Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Good News and Bad News for Poor Kids
Hey poor kids. I've got good news and I've got bad news. Which do you want first?
Good news first? OK.
In Arizona today, an appeals court upheld the constitutionality of a program in which corporations give money to create scholarships to help public school kids enroll in private schools. The companies get tax credits for their giving, and 1,947 kids get a private school education.
The American Civil Liberties Union has been fighting the Corporate Tax Credit Scholarship Program for years, on the grounds that some of the scholarship money finds its way into the hands of religious schools. On the other side, the always-valuable Institute for Justice.
And now for the bad news.
In D.C., 1,900 poor kids will be pulled out of the private schools they have been attending as part of a federally-funded scholarship program when the Democratic Congress allows the program to expire next year, something it signaled its intent to do this week. (Murmurs from Obama's press secretary suggests that there may be a small compromise in the works for kids already enrolled in private schools. But such a deal will be cold comfort but to the thousands of kids who applied for scholarships and didn't get them, not to mention all the kids who have yet to enroll in D.C. schools.)
Just as with the Arizona program, the D.C. scholarship program subtracts no money from the public school budget, which means that the public schools are actually winding up with more money per kid when some kids leave the system. But that hasn't stopped critics like Sen. Ted Kennedy's office from falsely claiming that the program "takes funds from very needy public schools to send students to unaccountable private schools."
When those Arizona private school kids take a school trip to D.C.—you know, the kind of trip that private schools take their kids on—maybe they can stop in and visit their D.C. counterparts in their decaying public schools, just to say hello.
|3.12.09 @ 4:00PM|#
I've often thought my disgust for Ted Kennedy could not
increase.
Ted always proves me wrong.
|3.12.09 @ 4:03PM|#
See, another reason why I can't ever support the ACLU.
I think the ACLU is ignoring the glaringly obvious. If you can't
have government fund school with any religion in it.
Then you can't have government fund any school
because otherwise you have an inevitable violation of the church
state thingy.
I mean, what is and isn't a religion is subjective.
Or is the ACLU saying they have the definitive definition of what
is and isn't a religion.
I claim that environmentalism is a religion. I should start a
lawsuit about that.
|3.12.09 @ 4:04PM|#
tag closing failure.
only the one sentence was supposed to be bold.
I think that is my first attempt at bolding, so that should be some
something.
The Extispicator|3.12.09 @ 4:06PM|#
You forgot the other good news. There is at least a 41% chance that a DC public school student will not be shivved or raped in any given school year. And an almost 2% of getting an adequate education (on your own time, of course).
Dello|3.12.09 @ 4:13PM|#
"takes funds from very needy public schools to send students to
unaccountable private schools."
Is this anything like when Obama sends his own kids to private
school, instead of having them (and the matching dollars) go to
public school?
|3.12.09 @ 4:13PM|#
I don't get this issue at all. Think about religion out of its religious character and as a "viewpoint" under speech doctrine. So long as government funding is neutral--it neither favors nor disfavors the religious viewpoint, then why is it wrong? Given the tension between the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, I think this is the correct way to view this issue.
Lefiti|3.12.09 @ 4:21PM|#
If you lunatic marxists of the right ever manage to destroy public education, it will be the last nail our ciffin. Thank God, you're marginal little pricks dependent on donations to spew your ideological twaddle. Go fuck yourselves.
Warty|3.12.09 @ 4:22PM|#
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402921.html
We're often told that public schools are underfunded. In the District, the spending figure cited most commonly is $8,322 per child, but total spending is close to $25,000 per child -- on par with tuition at Sidwell Friends, the private school Chelsea Clinton attended in the 1990s.
What accounts for the nearly threefold difference in these numbers? The commonly cited figure counts only part of the local operating budget. To calculate total spending, we have to add up all sources of funding for education from kindergarten through 12th grade, excluding spending on charter schools and higher education. For the current school year, the local operating budget is $831 million, including relevant expenses such as the teacher retirement fund. The capital budget is $218 million. The District receives about $85.5 million in federal funding. And the D.C. Council contributes an extra $81 million. Divide all that by the 49,422 students enrolled (for the 2007-08 year) and you end up with about $24,600 per child.
