Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Utah: School Vouchers
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, March 17, 2007

Utah has passed some ground breaking legislation "under which every family, depending on its income, will be reimbursed between $500 and $3,000 per child for annual tuition paid to the private school of their choice."

Not everyone is happy about the law as Mike Rosen discusses:
First, the union's survival is at stake. Under a voucher system, education is still publicly financed through taxpayer dollars. That doesn't change. But what does is the union's monopoly to deliver publicly funded education exclusively in government schools. Under a voucher system, competition would bloom.
And:
Second, there's the ideological opposition to competition and free choice in education. The educratic establishment - from administrators, to the teachers' colleges that staff the schools, to the unions that run them and the school boards they elect - is liberal to its core.

They covet their power to set the agenda, to dictate subject matter and educational techniques, to influence impressionable young minds and mold the next generation of liberal activists. They've turned their government schools into laboratories for social engineering, downgrading basic academics and old-fashioned notions of American exceptionalism, patriotism and individualism in favor of collectivism, political correctness, diversity, environmentalism, feminism, and delusional self-esteem. They have a death grip on these schools that they're loath to release.
The second point speaks to those I made yesterday on the transmission of culture. And what we're seeing here with a voucher plan is a real choice is now provided in which, as Rosen points out, parents become consumers of education.

Who opposes this? Well, as noted, teacher's unions because it effectively destroys their monopoly. But just as strident about shutting this exercise in true choice down are liberals:
Tanya Clay House of the ultra-liberal People for the American Way recently declared, "We've never seen a shred of credible evidence that shows school vouchers actually help students learn. While all public schools must demonstrate success under No Child Left Behind, private schools are not held to the same level of accountability for their performance."
We have a failing public school system which continues to suck down more and more money while delivering less in terms of well educated graduates. We continue to fall behind the rest of the world in both the quality of our educational output and the quantity. And speaking of shreds of evidence, we've not seen many that point to those now in charge of that system having the ability to turn that around. In fact, there seems to be more evidence than not that they're incapable of doing so.

So the question becomes how could competition and choice be worse than monopoly? How could allowing the consumer of the product to vote on that which they find to best fill their needs instead of the arbitrary standards and needs of the monopoly, be worse?

For the side of the political spectrum which claims to be for "choice" this should be an issue for which they are fighting for the choice vouchers bring, not against.

And speaking of products of a public school education, Rosen points to a further statement by Clay House which borders on hilarity for its inadvertent contradiction of the previous statement:
Then, Clay House added this gem: "Every child deserves an excellent education, not just those who can get admitted to a private school." I wonder if she realizes how self-contradictory that statement is. She's acknowledging that private schools provide educational excellence and that kids who are stuck in government schools are denied that! Does she suppose that wealthy parents who pay a premium to send their kids to private schools (without "a shred of evidence that they help students learn") are stupid?
Apparently she does. But in reality what it points to is those with a choice, in this case provided by a certain level of wealth (or sacrifice as the case may be), approach the situation of education as a consumer, do their homework and choose that which is best for the needs of children.

What that imposes on the system is a requirement to attract students if they wish to remain in business. And that, of course means that the consumer, not the provider, is then in the driver's seat. No more unilateral and unchallenged decisions on what will be taught in schools. Parents who don't like what is being taught or the culture which is being transmitted, now have a choice of going elsewhere.

And marginal to poor schools? Shape up or close down. Now, via vouchers, everyone in Utah has the means to say "no" to that which they find objectionable or poor in terms of school curriculum and have choices from which to choose alternatives.

My only objection to the bill is the means testing aspect. Naturally those with higher incomes pay more taxes while those with lower incomes pay less. Yet the voucher program doesn't decrease the taxes but does give to those paying less a larger share of the voucher pie. That's redistribution, plain and simple. If the intent is to provide a share of the taxes aimed at education for school choice, they should be equal shares.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
This will be just fine until the first Madrassa is set up using such funds, then all hell will break loose.

