How Children REALLY React To Control

I happened to look at a page I'd turned back in _Market_Education_
_The_Unknown_History_ and stumbled back across something I'd forgotten about
that is relevant to the segregation/integration discussion. Quoting from
page 277:

"Political scientist Jay Greene and his colleague Nicole Metler recently
attempted to overcome this limitation by looking at the level of integration
in school lunchrooms. Voluntary lunchroom seating patterns, they reasoned,
are a much better indicator of true integration than are overall
school-enrollment figures. What Greene and Mellow found is that private
schools, particularly religious ones, produce much higher racial integration
in their lunchrooms than do public schools."

The citation in the endnotes is:

Jay P. Greene, "Integration Where It Counts: A Study of Racial Integration
in Public and Private School Lunchrooms," paper presented to the American
Political Science Association, Boston, September 1998.

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:07:58 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:

Not in government schools. I just want families to be able to choose
schools where a prayer can be led someone, where the Ten Commandments can
be displayed on the wall, and so forth, without having to pay thousands
of
dollars extra for a choice that in reality costs no more than it would
cost
a government school to educate the children.

Here's a mainstream Jewish view:

http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edt..._vouchers.html

Your argument appears to be this one:

Parents whose religious conscience precludes them from using the
public schools are in effect taxed double when they also pay tuition
for their children's mandatory secular education in denominational
schools.

The counter is that:

In fact, all citizens, including single persons, childless couples,
and retired couples, pay taxes to support public schools, regardless
of use. No one is taxed to support a religious school any more than
one is taxed to support a church or synagogue.

A nice ostrich imitation, but not a logically sound argument. The reality
is that families who send their children to private schools, and people who
donate significantly to them, pay far more than their share of the total
cost of our having an educated society, while those who do not help pay for
private schools pay less than their share. Call it what you will, but in
practical terms, the effect is just as unfair as double taxation whether it
should technically be considered double taxation or not. (I posted a much
longer argument regarding this issue excerpted from my book a few days ago.)

However, tax subsidies
to private schools which the public cannot control would truly
constitute "double taxation" of other taxpayers; in fact, it would be
"taxation without representation." Voucher tax dollars would be spent
according to the policies and directives of a private school board,
not through the decisions of a democratically elected and publicly
accountable public school board.

The same argument could be used to label food stamps "taxation without
representation" since society exercises only very broad control over how the
food stamps are spent.

The reality, of course, is that vouchers have a quality control mechanism
that has generally proven AT LEAST as effective as what the public schools
have. That mechanism is direct accountability to the people who actually
use the product or service (or, for children's products and services, their
parents). There is no logical reason to think that we wouldn't get our
money's worth.

[Generally, schools are funded according to enrollment or actual
attendance. When a parent sends a child to a private school, the local
public school receives no tax funds for that child. No, the parent
does not receive a credit; the taxes are instead diverted to police,
fire, parks, etc.]

Which is why I argue that the current structure takes unfair advantage of
the minority who use and support private schools for the benefit of the
majority, thereby violating the concept of the equal protection of the laws.
The minority is stuck with a cost that would normally be paid by the
taxpayers as a whole, and the majority gets to use the savings for other
purposes.

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:07:58 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"

How hard, and in how many places, have you looked? Are you really saying
that the peer pressure issue has nothing to do with why some Jews and
Moslems send their children to Jewish or Moslem schools? And if so, how
do you know?

I notice you leave out Hindus (maybe because there are not many Hindu
day schools?) My dil is Hindu. My husband is Jewish. I live in a
very diverse area which includes those of all these religions and more
- Bahai, for example are numerous here. The only proselytizers are
fundamentalist Christians. Some Catholics may proselytize in some
circumstances though not among children as far as I know.

Why does it matter? If anything, your apparent prejudice against religions
that proselytize looks like evidence that you are trying to take advantage
of the current situation to put non-prosylitizing religions in a stronger
position compared with prosylitizing ones. That would violate the
Establishment Clause.

