Low scores don't deter Wis. voucher supporters

[LittleFuzzy]

Question to Fuzzy: do you think vouchers should apply to religious schools?

The primary barrier to this is of course the establishment clause from the 1st amendment. AFAIK, the last governing precedent was set in Zelman v Simmons-Harris back in 2002, regarding a voucher program in Cleveland, where a 5/4 majority held that, even though most of the vouchers ended up going to Catholic schools, there were plenty of alternative, non-parochial choices within the system created by the program, the choice was in the hands of the parent, and no public entity was making any decision which might be considered to elevate a sect or religion above any other, there was no 1st amendment establishment violation. Prior decisions had determined things like funding provided solely to enable education was ok *Everson, the bussing decision* and that no funding that might go toward or enable religious education is permitted *a decision about textbooks and teachers salaries whose name is escaping me at present, but which created the jurisprudential "Lemon" test which has been somewhat ignored by SCOTUS over the last 20 years. Zelman, for instance, would probably have failed the Lemon test* I have no significant issues with the environment created by the Zelman decision. But as you know, my focus when it comes to the separation between church and state is more on free exercise and less on establishment.

Looks like he logged off, so the same question is open to everyone. Would you have reservations about federal dollars going to a Muslim school or madrassas? How about sect-based schools like factions of LDS? (That'd be the off-shoot of Mormons in the west that ended with the children being bussed off the compound until charges of sexual abuse and exploitation could be sorted out.)

I think every school eligible for vouchers should be required to meet relevant educational standards, set by the state and/or the semi-private regional accreditation organizations. I would not be averse to states or districts establishing further performance or curriculum criteria though I refuse to comment or opine on what they should be. You can't selectively choose what schools may qualify for vouchers with any sort of religious belief guideline however. The whole point of the exercise is to enhance local flexibility and adaptability for response to local problems and lots of centralized and/or universal rules and regulation creation runs directly counter to that. Further, saying some LDS sect or a madrassah can't receive the funds would itself be a violation of the 1st amendment. *I note no one, ever, has been talking about FEDERAL dollars in relation to voucher programs. The Feds don't directly fund public education that way, any funds would be state funds, even if they were derived earlier from a federal block grant* If they meet the established educational criteria, criteria which itself is limited to secular content, they'd have to be allowed if any similar parochial school is allowed.

I remember lolli talking about her private Anglican school and controversy surrounding same-sex parents. These are the kinds of things private religious schools can "get away with" that public schools cannot. Why should federal or state tax payer dollars go to religious schools that can be pretty damn discriminatory?

That goes straight back to the Everson decision. The challenge in Everson was two-fold, that the reimbursement for transportation costs for children attending private schools violated the establishment cause and that a taking *i.e. taxation* for this purpose violated due process. Why should they go to religious schools? Because absent any rule preventing it *like the establishment clause* the authorities are free to spend the money they receive for education ON education, as they see fit. If you want to object to that absent a judicial issue, you need to address your concerns to the relevant executive and legislative authority.

[GGT]

Nice post, Fuzzy. Do you agree with SCOTUS?

I was struck by the conceptual similarities between Zelman/Everson (alternative choices and indirect funding to enable education) using tax money....and how that contradicts what the GOP is now wanting to do about abortion and Planned Parenthood. Despite the Hyde Amendment, fewer choices, and the same state control over federal monies. Tangent for another day.

Another question. Would it be kosher if vouchers are directly paying teachers's salaries at religious schools? No, not to get into another damn union argument, but academic teachers are different from transportation, sports teams, or cafeteria funds. Public school teachers are state employees. Would a private teacher (who's paid by voucher/tax money) be anything but a contract worker that's easier to hire and fire, and doesn't come with baggage like pension plans? Is this just a round-about way to privatize the whole of public education?

If so, they ought to at least be honest and straight-forward about it.

[GGT]

Adding this to complicate matters.

Kiryas Joel, NY. Poorest area in the US:

About 70 percent of the village’s 21,000 residents live in households whose income falls below the federal poverty threshold, according to the Census Bureau. Median family income ($17,929) and per capita income ($4,494) rank lower than any other comparable place in the country. Nearly half of the village’s households reported less than $15,000 in annual income.

About half of the residents receive food stamps, and one-third receive Medicaid benefits and rely on federal vouchers to help pay their housing costs.

Kiryas Joel’s unlikely ranking results largely from religious and cultural factors. Ultra-Orthodox Satmar Hasidic Jews predominate in the village; many of them moved there from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, beginning in the 1970s to accommodate a population that was growing geometrically.

