Voucher System & Catholic Schools

[manualman]

Vouchers may not be the answer. Here in Illinois, we actually have a private school tuitition tax credit. It is peanuts ($500 max), but it is a start!

Basically the state realized that the soaring cost of public schools (mine blows $11,000 per student per year) is contributing to the closure of private schools (this year will be the first year in 40 YEARS that a Chicago archdiocese school WON’T be closing). While the public teachers unions might find certain delight in the impending extinction of catholic schools, a few of the brighter politicians have realized that every time a catholic school closes, most of those students flood into the public school system, which then must educate MORE students with the SAME amount of tax revenue.

It finally dawned on some of them that parents of private school kids (like me) actually SUBSIDIZE public education and that it is worth expending some public money to help parents continue to afford subsidizing the public schools this way.

We are working hard to get this expanded to $750, which is still a pittance, but is the difference between making it or not for many families. Our catholic school is at crisis enrollment levels, so this topic hits very close to home. You KNOW there is a problem when a private school in western DuPage County Illinois can’t get enough kids to fill the schoolrooms.

A tax credit instead of vouchers seems to draw less fire from opponents, but is still tough to get in todays state budget climate. Wish us luck!

P.S. Nobody has yet shown me a catholic college that had to compromise its values or teachings in order to take government money in the form of scholarships and grants. THAT government money has been coming in for decades. Why should lower grades be any different? Smells like a scare tactic to me.

P.P.S. If your desire for a catholic school is mainly due to a desire for a genuine catholic formation for your kids, look for a school with lousy athletic reputation. The ones with the super-reputation athletics usually have a culture where THAT kind of success is valued higher than the faith and the kids are poisoned against the faith as a result. (IMO)

 

[vern_humphrey]

P.S. Nobody has yet shown me a catholic college that had to compromise its values or teachings in order to take government money in the form of scholarships and grants. THAT government money has been coming in for decades. Why should lower grades be any different? Smells like a scare tactic to me.

In fact, we see it everywhere – in attempts to require gynecologists to be “qualified” in performing abortions (plain English – have to perform one to be certified), requiring Catholic pharmacists to dispense birth control and the “Morning After” pill. Requiring Catholic charities to pay for birth control for employees. We see a move underfoot to require Catholic hospitals to provide “all women’s health services” (plain English – abortions.)

 

[rpp]

Let me see if I understand the voucher system.

1. 
   *]The government sends us a tax bill or prints forms for us file our taxes.
   *]We pay taxes.
   *]The government spends money to collect these taxes.
   *]We send our children to something other than a public (read: bad) school.
   *]We (or the staff at new school) spend time and money to file an application with the government for a school “voucher”.
   *]The government spends money to process this application.
   *]The government spends money to send money to the new school.
   *]The school gets a voucher representing what money is left over.
   Do I have this right?
   
   How about this solution.
   1. 
      *]Give us a bigger deduction from our taxes to begin with so we can spend it on our children’s school.
      This seems like fewer steps to me.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You have several good points there – but here are two more:

1. The segment of the population most in need of quality schools for their children pay no income or real estate taxes, so a tax deducation will not help them.
2. Even for the more affluent, the tax deduction will amount to far less than the actual cost of tuition.

 

[rpp]

You have several good points there – but here are two more:

1. The segment of the population most in need of quality schools for their children pay no income or real estate taxes, so a tax deduction will not help them.
2. Even for the more affluent, the tax deduction will amount to far less than the actual cost of tuition.

Before I go on, I should add that I am the product of a private secular school, but I graduated from a public high school. I only have some college.

Yes I thought about your point 1 after I posted it.

I am not convinced the government has done a good job running schools. Nor will anyone be able to convince me that they ever can.

I fully support the education of every child, I am just not sure how to fund it. I suppose vouchers are the best way, but personally I would support closing every public school and creating a whole new competitive industry of private schools and tutors. Some would essentially be “free” (tax payer funded) while others would charge tuition in addition to getting money from the government. The only requirement would be that students meet minimum scores on annual skills test. Failure to meet the scores would result in either monitoring or and end of the tax subsidies.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Before I go on, I should add that I am the product of a private secular school, but I graduated from a public high school. I only have some college.

Yes I thought about your point 1 after I posted it.

I am not convinced the government has done a good job running schools. Nor will anyone be able to convince me that they ever can.

