At 01:40 PM 11/8/00 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I still think voucher discussion is irrelevant here—perhaps assuming it will be coming down on Minneapolis soon, here’s some stuff. Dennis, I saw your apology for this post, but I still must respond. I think the voucher issue is very relevant here, this is a major plank of the Republican Educational platform at the national level. It is a subject that keeps coming back in the courts, discussions & debates that get tossed around in legislatures across the country. We could end up with a Federal triangle with the Republicans in the majority. There are several cases that have come through the lower courts, it is obvious that eventually one of these voucher cases will get to the Supreme Court. When that happens, Minneapolis could very well be affected. The recent S.C. decision in Mitchell vs Helms allows school districts to lend $$ or equipment to parochial schools, it did not address the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. However decisions it let stand are somewhat contradictory in nature on this clause. Cases out of Maine, Ohio, Vermont and Arizona were left in place. One of those cases specifically excludes parochial, sectarian schools from voucher programs because it violates the establishment clause of the 1st. Yet in Arizona, a lower court decision seemed to go the opposite way. There are many other cases, I will not list all this here. I have taken my information on the Supreme Court action from a brief put together by Borkowski and Dreier, 2 attorneys with Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. in Wash. entitled The 1999-2000 Term of the United States Supreme Court and It's Impact on Public Schools. Fortunately, vouchers initiatives were defeated across the nation yesterday. But I would bet that this is not the end of the issue! >I am the first to characterize the majority of voucher advocates with a level >invective that is not permissible on this list. Bad, bad people, willing to >sacrifice a lot of kids just to knee-cap teachers’ unions. > >Her (Johnson) citing of Molinar (actually it’s Molnar) as a source opposing vouchers >ought at least to include an ID as one of the most ferocious left-wing >critics of educational criticism. (His last book, Giving Kids the Business: >The Commercialization of America's Schools, is helpful but a bit hysterical.) >The research on vouchers is ALL advocacy research. Period. I have to disagree with you on this point as well. Molnar was not alone in his criticism of the research. The 2 authors of the commentary did reference the report done by a private organization that also questions the findings of the research. (I did mispell Molnar though, typing wasn't my best subject in high school!) >More important, voucher opponents always talk about protecting public schools >but say almost nothing about the kids who attend them and are not getting >much of what they deserve...no matter how hard nor wisely the good folks in >the Minneapolis schools and on the school board work. I would not be bothered taking any stand if I did not firmly believe that vouchers could and would do harm to children in the public schools. Vouchers would actually help to further alienate the truly needy children from the children who come from moderate and more well off circumstances. Children who have a situation where they have a stable adult relationship somewhere in their lives are more likely to do well in school and life. (In a recent survey, I can't recall right off hand at this moment where that one is, said that many inner city children feel safer at school than they do at home!) To argue as Ms. Johnson >does, that: > ><<research clearly shows that the current direction being taken here in >Minneapolis is the correct direction>> > > is reasonable political rhetoric but hardly beyond dispute. Not much is beyond dispute these days. However, as a policy maker, I look to many sources before making decisions that affect children. I try to consider my decisions in a historical, theoretical and practical manner. I have been following the issue of vouchers for some time. I am sure I have not read everything, but I do try to keep up with current research and discourse on the subject. I would not claim to be an expert at this point, but I did not arrive at my opposition lightly. > >I know of wonderful educators in the private sector elsewhere in the U.S. >who would love to work with kids who are slipping through the gaping holes in >public school systems. No one is offering them the chance. If that is the intent of those teachers, then opportunities exist to do just that. They can teach in public schools if they so chose. As a matter of fact there is a teacher shortage in the public sector that is projected to worsen in the near future. The public school system as an institution needs reform, there is no doubt about that. It is an institution that is older than the Constitution itself. The model still used favors agrarian societies, and should be modified to better meet the needs of the children who are our future. If there were no children, there would be no need for public schools! The quality of the public schools directly affects the community, as the young are educated and cared for, the community overall is improved. I am not out to defend the institution for the sake of the institution, I am trying to help formulate policy that will improve education for the children in our schools. It is my job to advocate for the children in our schools. I believe that vouchers would detract from the efforts made on the part of children in Minneapolis Public Schools. Audrey Johnson, MPS BOE >