Women marry young, remain in the village to raise their families and, according to religious strictures, do not use birth control. As a result, the median age (under 12) is the lowest in the country and the household size (nearly six) is the highest. Mothers rarely work outside the home while their children are young.

Most residents, raised as Yiddish speakers, do not speak much English. And most men devote themselves to Torah and Talmud studies rather than academic training — only 39 percent of the residents are high school graduates, and less than 5 percent have a bachelor’s degree. Several hundred adults study full time at religious institutions......

Because the community typically votes as a bloc, it wields disproportionate political influence, which enables it to meet those challenges creatively. A luxurious 60-bed postnatal maternal care center was built with $10 million in state and federal grants. Mothers can recuperate there for two weeks away from their large families. Rates, which begin at $120 a day, are not covered by Medicaid, although, Mr. Szegedin said, poorer women are typically subsidized by wealthier ones.....

Most children attend religious schools, but transportation and textbooks are publicly financed. Several hundred handicapped students are educated by the village’s own public school district, which, because virtually all the students are poor and disabled, is eligible for sizable state and federal government grants.....

Mr. Szegedin, the village administrator, said critics tended to forget that state taxpayers were generally spared because thousands of village children are enrolled in religious schools. Nearby, the Monroe-Woodbury school district, with roughly the same school-age population, spends about $150 million annually, about one-third of which comes from the state. (Albany provides about $5 million of Kiryas Joel’s $16 million public school budget.)

“You also have no drug-treatment programs, no juvenile delinquency program, we’re not clogging the court system with criminal cases, you’re not running programs for AIDS or teen pregnancy,” he said. “I haven’t run the numbers, but I think it’s a wash.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/ny...l?pagewanted=1

[Dreadnaught]

I've been sorta terrified of Kiryas Joel for a few years now. Used to drive near there; it took me a while to figure out why there was a stretch of highway where suddenly everyone driving around me was orthodox. It's becoming something of a commune, except the population is fracking exploding like it's Iran or something.

The thing is there is a money supply. They do work via connections to largely Brooklyn-based members of their sects who do work. Though it's hard not to see this and think they're all welfare Queens. But ultimately I don't think it's really relevant to the voucher issue, that community is unusual in a lot of ways.

[GGT]

There are heavily orthodox areas in NJ, too. Large numbers whose "jobs" are religious studies or mandates with no income, and the community needing federal and state subsidies for health and education, in addition to charitable contributions from wealthier members. It's an interesting private-public dilemma. I doubt this kind of thing would fly for other religions, in other areas. Public housing and subsidies for monks, priests, nuns, proselytizers, those who take vows of poverty? [Very different from how the Amish interact with society. Amish wouldn't expect a $10 million maternity center, a public school for their handicapped kids, or public funds for housing or food. They provide those things for themselves, as part of their religious beliefs to be "separate from the English".]

As for educational vouchers, this is one example of how they wouldn't work as intended. Their claim to not put undo strain on public services (because they use private religious schools) would be undone by using vouchers (to fund religious schools). It might help the non-Jew who wants to send their child to a school outside that area, since their only public school is filled with handicapped kids, and their only private schools are for Hasidic Jews. But it shouldn't be considered "cost-effective".

Vouchers, in general, have some inherent flaws. They're used for housing assistance, but that didn't make housing more affordable, or affordable housing more accessible. They're used for WIC or food stamps, but that didn't make food more affordable. They're basically....coupons. The kind we clip or print out for all sorts of things, but just reduces costs for some people. It does nothing to fix the underlying problems of cost or access or quality. Not for housing, transportation, fuel, or food. But we're going to expand the voucher system to education and healthcare (Medicare)?

[Dreadnaught]

I think because they don't take public housing subsidies, it makes the debate very different. Usually the standard model is to take over the town government and defund the schools as much as possible because most of the parents are sending their kids to religious schools anyway.

Your specific example is actually a great example of how vouchers allows everyone near these religious communities to stop fighting over education. But honestly, my family has some first-person perspective on this specific community ever since they took over my grandmother's town and she moved out. It's really exceptional and unrelated to a larger debate in a lot of different ways.

[GGT]

(The article said 1/3 use federal vouchers for their housing.)