While my first instinct is that this is a bad idea (I don’t think education operates like shopping for groceries), this is one reason why we have states - if it’s a spectacular failure then it’s only a spectacular failure in Utah. If it succeeds other states can imitate (though one wonders if conditions in Utah are, uh, unique).
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
And it is that paradigm shift which has infected Britain and is infecting the US as we speak. What is interesting to me, however, is how the Muslim tradition is being transmitted so strongly in Britain. Through Muslim schools. Given there is no requirement to assimilate, and given the cultural relativity found in British schools which makes real assimilation impossible, Muslims increasingly choose to reinforce their culture through private Muslim schools.
If the current public system were fixed, then we can teach some level of assimilation to newcomers and have a transmission of culture to all. With school vouchers, public funding would go to a variety of schools. Hopefully most parents would choose schools that support American culture. But not all will. With school vouchers, some of your tax dollars would go to funding Mulslim schools.
Liberals may oppopse school vouchers for the wrong reasons, but that doesn’t mean that opposition to them is wrong.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
First, the union’s survival is at stake.
The most important intrest
This will be just fine until the first Madrassa is set up using such funds, then all hell will break loose.
If you expect freedom, you have to allow all points of view.
If the current public system were fixed, then we can teach some level of assimilation to newcomers and have a transmission of culture to all
What makes anyone believe the current system can be fixed, given the power of teachers untions? BTW I have a bridge to Brooklyn for sale.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
I’m not sure what the best way of having school choice is, but the concept itself I agree with. Perhaps a tax credit instead of a voucher might be best? I dunno. However that is worked out, it is an idea whose time has come. Besides the benefit of improving education, it has the potential to remove or at least ratchet down the concerns over how much religious expression can be allowed in public schools.

Btw, as Catholic I find it amusingly ironic that many proponents of this idea are from the religious right. Their spiritual ancestors out of prejudice brought about the very roadblock they are up against in making school vouchers a reality. Just Google "Blaine Amendment".
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
James;
Which has better odd of avoiding the tide of multculturalism seen in Britian-
A) Fixing the current system.
B) Leaving the current system.
C) Providing tax dollars to fund schools for other cultures.

While choice A may be nearly impossible, at least it has a chance.

Choice B:
That does not seem to be a good idea, just the reality we face.


Choice C directly feeds the problem.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Choice C directly feeds the problem.
Unless you see choice A as the same thing (teaching a culture foreign to that which you’d like to see your children taught) and don’t believe, under the present circumstances (monopoly power), that a "fix" is possible.

Your objection also seems to infer that the majority will run right out and attempt to find schools you’d deem "extremist" or of a ’foreign culture’. I’d suggest that exactly the opposite would occur.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
If you expect freedom, you have to allow all points of view.
well, sure, I’m just guessing that a lot of supporters of school vouchers are going to have second thoughts once they see what they have wrought - can NAMBLA run a school?
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
can NAMBLA run a school?
actually, that’s kind of stupid, no parent would send their kid to such a school
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
well, sure, I’m just guessing that a lot of supporters of school vouchers are going to have second thoughts once they see what they have wrought - can NAMBLA run a school?
Do private schools have to meet certain state standards and requirements? Of course they do.

So I’m not sure how letting people choose a school abrogates the school meeting at least those minimums to be certified and receive the money the vouchers represent.

People want results for their time, effort and money. This system gives them more direct control in effecting the changes they wish to see. It is obviously a direct challenge to those who have, for so many years, made those decisions unilaterally. I see nothing but good from a system which now forces those types to not only listen to the consumer (the one paying for it all) but to actually be open to heeding what they’re saying. This type of choice changes the paradigm to one I think is much more healthy than the previous one.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
While my first instinct is that this is a bad idea (I don’t think education operates like shopping for groceries), this is one reason why we have states -
The emphasized portion is an extremely important point, Ugh and one that, at some point, I need to expand upon. I agree. And they are very underutilized laboratories in which much of what is considered cutting edge or radical policy ideas could be bench-tested. They’d provide a wealth of knowledge upon which more and better policy could be built (even if the original idea was found to be less than advertised).

That’s why, in most cases, I object to the federal government overriding states when they choose to do something with which the fed disagrees. Medical marijuana, for instance. Let CA do what it’s people voted to do, monitor it and see how it turns out. Same with school vouchers.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
That’s why, in most cases, I object to the federal government overriding states when they choose to do something with which the fed disagrees. Medical marijuana, for instance. Let CA do what it’s people voted to do, monitor it and see how it turns out. Same with school vouchers.
This is the way this country was supposed to work. The problem starts when the States find a solution, to a problem, that is not acceptable to the Federal Government. Then you find who carries the Big Stick. States Rights become an oxymoron when Washington can blackmail the states by withholding federal funds.
Which has better odd of avoiding the tide of multculturalism seen in Britian-
A) Fixing the current system.
B) Leaving the current system.
C) Providing tax dollars to fund schools for other cultures
Try changing a failing system, fixing, leaving or a system of apartheid are not acceptable.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
The federal level will move to hamstring this effort or dampen it somehow.

Its too much of a threat to the liberal indoctrination that students now receive.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
McQ
Unless you see choice A as the same thing (teaching a culture foreign to that which you’d like to see your children taught) and don’t believe, under the present circumstances (monopoly power), that a "fix" is possible.
Choice B should have stated ’Leaving the current system in place’. I cut myself off with crappy typing. If you don’t beleive there is any way to fix the current system, then there is no choice A.
Your objection also seems to infer that the majority will run right out and attempt to find schools you’d deem "extremist" or of a ’foreign culture’. I’d suggest that exactly the opposite would occur

I agree with you that the vast majority will not choose extremist schools. A large portion (hopefully a majority) will choose schools that perform better and/or transmit a positive view of American culture. Still more would want to, but covering the rest of the tuition or lack of transportation may lead them to choose public schools anyway.

The concerns come with the portions of the population that don’t:
A small minority will choose extremist schools. With government funding, those schools will grow as most new citizens from the sponsoring culture will opt for the private school. Slowly, you get areas that have the same problems with Muslim enclaves as Europe.

Some will choose schools in the current system as long as they are academically acceptable, either because they view it as easier or because they agree with the multi-culturalist view that all societies are equal. Or because they are immigrant families that never got assimilated to begin with.
You seem to assume that underperfoming public schools would be shut down or change their policies when everyone realizes that the private shools are better. I agree with James that the teachers union is extremely powerful. They are not going to be wiped out because their school’s funding would still come from the government directly and not vouchers. Unless the proposal is expanded to the point where all schools receive the vast majority of funding from vouchers and tuition, then it’s not really a consumer driven system. In areas where transmitting American cuture really dominates, public schools may close due to lack of students. Utah is one a few areas where this may work. In areas where there more than 30-40% of the population tolerates the left’s view, they’ll stay open.

The school voucher program as proposed in Utah attempts to break the left’s hold on education through competition, but one that favors the left since the bulk of the money is still on their side. I beleive this would make the public schools worse. Everyone with the will and determination to change the education system (and the money not covered by vouchers for tuition and transportation) will send their kids to private schools. That leaves the left with even less opposition.
I beleive if the majority that would like to send their kids to a private school for the purpose of a better education and to transmit a positive culture directed their energy and (lobbying) money toward the problems with public schools they could be fixed.

If all schools in an area recieved the same amount of government money per student in attendance, then the public schools would be economically forced to raise their level to match the private ones (as long as transportation wasn’t a significant issue). Unfortunately, that would still leave some private shools whose express purpose is to teach an opposing culture getting public funding.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
A small minority will choose extremist schools. With government funding, those schools will grow as most new citizens from the sponsoring culture will opt for the private school. Slowly, you get areas that have the same problems with Muslim enclaves as Europe.
Again let me point out that these vouchers are only usable at schools which meet at least a certain certification criteria set by the state. An "extremist" school would very likely not fit or pass those criteria, almost by definition.

So this isn’t some money hand-out with no strings. You can’t go to Clara’s Whorehouse, Chili Parlor and Law School if her law school isn’t certified as an institution the state will pay (via the voucher) for your attendance.

