Strollerderby

Exactly!

I am so concerned about the blurring line between church and state. It makes me nervous and angry.

I also couldn't agree more with this:

"Parents who make private choices to educate their children outside the public system are no less responsible for all children than are child-free people.  High quality free education for all is our obligation in a democracy."

My kids are being homeschooled also.  However, I think a tax credit\voucher\etc is more than acceptable for my family or anyone who chooses to send their children to private schools (religious or otherwise).  It should be pretty easy to determine what is spent on a per-child basis in any public school district.  Once that is determined, most\all of that should be allowed to be used by the parents if they choose not to participate in the public school system.  If the goal is really to educate EVERY CHILD with that money, then the money should be able to be used FOR EVERY CHILD.

After our kids are out of school, then I agree that it is fine for the money we are spending to go to the "general fund" for all students.  But while we are spending money on them, it makes no sense for us to pay to educate someone else's kids also.

Clearly we'll be agreeing to disagree here Shannon, but taking your child out of public school has nothing to do with how you want to pay for it.  As you said, it has to do with how you want them to be educated.

Your statement that it isn't fair is correct - it isn't fair to allocate money for my child to attend a school and then decide to give it to other kids when I decide to educate them differently.  Education notwithstanding, it isn't fair for those children to have access to the gyms, food, activities, etc, etc and for our kids to not have access because we choose not to participate in their education system.

I don't think we'd be abandoning the public school system at all if the money was allocated to each child as I suggested.  For a couple of reasons - 1.  Let's face it, the vast majority of people are still going to choose to send their kids to the public school system which means we won't be removing all that much money from the system in the first place; and 2.  The money is only being re-allocated while the kids are in school.

On top of that, I'd argue that we actually help the system more by the time it's all said and done.  After all, if we think we can give our kids a better education outside of the public school system, we also probably believe odds are that they will have better paying jobs or be able to contribute to society better than if they go through the public school system.  Which means the system ends up better by our efforts.

I'd also add that it's been proven pretty clearly that throwing more money at our education system has not worked, so maybe it's time to start thinking about some alternatives.

I read that next year Florida is going to start allowing parents to choose to homeschool their children using state funded and state-approved curriculum\materials.  I think this is a pretty darn good compromise.  At least then the money is still being distributed somewhat fairly.  I don't think we can expect to get every dollar that a public school student gets, but I do think it's appropriate to provide some assistance.

I have no children, and I would gladly put *more* money into the public school system even though by Dan's logic (as I'm reading it), I should be exempt from paying *any* money for *any* child's public or private education.

Kids who are currently in need of education will be making policy and caring for me in my dotage. Since most of the US children who will be running the society I'll live in when I'm withered and helpless will be educated through the public school system, I say do whatever possible to improve it where it needs improving. The nation benefits from a well-educated populace, and our nation decided long ago that a child's education should not be dependent upon their parents' ability to pay for it. We've never achieved that idea and we've veered even farther than usual from it in recent years, but that doesn't mean the system itself is broken. It means the citizenry is.

Lula,

I definitely did not say that we should stop putting money into the public education system once our kids are out of school.  I said we should be able to get public money for our kids' education if they are not in the public school system.  If the government wants\forces us to put money into our children's education, I definitely think we all should bear the burden.

I do disagree with your last statements a bit.  The system is broken.  The citizenry does bear some responsibility here also, but the system itself is very flawed.  Throwing more money at it is not going to help.

In a participatory democracy, the citizenry is responsible for fixing systems created to ensure democratic ideals when they are broken. "The government wants/forces" us not only to invest in *our* children's education, but also the education of *all* our nation's children -- a principle I hope you agree with, since no one denies the national benefit of a well-educated citizenry. I do hope those of us without children or who are opting out of educating our children through the public school system are not abdicating responsibility for ensuring a quality education for our children's friends and potential spouses. Nor for the myriad of other children who will play an integral role in our own lives, present and future. Unless you raise an enormous number of exceptionally talented and ambitious children, you're guaranteed to be dependent in some way upon those who received a public school education (like me). If you feel no sense of civic responsibility to those outside your own family, there's nothing I can say that will alter your view. But I suspect that you, like Shannon and other homeschooling families I know, are not that isolationist or short-sighted.

