100 Million for Religious Schools

[JoeyKnothead]

Caviar - the article doesn't say exactly how much of this 100 M goes to purely religious schools, but judging by the uproar, it may be quite high.

From the article here.

In a 225 to 195 vote, the House approved H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act. This legislation reauthorizes and expands the Washington, D.C. Federal private school voucher pilot program, under which millions of Federal taxpayer dollars — $100M per year over the next five years — are funneled into a voucher system which favors private religious schools over public and charter schools.

...religious schools, which, under this program, are allowed to discriminate in hiring and enrollment on the basis of religion.

...many schools that accepted voucher students did not meet accreditation and other quality education standards, and student achievement did not show statistically significant improvement.

For debate:

Is this a violation of church / state separation?

Could this money be better spent in improving the schools this program is designed to replace?

In a time when so many politicians, including the Speaker of the House, declare we must tighten the budget, is this a wise expenditure?

Is this just pandering to religious voters?

[East of Eden]

But they are not typically forced to attend seminary, unless I guess if they went into the preaching corps.

And nobody is forcing parents to send their kids to religious schools.

The point being that these religious schools make their beliefs "everybody's business".

No they don't. If someone chooses to send their kid to a Jewish school that affects me not at all.

I propose if one wouldn't state their metaphysical opinions as fact, in a debate, there'd be no need to challenge such.

Nobody is doing that.

It's rather well understood that minorities are typically poorer, typically less able to perform well in tests. I contend this is compelling evidence that private schools, by having fewer minorities / poor, are at an advantage when comparing results.

You can compare inner-city minority private school students vs. public in Chicago and the private ones do better, and are more likely to graduate. That is why 40% of Chicago Public School teachers send their kids to private schools.

I also contend these result reflect more on the matter of methodology. By all means, let's adopt smaller class sizes and some of the other methods used by private schools.

Agreed, we can start by firing bad public school teachers.

What we shouldn't be doing is defunding public education in order to fund religious proselytizing.

Education is education. That is the goal, not propping up the teacher's unions.

Now, back to the original "study" East of Eden and Fox News presented...

I'm still waiting on that'n.

I already gave you a detailed study. How many do you need?

[East of Eden]

East,

I don't dispute the fact that students in private religious schools perform better on educational metrics than students in public schools. Of course it is just as true that students in private secular schools perform better than students in public schools. In other words, the apparent benefit derives from the private part, not the religious part.

Agreed, I probably should have left out the 'faith-based' part of my original point.

1. Don't assume that religious schools are "violence free". I work at the Catholic hospital across the street from the Catholic K-8 (which my son attends--surprised?). I get to sew up and otherwise mend the wounds from that conflict free environment.

It would be safe to say private schools have less violence, not none. I went to a private school K-8 and never saw a fight, then went to a public HS which was comparative mayhem. Even two of my HS gym teachers once got in a fight with each other.

2. Those parents who opt for religious schools tend to do so less to protect their children from violence than to protect them from teen pregnancy. It doesn't work, unfortunately. Abstinence-only education is associated with higher rates of teen pregnancy.

Not according to this ABC report:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/study-abstinen ... id=9731048

3. I predict that your enthusiasm for government support of religious schools stops at the boundaries of your theology.

And you would be wrong.

Would you yawn with the same degree of disinterest about Islamic schools teaching Sharia in the US with public funding?

If they want to live by Sharia (at least the parts that don't break our laws), that's their business. If they wanted to implement Sharia as a legal system here, that's when I would push back.

If you fund the Christian schools, you have to fund schools of other religions as well, or the establishment clause will be judged to be violated. There is ample precedent for this sort of judicial reasoning.

Again, I have no problem with that.

[flitzerbiest]

2. Those parents who opt for religious schools tend to do so less to protect their children from violence than to protect them from teen pregnancy. It doesn't work, unfortunately. Abstinence-only education is associated with higher rates of teen pregnancy.

Not according to this ABC report:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/study-abstinen ... id=9731048

I read the article. It states that fewer children in the abstinence education group were having sex. Is this the desired end point? I thought that the goal was less pregnancy, less disease, better attitudes about sexuality and the opposite sex, etc. Abstinence-only fanatics are forever taking their eye off the ball and reducing their efforts, well-intentioned or otherwise, into campaigns to reduce sex.

Please explain why less sex is better than more sex, given that there is no evidence that less sex equates to better sex or healthier sex.