For comparison, total per pupil spending at D.C. area private schools -- among the most upscale in the nation -- averages about $10,000 less. For most private schools, the difference is even greater.
Motherfuck these cocksuckers. They'll knowingly fuck over a bunch
of kids for their ideology.
|3.12.09 @ 4:22PM|#
It really doesn't have anything to do with religion. They would
have some objection even if the private schools were strictly
secular. Liberals are just afraid this will undo desegregation.
They've been wiping their ass with the freedom of association for
50 years, did people think they were just going to stop?
It's imperative to them that all races and classes are mixed
together and given the same sub-par education on a shaky theory of
equal outcomes. They've proven time and time again that education,
as in learning, is not even on their radar. They want to schools to
play out their grand social experiment, especially if it
perpetuates an undereducated lower class to bribe at the ballot box
with the "oppressor's money."
|3.12.09 @ 4:24PM|#
Pro Libertate: Indeed.
And the ACLU might be shocked to learn that GI Bill education money
has gone to religious colleges since the beginning of the program
in the '40s. My Dad went to a Jesuit-run college that way even
though we weren't Catholic.
|3.12.09 @ 4:28PM|#
Reinmoose,
Being a skipping record of idiotic observations and obscenities
will do that to you. In fact, if he can't be bothered to come up
with new material, neither can I.
SugarFree | December 4, 2008, 11:56am | #
Who is this Lefiti?
Remember your last bout of explosive diarrhea? No matter how often you flush, it wasn't going to wash away that spattering of shit just under the lip of the back of the bowl.
He's the guy who broke in your house to lick it off while fucking a microwaved cantaloupe.
Mary Jo|3.12.09 @ 4:31PM|#
"I've often thought my disgust for Ted Kennedy could not
increase.
Ted always proves me wrong."
I'm so glad he's going away soon.
BTW:
- JFK, shot in the brain by Oswald
- RFK, shot in the brain by Sirhan-Sirhan
- EMK, shot in the brain by cancer
Hmmmm...
|3.12.09 @ 4:36PM|#
I claim that environmentalism is a religion. I should start
a lawsuit about that.
No standing unless you're claiming to be an environmentalist and
being discriminated against. But thanks for parroting deceased nutjob
and former congresswoman Helen
Chenoweth.
I think that is my first attempt at bolding, so that should be
some something.
Dude, it's 2009. HTML text tags (ie, bolding) are pretty, well,
1995. Also, there's a preview button to allow you to check your
post. Just sayin'
Brett Stevens|3.12.09 @ 4:40PM|#
kwais,
I think many things are "religions" in the sense that they become
objects of blind faith for people who cling to them and defend them
with absurd responses. Egalitarianism, pseudo-environmentalism, and
so on.
No one wants to admit that our public schools fail because the
biology of most children means that a 12th grade education is lost
on them, and because we refuse to admit that, we keep dumbing down
our curriculum to pander to the stupid kids. The smart kids suffer,
and so their parents take them to private schools.
Paul|3.12.09 @ 4:48PM|#
If you lunatic marxists of the right ever manage to destroy
public education, it will be the last nail our
ciffin.
Win.
|3.12.09 @ 4:49PM|#
It really doesn't have anything to do with
religion.
Of course. It has to do with the teachers' union. Any and all
voucher/private school programs need to be killed as soon as
possible lest people decide to start calling for more of them
because they like them.
|3.12.09 @ 4:50PM|#
I believe that liberals really do want to improve public
education, which like most of their goals is a noble one. However
their methodology, as always, is flawed. I've always gotten the
sense that they want to "force" the rest of us to fix public
education by allowing the schools to crumble.
Not sure why the ACLU got involved in this. It doesn't seem like
their cup of tea. Despite the fact that they're often seen as part
of the left-liberal coalition, they've done a lot of good for
individual rights.