It’s difficult to imagine any reasonably well-informed and intelligent person thinking the government can do a good job in education.

I fully support the education of every child, I am just not sure how to fund it. I suppose vouchers are the best way, but personally I would support closing every public school and creating a whole new competitive industry of private schools and tutors. Some would essentially be “free” (tax payer funded) while others would charge tuition in addition to getting money from the government. The only requirement would be that students meet minimum scores on annual skills test. Failure to meet the scores would result in either monitoring or and end of the tax subsidies.

I support Free Choice – divide the education budget by the number of children in school, and allow the parents to pick any school. Pay the school 90 to 95% of the per-pupil share of the education money. Let good schools prosper, bad ones die.

 

[mrteachersir]

Vouchers are opposed by the NEA for a myriad of reasons…but they don’t cite the real reason. The NEA is a union. Like all national unions today, it exists to keep existing. It pushes for rules and policies that benefit it, despite the potential effects on everyone else. Currently, the NEA is organizing a campaign to require the starting salary of any begining teacher with a bachelor’s degree to be $40K. This is absurd. Most local unions (except in NJ where I and my uncle, aunt, and cousin taught) work with school districts to contract justifiable and affordable salaries and benefits for both parties. The locals attempt to get what they can while considering the restrictions on the district, while the district gives what they can to reward the teachers they feel are hard working professionals. The exceptions to this simplifed ideal are common, but this is, in general the rule. The NEA has no concern for the district, the taxpayers, the kids, or the kids’ parents. It is concerned with getting more dues-paying public school teachers on their rosters. In many states, the NEA has orchestrated a “fair-share” law, in which non-union members pay between 50% and 75% of union dues to the union to offset the costs of “representation”…in short, forcing non-unionized teachers to join a union.

The current situation, in which Catholic schools and other private schools are forced to close, is exactly why the NEA and state unions are against vouchers. The more students there are, the more teachers are needed to maintain the “low pupil-to-teacher-ratio” heavily promoted by the NEA, and thus, the more teachers who would join the union. How are districts going to pay for such costs? The NEA doesn’t care, so long as it has new teachers paying dues to line the pockets of the union leaders (who command large “reimbursements” of their leadership capabilities (interesting point, the leaders of the two competing national teachers’ unions were not teachers, but professional union bosses).

Politicians are afraid of vouchers for two reasons: 1) losing the backing (read: “money”) of the NEA, and 2) losing power over education. Private institutions are outside the scope of federal and state education mandates, and basically not influenced by the unions. To my knowledge, none of the teachers at the local Catholic school are union-members, and they don’t pay “fair-share” either.

 

[rpp]

Vouchers are opposed by the NEA for a myriad of reasons…but they don’t cite the real reason. The NEA is a union. Like all national unions today, it exists to keep existing. It pushes for rules and policies that benefit it, despite the potential effects on everyone else. Currently, the NEA is organizing a campaign to require the starting salary of any begining teacher with a bachelor’s degree to be $40K. This is absurd. Most local unions (except in NJ where I and my uncle, aunt, and cousin taught) work with school districts to contract justifiable and affordable salaries and benefits for both parties. The locals attempt to get what they can while considering the restrictions on the district, while the district gives what they can to reward the teachers they feel are hard working professionals. The exceptions to this simplifed ideal are common, but this is, in general the rule. The NEA has no concern for the district, the taxpayers, the kids, or the kids’ parents. It is concerned with getting more dues-paying public school teachers on their rosters. In many states, the NEA has orchestrated a “fair-share” law, in which non-union members pay between 50% and 75% of union dues to the union to offset the costs of “representation”…in short, forcing non-unionized teachers to join a union.

The current situation, in which Catholic schools and other private schools are forced to close, is exactly why the NEA and state unions are against vouchers. The more students there are, the more teachers are needed to maintain the “low pupil-to-teacher-ratio” heavily promoted by the NEA, and thus, the more teachers who would join the union. How are districts going to pay for such costs? The NEA doesn’t care, so long as it has new teachers paying dues to line the pockets of the union leaders (who command large “reimbursements” of their leadership capabilities (interesting point, the leaders of the two competing national teachers’ unions were not teachers, but professional union bosses).

Politicians are afraid of vouchers for two reasons: 1) losing the backing (read: “money”) of the NEA, and 2) losing power over education. Private institutions are outside the scope of federal and state education mandates, and basically not influenced by the unions. To my knowledge, none of the teachers at the local Catholic school are union-members, and they don’t pay “fair-share” either.

Boy, if ever there was a union that needed busting, it is evil and poisonous NEA. They have done more to corrupt the children of this country than even the ACLU.

 

[Br_Joshua_Seidl]

Vouchers may not be the answer. Here in Illinois, we actually have a private school tuitition tax credit. It is peanuts ($500 max), but it is a start!

Basically the state realized that the soaring cost of public schools (mine blows $11,000 per student per year) is contributing to the closure of private schools (this year will be the first year in 40 YEARS that a Chicago archdiocese school WON’T be closing). While the public teachers unions might find certain delight in the impending extinction of catholic schools, a few of the brighter politicians have realized that every time a catholic school closes, most of those students flood into the public school system, which then must educate MORE students with the SAME amount of tax revenue.

It finally dawned on some of them that parents of private school kids (like me) actually SUBSIDIZE public education and that it is worth expending some public money to help parents continue to afford subsidizing the public schools this way.

We are working hard to get this expanded to $750, which is still a pittance, but is the difference between making it or not for many families. Our catholic school is at crisis enrollment levels, so this topic hits very close to home. You KNOW there is a problem when a private school in western DuPage County Illinois can’t get enough kids to fill the schoolrooms.

A tax credit instead of vouchers seems to draw less fire from opponents, but is still tough to get in todays state budget climate. Wish us luck!

P.S. Nobody has yet shown me a catholic college that had to compromise its values or teachings in order to take government money in the form of scholarships and grants. THAT government money has been coming in for decades. Why should lower grades be any different? Smells like a scare tactic to me.

P.P.S. If your desire for a catholic school is mainly due to a desire for a genuine catholic formation for your kids, look for a school with lousy athletic reputation. The ones with the super-reputation athletics usually have a culture where THAT kind of success is valued higher than the faith and the kids are poisoned against the faith as a result. (IMO)

I like your observation about schools and athletic reputations. My observations are very limited - but from what I see, I agree with you. I am not convinced one way or the other on the school voucher proposals, but I am concerned about two areas: One is that a school makes clear demonstration that religious formation is their priority, and second that they will not expell students who recieve public assistance. The public school, as a public trust, is responcible for all children. I cannot see accepting from the public treasury with out accepting all the responcibilities.

These two concerns of mine conflict something terrible.

I heard that there is a diocese in Kansas that has free Catholic education becasue of an exceptional diocesan wide stewardship program. If any of you forum folks know about this, I’d like to hear about it, and what diocese that may be. Of course, I may be mistaken that such a program exist - 'not sure.

 

[mrteachersir]

It’s difficult to imagine any reasonably well-informed and intelligent person thinking the government can do a good job in education.

Most schools are not “run by the government”…they are run by elected citizens (most of whom are not in political office) who run the schools according to their localized fancies, yet within the scope of state and federal policies. Some boards are particularly aggressive in doing what they find best for their kids and communities, others are particularly gullible and will follow the whims of any new educrat that walks their way. Some spend more on athletics than academics, others spend more on academics than athletics. Each school is essentially free to operate on its own, yet within certain constraints.

I support Free Choice – divide the education budget by the number of children in school, and allow the parents to pick any school. Pay the school 90 to 95% of the per-pupil share of the education money. Let good schools prosper, bad ones die.

I’m glad to finally have someone support an idea I have been mulling over for the last 5 years. Essentially, my idea is this: each school (excepting private schools) will agree to pay a certain amount for the education of every child in that district. My school spends like $7000 per student. Parents of children in that district can choose to send their children to any school in the surrounding area (to be defined by the district) for reasons of religion, extra-curricular activities, extra-academic programs, geographic location, or disapproval. The district pays the promised amount for that student, excluding transportation. Thus, each school will have to make itself appealing to current students and potential students. It will also have to spend its money wisely (not on pizza parties for good test results, or on pathetic little “appreciation gifts” to teachers on appreciatiom days) in order to deal with the loss of one of its students. Each school will charge a tuition that is the exact amount per student it spends.

If I am not mistaken, Japanese schools operate in this manner. If I heard correctly, the school system is broken into counties. Each school is independent of each other (like ours), yet there is open choice between schools in a particular county.

 

[mrteachersir]

Boy, if ever there was a union that needed busting, it is evil and poisonous NEA. They have done more to corrupt the children of this country than even the ACLU.

I’m not too good at picking up sarcasm without face to face contact, so I will assume you think the NEA is evil. If you hadn’t guessed it, so do I, and because of “fair share”, I am a member (without dues I would pay $20 a paycheck in “fair share”, with dues, $25 and voting rights in the local union).

Immediately after 9/11, the NEA published a handbook for teachers. Essentially, it said 1) don’t hold anyone responsible for the incident (I thought we were attacked by Muslim extremists), and 2) show how American actions caused the incident (when asked about his hatred of the US, Osama bin Laden mentioned nothing of US actions, despite our financial aide during the Afghani war with the USSR).

The NEA spends nearly $2 Billion a year on politics (mostly on donations to pro-tax, pro-abortion, neo-socialist Democrats) and was instrumental in helping Jimmy Carter, our illustrious anti-Semite former-prez, organize the Dept of Ed to help further its views. There is a rumor that although members must check off on having their dues used for politics the NEA launders the dues to use them to support politicians (almost always left of center) of their choice.

The NEA has consistently promoted policies and educational programs designed to undermine the family. Problems with sex? Hire a new teacher specifically trained to teach kids how to have sex safely (the NEA is against abstinence only education). Problems with kids’ morals? Begin “character education”, preferably with new teachers designed to teach kids about character. Parental involvement? The general vibe I get about the NEA’s views on parents is similar to the Communist Party’s views on the people in Russia: “We know what’s best for you better than you do; we are the smart one’s, so sit down, shut up and we’ll tell you what is best.”

The NEA has published praise for the education system of the Soviet Union and Mao’s China. Both were excellently run socialist propaganda machines. It is no surprise that many of the policies they support match Soviet/Maoist policies.

The NEA, in its curricula guides to members, has encouraged the glossing over of non-Christian atrocities, yet encouraged teachers to spend time on Christian atrocities. Many of its curricula guides are decidedly anti-American, anti-free market, and anti-Christian. Some border on anti-heterosexual.

As for the ACLU (Anti-Christian Liers Union), several of its lawsuits were supported by the NEA. No surprise there.

 

[rpp]

I’m not too good at picking up sarcasm without face to face contact, so I will assume you think the NEA is evil.

I meant no sarcasm. I honestly think the organization is evil, promotes evil, and promotes evil using evil means.

But I am interrupting you. Please continue.

If you hadn’t guessed it, so do I, and because of “fair share”, I am a member (without dues I would pay $20 a paycheck in “fair share”, with dues, $25 and voting rights in the local union).

Immediately after 9/11, the NEA published a handbook for teachers. Essentially, it said 1) don’t hold anyone responsible for the incident (I thought we were attacked by Muslim extremists), and 2) show how American actions caused the incident (when asked about his hatred of the US, Osama bin Laden mentioned nothing of US actions, despite our financial aide during the Afghani war with the USSR).

The NEA spends nearly $2 Billion a year on politics (mostly on donations to pro-tax, pro-abortion, neo-socialist Democrats) and was instrumental in helping Jimmy Carter, our illustrious anti-Semite former-prez, organize the Dept of Ed to help further its views. There is a rumor that although members must check off on having their dues used for politics the NEA launders the dues to use them to support politicians (almost always left of center) of their choice.

The NEA has consistently promoted policies and educational programs designed to undermine the family. Problems with sex? Hire a new teacher specifically trained to teach kids how to have sex safely (the NEA is against abstinence only education). Problems with kids’ morals? Begin “character education”, preferably with new teachers designed to teach kids about character. Parental involvement? The general vibe I get about the NEA’s views on parents is similar to the Communist Party’s views on the people in Russia: “We know what’s best for you better than you do; we are the smart one’s, so sit down, shut up and we’ll tell you what is best.”

The NEA has published praise for the education system of the Soviet Union and Mao’s China. Both were excellently run socialist propaganda machines. It is no surprise that many of the policies they support match Soviet/Maoist policies.

The NEA, in its curricula guides to members, has encouraged the glossing over of non-Christian atrocities, yet encouraged teachers to spend time on Christian atrocities. Many of its curricula guides are decidedly anti-American, anti-free market, and anti-Christian. Some border on anti-heterosexual.

As for the ACLU (Anti-Christian Liers Union), several of its lawsuits were supported by the NEA. No surprise there.

:clapping:
From the mouth of a member of the NEA. Thank you.

I am sorry you are in the position where you must be a member of this terrible organization. :console:

Pray for teachers!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Most schools are not “run by the government”…they are run by** elected** citizens (most of whom are not in political office) **who run the schools **according to their localized fancies, yet within the scope of state and federal policies.

Look closely at the bolded words and see how they refute the proposition in the quoted statement.

(HINT: All members of the state legislatures, the Congress and the President are “elected citizens.”)

(HINT 2: “State and Federal policies” is a euphemism for “government control.”)

 

[mrteachersir]

I live in the diocese of Scranton ¶ which has a policy of not turning away any Catholic family from recieving an education. Each local parish has annual or semi-annual collections for local schools (some have more). Despite the promise of “free Catholic education” for some, and extensive aid for others, more and more families are not supporting Catholic schools. Schools are closing because it is becoming uneconomical to keep them open during times of low enrollments, especially when many of these enrollments are subsidized by the local parishes or the diocese.

In contrast, I grew up in Northern New Jersey, which had a preponderance of Catholic schools. Delbarton Academy (which has on its staff a contributor to This Rock magazine), Pope John XXIII, and Bergen Catholic are three of the notorious Catholic schools that public schools dreaded competing against. While these schools boasted successful athletic programs, they were also top-notch academic schools. The principals for all three (when I was in school, anyway) were all priests, and there were a number of religious on the staffs of each. I cannot vouch for the orthodoxy or the commitment to Catholic values and morality by the staffs as a whole, but the individual contact with students from PJ and DB were favorable. These schools were self-sufficient, and independent of diocese affiliation, to my knowledge. PJ provided assistance for students to go there, and many of the Catholic middle and elementary schools were “feeder schools” for PJ. Several parents I was acquainted with as a Little League coach, as Catholic parents saw PJ as the only option for educating their kids. On the downside, all of these schools had a preponderance of kids from wealthy families attending. Delbarton is an Academy, and the average income of parents sending their kids to PJ when I was in school was about $75K.

I was comparing the state of Christian education in my parents’ area and mine, and there is a huge difference. Sure the populations are very different (I live in a county with about 20,000, my parents in a county with close to 100,000), but all of Christian schools near my parents are growing. My old school (a Christian Reformed School) graduated 14 in 1992, yet nearly 40 in 2006. There was only one other Christian school in the county aside from Pope John XXIII in 1992, now there are four more (one is building a huge, brand-new, state of the art building for over 500 high school students). Could it be money, or are the values of the communities different? I honestly do not know. Wages in different areas throughout the country tend to match consumer prices, so a tuition of 7000 in a wealthy area tends to correspond to a tuition of 4500 in a middle class area (or so I’ve been told).

What is the case around the country?

 

[mrteachersir]

(HINT: All members of the state legislatures, the Congress and the President are “elected citizens.”)

So are the members of Protestant Church committees, are you saying that they are also part of the government? School boards in most cases (excepting cities like NY, Philly, etc were they are actually political appointments) are comprised of concerned parents, business leaders, and retired teachers who want what is best for their kids and community (and their taxes). Politicians normally want what is best for their chances at reelection. In addition, school boards do not pay themselves to be on the school board, thus they are true servants and not employees. They recieve no renumeration from the public coffers by serving on the school board, unlike elected politicians. Likewise, in construction, the school boards were formed apart from the local governments to independently assure that the community’s goals (not the community’s government’s goals) were being met within the education system. State and local governments had to pass laws to allow limited taxation power to school districts, because those districts were not part of local or state governments.

(HINT 2: “State and Federal policies” is a euphemism for “government control.”)

Not so fast. These policies are voluntary (if you don’t want state or federal money). None of them force districts to act in unison. While state standards are supposed to be used as a starting point for local curricula, they are not in many (if not most cases). I know of at least three local schools that refuse to link curricula objectives with standards (required by PA law), citing it a waste of time. Plus, the state cannot fire an individual superintendent, principal, or teacher if they are not doing their respective job according to state officials’ ideas of competency. Only the local school board has the power to do that.

Your arguements as quoted above are specious. To call a public school a “government school” is accurate only in the sense that 1) public schools recieve money from state and federal governments (this is generally on the minority of disctrict incomes, however), 2) districts are, in most states, given limited power (as independent agencies not affiliated with the government) to tax and create localized tax codes to subsidize themselves, 3) teachers are part of state pension plans subsidized by tax payers (which is an assinine proposal), and 4) “public” schools are required to obey local, state, and federal education policies, if they want government money.

I am not denying that public schools are dangerous (and this coming from a public school teacher and NEA member), but they are not (as yet) the instruments of government indoctrination many (including Hillary Clinton in her book It Takes a Village) want them to be or think they are. If Sen Clinton has her way, they will be, however.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So are the members of Protestant Church committees, are you saying that they are also part of the government?

Are they elected by the public at large, or just by the members of their church? Are the elections supervised by the local Election Commission under state authority? Do members of Protestant Church committees have the power to set taxes and spend public money?

School boards in most cases (excepting cities like NY, Philly, etc were they are actually political appointments) are comprised of concerned parents, business leaders, and retired teachers who want what is best for their kids and community (and their taxes)

.

State legislatures and the Congress are comprised of concerned parents, business leaders, and retired teachers who want what is best for their kids and community (and their taxes).

Politicians normally want what is best for their chances at reelection. In addition, school boards do not pay themselves to be on the school board, thus they are true servants and not employees. They recieve no renumeration from the public coffers by serving on the school board, unlike elected politicians.

How does that make them different from Justices of the Peace?

Likewise, in construction, the school boards were formed apart from the local governments to independently assure that the community’s goals (not the community’s government’s goals) were being met within the education system.

Who formed the school boards? Who gave them the power to tax?

State and local governments had to pass laws to allow limited taxation power to school districts, because those districts were not part of local or state governments.

Any agency with the power to tax is assuredly a government agency.

Not so fast. These policies are voluntary (if you don’t want state or federal money).

Really? How come the Supreme Court of Arkansas recently took over the school system? Explain how federal courts took over many school districts – most notoriously in Kansas City, where they forced local government to raise taxes, embarked on a building binge – and the result was KC school children went backward, compared with children of simiar socio-economic background?

None of them force districts to act in unison.

Which is like saying police departments aren’t “forced to act in unison.” But no one would say the police were not an arm of the government!

While state standards are supposed to be used as a starting point for local curricula, they are not in many (if not most cases). I know of at least three local schools that refuse to link curricula objectives with standards (required by PA law), citing it a waste of time. Plus, the state cannot fire an individual superintendent, principal, or teacher if they are not doing their respective job according to state officials’ ideas of competency. Only the local school board has the power to do that.

Thereby proving once again the school board is a government entity.

Your arguements as quoted above are specious. To call a public school a “government school” is accurate only in the sense that 1) public schools recieve money from state and federal governments (this is generally on the minority of disctrict incomes, however), 2) districts are, in most states, given limited power (as independent agencies not affiliated with the government) to tax and create localized tax codes to subsidize themselves, 3) teachers are part of state pension plans subsidized by tax payers (which is an assinine proposal), and 4) “public” schools are required to obey local, state, and federal education policies, if they want government money.

Your arguments as quoted above are specious. To call a duck a “bird” is accurate only in the sense that 1) ducks have feathers 2) ducks fly 3) ducks have wings and 4) ducks lay eggs.

I am not denying that public schools are dangerous (and this coming from a public school teacher and NEA member), but they are not (as yet) the instruments of government indoctrination many (including Hillary Clinton in her book It Takes a Village) want them to be or think they are. If Sen Clinton has her way, they will be, however.

The heck they’re not – you might cruise these forums and see the things that are being done in public schools, from forcing children to be educated on gay issues, to punishing a six-year old for kissling another six-year old.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I have in general been against vouchers primarily because I don’t want the government to ruin our Catholic Schools. However, there is one thing I have not thought of until now. That is, we basically have a form of vouchers on the college level called Pell grants. If I qualify for a pell grant I can use it for any college, even a Catholic college. This would be a form of vouchers where the government does not tend to overreach.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have in general been against vouchers primarily because I don’t want the government to ruin our Catholic Schools. However, there is one thing I have not thought of until now. That is, we basically have a form of vouchers on the college level called Pell grants. If I qualify for a pell grant I can use it for any college, even a Catholic college. This would be a form of vouchers where the government does not tend to overreach.

