Do you support educational vouchers in schools?

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:00:56 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:


Is the purpose education or indoctrination? The parent with a voucher can
choose, the parent without cannot.

The "purpose" of what? Vouchers? The purpose of school vouchers is
to get the "public" to pay for your personal choices. Seems like a
bad idea to me, and fortunately, to most other people as well.

If you mean the purpose of education, that is frankly irrelevant to
the argument on vouchers, number one, and poorly defined (if at all)
in general. Ostensibly it is a program, funded by the public, for the
benefit OF society as a whole. In that sense, it is intended to
provide children a minimum level of understanding so that they might
become productive citizens of that society. The public did not sign
on to let particular parents "have it their way", nor as some kind of
guarantee that everyone who wants to can become the next Einstein. It
provides the flexibility to allow parents to "have it their way" only
if they have the ability to foot the resulting bill. Complicating the
issue is, of course, the requirement of separation of church and
state.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
Perhaps you two products of the public education system could stop and
think - new as that may be to you.

Look up "presumption".


Is the purpose education or indoctrination? The parent with a voucher
can
choose, the parent without cannot.


Look up "false dilemma".


You're right. I can tell that you're not educated at all.

Allow me to predigest the thought for you. If the objective is education,
then vouchers for everyone is the way to give choice to rich and poor alike.

If the object is indoctrination with the current crop of political
correctness, force everyone into the public school system.

Now spread your cheeks and slide your head from that cleft between your
buttocks.

"George" george@least wrote:
Perhaps you two products of the public education system could stop and
think - new as that may be to you.

Is the purpose education or indoctrination?

That presumes that there is a meaningful difference. Before public
schools, there were only church schools, and their purpose was
explicitly "indoctrination" - the teaching of church doctrine. The
concept that education might be something *other than* indoctrination
is a relatively recent idea.

If one reads Thomas Jefferson's early proposal for public schools, it
is clear that he intended it to be both. Kids would learn to read and
write, and they would also be indoctrinated into American values. As
implemented, I think it has kept true to that dual intention.

It is also safe to say that virtually every private school is equally
intended to both educate and indoctrinate.

The parent with a voucher can choose, the parent without cannot.

The concept of compulsory public education was specifically intended
to REMOVE the choice from the parent whether to attend or not attend
school. Meanwhile, the kid doesn't get a choice; why should the
parent? You don't own your children; you are merely stewards for
(take our choice of) God or society until they are adults (as defined
by society, not parents) and have the right under the 1st amendment to
tell their parents where to shove it.

lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

In ,
Herman Rubin wrote:

*In article ,
*Hillary Israeli wrote:
*
*Huh? First of all, I don't believe bussing killed public schools or
*private schools or anything at all (i'm not sure what you're trying to say
*bussing did, actually). Second, vouchers will not kill private schools by
*forcing anyone anywhere. Just because a voucher makes someone able to pay
*the tuition, that does not make the holder of the voucher otherwise
*eligible to attend the school. Most of the private schools I looked at
*have other types of requirements as well - the kid has to have a certain
*IQ and/or test score on some kind of screening test, and has to pass
*interviews or observations, or whatever.
*
*We have to watch out for the hyperegalitarians trying to

What is a "hyperegalitarian?"

*block this. I have read that there is a voucher program
*for handicapped children in Florida, but a student going
*to an academic school could not use this unless the school
*would take all children with that handicap, no matter how
*weak their mentalities were.

I'm not sure how this has anything to do with my comments.

*And don't downplay the minority quota problem. Indianapolis
*has a magnet school with academic requirements. A girl was
*turned down because this would have meant too small a
*proportion of minority students; if there was a minority
*student who qualified and wanted to attend, they could both
*have been admitted.

I'm also not sure how minority quota rules (which I think, at this point
in our society, don't work well, but that's another story) have anything
to do with vouchers.

*The educationists and hyperegalitarians cannot admit that
*there is a large range of mental abilities, and even if
*they changed now, the public schools could not do what is
*needed in a generation, alas.

OK, well - I think there is a huge range of ability, I think our public
schools are failing, and I think vouchers would probably make them
worse... but I have no idea what you're talking about.

--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx

In article , Hillary Israeli says...

In ,
Herman Rubin wrote:


*The educationists and hyperegalitarians cannot admit that
*there is a large range of mental abilities, and even if
*they changed now, the public schools could not do what is
*needed in a generation, alas.

OK, well - I think there is a huge range of ability, I think our public
schools are failing, and I think vouchers would probably make them
worse... but I have no idea what you're talking about.


My impression of Herman Rubin's basic schtick is that all educational purposes
and goals should be subordinate to the goal of maximally academically (meaning,
optimizing for rapidity and level of complexity) educating the most cognitally
able students.

Banty

In article ,
toto wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 03:35:37 GMT, "Don"
wrote:

Maybe your neighbors and you can set up water-pail brigades on your dirt
roads
in case you have a fire.

Thats really none of your business is it?

Gee, you want us to pay taxes for a fire department that will fight
fires at your house, I see, but not to educate the children of your
neighbors who don't have the money for private school tuition?

There was essentially universal male education among Jews
for the last 2500 years. It was private, with the community
providing for those who could not afford it.

Also, competition was definitely allowed. Competition was
restricted in other enterprises, as a grocer was not allowed
to open shop too close to another, but teachers were excluded
from this restriction. Also, it was recognized that ability
differences needed to be accommodated.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

In article ,
toto wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:00:56 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:


Is the purpose education or indoctrination? The parent with a voucher can
choose, the parent without cannot.

The parent with money can already choose and needs no voucher to do
so.

And any parent who wants to choose a religious school most likely can
do so and get private help from their church, they too don't need a
voucher.