If you believe your children will receive a better education out of the public school system and you are able to afford that (financially via private school, resource-wise via homeschooling, etc.), fine. I don't consider it my business to tell you how to educate your children. However, I don't believe the public school sytem, which will be educating the majority of children -- in particular those whose families do not enjoy the same financial and other resources as do yours -- should be penalized financially because of your decision. I honestly don't see how that view differs from the one that would exempt you from paying into the public school system once your children have completed their education, or exempt me from ever paying into it because I have no children to educate.

"I honestly don't see how that view differs from the one that would exempt you from paying into the public school system once your children have completed their education, or exempt me from ever paying into it because I have no children to educate."

The difference is that the money is supposed to at least partially be going to my child's education yet it is not.  Basically, the government is asking that you fund education for children, but only if they choose to participate a certain way at a certain place.  My argument is if it is truly education for *all*, then *all* should have access to the funds.

And keep in mind one of the things I stated above.  I have no expectation that our children would get all of the money that an individual child gets in the public school system.  After all, it would cost the government much less to educate children if they were all homeschooled.  No teachers to pay, no buildings to construct, etc, etc.

As an example, I found this article (which I'll say up front did not read all the way through so I can't say I agree with all of its premises or conclusions - is that a good enough disclaimer?  :))

www.cato.org/.../bp-025.html

What I want to point to is the per-child expenditure in several counties it mentions is around $4500.  And many have promoted that the vouchers would be about $2500 or so for families that chose a different education.  That means that $2000 is still being sent to the public school system for teacher pay, buildings, etc.  And it also potentially means that those teachers can have less burden and the buildings will be able to be avoid being overcrowded longer.

So I read your issue with my statements as being that some other less fortunate kids may suffer if my kids get some of the money you are sending to the education system.  My issue is that your money is supposed to be going to *all* kids yet my kids are getting nothing.  You may be correct that I don't "need" the money for my kids education.  Or it could be that my wife and I have chosen to have less "stuff" so that one of us can be home with our children 24/7.  I don't think you really support education for all if you think the money that you, I, and everyone else sends to the education system is only for those that cannot afford an alternative.  As the meaning of "cannot afford" would be pretty hard to define in that case.

Thanks for the clarification on the funding -- that's helpful.

The point still remains that your children are not being *excluded* from the public school system we are all paying into. No one but you is preventing them from taking part in what you're paying for with your tax contribution to the public school system; their removal is due solely to your freewill decision. In my mind, that means your kids are "getting nothing" because you're deliberately depriving them of whatever they would get from their public school, not because of some injustice being perpetrated upon you. I'm sending my $$ in to support the public school system (and therefore support your children's education, if your family lives in my district) in good faith. I have no control over whether or not you decide to withhold from them the benefits available through that system, such as a school gymnasium -- I support your right to do so, but since I have no control over whether or not you utilize the system I'm paying into I don't feel I should be responsible for reallocating my tax $$ to support yours simply because you believe it better meets your family's needs.

We all pay into the public parks systems too, and I'd bridle if someone suggested they should be able to withhold a portion of their tax contribution supporting public parks so they could build a backyard playground that only their children could use on the grounds that the public parks aren't good enough for their kids. Same with folks who wanted to withhold a portion of their tax contribution supporting public transportation and have it go to purchasing a car because they'd rather drive than take the bus. Their decision not to use the park or public transit doesn't mean I should divert *my* tax contribution to help buy their playground or car. See what I mean?

There's also the matter of my $$ being used to support your children's education without allowing me any say or participation in shaping said educational system, the way there is with the public school system. I can join a community advisory group or run for the School Board or otherwise help determine what goes on with my neighborhood's public schools, due to my status as a resident taxpayer. If those who opt out of the public system are still supported by my tax dollars but I'm allowed no taxpayer input into the educational process I'm helping to pay for, I take issue.