My understanding is that federal funding for public schools is
based on enrollment, so it seems like Sen. Kennedy is technically
correct on this, though losing the big picture about how this
ultimately benefits those students more than would their attendance
at state schools. KM-W, please comment.
Paul|3.12.09 @ 4:51PM|#
And the ACLU might be shocked to learn that GI Bill
education money has gone to religious colleges since the beginning
of the program in the '40s.
GI bill doesn't send impressionable minds to school. This is about
control. Not choice.
Paul|3.12.09 @ 4:54PM|#
Whenever a liberal tells you they're "pro-choice"
always...always ask him "which one?"
I believe that liberals really do want to improve public
education, which like most of their goals is a noble one. However
their methodology, as always, is flawed.
I respectfully disagree. Liberals want to protect teacher's unions.
liberals believe that somehow, by protecting the teacher's union,
that this will lead to better outcomes for the children. Sort of a
happy accident, if you will.
|3.12.09 @ 5:00PM|#
Hell, if the religious schools teach the little hooligans not to steal my car or walk on my lawn, I say they're welcome to my tax money.
|3.12.09 @ 5:01PM|#
Anyone else see the Missouri strategic reprot that was leaked to
the public?
http://www.infowars.com/images/scan0022.jpg
It mentions Ron Paul supporters as being likely to attack FEMA
camps or the federal reserve bank.
Mary Jo|3.12.09 @ 5:02PM|#
Your Tax Dollars at Work
"More than one out of every five dollars of the $126 million
Massachusetts is receiving in earmarks from a $410 billion federal
spending package is going to help preserve the legacy of the
Kennedys," the Associated Press reports from Boston:
The bill includes $5.8 million for the planning and design of a
building to house a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate.
The funding may also help support an endowment for the
institute.The bill also includes $22 million to expand facilities
at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum and $5
million more for a new gateway to the Boston Harbor Islands on the
Rose Kennedy Greenway, a park system in downtown Boston named after
Kennedy's mother and built on land opened up by the Big Dig highway
project.We suppose if you can't make history, you might as well buy
it with other people's money.
Milena Del Valle|3.12.09 @ 5:25PM|#
"My office overlooks the Rose Kennedy Greenway. It is
attractive."
That maybe. But at what price?
|3.12.09 @ 5:27PM|#
what is and isn't a religion is subjective.
Not really.
Environmentalism = not a religion. No deity.
Libertarianism = religion. Market as deity.
Geoff Nathan|3.12.09 @ 5:30PM|#
FWIW there's a good article by Roland Martin on the front page
of this hour's CNN website that says it quite well, too:
Roland Martin on the DC Voucher Program
|3.12.09 @ 5:42PM|#
Milena Del Valle ,
I think the big dig came in at about 12 billion, maybe it was 20
billion. But if one upper middle class lazy jerk can have a better
view from his office it is all worth it.
Stagman|3.12.09 @ 5:56PM|#
I wonder if Congressional Democrats realize that their leader went to nothing but the best private schools his entire life: Punahou (my alma matter, it can be fairly describe as opulent), Occidental, Columbia, Harvard Law.
|3.12.09 @ 5:57PM|#
If:
Libertarianism = religion. Market as deity.
Then:
Leftism = religion. State as deity.
|3.12.09 @ 5:58PM|#
I wonder if Congressional Democrats realize that their
leader went to nothing but the best private schools his entire
life
As is right and natural for a member of the Master Class.
For the proles, though, not so much.
alan|3.12.09 @ 6:20PM|#
Suggestion for Reason's headline when Kennedy craps out:
Senator Edward Kennedy, A Sorry Life of
Unaccountability
MNG|3.12.09 @ 6:22PM|#
This debate is funny.
No law prevents rich people from going to private schools.
And all of you are against taking money from one person to give it
to some one too poor to afford a private school.
So really what the fuck are you guys bitching about?
It seems like your upset that the money that is taken from people
to fund public schools, all of which yiou are against anyway, can't
be spent on private enterprises.
Welcome Bizarro! Hello!
