Parent-Child Negotiations

"Donna Metler" wrote in message . ..
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Nathan A. Barclay says...


"Donna Metler" wrote in message
.. .

One of my major problems is that here religious separation and racial
separation would be equivalent. There are still a lot of private
religious
schools here which were created due to public school desegregation. To
allow children of predominantly white, rich religious groups to take
vouchers and leave the public schools while minority children who
belong to poorer religions which cannot afford the infastructure
needed to run a school system remain in the public schools seems
like a step backwards to me.

On the other hand, operating schools in poor areas could be a great
opportunity for members of wealthier religious groups to help others and
possibly win some converts at the same time. How good or bad that is
from a
religious perspective would be debatable, but it is a possibility that
offers very definite advantages from an educational perspective. I can
easily see myself donating to such an effort.

Ah, but what if they don't want to be converted? Most of my students have
strong religious beliefs, but not necessarily those preached by, say Roman
Catholics. I don't think my COGIC or AME parents would want their child in a
private school (and since many COGIC and AME churches are small, storefront
or living room operations, I don't think they're going to be opening their
own schools anytime soon). I really don't think my Moslem parents are going
to want to send their child to a school run by a Christian group.

That's reasonable and in a voucher system, they certainly wouldn't be
required to do so. No one is suggesting that the secular public
schools with no religious aspects be eliminated, only that parents who
wish to should be allowed. So the children you are talking about are
no worse off under a voucher system. And if the Moslem (or GOGIC OR
AME) community is large enough, it's entirely possible that some
enterprising adherents will start up a school compatible with their
beliefs, thus giving those students other options.

"Circe" wrote in message news:7tgFc.12607$Qj6.6466@fed1read05...
abacus wrote:
"Circe" wrote in message
news:zaEEc.10202$Qj6.1748@fed1read05...
This doesn't address the question posed. In fact, most wealthy
white families, whether racist or not, send their children to
different (usually must better) schools than from where most of
poor minority
children attend even though when they are all attending public
schools

But this is primarily because they don't live in the same
neighborhoods
where the poor minority children live and therefore don't share
the same neighborhood schools. I will add that there are wealthy
minority families,
though there are proportionately fewer of them, and their kids
don't tend to
go to school with the poor minority kids, either. Ditto the poor
white kids,
who usually don't go to the same schools as either the rich white
or rich minority kids.

IOW, the segregation we have now is based more on means than on
race (though means and race are certainly tightly intertwined in our
society).
The difference between the current system and the one Nathan is
advocating is that the means to achieve school segregation would be
coming from the government instead of from individuals.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow how you go from the premise (current
segregation, which occurs just as much or more in the public school
sphere as the private school sphere, is based more on means than on
race) to the conclusion (a voucher system would allow school
segragation to come from the government rather than individuals).
Could you provide some justification for this?

Because if the government gives me money that allows me to put my children
in a segregated private (and whether it's segregated by race, religion,
culture, or some other measure isn't really material to me) school, it's
subsidizing and supporting that segregation in a way that it's not when the
reason my school is segregated is because of the demographic make-up of the
neighborhood in which I live. The demographic make-up of my neighborhood is
based not on government interference (at least, not any more), but on the
type/cost of housing available in my area and the relative economic
well-being of the people who live there. There's nothing to STOP a minority
family (whether it's minority on the basis of race or the basis of religion
doesn't matter) from moving into my neighborhood and attending my public
school, because my public school accepts all comers provided they live
within its boundaries. By comparison, if the schools are segregated by
choice supported by a governmental voucher system, then a private school can
and probably *will* tell me to take my children elsewhere if they don't meet
the school's entry requirements (whatever they're based on), even if I'd
*like* to send them there.


Ma'am. I can't fathom why you would be interested in sending your
children to a school that would have a policy of deliberate
segregation based on race. I certainly wouldn't. OTOH, I don't
particularly care if other parents want to do so.

Further, I think this is an ancillary issue. It would be easy enough
to simply impose the requirement that schools accepting vouchers have
a policy of non-discrimination. Even if the Malcolm X academy for
militant black male muslims was required to accept white atheist
females, I suspect that segregation would still occur, just as it
still exists in many neighborhoods.

But thank you for explaining. Personally, I don't think that there's
much difference between government support for segregation through
subsidized education, which you don't support, and government support
for segregation through subsidized housing, which you do support, but
I can at least understand the distinction you are making here.

Put another way, my kids *are* minorities in my neighborhood. I'm white, but
their father is of Mexican descent. Moreover, we're Unitarian-Universalists
with an atheist bent in a neighborhood where virtually everyone is a
Christian of one stripe or another. But no one can keep my kids out of our
wonderful public school. Is the population of the school mostly white and
Christian? You betcha! But my kids can go there and their rights are not
trampled by its curriculum because it's not just for whites or just for
Christians. And that's the way schools supported by taxpayers *ought* to be
(at least IMO).

Ma'am, just as you would do not want your children's rights trampled
by the curriculum, neither do other parents. Some parents feel that
our current schools do that to them. Since their beliefs are
incompatible with our secular public school (i.e. they could not be
introduced without trampling over the rights of people like you), why
do you object providing other options so that their children may
attend a school compatible with their values? How would you feel
about having to make the choice of either having your children attend
such a school or having to pay $1,000's yearly to fund a different
education for them?

I will add that I think the best way to attack the problem of failing
schools is not to give parents vouchers to use for school tuition, but to
give them the equivalent amount in funds for housing so that they can afford
to live in a neighborhood with better public schools.

An interesting idea.