Coming back to talk short: The way I understand it, the public school system was established in order to make good on the guarantee of all children's access to education. The public school system is the vehicle by which that education was to be guaranteed, not individual taxpayer-supported educational spending accounts for each child. I see the appeal of the individual-account vehicle, especially for those who don't *want* their children educated through the public school system -- but that's not the setup. Therefore, the proposal to subsect out the cost-per-child amount and give it to private or homeschooling families in voucher/whatever form isn't consistent with the spirit of the educational guarantee. I don't have sufficient educational history to know how/when that decision about the public-school-as-delivery-vehicle was made, but as long as there's room for families to take their children out of that system and educate them privately, I'm fine with it. AND I'm also fine with opposing use of public funds to finance private/homeschool education, especially when I cannot help influence policy in such educational venues.

Homeschooling and private-schooling families *want* that decision-making autonomy, right? Isn't that part of the appeal, to NOT have random people like me showing up in your living room demanding that your children be taught germ theory and evolution and Abstinence-Only sex education (which I loathe, but you get the idea). If you don't take public $$, you have a lot fewer people and a lot less government up in your business -- at least if you live in a homeschool-friendly state, like I do. And if you want the government out of your child's education, why would you want the government involved in paying for it?

I have come to the conclusion that the public school system is so irrevocably broken that it's not defensible. I don't think taking money away from it solves anything, but I agree that giving it money under the current structure isn't all that helpful either.

When public education is funded equally for all children - suburban, urban, rural, poor, rich, etc - and schools are much smaller and principals are not political appointments, and gov't oversight is significantly scaled back in favor of parental/community involvevment, THEN there's something to be said for public education.

Until then, I think it's shameful warehousing of children with the effect (and partial goal) of indoctrination to conformity and obedience.

I am sad that public school is as messed up as it is, and that I don't consider it a good option for my kid. But I don't feel guilt about it and I have no more desire to fund this particular broken system than any of the other broken systems in our society.

Great debate. I'll just add my two cents. I am a teacher of those hormonally challenged ones...middle school. I love what I do but it is certainly becoming harder and harder for many reasons. I have taught for 23 years. That said....

One, I would never say that the public school system is broken. Maybe needs some shoring up in places but broken, no. Anyone who has visited their neighborhood school would see this. And it does need funding. It is an amazing system that is responsible for bring kids and with kids, their families, together. The system has done more to move forward in this racist society than anything else (IMO). Charter schools, vouchers, tax credits, whatever, it is just a way to pull the system further down. The money goes to the Public School System which is there for all kids. We educate all kids and we don't get to pick and choose. If people prefer to pull their kids (so they are not with 'those' kids) more power to them but the money shouldn't go with them unless we want to see a total decline.

Throwing more money isn't the answer but money helps and can be used wisely. State and Federal mandates are sucking the life out of the schools between special ed services and NCLB and mandating programs that they are not funding. I will be the first to say that improvements should be made. We need a government that is there to support and help public schools. The climate for the last 15 or so years has been to teacher bash, keep adding more to the plate given the same amount of time in school and then spank everyone for the fact that our students don't score as well on standardized testing. The powers that be are far more concerned with testing than they are of racial disparities, what is developmentally appropriate for kids and kids becoming life long learners.

I will be proud to say that my kids (all 6 of them) graduated from the public schools. As much as I would love to home school just because I love being with my kids, there is no way that I could even come close to doing the job that my colleagues do. There are amazing teachers out there (and like any profession....more awesome ones than a few bad apples). I think people who choose to home school or unschool are like those who in court choose to defend themselves. Good luck! And those in the private schools are losing out too. They are given an elite education that moves them further from all of society and all that our population has to offer. The richness and diversity of the public schools can not be replicated.

I hope with our next administration we can count on support for our public schools. It has been a long time.

Great post, Theresa! I agree with pretty much everything you said.

... though I do have to take issue with the notion that *every* neighborhood school just needs a tweak in order to truly serve its children's needs. Some here in Chicago are truly horrific, and some are perfectly fine. This seems to be true for most heavy-urban and rural areas, and I don't know anymore about the suburbs.

Does anyone know why public school funding is still tied to property taxes? I have never understood why this is legal, given the goal of providing every child with a quality public school education regardless of their family's economic circumstances.

Great debate.

I have to side, at least partially, with Dan.

In many of the school districts where I live, public funding is already being applied to private schools.  Many of our average public schools do not have the facilities or staff to handle some of the most profound special education cases. As a result, the education for these children is contracted out to private schools that provide these services. These schools often cost 5 to 10 times more than the standard per pupil rate. Our typical per pupil costs are about $11K for high school and $9K for primary school through middle school.