MNG|3.12.09 @ 6:29PM|#
And people should know better before leaping to some "well for
liberals are just all about control or the teachers unions"
stuff.
Since I'm a liberal I'll tell you what the big deal for us.
First, we like public schools. We think it's a good idea that every
child is guaranteed an education. We think it's good because 1. it
can help promote the public good by helping tap into and fostering
potential intelligence that will benefit us all (like uncle Milty
Friedman who went to public schools, I mean, look how much he
enlightenment he has given to, say, the school voucher movement...)
and 2. it serves the purposes of equal opportunity (since someone
without an education rarely has an equal shot at getting life's
goods compared to someone who does). Also, kids are'nt responsible
for their parents bad choices and so should get some assistance
that will help them overcome them one day.
Now, having said that, what is our beef with voucher programs? Most
of them that I have seen grant a fraction of the cost of tuition,
therefore ensuring that the poorest can't use them, or they are
used by an astounding number of folks for religious schools (and I
don't think any taxpayer should have to pay for religious
instruction).
|3.12.09 @ 6:39PM|#
MNG: You're seriously claiming that one of the liberal objections to vouchers is that they often aren't large enough?? That's a good one!
Mike Laursen|3.12.09 @ 6:40PM|#
See, another reason why I can't ever support the
ACLU.
I support the ACLU and the Institute for Justice. Look at it this
way. The Institute for Justice is arguing for educational freedom
and the ACLU is arguing for religious freedom. And that's exactly
the type of legal argument one would want it to be in a libertarian
world.
Stagman|3.12.09 @ 7:02PM|#
MNG, you're conflating 2 separate issues.
The first is public funding of education. You'll find a diversity
of opinions from libertarians on this issue. Some are totally
against it and some, like myself, are generally for it.
The second is the establishment of government run schools. This is
what most libertarians are against and what you are mostly talking
about. It is a matter of choice and of competition. In a voucher
program the funding goes to parents, not a school. The parents make
the decision that's best for their kid. This creates competition
among school for the voucher money. Competition reduces costs as
schools try to become more competitive. As far as I know, a voucher
program has never been fully implemented anywhere in the US for any
considerable length of time.
Many private high schools already have financial aid programs for
poor students. The idea is that smart people are evenly distributed
across the wealth spectrum. The financial aid given to smart poor
kids bolsters the academic reputation of the school. A voucher
program makes this option available to more schools.
Also, to address your religious school red herring; if parents want
to send their to a religious school on a voucher program, so be it.
It's their choice. The funding goes to parents, not the schools.
Why are they making the choice to send their kids to religious
schools (the vast majority of private schools have a religious
affiliation)? Because they are better. (Don't even try to argue
this one, you'll just look silly.) Why are they better? Because
they must be to survive. They are in competition with other private
schools as well as public schools for students.
Incidentally this is Constitutional (there's a case on point that I
don't remember the name of off the top of my head).
squarooticus|3.12.09 @ 7:07PM|#
We think it's a good idea that every child is guaranteed an education.
Well, they're guaranteed a seat in a public school, that's for
sure. At issue in this story is whether they're actually receiving
an education or not, and whether there might be better structures
than government-run schools that are effectively monopolies for
most people.
MNG|3.12.09 @ 7:12PM|#
"Why are they better? Because they must be to survive."
That's hilarious, considering religious schools are attached to
churches and get donations all the time. You act like these
religious schools are just like any business in the marketplace.
Except people don't go to Wal-Mart every Sunday and give 10% of
their income to it in exchange for stories and songs.
This is why for example there are so many religious private schools
and often also why they can educate kids for "less" since the
building and other things have been paid for with parish
money.
"if parents want to send their to a religious school on a voucher
program, so be it. It's their choice"
In the case you're probably thinking of about 90%+ of the money
went to religious schools. When you start getting that high it
looks a lot like a transfer of public monies to religious
establishments.
But again, you are in the position of advocating that money be
taken from me and given to private enterprises. Socialized costs,
private gains.
MNG|3.12.09 @ 7:16PM|#
"You're seriously claiming that one of the liberal objections to
vouchers is that they often aren't large enough??"
