Parent-Child Negotiations

"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.

And the costs for starting up a school are immense. Which is why charter
schools generally require corporate or charitable start-up money. Only
fairly rich organizations can do it. IE-big, established churches.


Of course the size of the voucher amount would also make a difference.
With
an adequate voucher amount, schools could operate without having to rely
on
support from churches or other charitable organizations.

And here we see proposed by you an obvious abuse of the voucher system:
similar
investment in the public school system for this purpose, or in a secular
private
school via vouchers or community investment, would similarly go to the end
of
providing an improved school for a poorer economic area. Ah but it could
be a
religious private school too under this plan, so religious organizations
keen on
making converts jump in. Say, Nathan - what happened to your contention
about
being able to afford something and "FREEDOM"?? You whine about public
schools
being free, but not quite to your standards, while you'd have to pay for a
private religious school, and call it an infringement. But you're quite
thrilled to actively participate in handing inner city families a rotten
choice
between a currently failed school, and another free one which would
subject them
to active proseltyzation. There's a word for those with such double
standards
which depend on their interests. Starts with an "H".

ANd, there's also another difference. I've posted about the programs in my
public school-which you say most parents don't need. True. But these
programs are what the parents of the kids in my school say they need in
order for their children to benefit from school. No one has come to us and
said "My little Johnny needs to attend catechism classes every day to make
his first communion". Somehow, this need seems to have slipped below the
bandwidth of the parents here. But they have come to us and asked for help
in finding a safe place for their kids after the school day ended
(answer-provide extended day programming), with medical care (work with the
health department where we provide the space, and they send in the
personnel), clothing, etc.



And don't most wealthy white families already send their children to
different schools from where most of the poor minority children attend
even
within the current public school system?




Donna can answer for her own specific case, but I assure you not all white
families are racist, and not all city school districts are failures.

There is a difference between the results of white flight (which is a
definite choice motivated by racism) and the community saying "OK, it
happens, lets give money to schools which are already almost all White and
which serve a religious population which is 95% White (except for Catholics,
which have a growing Hispanic population, which still often segregate into
their own churches)" and hope someone will build schools for these poor
minority kids.

Exclusion should not be given the validity of government funding.

Banty

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


"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?

Busses.
Or the kids could walk the few blocks needed to go to a church. Even if it
wasn't their denomination, I suspect arrangements could be made to allow
these classes to take place, and many churches have large religious
education buildings which aren't used during the week.

And where would the classes be held?

Churches.

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).

C'mon, this isn't difficult. Kids go to CRC after school all the time.
And many denominations don't even have these sort of classes, but limit it
to groups on Wednesday night and Sunday School, when church services are
going on anyway. One of the main voucher-supporting groups here (the
Southern Baptist Conference) fits this mold.

And, you know what? I live in an area with a relatively large Jewish
community. I really haven't heard this community using Hebrew School to
advocate for vouchers. And, with only one Jewish private elementary school
in the city, it's pretty obvious that a vast majority of the Jewish children
are in public schools.

This is about convenience and expedience for the sake of an explicity
religious
purpose. On the public dime.

Banty

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


"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?

Busses.
Or the kids could walk the few blocks needed to go to a church. Even if it
wasn't their denomination, I suspect arrangements could be made to allow
these classes to take place, and many churches have large religious
education buildings which aren't used during the week.

And where would the classes be held?

Churches.

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).

C'mon, this isn't difficult. Kids go to CRC after school all the time.
And many denominations don't even have these sort of classes, but limit it
to groups on Wednesday night and Sunday School, when church services are
going on anyway. One of the main voucher-supporting groups here (the
Southern Baptist Conference) fits this mold.

And, you know what? I live in an area with a relatively large Jewish
community. I really haven't heard this community using Hebrew School to
advocate for vouchers. And, with only one Jewish private elementary school
in the city, it's pretty obvious that a vast majority of the Jewish children
are in public schools.

This is about convenience and expedience for the sake of an explicity
religious
purpose. On the public dime.