"Donna Metler" wrote in message
news

"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote in message
...

Unless MOST families send their children to such after-school
activities, and do so for academic reasons rather than because
the activities are something the children enjoy, what you are
doing is demanding that families who want their children to
study religion accept a special, extra burden above and
beyond the burden that other families carry. You refuse to
offer them the option of substituting a religion class for
some other class that they consider less valuable (an art
class, for example). That constitutes discrimination by
government against the choice to study religion as an
elective.

Do a majority of families send their children to weekday religious
education
classes? The common practice where I grew up was Church and Sunday
school on Sunday AM, Youth Fellowship (which was much more social
than worship) for middle and high school kids on Sunday night, Choir
practice on Wednesday night. This was mainline protestant churches.

My impression (from very few data points; you likely have more than I do) is
that families tend to either do something along the lines of what you
describe or go all-out and send their children to religious schools. With
religious schools, a religion class can be substituted for something else
without really adding an extra time burden to the kids. In contrast, extra
classes outside school would create an additional time burden, especially
since it would involve an academic study rather than something done mostly
or entirely for fun like ballet or soccar. Add to that the cost (if the
teacher is a trained professional who needs to be paid accordingly) and
logistical issues, and daily religious studies outside school are not
exactly the world's most attractive option.

I know a lot more parents who send their children to ballet class, soccer
practice, or piano lessons during the school week than who send their
children to weekday religion classes.

Keep in mind that the distribution is not even. Members of some religious
groups are more likely than members of others to send their children to
religious schools or, if they can't do that, possibly arrange some other
kind of relatively intensive religious instruction. Further, within any
given denomination or congregation, the members most likely to send their
children to such schools or programs would tend to be among the most devout,
and I would expect usually among the most conservative.

So the pattern we have is that a lot of families don't mind how the public
schools handle religion at all, some would like to have something more like
what the public schools used to be before the Supreme Court intervened, and
some would prefer full-blown religious schools. Thus, the system taxes
everyone the same, gives some families almost exactly what they want based
on their religious viewpoints, gives some something pretty close, and gives
a small but significant percentage something they dislike enough that
they're willing to pay out of their own pockets to avoid using it if they
have to. The practical effect is to establish religious groups, factions,
and families that like the public schools in a favored position over those
that dislike them and want schools where religion will play a significantly
larger role.

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 00:23:56 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:


"Donna Metler" wrote in message
...

If it's only one class, couldn't this be accommodated by release
time or via an after school program?

The problem there is a matter of logistics. In a religious school, a
religion teacher can teach five or six classes a day. The same would
be theoretically possible with a "release time" format, but how do
you make it work in practice if the kids are spread across three or
four different public schools and even the kids at the same school
have different schedules? And where would the classes be held?
I'm thinking they wouldn't be allowed inside the school itself,
although I'm not quite 100% sure about that. But if that is true,
either there would have to be another building handy nearby to
hold the classes in or transportation would have to be arranged
(adding trouble and cost, and eating into time available for
instruction).

I can only say that for Catholics that problem is not an issue. The
classes are held at the local Catholic schools nearest to the
particular public school that is being accomodated. Or in the
Church nearest that school.

Transportation was by walking when I went to school.

What kind of population density was involved, and what kind of density of
Catholics? And what kind of walking distances were required?

I don't know what kind of place you live in, but both the city I grew up in
(Montgomery, Alabama) and the one where I live now (Huntsville) are largely
dominated by single-family homes. That produces a much lower population
density than apartment buildings several stories tall would. For a religion
that isn't among the dominant ones, that can mean pretty long distances
between churches.

If this is not practical, then it certainly isn't practical for the
child to be transported through your voucher system either.

Cars? Carpools? School busses? But by the time you transport kids very
far for a "release time" program, and then transport them back, you've eaten
into a lot of the time that would otherwise be available for instruction.
(And the same would be true for any non-trivial walking distance.)

