natedogg
07-02-2005, 04:04 PM
An excellent debate on the issues is found here:
http://legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_vouchers0605.msp
Between Clint Bolick, President and General Counsel for the Alliance for School Choice and Laura Underkuffler is Professor at Duke Law School.
Unsurprisingly, Underkuffler's main objection is that parents will choose schools that don't inculcate (indoctrinate) students with the values *she* thinks are important, even if the parents themselves do not. She clearly lacks the intellectual capacity to imagine what will happen if someday in the future things change the public schools are teaching kids values she objects to.
Her other main objection has to do with preserving public school system as it is now, as opposed to educating children. And of course, like any good ivory-tower elitist, she is genuinely horrified at the notion of placing trust in the individual decision making of parents.
"The public should [not] simply abdicate responsibility on the question of funding religious schools, or values, or what-have-you, and leave decisions about
the kinds of schools funded and the values taught in those schools to parental choice."
Yes, what a horrible, scary idea, allowing people to make decisions for themselves.
Also, unsurprisingly Bolick's arguments center around the importance of actually providing education to children, which public schools are failing to do currently.
His priceless quote:
“Schools are a means to the end, not an end in themselves. The focus of public education should be the children, not the “system.” … The goals of public education are met if a child learns to read and write, even if the educational setting happens to be a private school, a religious school, or a home school. They are not met if a child is unsafe or illiterate, even if the setting happens to be a public school.”
Underkuffler is honest in that she flat out admits she sees schools as the indoctrination arm of the state:
"In the end, I think that the core of our disagreement is captured by your view that "public education is learning"—and nothing more. Previously, you stated that as long as the academic subjects like math and reading are covered, you don't believe that "public education" should have any other concern over what is taught in publicly-funded schools. I think that this is, most fundamentally, where we part company."
At least the elitist authoritarians are being honest these days.
natedogg
http://legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_vouchers0605.msp
Between Clint Bolick, President and General Counsel for the Alliance for School Choice and Laura Underkuffler is Professor at Duke Law School.
Unsurprisingly, Underkuffler's main objection is that parents will choose schools that don't inculcate (indoctrinate) students with the values *she* thinks are important, even if the parents themselves do not. She clearly lacks the intellectual capacity to imagine what will happen if someday in the future things change the public schools are teaching kids values she objects to.
Her other main objection has to do with preserving public school system as it is now, as opposed to educating children. And of course, like any good ivory-tower elitist, she is genuinely horrified at the notion of placing trust in the individual decision making of parents.
"The public should [not] simply abdicate responsibility on the question of funding religious schools, or values, or what-have-you, and leave decisions about
the kinds of schools funded and the values taught in those schools to parental choice."
Yes, what a horrible, scary idea, allowing people to make decisions for themselves.
Also, unsurprisingly Bolick's arguments center around the importance of actually providing education to children, which public schools are failing to do currently.
His priceless quote:
“Schools are a means to the end, not an end in themselves. The focus of public education should be the children, not the “system.” … The goals of public education are met if a child learns to read and write, even if the educational setting happens to be a private school, a religious school, or a home school. They are not met if a child is unsafe or illiterate, even if the setting happens to be a public school.”
Underkuffler is honest in that she flat out admits she sees schools as the indoctrination arm of the state:
"In the end, I think that the core of our disagreement is captured by your view that "public education is learning"—and nothing more. Previously, you stated that as long as the academic subjects like math and reading are covered, you don't believe that "public education" should have any other concern over what is taught in publicly-funded schools. I think that this is, most fundamentally, where we part company."
At least the elitist authoritarians are being honest these days.
natedogg