I think that we can look at the typical per pupil expenditure in a school district and either deliver that education value to the student through a public school education or through a voucher.  The student should be able to apply that voucher to the school of their choice.  Just as the board of education opts to contract pupil education to private education when they feel they cannot meet a student's needs, I think students should have that same power.

I am not disputing the funding model for education (well, that's a different topic). I am fine with that idea that all citizens contribute to the education of all of our children. I am just stating that we could develop a formula that prices an education at about $10K per year and that that educational value can be delivered through "free" public school education or through a voucher that can be applied to a private school - religious, home, corporate or otherwise.

Jake, I see your point, but I disagree with the notion of contracting out education for kids with special needs -- which I know is not your proposal, only an illustration from your experience with your own public school system. My neice has brain damage and a poorly-understood chromosomal condition that has resulted in mental retardation, yet attends a public school system where all her special-educational needs are being met. She spends half her day in a modified onsite program with other special-ed kids, and the other half in a "regular" classroom with the assistance of a personal aide. She attends the same school as her brother, who has recently begun receiving counseling services through the school to help him deal with anger-management issues related to his parents' messy divorce. All of these services are provided at no additional cost to their family, and without moving the kids from site to site. I don't know where the staff comes from, but if there's outsourcing going on it's been structured to keep all kids together in the same school all day.

Their district is located in a not-spectacularly-wealthy western suburb of Chicago; it's just a regular public school, not a charter school or one billed as being especially outfitted for troubled/extra-needs kids. I don't know why this district is able to provide such a high level of services through their public school system, but it's proof that it can be done. Do you think it's a matter of priorities in your area, that your district has opted for outsourcing? Or is it a property-tax related financial concern, or anything else you can put a finger on?

What if all kids got a voucher for $10,000? Do you not think that the masses would leave the public sector in favor of what they perceive to be a better education at a private school, just by the nature of it being a private school (sounds so much better than public)? The public school system as it now is would come tumbling down. Charter schools have already played havoc. We need to leave the public schools alone. If people want to go else where, do so but do not take any funds from the schools that educate everyone, especially our most marginalized kids. We will end up with schools that represent one economic group....lower income. Most of whom can not afford, even with a voucher, to go to a private school. And then provide transportation or all of the extras needed. Someday I hope the government is able to find an affordable way to provide health care for all. If we don't like the health care that they provide, do you really think they are going to give you a voucher to go somewhere else? Doubtful because the whole plan would be crafted depending on the  hundreds of thousands enrolled.  But they currently will do anything to undermine our public educational system.

Lula, I wanted to comment on your earlier question on property tax funding. I, too, find the property tax funding formula a little odd.

Schools have budgets. Those budgetary needs are met by several tax pools, including property taxes. Local property taxes are not the only source of funding, of course. As you move from district to district, often what you'll see is that the per pupil expenditure is not that different. But, the source of those dollars will vary - the percentage of funding derived from local property tax instead of state level aid will change.

When a community votes on their local school budget -- our community does this, but I don't know how universal this is -- the sense is they are voting on their property tax rate. School funding will often be the major consumer of one's local property tax - though other groups tap this as well: municipal budgets, county, fire, library, and so on.

I think the real question is why does a $10K per pupil expenditure look so different from school district to school district? Or, how much of a difference does each $500 per pupil make?

With respect to the district based special education program, this too is often a budget issue. The program you describe sounds moderately expensive in terms of fixed costs and the variable cost of delivering these services to students. I don't know what the size of that particular school is or what percentage of its budget goes into this local special education.  What I can say from my experience is that it is not unusual to find a school district that will invest to develop such a program. This district, will, in turn gain a reputation as being a good district for special education needs and will become a magnet for families with these needs. This will maintain the critical mass of special education needs children that will provide the scale required to economically support such a program. All of that being said, I would not be surprised to find that there are still cases that are not handled locally. I also would not be surprised to see a larger percentage of that district's budget being drawn from state level funding.

Theresa, private schools do not universally cost more than public schools. That $10,000 voucher would, often, completely cover the cost of a private school education for a lower income student.