Yes.
You act like you've never heard this before. But it's the most
common one I hear from liberal friends.
It goes like this: if we take some portion of what we spend on
public education and give it to anyone who transfers to a private
school, and if that portion is, say, $2,000 and average private
school tuition is $4,000, then poor parents would never get to use
the voucher (they can't scrape up the difference) and you end up 1.
helping a lot of middle class go who were on the margins of going
and 2. putting $2,000 into the wallets of rich parents who were
going to send their kid anyway but now get to have a voucher
off-set the costs. And now the public schools, full of mostly poor
kids, have even less money to do their thing.
That's how the argument goes.
MNG|3.12.09 @ 7:20PM|#
I mean, this would be an objection to privatizing many things,
that government money, taken from all of us, is then used to make
private enterprises very wealthy.
Something seems stinky about that.
I also find it interesting that you hear how much our schools suck
and the evidence is often how poorly they fare relative to foriegn
schools, and a conclusion is drawn that we need private
schools.
But are those nations that are kicking our ass school-wise
educating their kids through private schools? Maybe so, but I doubt
it...
nebby|3.12.09 @ 7:23PM|#
"But again, you are in the position of advocating that money be
taken from me and given to private enterprises. Socialized costs,
private gains."
Nope, the money is going to the parents. Welfare payments make
liquor stores richer, but that doesn't mean welfare is a transfer
to liquor stores.
Or is your point that taxpayer monies going to other individuals is
wrong. I could get behind that.
MNG|3.12.09 @ 7:26PM|#
nebby
Stores have actually tried to get standing to sue when a benefit to
their customers is cut off.
Thank God I think they've been denied.
nebby|3.12.09 @ 7:27PM|#
"I also find it interesting that you hear how much our schools
suck and the evidence is often how poorly they fare relative to
foriegn schools, and a conclusion is drawn that we need private
schools."
No the conclusion is countries filled with white kids or asian kids
do better than our little melting pot. However, the schools that
come closest to those foreign levels of achievement are mostly
private schools. The exceptions are public schools in some
white/asian areas and public schools that can pick their
students.
Paul|3.12.09 @ 7:28PM|#
Environmentalism = not a religion. No deity.
bzzzzzzt. Nature is the deity. Gaia.
MNG|3.12.09 @ 7:30PM|#
"Environmentalism = not a religion. No deity.
bzzzzzzt. Nature is the deity. Gaia."
Sheesh, if people are going to talk that way then isn't
libertarianism a religion?
nebby|3.12.09 @ 7:33PM|#
The gaia thing shows the difference. You can say anything is
someone's metaphorical deity, but when you give it a name separate
from its normal name (nature/gaia) you are talking about a literal
deity.
I guess we could name the market god Friedman or something.
Stagman|3.12.09 @ 7:38PM|#
That's hilarious, considering religious schools are attached
to churches and get donations all the time.
Parochial schools almost died out in the 70s because they weren't
competitive against free public schools. The ones that survived did
so by becoming more competitive and by public schools becoming more
shitty.
considering religious schools are attached to churches and get
donations all the time
This flat out not true. While some are, many are not. I happen to
have gone to a religious school that was not attached to a church
and received no money from any church. Also, being attached to a
church is no guarantee that the church offers any support to the
school. They are a business just like any else.
This is why for example there are so many religious private
schools and often also why they can educate kids for "less" since
the building and other things have been paid for with parish
money.
Your argument only addresses the cost of education, not the quality
of education. I know, I know, you are a liberal and think these are
the same thing.
In the case you're probably thinking of about 90%+ of the money
went to religious schools. When you start getting that high it
looks a lot like a transfer of public monies to religious
establishments.
The percentage is totally irrelevant because it was not the
government who decided to give it to them. It could be 100% and not
affect that fact. There's no arguing that public money is ending up
at a religious school. But the establishment clause is wholly
concerned with government action, and the government is giving
money to parents, not religious schools. For Constitutional
purposes the analysis ends here.