"Circe" wrote in message news:7tgFc.12607$Qj6.6466@fed1read05...
abacus wrote:
"Circe" wrote in message
news:zaEEc.10202$Qj6.1748@fed1read05...
This doesn't address the question posed. In fact, most wealthy
white families, whether racist or not, send their children to
different (usually must better) schools than from where most of
poor minority
children attend even though when they are all attending public
schools

But this is primarily because they don't live in the same
neighborhoods
where the poor minority children live and therefore don't share
the same neighborhood schools. I will add that there are wealthy
minority families,
though there are proportionately fewer of them, and their kids
don't tend to
go to school with the poor minority kids, either. Ditto the poor
white kids,
who usually don't go to the same schools as either the rich white
or rich minority kids.

IOW, the segregation we have now is based more on means than on
race (though means and race are certainly tightly intertwined in our
society).
The difference between the current system and the one Nathan is
advocating is that the means to achieve school segregation would be
coming from the government instead of from individuals.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow how you go from the premise (current
segregation, which occurs just as much or more in the public school
sphere as the private school sphere, is based more on means than on
race) to the conclusion (a voucher system would allow school
segragation to come from the government rather than individuals).
Could you provide some justification for this?

Because if the government gives me money that allows me to put my children
in a segregated private (and whether it's segregated by race, religion,
culture, or some other measure isn't really material to me) school, it's
subsidizing and supporting that segregation in a way that it's not when the
reason my school is segregated is because of the demographic make-up of the
neighborhood in which I live. The demographic make-up of my neighborhood is
based not on government interference (at least, not any more), but on the
type/cost of housing available in my area and the relative economic
well-being of the people who live there. There's nothing to STOP a minority
family (whether it's minority on the basis of race or the basis of religion
doesn't matter) from moving into my neighborhood and attending my public
school, because my public school accepts all comers provided they live
within its boundaries. By comparison, if the schools are segregated by
choice supported by a governmental voucher system, then a private school can
and probably *will* tell me to take my children elsewhere if they don't meet
the school's entry requirements (whatever they're based on), even if I'd
*like* to send them there.


Ma'am. I can't fathom why you would be interested in sending your
children to a school that would have a policy of deliberate
segregation based on race. I certainly wouldn't. OTOH, I don't
particularly care if other parents want to do so.

Further, I think this is an ancillary issue. It would be easy enough
to simply impose the requirement that schools accepting vouchers have
a policy of non-discrimination. Even if the Malcolm X academy for
militant black male muslims was required to accept white atheist
females, I suspect that segregation would still occur, just as it
still exists in many neighborhoods.

But thank you for explaining. Personally, I don't think that there's
much difference between government support for segregation through
subsidized education, which you don't support, and government support
for segregation through subsidized housing, which you do support, but
I can at least understand the distinction you are making here.

Put another way, my kids *are* minorities in my neighborhood. I'm white, but
their father is of Mexican descent. Moreover, we're Unitarian-Universalists
with an atheist bent in a neighborhood where virtually everyone is a
Christian of one stripe or another. But no one can keep my kids out of our
wonderful public school. Is the population of the school mostly white and
Christian? You betcha! But my kids can go there and their rights are not
trampled by its curriculum because it's not just for whites or just for
Christians. And that's the way schools supported by taxpayers *ought* to be
(at least IMO).

Ma'am, just as you would do not want your children's rights trampled
by the curriculum, neither do other parents. Some parents feel that
our current schools do that to them. Since their beliefs are
incompatible with our secular public school (i.e. they could not be
introduced without trampling over the rights of people like you), why
do you object providing other options so that their children may
attend a school compatible with their values? How would you feel
about having to make the choice of either having your children attend
such a school or having to pay $1,000's yearly to fund a different
education for them?

I will add that I think the best way to attack the problem of failing
schools is not to give parents vouchers to use for school tuition, but to
give them the equivalent amount in funds for housing so that they can afford
to live in a neighborhood with better public schools.

An interesting idea.

toto wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:46:56 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:

Not true. Why not simply allow the public schools to have the same
small class sizes that promoted the learning instead of handing
money to *new* schools that factor that in.

Because it would cost more - at least in an "apples and apples"
comparison where the same number of students are educated
using public money either way.

The voucher schools cost more. Read the stats I posted.


I read those stats. That's not the conclusion I drew from them.

toto wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:46:56 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:

Not true. Why not simply allow the public schools to have the same
small class sizes that promoted the learning instead of handing
money to *new* schools that factor that in.

Because it would cost more - at least in an "apples and apples"
comparison where the same number of students are educated
using public money either way.

The voucher schools cost more. Read the stats I posted.


I read those stats. That's not the conclusion I drew from them.

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

It doesn't matter, all hobbies have the same status as religion

That's not true, though, when government funds art, music, and literature
classes while refusing to fund religion classes.

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

It doesn't matter, all hobbies have the same status as religion

That's not true, though, when government funds art, music, and literature
classes while refusing to fund religion classes.

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

It doesn't matter, all hobbies have the same status as religion

That's not true, though, when government funds art, music, and literature
classes while refusing to fund religion classes.
---------------------------
Sure, but govt can't finance religion, it's the one hobby govt is
not allowed to support. Religion still has the same status as a
hobby does!
Steve

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

It doesn't matter, all hobbies have the same status as religion

That's not true, though, when government funds art, music, and literature
classes while refusing to fund religion classes.
---------------------------
Sure, but govt can't finance religion, it's the one hobby govt is
not allowed to support. Religion still has the same status as a
hobby does!
Steve

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:46:56 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:

Not true. Why not simply allow the public schools to have the
same small class sizes that promoted the learning instead of
handing money to *new* schools that factor that in.

Because it would cost more - at least in an "apples and apples"
comparison where the same number of students are educated
using public money either way.

The voucher schools cost more. Read the stats I posted.

I did - and my lie detector started sounding warning bells every which way.
I assume you've seen my analysis?