government should be involved in either issue. That is an issue for society as a whole to develop our own set of morals on the issues.
I also do not believe that we can have a cookie cutter response to either issue on the federal level. Our morals in the Suburbs of DC and through out Virginia will be much different then Greenwich Village of Los Angeles. The devolution to state control begun by Speaker Gingrich should continue, especially on questions of social morality and the governments involvement.
- comment nova_middle_man
- body
- A slightly different spin
1. (Pro-life issues)
It's none of the governments business either way (same view as number 3 btw). Have an abortion don't have an abortion. Also, take the money spent for pro-choice and pro-life and give us all a tax break
2. (Homosexual marriage) Totally agree. with your analysis. One other thing, give civil union (whatever you want to call it) homosexuals the same benefits and rights as people who get married.
3. School Prayer
Totally agree with the choice part. Refresh me on prayer, what stops someone from praying in a public school again? Talking about silent prayer, I used to do it all the time in the 90s
P.S. for most of the leftwingish views go to raising kaine and the links off of that page
- comment Cory Chandler
- body
- Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that I supported faith-based initiatives (routing government funding through sectarian charitable organizations), FBIs are easily distinguished from private, sectarian schools. The distribution of public aid through the private charity is not, and ought not be, subject to doctrinal limitations: a Catholic church may decline to distribute aid money to a woman seeking an abortion, obviously, but it may not decline to provide (for example) food from its food bank because she's Jewish. Or an unwed mother. Or a practicing lesbian. So the sectarian charity can decline to provide a class of aid, but cannot pick and choose from among the available qualified recipients of that aid once it decides to distribute a particular class.
On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable for a Catholic school to decline to admit a Presbyterian student (provided, of course, that the school receives no government funding), just as it is perfectly reasonable for a yeshiva to decline to admit goyem. While such selectivity is reasonable from a religious perspective, it is not reasonable from a state funding perspective--of course the schools have the right to teach their respective catechisms, and the parents have the right to have their children educated therein, if the parents can afford the tuition. But the parent is not entitled to any assistance from the state for such selective, sectarian education--at least no more assistance than a refund of that portion of the taxes he has paid to underwrite his child's public education. The real issue, though, is that very few families actually pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefit from the public school system; it's rare to find a public school system where the marginal, non-capital expenses per child are more than the cost of private tuition in the surrounding area. And, because of this phenomenon, a mere refund of the tax actually paid, up to that marginal, non-capital expense per child, isn't going to be enough to let a parent put his child in a private school, without more. And that "more" is a subsidy.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Needless to say, I think we just flat out disagree on the voucher issue.
It seems to be working well in the Milwaukee, Washington, and Cleveland though, with those localities having turned back significant legal challenges.
Hasn't SCOTUS ruled in favor of student vouchers as recently as 2002?
(T)he parent is not entitled to any assistance from the state for such selective, sectarian education--at least no more assistance than a refund of that portion of the taxes he has paid to underwrite his child's public education
(1) Why only a portion?
(2) Why does the state not have an interest in ensuring its populace is not properly educated - public, private, or otherwise?
(3) Do you seriously believe that public schools are sanitized from any opinion-influencing whatsoever?
(4) Why shouldn't parents be able to educate their children in a manner they see fit? Who deems public education to be superior?
As for the selectivity argument, that seems entirely ancedotal (I have never seen an instance of a child being turned away from a Catholic academy based on religious conviction or lack thereof). Those schools who wished by design to be so exclusive (a yeshiva or seminary for instance) could always exercise the option of refusing vouchers.
I simply don't see the argument that diversity in education is a bad thing, and that monolithic state-controlled public education is good.
Am I missing a nuance or a silver bullet that fixes this?
- comment Cory Chandler
- body
- Why only a portion?
I suspect you may misunderstand me. By "portion," I'm referring to that bit of taxes that underwrite one's own child's public education. For example, if one pays $4,000 a year in tax (which, based on the average rate of 9.2% combined state and local taxes per person, implies an annual income of about $43,500 a year), and it costs $5,500 a year to educate one's child in public schools, one could be entitled to all $4,000 back in a non-redundable credit. One can't get all $5,500 back, because the $1,500 one didn't pay in taxes amounts to a subsidy. On the other hand, if it cost only $3,000 to educate one's child, one is entitled to only $3,000--because the other $1,000 in taxes paid is being used for other services (like roads and public utility services, &c.) and moving one's child to private school doesn't one's consumption of them.
"Why does the state not have an interest in ensuring its populace is not properly educated?"