But again, you are in the position of advocating that money be
taken from me and given to private enterprises. Socialized costs,
private gains.
I know liberals wish libertarians were actually anarchists, but we
aren't. There are a few times when this is OK, like with education
(where a child shouldn't have to pay the full cost of his parent's
mistakes). Also, a better educated populace is a socialized
gain.
Mad Max|3.12.09 @ 7:40PM|#
'But are those nations that are kicking our ass school-wise
educating their kids through private schools? Maybe so, but I doubt
it...'
In some of these countries, the students are doubly enriched by
going to the government schools and supplementing their educations
by attending private cram schools.
In other countries, the government pays for both a public-school
system and some of the private school systems with tax money.
In Arizona, they've gone a different route. They don't require any
to pay taxes to support private school education, but if someone
pays to support the education of a poor kid in a private school,
then the philanthropist get a tax credit. Since he's already
(voluntarily) spent money to help the education of the poor, he's
given a break on paying taxes to support the government
schools.
Those who *haven't* supported poor kids in private schools still
have to meet their obligation to fund education by paying taxes
into the government school system.
Nobody is *forced,* under this system, to give money either
directly or indirectly to private schools.
Of course, my tax-law professor would say that a tax credit is the
same thing as a subsidy. But this is the same school who thought
that a disbarred lawyer was qualified to speak at a seminar on
legal ethics.
Another Phil|3.12.09 @ 8:11PM|#
It seems like your upset that the money that is taken from
people to fund public schools, all of which yiou are against
anyway, can't be spent on private enterprises.
Partly right. The prohibition on paying private enterprises isn't
central to my objection though. It's that if a parent chooses to
opt out of the public school system, they still have to pay for it.
If the purpose of taxpayer funding of education is
education, then who cares who gets paid to do the
educating? Unless there's an unstated agenda about the content of
the education.
MNG|3.12.09 @ 9:37PM|#
Stagman
You mean if you and I were both starting businesses from scratch,
but someone gave me a building to use and threw in cash at regular
intervals, that wouldn't give me an advantage in turning out
whatever quality of product I end up creating for less than
you.
Hooo-kay.
And I know what the Court found about the money not violating the
establishment clause because it did not come directly from the
parents. I think the majority was wrong. If 98% of it is going to
religious schools, even if the individual parents made the
decision, it looks a lot like government support, indirectly, of
these religious institutions.
"There are a few times when this is OK, like with education (where
a child shouldn't have to pay the full cost of his parent's
mistakes). Also, a better educated populace is a socialized
gain."
I agree. But I bet many libertarians do not.
"Democrats hate children."
That's why we passed SCHIP you know. One way to really get people
you hate is to give them health services.
Emperor joe, speaking to MNG|3.12.09 @ 11:25PM|#
'That's why we passed SCHIP you know. One way to really get
people you hate is to give them health services.'
Well done, my apprentice! Together, we will rule the galaxy!
MJ|3.12.09 @ 11:34PM|#
"...it looks a lot like government support, indirectly, of these
religious institutions."
It only matters if government supports a religion directly. If the
parents are free to choose, it does not matter if they make similar
choices. The 1st amendment prohibits the establishment of religion,
which has a very specific meaning. The radical, irrational
interpretation of the establishment clause promoted by the ACLU
goes far afield of the actual meaning.
The scholarships that were authorized by these programs were funded
by private corporate donations specifically for that purpose. The
government was merely the steward of the funds. So, in reality,
this was not even government money.
"Most of them that I have seen grant a fraction of the cost of
tuition, therefore ensuring that the poorest can't use
them,..."
In liberalland, the perfect is the mortal enemy of the good.
Ensuring that the bad prevails.
|3.13.09 @ 4:12AM|#
I agree. But I bet many libertarians do not.Do you think
differently of Republicans and Democrats, and if so, why?
On a different topic, all there is to 'education' is the
'noosphere', the print and electronic technology that 'take' from
the noosphere and the school facilities that house this technology.
Then there are the didactic systems and administrative systems.