After-school programs have other logistical issues. The kids have to
be transported to wherever the instruction takes place, and if one
teacher would teach as many separate classes in a religious school,
the classes would run until around 9:00 at night. More than one
teacher? Then you turn a full-time job requiring one teacher into
a part-time job for multiple teachers, which makes it a lot harder
to have enough teachers with the desired level of training and
experience.

What makes you think that there are so many students that one class
would not be sufficient?

The school I went to. My high school Bible teacher taught something along
the lines of five Bible classes a day plus the Chorus class. And that's
just for grades 10-12 or maybe 9-12. Fewer classes would have been possible
if we accepted a worse student-teacher ratio, but considering that public
schools don't have lecture classes of fifty or a hundred or more students
for History and Social Studies, why should such ratios be considered any
more reasonable for Bible classes?

The problem isn't as easy to solve as it looks at first glance like it
ought to be.

I went to those classes when I went to school. It certainly didn't
seem to be a problem for the Catholic Church. I cannot see why
other religions could not do the same thing.

I'd have to know more about your situation growing up (including the answers
to the questions I raised earlier) to address that issue.

"Circe" wrote in message
news:8hYEc.10917$Qj6.10251@fed1read05...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

That distinction has been in place
for decades with regard to financial aid for college students,

Missed the recent Washington state Supreme Court decision, did you?
They specifically ruled that the state could refuse to fund a scholarship
to an eligible individual because he wanted to use the money to study
theology at a religious college without infringing that individual's free
exercise. In this case, the Washington State Constitution specifically
bars government financial support of religious entities.

That's a state constitution issue, not a First Amendment issue. And if I
lived in Washington, I'd be pushing for an amendment. The original goal of
the Washington provision may have made sense at the time it was written, but
when a state funds practically anything else that a college chooses to offer
and a student chooses to study, singling out people who study religion to
deny them funding seems grossly unfair.

On 2 Jul 2004 08:45:20 -0700, (abacus) wrote:

Fine by me. I honestly don't care. But why is it that the private
schools provided that smaller class size - if indeed that is the
reason for the improvement - while the public schools did not? And
why is it that you object to allowing parents more options for their
children's education?

Money

Follow the money into those schools and guess where it goes.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

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.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:54:07 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:


"toto" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 00:23:56 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:


"Donna Metler" wrote in message
...

If it's only one class, couldn't this be accommodated by release
time or via an after school program?

The problem there is a matter of logistics. In a religious school, a
religion teacher can teach five or six classes a day. The same would
be theoretically possible with a "release time" format, but how do
you make it work in practice if the kids are spread across three or
four different public schools and even the kids at the same school
have different schedules? And where would the classes be held?
I'm thinking they wouldn't be allowed inside the school itself,
although I'm not quite 100% sure about that. But if that is true,
either there would have to be another building handy nearby to
hold the classes in or transportation would have to be arranged
(adding trouble and cost, and eating into time available for
instruction).

I can only say that for Catholics that problem is not an issue. The
classes are held at the local Catholic schools nearest to the
particular public school that is being accomodated. Or in the
Church nearest that school.

Transportation was by walking when I went to school.

What kind of population density was involved, and what kind of density of
Catholics? And what kind of walking distances were required?

The town had a population of about 10,000. I can't say how many were
Catholic, but there were a sizable proportion. We had a sizable
population of Jewish people as well. Very few apartments, but on
the east coast where the houses are closer together. Once reason
why I like living in the midwest is elbow room is better.

I don't know what kind of place you live in, but both the city I grew up in
(Montgomery, Alabama) and the one where I live now (Huntsville) are largely
dominated by single-family homes. That produces a much lower population
density than apartment buildings several stories tall would. For a religion
that isn't among the dominant ones, that can mean pretty long distances
between churches.