[Dreadnaught]

Ah, missed that. Those subsidies are on the federal level, so it hasn't percolated in the debate here, which has been mainly focused on local government issues in these "orthodox colonies". Fundamentally, most means-tested entitlement programs suffer from "notch" effects. A poorly structured voucher program of any sort (housing, school, etc) would suffer from the same problem.

[GGT]

And poorly structured public school funding doesn't help. Like 87% from local property taxes, in small (provincial) municipalities. yay, our school district made front page on WSJ yesterday.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...WhatsNewsForth

[Ominous Gamer]

For example, one of the schools I attended charges tuition that is less than their actual per-student costs. They use fundraising to make up the rest.

"A conservative billionaire who opposes government meddling in business has bought a rare commodity: the right to interfere in faculty hiring at a publicly funded university."

[Illusions]

"A conservative billionaire who opposes government meddling in business has bought a rare commodity: the right to interfere in faculty hiring at a publicly funded university."

Unlike the article I wouldn't label him a libertarian. That would be like calling someone who wants to overthrow a tyrannical government, then install themselves as dictator, a freedom fighter.

[GGT]

Those Koch Brothers should do get around. It's either outrageous or preposterous they claim to be libertarian Freeee Market guys, when they're using their money and clout to buy dominance.

[Loki]

Yeah, trying to buy a service in exchange for money. How illiberal.

[GGT]

Yeah, trying to buy a service in exchange for money. How illiberal.

You're comparing what Koch Brothers do (and yes, Soros too) to simply buying a service?

[Loki]

Did he do something illegal? Was coercion involved? Did both parties obtain something of value?

[GGT]

Did I ask those questions? No, I asked you, Loki....if they're simply buying a service in exchange for money?

What "service" are they buying?

[Dreadnaught]

"A conservative billionaire who opposes government meddling in business has bought a rare commodity: the right to interfere in faculty hiring at a publicly funded university."

...and? It's not too unusual for someone who endows a professorship at a private university to have some significant sway over who occupies the professorship.

If that's a problem, they could just turn down the money. Private universities turn down gifts with onerous terms (though many wouldn't find this too onerous). This is a public university. They don't rely on fundraising. If they consider themselves to be an impartial instrument of the state why are they accepting the donation?

[Ominous Gamer]

On the concept of budgets, fundraising, and influence, its astonishing who caught the larger picture, or who didn't. I'm not limiting this concept to only universities; I'm focusing more on the idea that money, big money, from a very select mindset or individual has the ability to alter the output of education for hundreds or thousands, at any level.

[Loki]

Did I ask those questions? No, I asked you, Loki....if they're simply buying a service in exchange for money?

What "service" are they buying?

The teaching of material he likes by faculty he likes.

On the concept of budgets, fundraising, and influence, its astonishing who caught the larger picture, or who didn't. I'm not limiting this concept to only universities; I'm focusing more on the idea that money, big money, from a very select mindset or individual has the ability to alter the output of education for hundreds or thousands, at any level.

Yeah, because a handful of professors at a few mediocre institutions are going to make a dent on the overall education system.

...and? It's not too unusual for someone who endows a professorship at a private university to have some significant sway over who occupies the professorship.

If that's a problem, they could just turn down the money. Private universities turn down gifts with onerous terms (though many wouldn't find this too onerous). This is a public university. They don't rely on fundraising. If they consider themselves to be an impartial instrument of the state why are they accepting the donation?

All universities fundraise. There's no private vs. public distinction anymore. When state governments are as unreliable as they've proven to be, you have no choice but to rely on private donations. Most (4-year) public universities already get about half their funding from private sources.

[Dreadnaught]

The teaching of material he likes by faculty he likes.



Yeah, because a handful of professors at a few mediocre institutions are going to make a dent on the overall education system.



All universities fundraise. There's no private vs. public distinction anymore. When state governments are as unreliable as they've proven to be, you have no choice but to rely on private donations. Most (4-year) public universities already get about half their funding from private sources.

Really? I didn't know it was that extensive for the public universities.

On the concept of budgets, fundraising, and influence, its astonishing who caught the larger picture, or who didn't. I'm not limiting this concept to only universities; I'm focusing more on the idea that money, big money, from a very select mindset or individual has the ability to alter the output of education for hundreds or thousands, at any level.

No, you're painting a picture, not catching one. Fundraising for education is an established and credible form of charitable giving. The idea that it is a tool of ideological manipulation doesn't really do a disservice to those making the gifts and the independent minds being educated.

[Loki]

Really? I didn't know it was that extensive for the public universities.