[East of Eden]

I read the article. It states that fewer children in the abstinence education group were having sex. Is this the desired end point? I thought that the goal was less pregnancy, less disease, better attitudes about sexuality and the opposite sex, etc. Abstinence-only fanatics are forever taking their eye off the ball and reducing their efforts, well-intentioned or otherwise, into campaigns to reduce sex.

Please explain why less sex is better than more sex, given that there is no evidence that less sex equates to better sex or healthier sex.

Seems pretty self-evident that children not having sex results in no pregnancy or STDs, does it not? There is no better way to put someone behind the 8-ball for life than to be a teen mother, or for that matter to be the resultant bastard child in a single-parent home. Much of the dysfunction in the black community can be traced to this factor.

Doing it God's way (i.e., sex is between one man and one woman in a life-long marriage relationship) is the way to go. See http://www.californiafamilycouncil.org/ ... nfactsheet

It shows the negative outcomes of shacking up and that those who do it God's way (waiting until marriage for sex instead of doing things backwards) report higher levels of sexual satisfaction. Sex is kind of like fire, a great thing when used as intended, not so good otherwise. A fire built in a fireplace where intended is a fine thing, not so good if someone starts a fire in a closet or the basement.

[Goat]

2. Those parents who opt for religious schools tend to do so less to protect their children from violence than to protect them from teen pregnancy. It doesn't work, unfortunately. Abstinence-only education is associated with higher rates of teen pregnancy.

Not according to this ABC report:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/study-abstinen ... id=9731048

I read the article. It states that fewer children in the abstinence education group were having sex. Is this the desired end point? I thought that the goal was less pregnancy, less disease, better attitudes about sexuality and the opposite sex, etc. Abstinence-only fanatics are forever taking their eye off the ball and reducing their efforts, well-intentioned or otherwise, into campaigns to reduce sex.

Please explain why less sex is better than more sex, given that there is no evidence that less sex equates to better sex or healthier sex.

I will also point out that in the study, they were not giving the traditional 'abstinence only' education, but talked about risks, and STD's, and pregnancy.

I would love to see of the 'safe sex' program stressed those too.

Unless both classes covered that information, it is not comparing the same things.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 11:

But they are not typically forced to attend seminary, unless I guess if they went into the preaching corps.

And nobody is forcing parents to send their kids to religious schools.

Yet at a time when public schools face decreased funding, to the pooint of the real loss of teachers - and thus increased class sizes, which are known to have a detrimintal impact on student test scores, the government is spending money on religious proselytizing in non-public schools.

The point being that these religious schools make their beliefs "everybody's business".

No they don't. If someone chooses to send their kid to a Jewish school that affects me not at all.

It does if you pay taxes.

I propose if one wouldn't state their metaphysical opinions as fact, in a debate, there'd be no need to challenge such.

Nobody is doing that.

You broached the subject, not me.

It's rather well understood that minorities are typically poorer, typically less able to perform well in tests. I contend this is compelling evidence that private schools, by having fewer minorities / poor, are at an advantage when comparing results.

You can compare inner-city minority private school students vs. public in Chicago and the private ones do better, and are more likely to graduate. That is why 40% of Chicago Public School teachers send their kids to private schools.

If we're gonna defund public education in support of private education, it doesn't surprise me in the least that public education would lag behind.

I also contend these result reflect more on the matter of methodology. By all means, let's adopt smaller class sizes and some of the other methods used by private schools.

Agreed, we can start by firing bad public school teachers.

And offering better pay packages so we can attract and retain the best and brightest teachers, as well as increase funding to lower class sizes.

What we shouldn't be doing is defunding public education in order to fund religious proselytizing.'

Education is education.

How quant.

That is the goal, not propping up the teacher's unions.

Of course, it's always the unions' fault!

Now, back to the original "study" East of Eden and Fox News presented...

I'm still waiting on that'n.

I already gave you a detailed study. How many do you need?

I ask you then...

Do you have the honor and integrity to retract the study referenced in your Fox News reference?

If not, I expect to see this study.

One study does not always a valid conclusion make.

[East of Eden]

Yet at a time when public schools face decreased funding, to the pooint of the real loss of teachers - and thus increased class sizes, which are known to have a detrimintal impact on student test scores, the government is spending money on religious proselytizing in non-public schools.