What if? What if the state gave out vouchers and all students left public schools for private schools? The state would still be meeting its obligation of providing an education to all students.

I think Lula makes some excellent points that as a taxpayer one should be able to influence the school systems through advocacy. I think there could be mandated core curriculum that all schools should be required to deliver on and taxpayers should be able to provide input into that curriculum (good luck!)

*I* think that we should be examining the public school districts that are providing optimal educational services (like the one serving my SIL's kids), figuring out why they're able to do that, and mandating that all public school districts do the same. If a district can't manage this on its own, then we need to think creatively in terms of developing partnerships with universities and not-for-profit entities that can expand public schools' capacities without getting into the negative aspects we're seeing with charter schools. Umoja Project in Chicago is an example of this kind of partnership, as are the Small Schools Projects in Chicago and Portland. Models exist, if we're serious about fixing public school systems that truly aren't functioning. $$ doesn't have to be taken out of the system in order to improve it.

Theresa raises a point that I feel we're all dancing around, which is *why* public schools are perceived by so many to be inadequate for their children's education. I attended six different public schools in five different states during my K-12 years, with wide variance in quality. Despite graduating from an overcrowded, underfunded high school in a rural state, I won a merit scholarship to the college of my choice and cannot say I've suffered as an adult due to my sometimes-spotty education. Both of my parents were well-educated, and I never lacked access to books -- typical of the middle-class/professional family then and now. Yet people I know now who are making decisions about their children's education, who fall into exactly the same demographic as I was raised in, often view such an educational experience as totally substandard for their child. Why, when the outcome is likely to be similarly successful? What are the real reasons underlying White Flight from the public schools? Not all parents or children who are opting out are white professional class, but we all know this is a demographic that's become very vocal about alternatives.

If you want your child to receive a religious education, then clearly the public school system is not for you. That's by design, part of Church/State separation -- which is why I cry complete Foul if you want state & taxpayer $$ to fund it. Same for parents who don't want their children educated through a system tied to the government, Right or Left. You can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to funding.

Children whose exceptional educational needs can't be met through their public school system are stickier for me, since I believe all public school systems SHOULD be made to provide both special-ed and gifted/AP programs without outsourcing, but know too little about how to achieve that beyond the examples I cited above. The magnet programs and specialized public high schools (Arts, Agriculture, and hopefully GLBTQ) here in Chicago are a mystery to me, but obviously they exist as alternatives to leaving the public school system. Since I don't fully understand how the lotteries and test-in admittance systems work, I can't comment much except to say that I acknowledge the inability of smaller cities and towns to provide so many alternatives.

But the white professional parents who view perfectly functional public school systems as "undesirable" for reasons of racial/ethnic and class discomfort seriously peeve me. People rarely come out and say "I don't want my child going to school with brown kids/poor kids/retarded kids/kids whose primary language isn't English", but we all know folks for whom this is the story. I see this particularly among people who grew up in very homogenous suburbs, moved to urban areas for the benefits urban areas offer, never truly acclimated to non-homogenous living, and are now freaking over their precious children mingling with people who are foreign to their life experience. If these people want to pay for a private (i.e gated) education or homeschool, whatever... your business; nothing I can do about it. But I'm not going to support any diversion of public-education funds, especially since one of the tenants of public school education (ostensibly, at least) is inclusion.

Now, if your child's public school options are truly UNSAFE and INADEQUATE... that's where we need to focus major attention, and quickly. I've taught in the archetypal horrible public school with 20yo textbooks and chunks of plaster literally falling from the ceiling -- of course no child should be subjected to such disrespect of their right to education. But even here in Chicago, we've seen concrete examples of turning such schools into valid educational institutions, and not solely through charter development either. It can be done, and by rights it must be done.

It is impractical for all public school districts to provide all services in house, particularly special education services. The critical mass of special needs students will simply not be there to justify building the programs that these students require. In addition, the numbers of students and needs will vary from year to year. Even in large, urban school districts, not every school can be equipped to deal with all students. Your local, walking distance elementary school may not be equipped for a particular need. Another school may be, so now students will have to bus to the other school.