I have experience with the NY and Illinois public university system, and both have extensive alumni outreach programs, sell rights to the names of their buildings, etc. Illinois also has a fairly big endowment, almost all obtained from private sources. The system would be bankrupt if it relied only on the state government that has made a habit of not paying ~$100 million each year.

[GGT]

The teaching of material he likes by faculty he likes.

That's the "service" they're buying? That's how "academic standards" are set at state universities now? The biggest "donors" pick curriculum they like, AND who's hired to teach?

We all know donations and endowments are important, especially for structural building funds. Fundraising isn't the problem, but the expectation of outside power that comes with the money. State universities shouldn't be in the business of letting billionaires choose academic material and personnel hires. Not to the degree that article suggests. Maybe that's part of our educational system's problem....

[Illusions]

Did he do something illegal? Was coercion involved? Did both parties obtain something of value?

Perhaps a different line of logic to debate this? Since technically if I lived in the American South during the early 1800's I could buy a slave, and this would be legal, no coercion would be involved, and both parties would obtain something of value.

[Loki]

Is anyone forcing colleges to accept this money?

Perhaps a different line of logic to debate this? Since technically if I lived in the American South during the early 1800's I could buy a slave, and this would be legal, no coercion would be involved, and both parties would obtain something of value.

Slavery is inherently coercive.

[GGT]

Is anyone forcing colleges to accept this money?

The system would be bankrupt if it relied only on the state government that has made a habit of not paying ~$100 million each year.

And how well does the system work when donors run out of money, or the funding dries up? Any objections to Saudis funding shiny buildings, and hiring those who agree to teach their favorite brand of "material"?

[GGT]

All universities fundraise. There's no private vs. public distinction anymore. When state governments are as unreliable as they've proven to be, you have no choice but to rely on private donations. Most (4-year) public universities already get about half their funding from private sources.

When state governments are unreliable or ineffective, you don't just throw in the towel and go begging to the billionaires.

There's still a distinction for public/state universities, moreso than private schools. Plus, not all funding is alike.

It's different if McDonald's and Pizza Hut want to build Penn State's student center and sell their fast food in the cafeteria, or if Gatorade wants to "own" advertising rights to a section of their football stadium. But when billionaires with an admitted political agenda exploit state schools' budget quagmires, that's practically bribery or extortion. It might be perfectly legal, but it's not professional, or ethical, IMO. Not when it comes to public state schools.

Funny, I remember being intrigued by George Soros starting a private school for alternative economics/finance/business with his billions, plus some others' money and input. You were very quick to trash that, because you don't like his left-leaning proclivities and (more importantly) you said it wasn't legitimate because it didn't follow "conventional standards of academic, peer reviewed rigor". Paraphrased.

But when it's billionaires buying particular curriculum and teachers in public schools (Koch funded Cato Institute, and you like their right-leaning bend)....suddenly it's legitimate? Education is nothing more than a monetary exchange for "services"?

Or is education really fucked up because of tenure, teacher unions, displaced power and misuse of public funds? I remember you "whining" about that being a major factor that's hurting our education system. (I won't suggest you move to Canada with all your "whining", though.)

[Aimless]

Whoa so basically a billionaire can place a puppet brainwasher inside a mediocre public uni ie. an institution containing the least impressive and independent of middle class thinkers and because of tenure he may never be kicked out??

Anyway, no matter who ends up getting that position, permanently discrediting him as being bought would be no challenge at all for a bunch of students.

[GGT]

Koch Brothers have their fingers in all sorts of American Life, from education and energy to all things legislative and political. Not sure if any of their groups or sub-groups fit under "charitable organization" at this rate. The IRS is investigating their tax exempt status, at least from the PAC angle....whatever that means.

[Ominous Gamer]

Yeah, because a handful of professors at a few mediocre institutions are going to make a dent on the overall education system.

I've already addressed the defense that bad ideas aren't worth addressing because they wouldn't impact a large part of the system.

[Dreadnaught]

Anyway, no matter who ends up getting that position, permanently discrediting him as being bought would be no challenge at all for a bunch of students.

Exactly. Look, every professor has biases. Some professors have a known public bias and others don't. Universities are full of professors with opinions. The professor whose job is endowed by a particular individual/group (and everyone knows it) is the last person who is going to be a secret stalking-horse in academia.

But ultimately, the point of funding a professorship is a charitable gift. The Koch brothers are just the latest victims of a spate of left-wing conspiracy theories (much like George Soros is to the right).