Unless you’re suggesting the state would certify extremist schools, I just don’t see this as much of a problem.
You seem to assume that underperfoming public schools would be shut down or change their policies when everyone realizes that the private shools are better. I agree with James that the teachers union is extremely powerful. They are not going to be wiped out because their school’s funding would still come from the government directly and not vouchers.
I’m certainly not suggesting they will be "wiped out" by any stretch. What they may have to do is step down off their high-horse, put away the arrogance and actually listen to their customers for a change. To me that’s all good.
Unless the proposal is expanded to the point where all schools receive the vast majority of funding from vouchers and tuition, then it’s not really a consumer driven system.
The simple fact that the entire student body can choose to leave if they so desire makes it a consumer driven system. Whether or not they exercise that option is an entirely different thing.
In areas where transmitting American cuture really dominates, public schools may close due to lack of students. Utah is one a few areas where this may work. In areas where there more than 30-40% of the population tolerates the left’s view, they’ll stay open.
But again, that’s their choice and that’s as it should be. Right now, however, they have no choice and thus the system has no need to consider what they would prefer. All this does is give those consuming the product some leverage to at least gain the attention of those who are studiously ignoring them right now.
The school voucher program as proposed in Utah attempts to break the left’s hold on education through competition, but one that favors the left since the bulk of the money is still on their side. I beleive this would make the public schools worse. Everyone with the will and determination to change the education system (and the money not covered by vouchers for tuition and transportation) will send their kids to private schools. That leaves the left with even less opposition.
How so if the students, all students, have the same option of going to private schools instead of the "left’s" public ones? And do you believe, for instance, that there wouldn’t be schools that will willingly take students at $3,000 and offset the difference with students at say $8,000 (national average spent per pupil per year is around $8,000 and that includes all sources such as federal money) whose parents could afford it? Afterall most of them are paying for the bureaucracy or overhead that public schools carry.
I beleive if the majority that would like to send their kids to a private school for the purpose of a better education and to transmit a positive culture directed their energy and (lobbying) money toward the problems with public schools they could be fixed.
My goodness ... how many decades has this effort been going on now? Why do you suppose anything would change? We constantly see the cost of education per student going up and their performance going down. We see no willingness on the part of educators to address these problems in a meaningful way. At what point do you say "let’s try a different approach"?

Utah just said it and I hope many more follow their example.
If all schools in an area recieved the same amount of government money per student in attendance, then the public schools would be economically forced to raise their level to match the private ones (as long as transportation wasn’t a significant issue). Unfortunately, that would still leave some private shools whose express purpose is to teach an opposing culture getting public funding.
I think you’ll find that it isn’t a matter of money per student, it is, instead, consumers at private school demanding the schools do a better job of educating their children and the schools responding to those consumer’s demands.

If you have a monopoly what demands do you have to respond? What choice do parents have? The answer is none. Now that’s changed. Let’s see how the public schools react to consumer demands now that they know they aren’t the only game in town.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
If you have a monopoly what demands do you have to respond? What choice do parents have? The answer is none. Now that’s changed. Let’s see how the public schools react to consumer demands now that they know they aren’t the only game in town.
Amen, well stated
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
With the requirements private schools will have to meet in order to accept Utah vouchers, the whole idea of there being madrassas in Utah (or the Mormon equivalent, for all you Mormon haters out there who think that’d be a popular school in Utah) is bunk. Short version: they have to administer norm-referenced tests, and they’re subject to nondiscrimination laws. If they’re teaching nothing but religion, or nothing but underwater basketweaving, or whatever, it’s going to become quite apparent and they can be made ineligible to accept vouchers. Now if there’s a school that’s teaching the 3 R’s AND religion, and parents choose that, good for them. But the voucher isn’t a blank check that says "Pay To The Order Of Your School Here." The schools have to be eligible to accept vouchers.

I also wanted to point out that in mostly-right Utah, the whole idea of the schools being "left" is also bunk. Most of the people who staff and run the schools are righties. The problem isn’t a distinction between right and left, the problem is between the culture of bureaucracy vs. the culture of liberty. I can agree all day with our school’s principal on gun control and abortion, but at the end of the day she’s still not going to let me give authorization over the phone for my son to have his asthma inhaler, or let my daughter be taught math at the level she needs, because The Almighty District Policy has her hands tied.

