DEATH SENTENCE FOR PRIVATE AND HOME EDUCATION, COURTESY OF SUPREME COURT

NewsWithViews.com ^ | July 8, 2002 | Charlotte Iserbyt

[aristeides]

There is a way to fund alternate forms of education that preserves accountability and removes the danger of government control of private schools through regulation. Pay parents an amount equivalent to the cost of public education for their child if that child passes a state exam for what should have been learnt that year. Then those parents can either pay the school, or pocket the whole amount themselves if they homeschool. In this way, control by regulation is avoided, all forms of education are equally encouraged, and parents have a strong incentive to see to it that their children actually do learn.

[aristeides]

Back in the 1950's, when federal aid to colleges was a controversial issue and only partially established, you could have made the same sort of statements about private colleges. It didn't take the federal government long to bring them to heel with federal money.

[Carry_Okie]

For those who haven't read Iserbyt, this will be an awakening to the all too familiar.

[azhenfud]

BFLR

[RonF]

"Do the five justices who ruled favoring school choice proposals live in such a dream world that they believe the government will require less regulation of the private and home schools than it requires of the public schools?"

It's not the job of the Supreme Court to determine whether or not school vouchers are a good idea. It was their job to determine if they were Constitutional. Given that they determined that they were, it's up to the state legislators and voters to decide if they're a good idea.

[Carry_Okie]

Iserbyt's documentation of the intentions of this system is extensive. If you can't see how this works, you are forgetting the manner in which databases and testing will track EVERY kid for whether or not they are learning PC attitudes, not how well they are educated.

[Carry_Okie]

Correct.

[Hugin]

Is school choice a plot to implement the socialist, corporate fascist, workforce training agenda for the global planned economy? You 'betcha.

Which of course is why every left-wing socialist in the NEA/Democrat Party axis has been fighting tooth and nail against vouchers for years. What a crock.

[justshutupandtakeit]

While I too am a skeptic that this decision is a panacea for the conservative education movement, this article is a megaload of crap.

[FreeTally]

The government had better not make voucher acceptance mandatory.

I think many may be confused here, and the NEA is laughing all the way to the bank(not to say I do not agree with general distrust of the government).

First, who is "the government"? There is no federal voucher program. I think the fact this went to the SCOTUS has confused people into thinking this is some federal government issue. It is not.

The SCOTUS heard a case that the voucher program in OHIO was unconstitutional based upon a few different claims, one of which was "sepeartion of church and state". The SCOTUS said there was no constitutional problem, thus the program in OHIO could stand. The decision ONLY affects the program in OHIO, but opens the door for other STATES to implement their own programs(people here in Florida are still appealing their lawsuit to the FL Supreme Court - a suit that was struck down by a lower court).

STATE governments implement these programs. It has been decided that on Constitutional grounds, OHIO's plan can stand. Other States may have laws preventing such programs. This decision does not affect those States.

If a State wishes to start such a program, it may be able to do so. The State will not be able to "force" any private schools to accept the vouchers. There would be no legal basis. Private schools are run by people who have a mission. They will not change their goals for a few thousand of dollars a year(which will generally be less than the tuition a regular student is charged) that they may receive from a voucher.

These arguments are pure NEA propagnda. These arguments were around, but not popular UNTIL the decision last week. No coincidence that we now see tons of articles. Its a last ditch, pathetic attempt to keep power.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I disagree

Good for you. So do I.

Very eloquently stated.

[Silly]

The NEA has done for education what The Sound of Music did for hills...

[Slyfox]

Thank you for your answers. Most people have not considered the idea of vouchers past the initial question of "for them or against them". The problem will be in the details and who will be the policeman. When rules are laid down the government is going to have to tap somebody on the shoulder to administer justice.

Another thing, if a parent gets the voucher, where can they place that voucher? Will they be able to go anywhere like they have been told or will they be given a short list of parochial and charter schools who will have to give something up in order to accept the voucher students?

Don't get me wrong, I am totally for choice in education. But the problem is that we have a extremely-ill public school system and very healthy non-govenmental education system. It is wise to only give anti-biotics to the system that is sick. But, who will be the doctor and how will they administer their remedy?

[kennyo]

The voucher program is a sham no matter how you look at it.It is a diversion to make conservatives think that they've gotten something.We need a congress that adheres closely to Article I,sec.8.The government have no authority to meddle with education,in any manner,in any case.

[rudypoot]

Yep, that's why we created the Department of Education at the federal level.

[poet]

"the government is going to have to tap somebody on the shoulder to administer justice."

Justice and gov't is an oxymoron especially with gov't handouts.

They will administer the law, but, most certantly will not dispense justice. Don't believe it? How about their insatiable land grabbing from private citizens? Was Ruby Ridge justice? Was Waco justice? Was the "capture" of Elian Gonzalez justice? Is giving amnesty to illegals justice?
Was the death of Vince Foster justice?

Is the fact that the clintons and their gang of thieves are still not in prison justice? Was his not being tried by the senate justice?

Fill in your own examples miscarriages of justice.

[FreeTally]

Another thing, if a parent gets the voucher, where can they place that voucher? Will they be able to go anywhere like they have been told or will they be given a short list of parochial and charter schools who will have to give something up in order to accept the voucher students?

In Florida, schools must tell the State before a certain date every year that they wish to participate in the voucher program. There are some requirements that the school has to meet("ill try to get summer to post it). There are some things in the guidlines that may make some schools say "no thanks", but their are also requirements for the parents(one being, if the private school has parental-involvement policies, they must adhere to them).

Summer, could you post again the requirements for the school and for the parents - the one you posted a few days ago on the "other" voucher thread. I thik you know what post I am talking about.

[Slyfox]

..you could have made the same sort of statements about private colleges. It didn't take the federal government long to bring them to heel with federal money.

Yep. My daughter recently graduated from Hillsdale College. Hillsdale had to work like dogs to keep their educational freedom. One of the things the feds wanted to do was to find out what the number of minorities was at the college. Hillsdale told them, in a nice way, to take a flying leap. They could tell them that because they weren't beholden to the government in any way because they don't accept any federal funding. In my daughter' s admission packet we were told to not even apply for any federal funding because they would not accept it.

Hillsdale is on record as being one of the very first colleges who admitted and graduated blacks BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR.

[Slyfox]

All-righty then. "Regulatory compliance".

[ffrancone]

Seems to me the thrust of the article misses the point completely. The author criticizes a Supreme Court decision that interprets the establishment clause of the US constiution. Note that the author does NOT argue the Supremes interpreted the Constitution incorrectly. Instead, the author thinks just like a liberal. That is, to her, the constitution is really irrelevant. What has meaning to her is that the decision will have bad effects on homeschooling, she thinks. Thus, the author suggests the Supreme Court decision was wrong.

Regardless what we think of the effect of the decision on homeschooling, we should cheer the Supremes on this, one of the few occasions where they actually applied the consitution as written and intended rather than acting as a super-legislature.

The author's arguments should be addressed to the state legislatures and to congress--they are emphatically not a proper criticism of the Supreme Court.