Banty

In article , Nathan A. Barclay says...


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

However, when government pushes children from different backgrounds
together in public schools, it destroys that positive right to be with
some
different group during school hours. In the process, it forces children
(and also teachers) to act in a way that is compatible with the rights
of
the people government told the children to be with. That creates
artificial
restrictions that would not exist if the children were gathered into a
group
based on mutual agreement.

Wow. I must say this brings back memories. I haven't read this kind of
segregationist thinking since my growing up years in Texas. I'm nearly 50
now.

You're misusing the term "segregationist." The thing that made racial
segregation so horrible and immoral was that it was forced onto people
against their will. Black people were shut out of society's mainstream and
into a relatively small corner. They were segregated - set apart - whether
they liked it or not.

Voluntary separation so that people can pursue different desires without
interfering with each other's rights is an entirely different matter. It is
not a threat to freedom, but rather is an integral part of freedom. It
occurs as a side effect of people's pursuing different goals or wanting to
be in different kinds of environments, not because people make separation
itself the goal.

This is exactly the state of the segregationist rhetoric in the '60s that I
recall. That everyone *wanted* to be segregated. "Separate but equal". Perhaps
you don't remember it.


As long as the separation is voluntary on both sides, there is no possible
threat to freedom. When a person wants to join a group but the group
doesn't want to accept the person, the situation gets a bit trickier, but a
fairly simple rule of thumb can help a lot in distinguishing the difference.
If the group wants to reject the person because of who or what the person
is, it's segregation. If the group wants to reject the person because the
person is not willing to accept the group's standards of behavior while in
the group, or because the person's needs and desires are not the same as
those of the group and would distract the group from pursuing its purpose,
it's not segregation.

Yup - sounds familliar. "The ones who act like us are OK". Of course, there's
the little matter of one or other group often having more resources.

I hope you write your book. You're quite the poster child for the
anti-democratic undercurrents and motivations of the movement for vouchers. The
desire to segregate in public life. The desire to convert the religion of
others.

Banty

In article , Nathan A. Barclay says...


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

However, when government pushes children from different backgrounds
together in public schools, it destroys that positive right to be with
some
different group during school hours. In the process, it forces children
(and also teachers) to act in a way that is compatible with the rights
of
the people government told the children to be with. That creates
artificial
restrictions that would not exist if the children were gathered into a
group
based on mutual agreement.

Wow. I must say this brings back memories. I haven't read this kind of
segregationist thinking since my growing up years in Texas. I'm nearly 50
now.

You're misusing the term "segregationist." The thing that made racial
segregation so horrible and immoral was that it was forced onto people
against their will. Black people were shut out of society's mainstream and
into a relatively small corner. They were segregated - set apart - whether
they liked it or not.

Voluntary separation so that people can pursue different desires without
interfering with each other's rights is an entirely different matter. It is
not a threat to freedom, but rather is an integral part of freedom. It
occurs as a side effect of people's pursuing different goals or wanting to
be in different kinds of environments, not because people make separation
itself the goal.

This is exactly the state of the segregationist rhetoric in the '60s that I
recall. That everyone *wanted* to be segregated. "Separate but equal". Perhaps
you don't remember it.


As long as the separation is voluntary on both sides, there is no possible
threat to freedom. When a person wants to join a group but the group
doesn't want to accept the person, the situation gets a bit trickier, but a
fairly simple rule of thumb can help a lot in distinguishing the difference.
If the group wants to reject the person because of who or what the person
is, it's segregation. If the group wants to reject the person because the
person is not willing to accept the group's standards of behavior while in
the group, or because the person's needs and desires are not the same as
those of the group and would distract the group from pursuing its purpose,
it's not segregation.

Yup - sounds familliar. "The ones who act like us are OK". Of course, there's
the little matter of one or other group often having more resources.

I hope you write your book. You're quite the poster child for the
anti-democratic undercurrents and motivations of the movement for vouchers. The
desire to segregate in public life. The desire to convert the religion of
others.

Banty

"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.

Of course the size of the voucher amount would also make a difference.
With an adequate voucher amount, schools could operate without having
to rely on support from churches or other charitable organizations.

And here we see proposed by you an obvious abuse of the voucher system:
similar investment in the public school system for this purpose, or in a
secular private school via vouchers or community investment, would
similarly go to the end of providing an improved school for a poorer
economic area. Ah but it could be a religious private school too under
this plan, so religious organizations keen on making converts jump in.
Say, Nathan - what happened to your contention about being able to
afford something and "FREEDOM"?? You whine about public schools
being free, but not quite to your standards, while you'd have to pay for a
private religious school, and call it an infringement. But you're quite
thrilled to actively participate in handing inner city families a rotten
choice
between a currently failed school, and another free one which would
subject them to active proseltyzation. There's a word for those with
such double standards which depend on their interests. Starts with an
"H".

You're missing the central difference: where the money comes from. If you
offered money out of your own pocket to educate my children on the condition
that I send them to a nonreligious school, that would be your right because
it's your money. If the condition really bothered me, I would probably
resent it and think it's not very nice of you to impose it, but I would have
no basis for viewing your action as a violation of my rights. On the other
hand, if I didn't especially care whether my child attended a religious
school or a nonreligious one, I would probably be grateful for the
opportunity to benefit from your money and not care all that much about the
strings.

The problem with the public school monopoly system is that the money it
attaches strings to is TAX money, not private money, and includes tax money
from people who prefer to have children educated in religious schools, not
just from those who prefer to have children educated in nonreligious ones.
Thus, it uses people's tax money to impose restrictions that are directly
contrary to what some of them want in regard to how religion will be dealt
with in children's lives during school hours. That is exactly the same kind
of sin and tyranny that was once the province of state churches, only
focused in a different direction.

As for your words, "similar investment in the public school system for this
purpose, or in a secular private school via vouchers or community
investment," the money donated with religious strings attached would be
ABOVE AND BEYOND whatever public, community investment is made. If you want
to push for an increase in community investment, that's fine. I'll even
seriously conider supporting it - *IF* there are not strings attached that
discriminate against the choice to send children to religious schools.
(When the Alabama governor pushed for a major tax increase largely for the
purpose of increasing education funding, I would have supported it were it
not for the unfairness and lack of particularly meaningful accountability
inherent in the monopoly system. As it was, I sat on the sidelines and
abstained from voting either for or against it.)

But if I'm spending MY OWN money, I have a right to use it however I want
to. If you don't like it, you are free to donate to other kinds of schools
to provide a counterweight. What you are NOT free to do is tell me how to
spend my donations while refusing to donate yourself. Nor is it compatible
with religious freedom for you to rig the game so I have to donate
exhorbitant amounts just to make up for disparities in tax support from
government.

If all goes well, enough people will donate to enough different kinds of
schools that everyone can find something they're reasonably satisfied with.

And don't most wealthy white families already send their children to
different schools from where most of the poor minority children attend
even within the current public school system?

Donna can answer for her own specific case, but I assure you not all white
families are racist, and not all city school districts are failures.

I would like to think that only a very small percentage of white families
are deliberately racist these days, although far more (and probably most to
at least some degree) have prejudices at a more subliminal level. But the
fact is that wealthy families (and while I followed Donna's characterization
in saying "white," they actually include families of all races) already tend
to move into the neighborhoods with the best public schools, leaving poorer
families (which are disproportionately minority) behind in neighborhoods
with less good public schools.

I've read about the phenomenon. I've talked to people who were strongly
influenced by it. And I've gotten an inside perspective from spending about
a year as a substitute teacher in the Montgomery, Alabama public school
system. I'm not trying to characterize the system as a "failure" - I
actually view it as partly successful and partly failing - but complaining
that a voucher system would be unequal when the current system is itself so
unequal seems unfair at best and hypocritical at worst.

"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.

Of course the size of the voucher amount would also make a difference.
With an adequate voucher amount, schools could operate without having
to rely on support from churches or other charitable organizations.

And here we see proposed by you an obvious abuse of the voucher system:
similar investment in the public school system for this purpose, or in a
secular private school via vouchers or community investment, would
similarly go to the end of providing an improved school for a poorer
economic area. Ah but it could be a religious private school too under
this plan, so religious organizations keen on making converts jump in.
Say, Nathan - what happened to your contention about being able to
afford something and "FREEDOM"?? You whine about public schools
being free, but not quite to your standards, while you'd have to pay for a
private religious school, and call it an infringement. But you're quite
thrilled to actively participate in handing inner city families a rotten
choice
between a currently failed school, and another free one which would
subject them to active proseltyzation. There's a word for those with
such double standards which depend on their interests. Starts with an
"H".

You're missing the central difference: where the money comes from. If you
offered money out of your own pocket to educate my children on the condition
that I send them to a nonreligious school, that would be your right because
it's your money. If the condition really bothered me, I would probably
resent it and think it's not very nice of you to impose it, but I would have
no basis for viewing your action as a violation of my rights. On the other
hand, if I didn't especially care whether my child attended a religious
school or a nonreligious one, I would probably be grateful for the
opportunity to benefit from your money and not care all that much about the
strings.

The problem with the public school monopoly system is that the money it
attaches strings to is TAX money, not private money, and includes tax money
from people who prefer to have children educated in religious schools, not
just from those who prefer to have children educated in nonreligious ones.
Thus, it uses people's tax money to impose restrictions that are directly
contrary to what some of them want in regard to how religion will be dealt
with in children's lives during school hours. That is exactly the same kind
of sin and tyranny that was once the province of state churches, only
focused in a different direction.

As for your words, "similar investment in the public school system for this
purpose, or in a secular private school via vouchers or community
investment," the money donated with religious strings attached would be
ABOVE AND BEYOND whatever public, community investment is made. If you want
to push for an increase in community investment, that's fine. I'll even
seriously conider supporting it - *IF* there are not strings attached that
discriminate against the choice to send children to religious schools.
(When the Alabama governor pushed for a major tax increase largely for the
purpose of increasing education funding, I would have supported it were it
not for the unfairness and lack of particularly meaningful accountability
inherent in the monopoly system. As it was, I sat on the sidelines and
abstained from voting either for or against it.)

But if I'm spending MY OWN money, I have a right to use it however I want
to. If you don't like it, you are free to donate to other kinds of schools
to provide a counterweight. What you are NOT free to do is tell me how to
spend my donations while refusing to donate yourself. Nor is it compatible
with religious freedom for you to rig the game so I have to donate
exhorbitant amounts just to make up for disparities in tax support from
government.

If all goes well, enough people will donate to enough different kinds of
schools that everyone can find something they're reasonably satisfied with.

And don't most wealthy white families already send their children to
different schools from where most of the poor minority children attend
even within the current public school system?

Donna can answer for her own specific case, but I assure you not all white
families are racist, and not all city school districts are failures.

I would like to think that only a very small percentage of white families
are deliberately racist these days, although far more (and probably most to
at least some degree) have prejudices at a more subliminal level. But the
fact is that wealthy families (and while I followed Donna's characterization
in saying "white," they actually include families of all races) already tend
to move into the neighborhoods with the best public schools, leaving poorer
families (which are disproportionately minority) behind in neighborhoods
with less good public schools.

I've read about the phenomenon. I've talked to people who were strongly
influenced by it. And I've gotten an inside perspective from spending about
a year as a substitute teacher in the Montgomery, Alabama public school
system. I'm not trying to characterize the system as a "failure" - I
actually view it as partly successful and partly failing - but complaining
that a voucher system would be unequal when the current system is itself so
unequal seems unfair at best and hypocritical at worst.

"Banty" wrote in message
...

This is about convenience and expedience for the sake of an explicity
religious
purpose. On the public dime.

It's about government achieving its legitimate goal of improving the quality
of children's education in a manner that does not create unnecessary,
artificial inconveniences for religion.

And before you try to claim that it's not an unnecessary, artificial
inconvenience, explain why children don't go one place to study English,
another to study Math, a third to study Science, and so forth. We don't do
that. So if we expect children to go to a separate place to study religion,
we are singling out the study of religion to be subject to an unnecessary,
artificial inconvenience compared with how other subjects are handled.

"Banty" wrote in message
...

This is about convenience and expedience for the sake of an explicity
religious
purpose. On the public dime.

It's about government achieving its legitimate goal of improving the quality
of children's education in a manner that does not create unnecessary,
artificial inconveniences for religion.

And before you try to claim that it's not an unnecessary, artificial
inconvenience, explain why children don't go one place to study English,
another to study Math, a third to study Science, and so forth. We don't do
that. So if we expect children to go to a separate place to study religion,
we are singling out the study of religion to be subject to an unnecessary,
artificial inconvenience compared with how other subjects are handled.

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


"Banty" wrote in message
...

Actually, the intent of freedom of association was more concerned with the
*positive* right to befriend and gather with those whom one wants without
penalty.

However, when government pushes children from different backgrounds together
in public schools, it destroys that positive right to be with some different
group during school hours. In the process, it forces children (and also
teachers) to act in a way that is compatible with the rights of the people
government told the children to be with. That creates artificial
restrictions that would not exist if the children were gathered into a group
based on mutual agreement.



Wow. I must say this brings back memories. I haven't read this kind of
segregationist thinking since my growing up years in Texas. I'm nearly 50 now.

One goes to a public school to get an education. Just like one rides a pubic
bus to get transportation. One is not required to avail oneself of the public
education, just as one can buy oneself a car and never never let a Different
Kind of Person inside it if one wishes. But not on the public dime.

The problem, at least as I see it and continuing with your analogy
here, would be like a sizeable (but minority) group of people
complaining that the bus doesn't provide transportation to where they
want to go. They then wish to either have the public transportation
system - which they help fund through their tax dollars - either
accomodate their needs by adding their destination to the route or
providing vouchers to help defray the costs of their going where they
need to go. That wouldn't seem an unreasonable request to me. Since
insisting that public schools provide religion in their child's
education would be unconstitutional (analogous to adding that
destination to the bus route), the voucher solution seems more
appropriate for the school system. Incidently, and just as point of
interest - at one time, in my town disabled individuals were eligible
for taxi vouchers because the bus system could not provide
transportation for them.

Even if one uses the public school system or any other public venue or
institution, one does not have to befriend, or talk with, other than what
relates to the strictly professionally defined relationships, others. Including
teachers and principals. You don't have to have them at your next barBQ.

I don't think this is strictly true. When you are sitting next to
someone you don't like for hours every day, it's a very difficult and
unpleasant situation. Not at all like sitting next to a person you
don't like on the bus.

However, I don't think the problem for most people is the association
with people of other religions, but the lack of religion in their
child's educational experience. However, as Ms. Metler point out,
there are people who wish to have their child's school be segregated
and would use vouchers as a means of accomplishing that.

The question then becomes, is the gain in religious freedom worth the
cost in allowing discrimination and/or segregation to occur? Given
that private schools are documented as being, on the whole, less
segregated than public schools, I think that cost of vouchers in this
respect is not unreasonable.

Or, if rubbing shoulders and watching the mere outlines of a person different
from oneself fall upon one's retinas, constitutes an offense to one, one can
segregate oneself, but at one's own expense. Kinda hard to do in a democratic
society. But certainly one is not entitled to public funds for the sake of
one's own encasement and segregation.

So, if you really do require this, you can do it. You just can't do it all for
FREE. This isn't about free association rights. This is about MONEY.


Continuing with your public transportation analogy, if the only people
who want to go to a particular destination are all of the same race,
is that sufficient justification for denying them either the option of
adding that stop to the bus route or providing vouchers to help defray
their costs? As long as other races are not prohibited from going to
that destination, I don't think so.