THAT’S the real reason vouchers have come to Utah. Nobody on the school staff dares to so much as wipe their own @$$ without a District @$$-Wiping Form filled out and signed in triplicate with a copy filed at the State Office of Education, and even then they can only do it with approved toilet paper. Parents are sick of having to tutor their own kids (or pay me to tutor them) and have the school take credit for the kids’ progress. Parents are sick of being told that if they want any voice, they should join the PTA so that they will get to vote on whether the school banner should be green or blue. This has nothing to do with left-right politics.
 
Written By: Wacky Hermit
URL: http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com
So this isn’t some money hand-out with no strings. You can’t go to Clara’s Whorehouse, Chili Parlor and Law School if her law school isn’t certified as an institution the state will pay (via the voucher) for your attendance.
A school does not have to be religion-only or extremist in order to transmit a different culture. The anti-discrimination statute cited was this:
“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
That means they can’t discriminate who they teach, not what culture they teach. If they do a good job with the academics, the societal aspects are up to them. In fact, about the only statement here about the teaching of culture is that you can’t teach that some national cultures are bad.
And do you believe, for instance, that there wouldn’t be schools that will willingly take students at $3,000 and offset the difference with students at say $8,000 (national average spent per pupil per year is around $8,000 and that includes all sources such as federal money) whose parents could afford it? Afterall most of them are paying for the bureaucracy or overhead that public schools carry.
Unless the private schools get direct government funding, you would need to find a willing parent at $13,000 for each student accepted at $3000. And they are still going to be paying for the buereaucracy and overhead of the public schools on top of it.
The simple fact that the entire student body can choose to leave if they so desire makes it a consumer driven system. Whether or not they exercise that option is an entirely different thing.
The entire student body could leave now for private schools if they wanted to under the current system. Vouchers make it affordable for some, but unless the vouchers cover the entire cost, then there will be families that can’t afford to send their kids to private school. Whether there would be a mass exodus from the public schools in Utah can be estimated with two factors: What percent of people that can afford private school actually send their kids to one now? And what portion of the remaining population would afford private school with the $3,000 voucher? I don’t know those stats.

If is accepted as fact that the public schools cannot be fixed without external competition, then yes, vouchers are the way to go. But they carry with them the risk of supporting private schools where immigrant students are taught only thier own culture and only interact with outsiders if people from other cultures go to their schools. Our culture will be transmitted to our kids, they will get their own.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
We’ve never seen a shred of credible evidence that shows school vouchers actually help students learn.
Sure, if you set your standard for credibility to "only those studies that come to conclusions I expected." I’ve been reading a few studies on school choice over the last year or so (not by libertarian/conservative organizations either; I mean studies from Harvard and the like). Not all studies are as optimistic about vouchers as others, but just to provide a counter to this view that there’s no credible evidence... here’s some of what I’ve recalled from my studies of school choice:

* Far, far more statistically significant positive changes to test scores than negative changes. Black children receive the greatest benefit, and are much more likely to see statistically significant changes at all. Heck, just offering a competitive voucher based on reading and math test scores raises black students’ test scores, which should strike everyone as a blinding glimpse of the obvious. The same processes that make our university system so good can work in our lower-level schools, just at a more localized level.

* Parents who switch are far more satisfied with the discipline/student behavior at private schools in every conceivable way. Less fighting, less tardiness and absences, less destruction of school property, less cheating. The environment is more conducive to learning.

* Parents who switch their kids to private schools are much more likely to get involved in their kids’ education. They keep much more constant contact with their kids’ teachers (including attending more teacher-parent conferences and getting reports of disciplinary problems), are more likely to do "career day" kind of stuff, etc.

* Further, students do more homework and were reported to do work that was more appropriate to their grade level. They have slightly smaller class and school sizes.

* School vouchers also allow some parents to choose schools in a more convenient location. Again, a no-brainer.

* Private schools had fewer of some kinds of facilities—nurse’s office, cafeteria, programs for non-English speakers and learning-disabled students—but those are predictable. They’re more specialized and less centered on some of the priorities of public schools, yet overall there was more satisfaction with private school facilities, indicating to me that private schools trade off facilities that public officials care about in favor of facilities that parents care about. Private schools are more likely to have after-school programs and are much more likely to offer tutoring.

Now, it is true right now that religion plays a role in determining who switches to private schools. Catholics and born-again Christians are more likely to take advantage of vouchers than others. It shouldn’t be a surprise, then, that switchers to private schools also prefer the values taught to their children at private versus public schools.

