Shorter me:
"Unconstitutional is a pretty strong word, so let me justify myself." It's not only strong, it's completely false. See Supreme Court affirms school voucher program. June 27, 2002 Posted: 4:01 PM EDT (2001 GMT)From Terry Frieden
CNN.

There was also:
"While the average annual expenditure per pupil in Cleveland's public schools is about $6,500, tuition in Cleveland's private schools costs an average of $2,000. " So the "expensive private schools cost taxpayers less than a third of what the failing public schools do.

And this:
"About 75 percent of the voucher students are from poor families and two thirds are black."
Source: "Lessons Cleveland Can Teach," Economist, November 29, 1997.

So much for your vaunted list.

I don't mind if someone gets a religious education, but I don't see why the government should be paying for madrasas. Capiche?

I didn't say that private schools are expensive. I said that they are either:

1) expensive
2) exclusive
3) parochial

I don't think that the government should fund any of the above. The first two are elitist and the third is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional is a pretty strong word, so let me justify myself. If you are not well-to-do and you are not capable of passing entrance exams to get into 1 or 2 then your choice only voucher choice is religious. See my response to Robert.

As for my education, it has at least enabled me to write in complete sentences. Contrast that with your wrestling match with possessives, sentence fragments, run-on sentences and comma splices. May I suggest that you add Strunk's "Elements of Style" to that dictionary purchase?

You give no reason as to why you automatically assume private = expensive. Or why you're so baffled as to why entrance exams would be helpful for a damn school. Well I can only assume that the school you went to had no need of such worthless persuits of excellence or even basic education, based on your display.

Finally, for someone so full of their own supposed education to write something like this: "This means that vouchers 'trap children' who do not satisfy one of the above in public school" when the WHOLE DAMN POINT of their comment was to trap ALL children in those SAME SCHOOLS... well, I can't really respond logically to such an illogical defense.

Too bad your parents didn't have access to vouchers...

I don't see the profit incentive in catering to underprivileged children. So my best guess is that we're really only talking about parochial schools.

I do like vouchers much better if they have restrictions that address my concerns (surprising, no?). In particular, if schools could only receive vouchers if they were:

1. In the bottom 75% by tuition cost -- i.e. exclude the most expensive 25%.
2. May not be used at schools that engage in behavior that would be unconstitutional for public schools to engage in -- e.g. religious education.
3. May not be used at schools who are not willing to accept any/all students.

Who says that in a voucher environment schools couldn't cater to underprivileged students? Some schools would specialize in raising the abilities of those without aptitude.

Also, some of the problems you describe could be fixed by placing conditions on vouchers, like the only schools that could use them must accept everybody (this seems like a mistake to me) or could address first amendment concerns.

I see the same problem with vouchers that I see with the worst public health funding proposals. The private schools get to cherry pick the best students, while the public schools are left with the students that require the greatest resources. This choice is (to my eyes) not really pluralistic in that is necessitates wealth, aptitude or religion. It structurally disadvantages those to whom the above do not apply -- which is antithetic to my understanding of pluralism.

First of, from your moniker I see you're one for irony right out of the gate. Nice. I'm not typically this fiesty, but I'm not one to take a slap like "bigoted" without figuring you want one right back.

I'll go slowly and use small words.

1) "bigoted" means insular and intolerant. M'okay. Pluralism is diametrically opposed to either insular or intolerant worldviews. So you're off to a fine start. For only $6.50 on Amazon you can avoid these sort of embarassing mistakes with a Webster's dictionary my friend.

2) "trap children" -- My point is that students will go to private schools to which one or more of the following apply:
2.1) Require lots of money
2.2) Require entrance exams
2.3) Espouse a particular religion
It's pretty clear that 2.1 & 2.2 are the best students. This means that vouchers "trap children" who do not satisfy one of the above in public schools.

3) "indoctrinated" -- Simply allowing children to avoid religious instruction is not indoctrination. See, how that shiny new dictionary could already be paying for itself?

4) "irrational, corrupt liberal worldview" -- I'm simply supporting the founding fathers' notion of a secular, pluralist state. This is why we have separation of church & state in the 1st amendment. This is why Senate rules preclude a small (less then 60%) majority from dominating a substantial (more than 40%) minority. If you see a link between the above and either irrationality or corruption, perhaps you could you could justify yourself with an actual chain of reasoning instead of throwing out perjoratives.

5) "how... would vouchers decrease the quality of public schools" -- See 2, above.

Thanks for playing brainy!

I sort of agree with you, though I'm not a big fan of teaching creationism, which would undoubtedly happen if you got your wish. BTW, it's hard to get more local than giving the individual (or parents) the choice of schools.

Scott,

It seems to me that individual choice is the more pluralistic way to go here. I still don't think vouchers will happen, though, which is why I prefer that federal education money be broken into block grants.

Exactly how, if the amount of money spent per pupil is made portable, would vouchers decrease the quality of public schooling, assuming such a thing were possible? The funding would be the same per pupil. So public schools may have to consolidate. God forbid.

1. They help the well-to-do attend expensive private schools.

2. They help the less-well-off attend parochial schools.

3. They leave public schools unsustainably funded compared with current attendance, and hence result in school closings. This moves public schools further and further apart, resulting in a greater disconnect between the local population and the attending student body.

While 1 & 2 are both attractive to their respective wings of the GOP they are anathema to a secular, pluralist worldview. And 3 is only attractive to folk who want to kill public schools on principal, predominately libertarians. You are giving people the option of being: wealthy, religious or screwed. You'll forgive me if I consider that to be a lovely restatment of the post-Contract-on-America GOP worldview.