But there’s nothing to prevent them from overreaching. It’s like lying in the mouth of a lion’s den when he’s not hungry – you never know when that will change.

 

[YADA]

The educational system in America is broken…

The education of the people is a must and is what has made America great, an educated populace…

Education in America started with schools operated by religous organizations, mostly protestant. Compulsary education/attendance laws and localized government began to increase the number of secular/government run schools. These religious operated schools received public funds. In fact, higher educational institutions operated by religious organizations still receive government funding.

The increase of catholics to the population caused friction in public schools catholic parents wanted their children to read the [then a regular occurance] daily scripture passages from a catholic bible [versus a protestant one]. In fact there were riots in New York over this issue. The catholics then wanted to send their children to ‘catholic’ schools.

The anti-catholicism in America has always been present and at times has been inflamed. The reason we do not still have funding allowed in the elementary/high school education and yet is allowed at the higher education level is due to the fact that there were many well established Protestant Universities and Colleges and few Catholic Institutions. Similarly, while the move generally had been away from church run schools for elementary education in favor of governmement schools [they still taught from scripture, etc] , many immigrant ‘catholic’ families sacrificed to create the catholic system of elementary//high schools. ANti-catholic did not want these catholic schools to recieve funding. In order to denie funding to catholics, they had to give up funding to protestant schools as well. With fewer schools that was a sacrifice they were willing to give as long as higher education was exempted.

A good book that discusses the history of education in America is “The Persistant Prejudice” by Schwartz

And if you do not believe that anti catholic bias affected parociall education look into the history of the KKK in Oregon. The KKK and the anti-catholicism politicians passed legislation that outlawed reigious private school education in Oregon. See this US Supreme Court case:

**PIERCE v. SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF THE HOLY NAMES OF JESUS AND, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) ****268 U.S. 510 **

**PIERCE, Governor of Oregon, et al. **
**v. **
**SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF THE HOLY NAMES OF JESUS AND MARY. **
**SAME **
**v. **
**HILL MILITARY ACADEMY. Nos. 583, 584. **
**Argued March 16 and 17, 1925. **
**Decided June 1, 1925. **

 

[maryj]

Vouchers may not be the answer. Here in Illinois, we actually have a private school tuitition tax credit. It is peanuts ($500 max), but it is a start!

Basically the state realized that the soaring cost of public schools (mine blows $11,000 per student per year) is contributing to the closure of private schools (this year will be the first year in 40 YEARS that a Chicago archdiocese school WON’T be closing). While the public teachers unions might find certain delight in the impending extinction of catholic schools, a few of the brighter politicians have realized that every time a catholic school closes, most of those students flood into the public school system, which then must educate MORE students with the SAME amount of tax revenue.

It finally dawned on some of them that parents of private school kids (like me) actually SUBSIDIZE public education and that it is worth expending some public money to help parents continue to afford subsidizing the public schools this way.

We are working hard to get this expanded to $750, which is still a pittance, but is the difference between making it or not for many families. Our catholic school is at crisis enrollment levels, so this topic hits very close to home. You KNOW there is a problem when a private school in western DuPage County Illinois can’t get enough kids to fill the schoolrooms.

A tax credit instead of vouchers seems to draw less fire from opponents, but is still tough to get in todays state budget climate. Wish us luck!

P.S. Nobody has yet shown me a catholic college that had to compromise its values or teachings in order to take government money in the form of scholarships and grants. THAT government money has been coming in for decades. Why should lower grades be any different? Smells like a scare tactic to me.

P.P.S. If your desire for a catholic school is mainly due to a desire for a genuine catholic formation for your kids, look for a school with lousy athletic reputation. The ones with the super-reputation athletics usually have a culture where THAT kind of success is valued higher than the faith and the kids are poisoned against the faith as a result. (IMO)

My husband (non-catholic) had big issues with us sending our daughter to catholic schools. I couldn’t get out of him what was his main objections until one day he just blurted out “they have no sports curriculum” my response…Good she’ll get a better education. Settled that dispute quickly, and she is now in her third year of college (fourth if you count her senior year in high school where she attended high school in the morning and college in the afternoon). So I agree with your P.P.S.