But the mere existence of an alternative funding mechanism to church collections, it seems to me, improves the prospects of secular private schools being founded after the voucher program is established.

I’ve heard about individual private schools and school "franchises" that are much better than the average private school, too. Some of them produce phenomenal results. I see no reason to believe that these will not become more popular as the opportunity to enroll in them is expanded, even at the margins. As more alternatives in secular education are established, is there any reason to believe that even religious private schools won’t have to raise their own standards? Increased competition is good. The people who can benefit from private schooling can choose to take advantage of it, while those who see little or no benefit can stick with their current situation.
Unless the proposal is expanded to the point where all schools receive the vast majority of funding from vouchers and tuition, then it’s not really a consumer driven system.
That’s basically true, but that’s no reason to forgo vouchers. Vouchers will give some families a choice they didn’t have before. Some of the system will be more consumer-driven. That strikes me as a good thing.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
You’re going to get state-funded Madrassas anyways...isn’t New York City setting one up, because Muslims need a special school just like transgendered people, etc.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
You can’t go to Clara’s Whorehouse, Chili Parlor and Law School

Darn, I was ready to sign up.
Vouchers will give some families a choice they didn’t have before. Some of the system will be more consumer-driven. That strikes me as a good thing.
Any consumer choice is better than the present union monopolies.
the mere existence of an alternative funding mechanism to church collections, it seems to me, improves the prospects of secular private schools being founded after the voucher program is established.
There are private educational companies ready to serve the voucher market, if it ever comes to fruition. All that stands in the way are Unions and their Political Lackeys
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
Parents who would choose an extremist shool are already striving to instill extremist beliefs in their children. I’ll accept their having schools of their own if it means breaking the monopoly of incompetence.

I advocate issuing all parents vouchers. They can use them to send them to the Urban League Business Academy (one of Milwaukee’s top rated schools) or the Clara Mohammed School (high academic standards along with the extremism). They can use them to reduce their total investment in sending their sons to board at the St. John’s Military Academy. They can even use them at the existing government schools, and then the several layers of administrators can explain to the tax payers why they should pick up the additional costs.

Home schoolers would get special limited vouchers, to pay for access to such group facilities as labs, shop classes, and shooting ranges.
 
Written By: triticale
URL: http://triticale.mu.nu
I agree that competition will help the overall quality of both public and private schools and the transmission of American culture for families that make it a priority.

My primary concern was that immigrant students that (ideally) would assimilate some American culture through interaction in public schools would attend a school with only their own background culture present.
As I look at it harder, my concern is really more about immigration and welfare reform. Thousands of immigrants came to this country and their children grew up with schools in their parents’ native language, but those kids knew that to succeed they would have to learn English and earn the American Dream. The pressure to assimilate has been eliminated through government programs that allow people to enter the country illegally and/or allow them to collect checks without forcing them to work thier way up.

Hopefully, the anti-discrimination laws will work against the Arab-culture or extremist schools, as I just argued myself out of my primary argument.

Whether $3,000 will be enough to tip the balance to make private schools a viable option for a large number of families will still be key to the program’s success. I hope it is. If the majority still can’t afford private school, the left will look at the small numbers of children that leave the public system as evidence they are teaching what parents want. Good luck, Utah.

Ted
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
My primary concern was that immigrant students that (ideally) would assimilate some American culture through interaction in public schools would attend a school with only their own background culture present.
For some immigrant communities the exact opposite is true. When the Chicago Board of Education announced plans some years back to provide bilingual education for Greek and Korean children (as a way to get their grubby mitts on more of that bilingual funding) the immigrant communities responded with plans to establish private schools where their children would be taught only in English and thus not ghettoized.
 
Written By: triticale
URL: http://triticale.mu.nu
While vouchers may solve the problems with teachers unions and the public school monopoly, I have my concerns about Utah using them as a way to get their schools out from under bureaucracy. Ultimately if vouchers are successful, you’re still going to see a push to increase regulation of these private schools. Then you’re just going to have a government regulatory bureaucracy pushing the same policies from the public schools down onto the private schools.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider