Rich Lowry wrote in National Review Online It is the other flood: The outpouring of concern for the poor of New Orleans. According to nearly every journalist in America, our consciousness has been raised about the invisible scourge of poverty in this country, and nothing is too much to ask when addressing the plight of the disadvantaged evacuees of New Orleans. They should get every form of aid possible — except, that is, assistance that might help give them more control over their lives. The most controversial parts of the Bush aid package for New Orleans are the ones that attempt to free the poor from the tentacles of government bureaucracy. He wants to give the unemployed personal accounts to assist in their job search and create a $500 million program to fund school vouchers for displaced children to attend private schools. The current political climate is premised on the notion that no one should say "no" to any Katrina-related program, but Democrats will attempt to veto these proposals.
IMHO, those are the only things I would support. I think it is STUPID to try to protect a city that is 7 to 15 feet below sea level, because even if every levee and floodwall held up, the city could still flood out by a slow moving hurricane that stalled out just as it was over New Orleans, with rain filling the "bowl"One argument that has always been advanced to block aid to poor families who want to send their children to private schools is that, in effect, the government can't afford it; it will starve public schools of funding.
If they can't prove they are doing a good job they should be starved of funds.But no one in Washington has any credibility to say the federal government can't afford anything, since there is very little that this Congress and administration isn't funding fulsomely. Will $500 million for vouchers bleed public-education spending? That's hard to see when President Bush increased federal education spending 65 percent during his first term.
The objection to these Bush proposals isn't fiscal, but philosophical. They serve to undermine the principle of government dependency that underpins the contemporary welfare state, and to which liberals are utterly devoted. In a reversal of the old parable, liberals don't want to teach people how to fish if they can just give them federally funded seafood dishes instead.
A very appropriate way of putting it.
2 comments:
This is to warn you to beware of letting any public money go to private schools, in light of disastrous problem this is causing here in Australia.
About 40 years ago, the Federal government started to give some funds to poor Catholic schools so that they could upgrade their libraries, science labs, and things like that. Subsequently, lobbyists for the private school industry became ever more successful at gaining access to public funds. Private schools have therefore proliferated. Public funds have enabled them to keep fees low enough to attract students who would otherwise go to public schools. About a third of Australia’s children now go to private schools and that proportion continues to increase, with no end in sight.
Private schools now receive about a half of their operating expenses from government sources. In fact it may often be well over 50%. When I enquired at a local Lutheran high school I was told that their contribution from the government is about 62% - even though this is a fairly prosperous region. On top of that, a few years ago the Federal government started making funds available also for building construction at private schools!!
If this tendency continues, it won’t be long before the majority of children will be in private schools, and the public schools will be no more than detention centers of the most disadvantaged, worst behaved children, staffed by teachers and administrators who can’t find a position in ever-more-desirable private schools.
It bothers me that children are not given a reasonably even chance to develop their potential. Worse than that, the system here exacerbates the tendency toward a two-tier society, the haves and the have-nots. Of course there will always be people better-off, and others worse-off, but disadvantaged children should not be discriminated against by the system of schools.
Because this situation has been developing for 40 years, parents have gradually come to believe that it is the way things have to be. They seem incapable of conceiving an alternative. When I talk to them, they constantly bring up a few points that have become the common wisdom -
if the private schools were shut down, the public schools could not accommodate all the children. Perfectly true, but equally stupid. No-one would think of reducing their numbers suddenly, but only by a sensibly measured pace of reduction of their government funding, which would then go toward strengthening the public system.
public schools don’t put enough stress on “values”. Of course they don’t (nor should they) stress the values of any particular religion, but I’m sure that they instill moral human values. Parents can influence the values taught in public schools.
parents deserve a “choice” of schools for their children. The public system offers a wide spectrum of kinds of school, and would offer more if the voters demanded. The only choice they don’t offer is that of religion. If parents want to use religious schools, they should pay the full cost and not be helped by the government. Homes and churches provide plenty of opportunity for teaching of religion.
any government that proposed reducing funds to private schools would be out on their ear in no time. That may be true, but maybe not. A courageous party should advocate this as a step toward strengthening the public school system. They might be pleasantly surprised by the public's positive response at the polls.