Do you have any evidence more money for schools equals better results? IMHO most of that $ goes to the bureaucrats. In my town they spend $14K per pupil, with mediocre at best results. How much did it cost to educate Abraham Lincoln?

It does if you pay taxes.

Not if I don't know or care where they use their voucher. Lots of people similarly object to some of what is taught in public schools with their tax money.

If we're gonna defund public education in support of private education, it doesn't surprise me in the least that public education would lag behind.

Vouchers don't defund public education, it gives them more money. If a district spends $6K a year per pupil, then gives a parent a $3K voucher to go elsewhere, the district saves $3K and doesn't have to spend money on that student. Also, studies have shown under voucher scenarios public schools improve. That's generally what happens with competition.

How quant.

I assume you mean quaint. Should not the priority be to provide the best education? Who cares what vehicle delivers on that goal?

Of course, it's always the unions' fault!

Very often, yes. See the movie, 'Waiting for Superman'.

I ask you then...

Do you have the honor and integrity to retract the study referenced in your Fox News reference?

If not, I expect to see this study.

One study does not always a valid conclusion make.

Why should I bother when you pretty much ignored the study I did post supporting my post, as I predicted?

How many studies do you need?

2nd challenge.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 17:

Do you have any evidence more money for schools equals better results?

It's a relatively commonly understood notion that teachers should be paid for their work. It is another rather commonly understood notion that the more students a teacher must teach, the less time she has for more one on one instruction.

IMHO most of that $ goes to the bureaucrats. In my town they spend $14K per pupil, with mediocre at best results.

Notice the "opinion" part there. I'm with you on the notion we should try to reduce bureaucracy, but this doesn't negate the need for better and more teachers.

How much did it cost to educate Abraham Lincoln?

I'm not aware of too many folks carrying on about what a great intellectual Abe was.

>on the effect of taxes for education<

Not if I don't know or care where they use their voucher.

It means less of your tax dollars are used for other purposes, at least.

Lots of people similarly object to some of what is taught in public schools with their tax money.

And they have the voting booth, courts, and other avenues of redress.

Vouchers don't defund public education, it gives them more money...

If you don't understand that putting a dollar in one jar means you can't put that same dollar in another jar, there's noting I can do for you.

I assume you mean quaint. Should not the priority be to provide the best education? Who cares what vehicle delivers on that goal?

I 'pologize for the typo.

I propose that if we're to provide the best education, funding for more and better teachers would be a great start.

Of course, it's always the unions' fault!

Very often, yes. See the movie, 'Waiting for Superman'.

I don't see how a movie is gonna help, but you're welcome to present this movie for examination.

I ask you then...

Do you have the honor and integrity to retract the study referenced in your Fox News reference?

If not, I expect to see this study.

One study does not always a valid conclusion make.

Why should I bother when you pretty much ignored the study I did post supporting my post, as I predicted?

Let's see how well your "prediction" went...

...

Here is a study you can chew on:

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002013.pdf

Note table 11, and figures 9, 10, and 13.

I'll note the conclusions:
...

Notice, in the referenced post I also commented rather extensively regarding that study.

How many studies do you need?

The ones you cite from which you make your assertions.

I say again...

Do you have the honor and integrity to retract the study referenced in your Fox News reference?

If not, I expect to see this study.

(speling edit)

[East of Eden]

I'm not aware of too many folks carrying on about what a great intellectual Abe was.

Are you from the South?

And they have the voting booth, courts, and other avenues of redress.

Just like those who don't like the OP proposal.

If you don't understand that putting a dollar in one jar means you can't put that same dollar in another jar, there's noting I can do for you.

The dollar is still in the education jar.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 19:

I'm not aware of too many folks carrying on about what a great intellectual Abe was.

Are you from the South?

Yes. I admire the man's policies, but in traveling throughout this great nation, I have yet to hear anyone declare what a great intellectual Abe was. I s'pose you'll be the first.

And they have the voting booth, courts, and other avenues of redress.

Just like those who don't like the OP proposal.

And one of those forms of redress is to debate the OP.

If you don't understand that putting a dollar in one jar means you can't put that same dollar in another jar, there's noting I can do for you.

The dollar is still in the education jar.

Only now it's in the "private religious education" jar, instead of the "public education" jar.

I say again...

Do you have the honor and integrity to retract the study referenced in your Fox News reference?

If not, I expect to see this study.