Replies

Supreme Court decisions carry a lot of weight, wouldn't you agree?

Regulations always follow government funding.

Here's the start of a list of likely hypothetical scenarios: How long before a civil rights suit v. private school that doesn't accept a student with a voucher?

How long before the government requires certain accrediation of schools accepting vouchers? What about teacher training? What about hiring practices and civil rights?... _________

Source: Berit Kjos

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/Q-A/charter.htm

Vouchers & Charter Schools

Question: What do you think of vouchers and charter schools? Are you for or against them?

Answer: I can best answer your question with a quote from the glossary in Brave New Schools and the corresponding footnotes. Those who have my book can find these at the end of the footnote section in the appendix. The "strings" attached to vouchers apply all the more to charter schools, which also release the state from many laws that protect parents:

VOUCHERS: Tuition credits used by parents to pay for their child's education in a private school of their choice. The catch: any school accepting these vouchers must conform to national goals and standards. "A simple fact of political life is that public regulation follows money.... Private schools that operate with public money will be subject to public regulations...." "Changes, big changes, are needed," wrote Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers. "...it may be that we can't get the big changes we need without choice."

In March, 1984, the U.S. Supreme court ruled that private schools are subject to government regulations even if they receive no direct federal funds. The Court ruled six to three that a private school may be held accountable for federal rules because it enrolls students who receive tuition money from the government. Even though the checks are payable to individual students, not the school, the Court said any scholarships, loans, or grants to students "constitute federal financial assistance to that entity." The opinion, written by Justice Buron R.White, found that the language of the law "contains no hint that Congress perceived a substantive difference between direct institutional assistance and aid received by a school through its student."

On March 22, 1988, P.L. 100-259 became the law of the land. "The measure would extend the reach of four civil right measures that were limited by a 1984 U.S. Supreme court ruling, Grove City College v. Bell. The ruling said that only the 'program or activity' of an entity receiving federal funds, not the entire institution, was covered by anti-discrimination laws. The legislation would reverse the ruling and make it clear that the entire institution must not discriminate if any component receives federal aid." (Congressional Quarterly Weekly, p. 774) Cited by Virginia Birt Baker, "Educational 'Choice'" Free World Research Report, March 1993.

"contains no hint that Congress perceived a substantive difference between direct institutional assistance and aid received by a school through its student."

I don't think vouchers meet this criteria:
1) voucher money is a return to the parent what the parent had been paying in taxes.
2) As someone above noted it is more like foodstamps. Grocery stores accepting food stamps are not regulated.

The key distinction is that parents are exercising there choice as to how to spend their money (rebated through vouchers), not the school or government. The student is not a conduit for government funds in this case. The funds belong to the parent, not the government.

How long before the government requires certain accrediation of schools accepting vouchers? What about teacher training? What about hiring practices and civil rights?...

If a school is failing, parents simply won't send their kids there. If they do, it's their choice.
If they don't like something about a school, they don't have to go there. They can choose another.
For example; Christian schools don't have to allow Sodomites. That's their religious views. If sodomites don't like it, they can go to the public schools they've created or open their own. . It's a choice.
Look at homeschools. Parents, who are not accredited, are kicking the public schools butt! Accredation is an NEA thing. They invented that, not the parents. Actually, nonaccreditated parents are doing a better job.

This doesn't address the key counterargument as stated above which rests on the comparison between food stamps and vouchers. According to this view, the introduction of food stamps has not paved the way for more governmental regulation of supermarkets (other than those regulations which already exist) because the food stamps are under the control of consumers, not the provider.

Hence, according to this view, the introduction of vouchers will not create a *greater* danger of governmental regulation of schools for the same reason because these too will be under the control of consumers.

To be sure, government regulates the schools....but this was not caused by vouchers. The key issue is whether vouchers would lead to *more* regulation.