The state does have an interest in ensuring children receive a sound education, but not a sectarian one. A child's sectarian education is a prerogative of the parent. After all, just because the parent can't afford to send the child to a private, sectarian school doesn't mean the parent can't inculcate the child in sectarian doctrine, morality, or faith: the parent can do so himself, or by sending the child to Sunday school, or by taking the child to church, mosque, or temple. There is no state interest in a religious education, only a parental interest--and that parental interest can be exercised without requiring the state to subsidize sectarian schools.
"Do you seriously believe that public schools are sanitized from any opinion-influencing whatsoever?"
I didn't say they were. But public schools are, or ought to be, sanitized from any sectarian doctrinal teaching, because it is not within the state interest to impress sectarian values. After all, there's no room in the public school curriculum to teach all sects' values, and the instant you cut out one, you've selected some subset of sects as pre-eminent over those not excluded. And wouldn't you be outraged if your sect, Catholicism, was among those excluded? In fact, wouldn't you be outraged if you learned that in order for your child to pass 7th grade in public school, he had to demonstrate proficiency in religion other than your own?
"Why shouldn't parents be able to educate their children in a manner they see fit? Who deems public education to be superior?"
Parents can. They don't need public schools to educate their children in their own values. If they want a school who will teach their children values, they simply have to pay for it. This seems to be a perfectly Republican concept: we, the state, will provide you a minimum level of competent, secular instruction; you may seek to supplement that instruction (hiring tutors) or you may seek to alter its secular nature (replacing public school with private school, or taking your child to church).
And I certainly never said public school was superior. God knows, I'm hardly in a position to say that since public school (in the American sense) and I are quite strangers to one another. But, after all, if you're going to fly first class, you have to pay the premium fare. If you can't pay the premium fare, you can still get to where you want to go. So it is with education: a reasonable, free baseline for everyone, with a premium tier available on market terms.
9 Comments:
Your third point, therefore, isn't as much about "school choice" as "taxpayer-subsidized sectarian education." Otherwise, you'd be happy with a non-refundable credit for opting out of public education, up to the marginal, non-capital cost of educating the out-opted children.
If an educated populace is the bedrock of a free society, then we shouldn't have any problems with student vouchers -- unless the goal is to hoard all education dollars into the hands of state bureaucrats.
The only - stress *only* - difference between school vouchers and driving all the money into public education is that parents are empowered to determine what institution their children will learn in the former. Not so in the latter.
Ergo, I have no problems with school vouchers at all, and am always shocked to discover that public school educators hate the idea so much.
No, as I said, if you're not advocating taxpayer-subsidized sectarian education, a non-refundable credit would negate that argument: the credit returns to the lesser of (a) what he paid in tax, or (b) the marginal non-capital cost of his child's public education. Giving the taxpayer more for private education than he pays in tax (i.e., a refundable tax) is still a subsidy. Do wealthier people pay more in tax, resulting in greater value in the credit? Yes, but the poorer taxpayer with the smaller credit recapture is having his child's public education subsidized by the state anyway--and state subsidy is not appropriate for sectarian education.
After all, whether one can educate one's child in the school of one's choice is irrelevant to one's ability to educate one's child in the faith of one's choice, or to instill one's moral values in one's child--that can (and should) be done at home, in the church, in Sunday school, and the like.
Of course, as a Presbyterian educated in no small degree by Catholic nuns, I may be biased.
I disagree. Faith based organizations provide charitable services with federal and state funding.
Why not education?
All of your points are excellent. While I often label myself as a "moderate" it is simply because of the Choice and Gay Marraige issues. While I am pro-life and anti0gay marraige personally, I don't think government should be involved in either issue. That is an issue for society as a whole to develop our own set of morals on the issues.
I also do not believe that we can have a cookie cutter response to either issue on the federal level. Our morals in the Suburbs of DC and through out Virginia will be much different then Greenwich Village of Los Angeles. The devolution to state control begun by Speaker Gingrich should continue, especially on questions of social morality and the governments involvement.
1. (Pro-life issues)
It's none of the governments business either way (same view as number 3 btw). Have an abortion don't have an abortion. Also, take the money spent for pro-choice and pro-life and give us all a tax break
2. (Homosexual marriage) Totally agree. with your analysis. One other thing, give civil union (whatever you want to call it) homosexuals the same benefits and rights as people who get married.