It is grandiose to propose creative partnerships with Universities (public or private, these massive businesses are even less efficient and more troubled than public schools) or not-for-profit entities to solve this problem simply to avoid "outsourcing" to private entities. But why wouldn't you want the students with special needs to receive the best education and care possible at well established private schools with long histories and skills in providing for these students?  Simply to avoid spending money on a private entities?

It's not as if OTHER government needs are not outsourced or bought from private entities. Why should government administered schools be the sole recipient of the education dollar? (Hint; they're not, because, of course schools are themselves massive buyers of goods, books, supplies, food services, transportation and so on)

So what is the public education dollar all about? School education delivered in government owned (school board owned) real estate? Classroom labor paid for by school boards? Curriculum maintained at the school board level (itself a waste and a method of delivering inconsistent results)?

I again would like to comment on some fallacies of private schools. First, not all private schools are religious schools. Nor are they oriented for the right or for the left - whatever that means. Nor are they all homogenous, white islands in urban districts. In fact, in suburban areas that are 95% white to begin with, private schools may be the only place for children to experience any diversity.

So what is wrong with public schools? Again, since many public schools in my state spend around $10K per pupil per year, without a lot of deviation from that number, why do they appear to be very inconsistent in what they deliver?  Why has the non-teaching employee base of school districts been the fastest growing segment of the payroll for the last 25 years? Why are school superintendents shamelessly and scandalously padding their resumes with pay-for-diploma PhDs awarded for life experience (and a few thousand dollars)?

There are many things to not like with schools. The lawsuit averse no thought, no tolerance stances taken on just about anything. The bulging school administrations. The politically fueled land acquisition process for schools. The racket run school construction corporations (as a side note, besides the $10K per year of educational costs in the opex, local schools also have $3-5K per student per year in capex building costs). The decrease number of minutes per year spent in education. The student to teacher ratios. The politcal grousing in the classroom of the organized workforce. The parent mandated school supply requirements.

I am fine with funding the education for all children. I would just like to have both public and private options for spending that money on mainstream students.

Innovative partnerships are certainly not the only way to correct public school inequities without moving to vouchers or per-child spending, but they're a possibility that's been successful in pilots that I seldom see proposed as a viable tool for reform. I don't think it's any more grandiose to suggest them as alternatives than it is to suggest restructuring funding altogether. I'm thinking primarily of changes that would make more parents with means *want* to keep their children in the public system, which I see as a crucial factor in bringing about reformation of the systems that some are eager to write off as irreparably broken.

Yes, there is a lot to dislike about schools, including the self-selecting homogenity of population you speak of in some suburban areas. I was still in school during the era of bussing, which was mandated at one of the public schools I attended in order to bring the school compliant with some state regulation (maybe Brown vs. BoE? I didn't know then, and I don't know now). If bussing even exists anymore, I'm sure it's as controversial now as it's ever been. But it's still possible for anyone with means to pay the cost of living to move into those districts and therefore access those public schools -- we have laws protecting against that kind of discrimination now, which we didn't have before. Those schools are open to any and all residents, which is not the case with private schools.

And of course not all private schools are religious or politically affiliated, nor are they all single-racial in composition. But they are legally allowed to exclude students based on selected criteria, which is what makes me unwilling to provide them with public funding. One can argue that it doesn't matter since public schools are increasingly allowed to discriminate as well, with their ability to "bounce" undesired students from place to place -- and charter schools seem even more able to do this despite receipt of public funding, which I understand even less than the issue of property-tax funding. But private schools by their very nature enjoy a much higher rate of autonomy than public schools in terms of determining selection criteria. How do you reconcile that with receipt of public funding?

Also (for Jake), how do you feel about public funding for homeschooling? You mention wanting the option for both public and private schools -- do you feel the same way about homeschooling, or is that a point of departure for you?

Two more points before I shut up:

1. Is there some mechanism by which proposed public $$ for private schools would be allowed for secular education but not for religious education? I don't see how that could happen, so I don't see how people who oppose public funding for religious education can support per-child allotments via vouchers.

2. I see a philosophical difference between speaking of "funding the education of all children (communal)" and "funding the education of each child (individual)". People who oppose public funding of private schools/homeschooling seem to embrance the former definition, while those who want it embrace the latter. I'm assuming the Constitutional level of debate rests here as well?