Let me make it clear again that I have no brief for schools
based on religion. What are needed are means of teaching
academics, through schools or, as I believe, otherwise.

There are few academic private schools. With vouchers, they
can be formed easily. An academic school will have to drop
the idea of age grouping completely, and even the idea of a
student being in one "grade".


--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

In article ,
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:00:56 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:


Is the purpose education or indoctrination? The parent with a voucher can
choose, the parent without cannot.

The "purpose" of what? Vouchers? The purpose of school vouchers is
to get the "public" to pay for your personal choices. Seems like a
bad idea to me, and fortunately, to most other people as well.

Do you mean that the people in power should have the right
to say what school a child should go to, and make it the
same regardless of the child's ability to learn? Do you
mean that those in power should be able to compel a child
without the financial resources to be placed in classrooms
with others of vastly different ability? Do you think that
people in power should be able to force those who cannot
afford otherwise to have their children taught by those who
would not pass the scrutiny of a subject-matter scholar as
to knowing anything other than memorization and routine?

If you mean the purpose of education, that is frankly irrelevant to
the argument on vouchers, number one, and poorly defined (if at all)
in general. Ostensibly it is a program, funded by the public, for the
benefit OF society as a whole.

As such, the whole structure is rotten. It cannot be repaired.

In that sense, it is intended to
provide children a minimum level of understanding so that they might
become productive citizens of that society.

And keep them to that minimum level so that they cannot
contribute what their talents and abilities will allow.

The public did not sign
on to let particular parents "have it their way", nor as some kind of
guarantee that everyone who wants to can become the next Einstein.

No, they want a guarantee that someone who can add to our
knowledge does not get a chance to do so. It has now
provided us with a collection of college students who
"did well" in high school but can no longer understand
anything except "plug and chug". These are useful for
clerks, assembly line workers, and auto mechanics, but
not for anything else, including teachers.

It
provides the flexibility to allow parents to "have it their way" only
if they have the ability to foot the resulting bill. Complicating the
issue is, of course, the requirement of separation of church and
state.

I have never shown any brief for religious schools. But
the public schools seem to be a well-designed instrument
to destroy or weaken, and in any case delay, the minds of
those who can contribute more than the average.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Bob Coleslaw wrote:
Is it better for the government to give out vouchers so parents can
send their kids to private schools, or to use that money to fix up
the
public schools?

Bob Coleslaw

In general, I am not thrilled with the idea of taking money out of the
public schools but I also realize that the public schools in some
places are in really bad shape and attempts so far to fix them have not
been terribly successful so maybe we do need to try something else.

I think I certainly would feel better about vouchers if they included
the following two rules:

1) Schools eligible to accept vouchers could not require any religious
activity of the students or include any mandatory religious instruction
in the curriculum.

2) The vouchers would have to be accepted as full tuition. What I am
trying to accomplish here is making sure the vouchers really give poor
parents a choice, rather than just being a subsidy to the middle class.
A $2,000 voucher at a school with $8,000 tuition is useless to a
family living in poverty but it is a free vacation to a wealthier
family that was otherwise going to pay the full $8,000.


-----
This is a spam-protected account. Please subtract one from the number
in my address if you need to reply to me directly. If you try that
and the message bounces back (usually because I have disabled a key
that has gotten onto spam lists), please go to
http://www.zoemail.net/?jlevy to request a temporary key.

By the way, if you like the Zoemail service and sign up for an
account, please list my account (jlevy) as the person who referred
you. We will both get something.

In article ,
Hillary Israeli wrote:
In ,
Herman Rubin wrote:

*In article ,
*Hillary Israeli wrote:

*Huh? First of all, I don't believe bussing killed public schools or
*private schools or anything at all (i'm not sure what you're trying to say
*bussing did, actually).

The initial busing, to allow those restricted to go to
schools which they could manage, was good. When it came
to "racial balance", it was bad.

Second, vouchers will not kill private schools by
*forcing anyone anywhere. Just because a voucher makes someone able to pay
*the tuition, that does not make the holder of the voucher otherwise
*eligible to attend the school. Most of the private schools I looked at
*have other types of requirements as well - the kid has to have a certain
*IQ and/or test score on some kind of screening test, and has to pass
*interviews or observations, or whatever.

Which is why most of the opponents of vouchers oppose them.

*We have to watch out for the hyperegalitarians trying to

What is a "hyperegalitarian?"

Someone who believes that people cannot be unequal
in any manner.

*block this. I have read that there is a voucher program
*for handicapped children in Florida, but a student going
*to an academic school could not use this unless the school
*would take all children with that handicap, no matter how
*weak their mentalities were.

I'm not sure how this has anything to do with my comments.

A good voucher program is not of this type.

*And don't downplay the minority quota problem. Indianapolis
*has a magnet school with academic requirements. A girl was
*turned down because this would have meant too small a
*proportion of minority students; if there was a minority
*student who qualified and wanted to attend, they could both
*have been admitted.

I'm also not sure how minority quota rules (which I think, at this point
in our society, don't work well, but that's another story) have anything
to do with vouchers.

A purely academic voucher program would not have such
restrictions. It would allow those who can benefit
from a type of school to do so.

*The educationists and hyperegalitarians cannot admit that
*there is a large range of mental abilities, and even if
*they changed now, the public schools could not do what is
*needed in a generation, alas.

OK, well - I think there is a huge range of ability, I think our public
schools are failing, and I think vouchers would probably make them
worse... but I have no idea what you're talking about.

Nothing can make our schools better in the short run.
What vouchers can do is to enable academics to be used
to set up better educational programs than the present
schools could, even if they wanted to.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558