3. School Prayer
Totally agree with the choice part. Refresh me on prayer, what stops someone from praying in a public school again? Talking about silent prayer, I used to do it all the time in the 90s
P.S. for most of the leftwingish views go to raising kaine and the links off of that page
On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable for a Catholic school to decline to admit a Presbyterian student (provided, of course, that the school receives no government funding), just as it is perfectly reasonable for a yeshiva to decline to admit goyem. While such selectivity is reasonable from a religious perspective, it is not reasonable from a state funding perspective--of course the schools have the right to teach their respective catechisms, and the parents have the right to have their children educated therein, if the parents can afford the tuition. But the parent is not entitled to any assistance from the state for such selective, sectarian education--at least no more assistance than a refund of that portion of the taxes he has paid to underwrite his child's public education. The real issue, though, is that very few families actually pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefit from the public school system; it's rare to find a public school system where the marginal, non-capital expenses per child are more than the cost of private tuition in the surrounding area. And, because of this phenomenon, a mere refund of the tax actually paid, up to that marginal, non-capital expense per child, isn't going to be enough to let a parent put his child in a private school, without more. And that "more" is a subsidy.
It seems to be working well in the Milwaukee, Washington, and Cleveland though, with those localities having turned back significant legal challenges.
Hasn't SCOTUS ruled in favor of student vouchers as recently as 2002?
(T)he parent is not entitled to any assistance from the state for such selective, sectarian education--at least no more assistance than a refund of that portion of the taxes he has paid to underwrite his child's public education
(1) Why only a portion?
(2) Why does the state not have an interest in ensuring its populace is not properly educated - public, private, or otherwise?
(3) Do you seriously believe that public schools are sanitized from any opinion-influencing whatsoever?
(4) Why shouldn't parents be able to educate their children in a manner they see fit? Who deems public education to be superior?
As for the selectivity argument, that seems entirely ancedotal (I have never seen an instance of a child being turned away from a Catholic academy based on religious conviction or lack thereof). Those schools who wished by design to be so exclusive (a yeshiva or seminary for instance) could always exercise the option of refusing vouchers.
I simply don't see the argument that diversity in education is a bad thing, and that monolithic state-controlled public education is good.
Am I missing a nuance or a silver bullet that fixes this?
I suspect you may misunderstand me. By "portion," I'm referring to that bit of taxes that underwrite one's own child's public education. For example, if one pays $4,000 a year in tax (which, based on the average rate of 9.2% combined state and local taxes per person, implies an annual income of about $43,500 a year), and it costs $5,500 a year to educate one's child in public schools, one could be entitled to all $4,000 back in a non-redundable credit. One can't get all $5,500 back, because the $1,500 one didn't pay in taxes amounts to a subsidy. On the other hand, if it cost only $3,000 to educate one's child, one is entitled to only $3,000--because the other $1,000 in taxes paid is being used for other services (like roads and public utility services, &c.) and moving one's child to private school doesn't one's consumption of them.
"Why does the state not have an interest in ensuring its populace is not properly educated?"
The state does have an interest in ensuring children receive a sound education, but not a sectarian one. A child's sectarian education is a prerogative of the parent. After all, just because the parent can't afford to send the child to a private, sectarian school doesn't mean the parent can't inculcate the child in sectarian doctrine, morality, or faith: the parent can do so himself, or by sending the child to Sunday school, or by taking the child to church, mosque, or temple. There is no state interest in a religious education, only a parental interest--and that parental interest can be exercised without requiring the state to subsidize sectarian schools.
"Do you seriously believe that public schools are sanitized from any opinion-influencing whatsoever?"
I didn't say they were. But public schools are, or ought to be, sanitized from any sectarian doctrinal teaching, because it is not within the state interest to impress sectarian values. After all, there's no room in the public school curriculum to teach all sects' values, and the instant you cut out one, you've selected some subset of sects as pre-eminent over those not excluded. And wouldn't you be outraged if your sect, Catholicism, was among those excluded? In fact, wouldn't you be outraged if you learned that in order for your child to pass 7th grade in public school, he had to demonstrate proficiency in religion other than your own?
"Why shouldn't parents be able to educate their children in a manner they see fit? Who deems public education to be superior?"
Parents can. They don't need public schools to educate their children in their own values. If they want a school who will teach their children values, they simply have to pay for it. This seems to be a perfectly Republican concept: we, the state, will provide you a minimum level of competent, secular instruction; you may seek to supplement that instruction (hiring tutors) or you may seek to alter its secular nature (replacing public school with private school, or taking your child to church).
And I certainly never said public school was superior. God knows, I'm hardly in a position to say that since public school (in the American sense) and I are quite strangers to one another. But, after all, if you're going to fly first class, you have to pay the premium fare. If you can't pay the premium fare, you can still get to where you want to go. So it is with education: a reasonable, free baseline for everyone, with a premium tier available on market terms.
Post a Comment
Home