Then there are the teachers and administrators, the students and
the parents.
Academics and politicians system and there is a combined approach
to the administrative and didactic systems. Many politicians try to
fix funding issues that might affect technology and the facilities.
Some politicians think standardized testing is key to fixing the
system.
It's tough to blame students themselves for failing schools, as the
whole system is supposed to be for their benefit. Much money is
spent trying to find solutions to the various physical problems
with the school, but obviously money can't 'fix' teachers or
parents.
I'm fairly ignorant on voucher programs and the like, but I have
concluded that one benefits from having parents with an
autodidactic streak and also a genuine interest in their child's
education. There are a lot of good teachers and a lot of bad
teachers in public schools [citation needed]. I can't see any
solutions to these problems except at the (cliché alert) grassroots
level.
My conclusion: some people, under current circumstances, are
fucked. Others are not. If the system is broken, the only answer I
can think of is for parents to start becoming part of the solution
themselves. Yes, I realize that this is what PTAs are for. Still,
can you deny that some peoples' parents are dumbasses. No way
should kids be punished for this, but in many cases there are few
other possible outcomes. The kid has to have teachers, parents,
peers or some other role model that is a positive example or there
are high odds s/he won't get a good education no matter how much
dough you throw in his or her direction.
One could write a long book on the sociological ills that have led
us to this pass, but none will change the fact that some of us are
fucked. Money and resources would be hard-pressed to solve this
sort of problem. Intellectual impoverishment is just as widespread,
possibly even more so in this country than financial
impoverishment, and there are no easy solutions, just a shopping
cart of difficult ones.
MNG, I'm sure you agree with some of that.
Re: the Scholarship Program, I'm all for it.
|3.13.09 @ 4:16AM|#
Fuck. Broke tags. The first two sentences of my excessively long
posts are MNG quotes, and the last sentence of that paragraph is my
question to him.
But shorter me: autodidacts and useful parents are what kids need,
dammit.
|3.13.09 @ 4:37AM|#
I am aware of statistical realities:
1) The reason that the US lags other industrialized nation in
standardized test results and
1) That students in any classroom/school/nation will always break
down into groups (roughly) high-achieving, average and
low-achieving. And obviously all these groups break down further.
These groups obviously cut swaths across all backgrounds.
I'm more interested in the practical realities of education
(students maximizing individual potential) than any cold
statistical evaluation of psychometric ability and information
retention. After all, psychometric tests are methods of measuring
education, the results of which only rudimentarily indicate any
limits on future intellectual achievement.
Mad Max|3.13.09 @ 5:50AM|#
'The government was merely the steward of the funds.'
I would deny this. The Arizona tax authorities never handle the
scholarship funds; they administer the tax-credit program to see if
the donor gets to deduct the scholarship from its taxes. There's a
lot of paperwork requirements, but the government never gets its
hands on the scholarships.
Here's the text of the law, which
provides a tax credit to corporations. If a scholarship program
is to qualify, so that donors get a credit for contributing to it,
then the program must spend 90% of the donated money to pay for
scholarships of poor kids at private schools. The private schools
can't practice racial, etc. discrimination, and they have to
fingerprint all staff who have contact with children. The children
themselves have to transfer from a government school to a private
school in the year in which they start getting scholarship funds -
if they were already in a private school, they aren't eligible. The
amount of scholarship per student is capped at varying rates, the
cap going up during the give years of the program. If it wants, the
corporation can satisfy its entire income-tax liability by giving
to qualified scholarships.
A more limited program gives a tax credit for
individual donations for the private education of handicapped
students. The individual can only satisfy up to $500-$1,000 of
his income tax liability by giving to qualified handicapped
scholarships.
Mad Max|3.13.09 @ 6:10AM|#
Also, schools have to report their test scores on some
standardized test.
The operation of the corporate tax-credit program in 2007, as
reported by the Arizona Department of Revenue
S|3.13.09 @ 7:37PM|#
Check the preliminary report on the DC public schools vs students in the DC Scholarship program. Standardize test results are statistically identical.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245