I would fund homeschooling, provided the home schooled child showed verified (egads, now I'm supporting testing) proficiency with the core curriculum. While the homeschool (or coop school) experience can draw on many resources, funding could still help for basic materials such as texts.

The constitutional level of debate today varies state by state until the federal government tries to take this over. Typical wording in state constitutions provide for free education delivered through government run public schools. So, yes, these are constitutional issues. The counter claim is that the state method is failing in its mandate of providing an efficient and thorough education.  A continuous stream of administrative and faculty scandals, skyrocketing costs, and failing proficiency test scores over the last 25 years demonstrate this.

It seems that you have a beef with religious school administration. The religion of anti-religion can also be blinding. In many urban districts, the parochial schools are the second largest option available. They have a long history of education and are fairly efficient in what they do. Certainly the major schools in urban areas tend to have little if any discrimination. Yes, they do include some religious education, but most of the faculty are teaching professionals that have probably also taught in a public school. Eliminating these schools in urban areas would have a major impact on the public schools as tens of thousands of students would be added to the existing infrastructure.

The busing that you experienced was not directly Brown, but it was sort of a follow up to Brown to use busing to desegrate (or racial integrate) urban schools. This was very explosive for a short period of time and has virtually ended with white flight to the suburbs.

I don't understand your statement about "eliminating parochial schools in urban areas". No one's proposed eliminating private schools of any kind, parochial or secular. Certainly *I'm* not proposing that -- I'm a big fan of the Jesuits and their educational philosophies in particular (also their Liberation Theology, to the point where I'd consider sending a child to a private Jesuit school if a) we could afford it, and b) we had a child to educate). There are quite a few private Catholic schools here that accept students regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof, which also pleases me greatly. So I don't have a beef with religious school administration, just with using public funds to support religious education.

Liberation Theology? I thought it was justice.

As the public school systems non-instructional spending increases (typically less than 60 cents of every dollar spent in public schools is spent on instruction) and they attempt to broaden their activities (the trend where I live involves schools building performing arts center and calling them community centers), they suck up all of the money available in a community. While the housing boom was taking place, municipalities collected massive sums of real estate transfer and impact taxes - outside of the standard tax levy - while numerous properties were added to the tax rolls at market value assessments. Of course, they spent every penny and budgets only increase.

This in turn raises property taxes to the level that private schools are harder to afford. With taxes consuming an ever increasing amount of salaries, discretionary spending must decrease.

Could vouchers be made available for secular education and not religious education? Sure, eligibility criteria could be established and registered private  secular schools could be eligible for funding while parochial could be excluded. But I think that does a disservice to families that can be served by good parochial schools.

So what is your opinion on the separation of Church & State issue WRT using public money for religious private or homeschooling options? That one *seems* pretty cut and dried to me, and probably to everyone who's not supporting the idea of per-child educational spending accounts. I can't tell if you feel that's an unsubstantiated argument, or you personally don't care, or whatever else from your comments to date. Not a smack; just curious.

Ooops - meant to tack on the Liberation Theology link, so here: www.liberationtheology.org

Thank you for the link. What I was referring to is that Liberation Theology isn't very popular in the Catholic hierarchy, so I was simply referring to the more acceptable term of justice for Jesuit ideals.

With homeschooling or cooperative schooling, it's impossible to block religious education as part of the chosen program. For homeschooling, to me, as long as the student can be tested as proficient in the core curriculum, I'm fine with it. I think an educational voucher would be useful to supply materials that support a thought out curriculum.

With private schools, there are numerous non-religious private schools -- including a growing number of corporate private school franchises. I'm in favor of supporting vouchers for these schools as I see them as a nice, competitive alternative to the public school system.

I am not a religious person, but the reason why I don't want to knock the parochial schools is that they are the largest alternative to the public schools and they have historically done a pretty good job at educating students. In many of the urban parochial schools they are open (accepting any pupil that lives in the parish boundaries) and are generally more concerned with education than with religious education. However, I could not support just one religious school - I'd have to be open to any religious school. And I know for a fact that there are religious schools that focus much more on religion than on education.

To me, it is just sad that to adhere to a church & state stance would exclude the best option for an alternative education that many urban dwellers would have. At this point, I'm more concerned with finding better schools than with the establishment clause.