The system now in place in Australia is clearly a failed experiment, and the people have a terribly difficult job ahead of them to avoid destruction of the public school system.
This is to warn you to beware of letting any public money go to private schools, in light of disastrous problem this is causing here in Australia. About 40 years ago, the Federal government started to give some funds to poor Catholic schools so that they could upgrade their libraries, science labs, and things like that. Subsequently, lobbyists for the private school industry became ever more successful at gaining access to public funds. Private schools have therefore proliferated. Public funds have enabled them to keep fees low enough to attract students who would otherwise go to public schools. About a third of Australia’s children now go to private schools and that proportion continues to increase, with no end in sight.
But how are they being educated? Here in the US, students at a private school get the best education (the only superior education is home schooling). Catholic (and other religious) schools are next, and the poorest education comes from studens in public schools. If this is the same in Australia, then it sounds like 1/3 of your kids are getting a better education
Private schools now receive about a half of their operating expenses from government sources. In fact it may often be well over 50%. When I enquired at a local Lutheran high school I was told that their contribution from the government is about 62% - even though this is a fairly prosperous region. On top of that, a few years ago the Federal government started making funds available also for building construction at private schools!!
Public schools get 100% of their funding from the government, so it sounds like your private schools are doing it on less than half of the money, so it is more cost effective for the government to educate a student in private school than public school
If this tendency continues, it won’t be long before the majority of children will be in private schools, and the public schools will be no more than detention centers of the most disadvantaged, worst behaved children, staffed by teachers and administrators who can’t find a position in ever-more-desirable private schools.
Then the public schools either need to do a better job, to retain the other students, or they need to change their focus to address those they get
It bothers me that children are not given a reasonably even chance to develop their potential. Worse than that, the system here exacerbates the tendency toward a two-tier society, the haves and the have-nots. Of course there will always be people better-off, and others worse-off, but disadvantaged children should not be discriminated against by the system of schools.
I agree. I support vouchers so the disadvantaged children can get into private or Catholic schools
Because this situation has been developing for 40 years, parents have gradually come to believe that it is the way things have to be. They seem incapable of conceiving an alternative. When I talk to them, they constantly bring up a few points that have become the common wisdom - if the private schools were shut down, the public schools could not accommodate all the children. Perfectly true, but equally stupid. No-one would think of reducing their numbers suddenly, but only by a sensibly measured pace of reduction of their government funding, which would then go toward strengthening the public system.
The converse is probably also true. If the public schools were shut down, the private schools might have problems expanding immediately. The smart way to handle that is with CHOICE, and let the schools compete for doing the best job of educating the children
public schools don’t put enough stress on “values”. Of course they don’t (nor should they) stress the values of any particular religion, but I’m sure that they instill moral human values. Parents can influence the values taught in public schools.
If your public schools are anything like ours, the "moral values" they instill are pretty immoral
parents deserve a “choice” of schools for their children. The public system offers a wide spectrum of kinds of school, and would offer more if the voters demanded. The only choice they don’t offer is that of religion. If parents want to use religious schools, they should pay the full cost and not be helped by the government. Homes and churches provide plenty of opportunity for teaching of religion.
Why? What is the purpose of funding the public school system? To assure that students get a good education? If they can get that good education in a school where they also are taught values their parents want them taught, why should the funds the public school would have received for teaching them not go to the school that actually teaches them
any government that proposed reducing funds to private schools would be out on their ear in no time. That may be true, but maybe not. A courageous party should advocate this as a step toward strengthening the public school system. They might be pleasantly surprised by the public's positive response at the polls.
I doubt it
The system now in place in Australia is clearly a failed experiment, and the people have a terribly difficult job ahead of them to avoid destruction of the public school system.
Why is it failed? Are the students in the private schools not learning at least as much, and probably much more, than those in the public schools?
Post a Comment