If this is not practical, then it certainly isn't practical for the
child to be transported through your voucher system either.

Cars? Carpools? School busses? But by the time you transport kids very
far for a "release time" program, and then transport them back, you've eaten
into a lot of the time that would otherwise be available for instruction.
(And the same would be true for any non-trivial walking distance.)

You don't transport them back. It's the last period of the day that
they are released for and then they return home, not back to school.

After-school programs have other logistical issues. The kids have to
be transported to wherever the instruction takes place, and if one
teacher would teach as many separate classes in a religious school,
the classes would run until around 9:00 at night. More than one
teacher? Then you turn a full-time job requiring one teacher into
a part-time job for multiple teachers, which makes it a lot harder
to have enough teachers with the desired level of training and
experience.

What makes you think that there are so many students that one class
would not be sufficient?

The school I went to. My high school Bible teacher taught something along
the lines of five Bible classes a day plus the Chorus class. And that's
just for grades 10-12 or maybe 9-12. Fewer classes would have been possible
if we accepted a worse student-teacher ratio, but considering that public
schools don't have lecture classes of fifty or a hundred or more students
for History and Social Studies, why should such ratios be considered any
more reasonable for Bible classes?

My Catholic School classes had 60 to 65 students to one teacher, but
then the nuns expected a different kind of behavior than a public
school teacher would have gotten with the same number of students.

The problem isn't as easy to solve as it looks at first glance like it
ought to be.

I went to those classes when I went to school. It certainly didn't
seem to be a problem for the Catholic Church. I cannot see why
other religions could not do the same thing.

I'd have to know more about your situation growing up (including the answers
to the questions I raised earlier) to address that issue.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"toto" wrote in message
...
On 2 Jul 2004 08:45:20 -0700, (abacus) wrote:

Fine by me. I honestly don't care. But why is it that the private
schools provided that smaller class size - if indeed that is the
reason for the improvement - while the public schools did not? And
why is it that you object to allowing parents more options for their
children's education?

Money

Follow the money into those schools and guess where it goes.

In addition, voucher accepting private schools often don't have to meet the
same standards for accountability public schools do. While this is OK when
parents are paying the bills, when you're asking the public as a whole to do
so, it seems like a bad choice to remove that oversight. And when you're
using public school "accountability" as a way to select students, sending
students to schools without any official oversight seems like a step
backwards.



http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/co...a_vouchers_070
1.html

"There have been other voucher system problems. In the past four months,
among the problems The Post has reported we

n Two voucher-taking schools in Jacksonville were simultaneously being run
by people who were already being paid publicly financed salaries to run
charter schools. One of the directors listed identical addresses and phone
numbers for both of her schools.

n Another McKay voucher-taking school in Jacksonville saw its state money
cut off after department officials found that 14 students getting McKay
vouchers there were actually enrolled in local public schools. The state
learned of this only after a parent complained about her inability to
transfer her McKay voucher to a different private school.

n The operator of a failed Boca Raton charter school that still owed the
Palm Beach County School District $126,000 reopened his school as a private
school and then received $22,000 in McKay vouchers.

n The operator of a Tallahassee school for dyslexic children nearly doubled
her per-student tuition in the years since the McKay program was created -
so that parents now receiving a voucher will be paying as much out of
pocket, about $5,000, as they were before vouchers were created.... "


"Bush's press office also continues to defend the voucher programs.

"The vast majority of schools are providing a quality education for
Florida's students, who are learning at unprecedented levels," Bush
spokesman Jacob DiPietre said Tuesday in responding to the Bartow arrests.

Asked what proof the state had of this, DiPietre did not respond.

The state does not track the academic progress of students on McKay or
corporate tax credit vouchers, the schools' curricula or the teachers'
qualifications.

"For all the positives they keep talking about these schools, they're
getting overwhelmed by corruption and people trying to scam the system,"
said Senate Democratic Leader Ron Klein of Delray Beach. "



--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits