School Choice: Religion
In today's ongoing series on School Choice in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel they focus on the extensive use of vouchers to attend religious schools. Ann Althouse gets right to the meat of the subject:
I'm not sure myself, but I do know that allowing for innovation and differences in technique will eventually lead to superior overall teaching. Some people (myself included) have a strong skepticism of religion in general, but religious schools should not be prohibited simply because a few people are skeptical. Perhaps, as proponents of religious schools argue, there is something to be said for being instructed with a moral grounding. If there is not, then those schools will eventually fail.
I can make educated guesses about the types of schools that will be successful, but exposing ideas to a market will lead to better information, and more scientific conclusions, provided that the market is allowed to have proper input. Denying choices to the choice program strikes me as a phenomenally bad idea.
My friend Brian was kind enough to throw me a link from his column at the Badger Blog Alliance, and he has a personal connection to the choice program as his nephew attends Eastbrook Academy, which was discussed earlier in the week as a high performing school. You can find Brian's views on education (as well as my brother and I in the comments section) here.
Update: A great quote from the Coyote Blog:
Courts have already upheld the program, so the question is not whether it violates the Establishment Clause, but whether it is good policy. What do you think?Good question. I think that it is good policy, and that excluding religious schools from the choice program would be unscientific and arbitrary. There are a lot of way to educate kids, but not a lot of agreement on the best way to go about it. Small class sizes seem to be an attractive feature to most people but I believe them to be overrated. If there existed a teacher capable of captivating 10 year olds with his/her wit and wisdom, if that teacher's students showed superior development when compared with their peers, does it not make sense to increase that teachers classroom size? Perhaps DVDs of that teacher's classes would be superior to an average teacher's live classes.
I'm not sure myself, but I do know that allowing for innovation and differences in technique will eventually lead to superior overall teaching. Some people (myself included) have a strong skepticism of religion in general, but religious schools should not be prohibited simply because a few people are skeptical. Perhaps, as proponents of religious schools argue, there is something to be said for being instructed with a moral grounding. If there is not, then those schools will eventually fail.
I can make educated guesses about the types of schools that will be successful, but exposing ideas to a market will lead to better information, and more scientific conclusions, provided that the market is allowed to have proper input. Denying choices to the choice program strikes me as a phenomenally bad idea.
My friend Brian was kind enough to throw me a link from his column at the Badger Blog Alliance, and he has a personal connection to the choice program as his nephew attends Eastbrook Academy, which was discussed earlier in the week as a high performing school. You can find Brian's views on education (as well as my brother and I in the comments section) here.
Update: A great quote from the Coyote Blog:
Of course, there is one caveat that trips up both the Left and the Right: To accept school choice, you have to be willing to accept that some parents will choose to educate their kids in a way you do not agree with, with science you do not necessarily accept, and with values that you do not hold. If your response is, fine, as long as my kids can get the kind of education I want them to, then consider school choice. However, if your response is that this is not just about your kids, this is about other people choosing to teach their kids in ways you don't agree with, then you are in truth seeking a collectivist (or fascist I guess, depending on your side of the aisle) indoctrination system. Often I find that phrases like "shared public school experience" in the choice debate really are code words for retaining such indoctrination.
posted by PaulNoonan at
1:23 PM
20 Comments:
Seems like it could very well be good policy. Worth giving it a longer chance anyway. I guess as a society we don't want public money going to schools that teach only intelligent design and make no mention of evolution, or that teach that Native Americans were one of the lost tribes of Isreal like the Mormons believe, but it seems standadized test scores or even some modest curriculum regulation as a condition of getting the subsidies would be a better fix than to nix the whole idea all together just because there is a crucifix in every classroom and the 10 commandments are posted in the trophy case.
That being said, I would start to draw the line at schools who wanted to be eligible, but made service attendance mandatory.
By
Phil, at 2:39 PM
"Courts have already upheld the program, so the question is not whether it violates the Establishment Clause"
Just because a court has ruled doesn't mean we can no longer question the decision. Courts have been wrong before.
I have a funny feeling that some day a madrassa that teaches five lessons a day of Death to America, Death to Israel will get taxpayer funding from vouchers. Then a whole lot of people who love the idea of vouchers are suddenly going to remember that we have separation of church and state in this country.
By
MDS, at 2:51 PM
Perhaps, but it's more likely that the schools teaching these leesons will fail to prepare students properly and be shut down. Markets are good about that sort of thing.
In fact, I suspect that if a market existed for that in the US that it would already exist. Perhaps it does. Moreover, the fact that someone might teach something objectionable so we should outlaw all similar objectionable things misses the point, and wouldn't even cover things like fascism, anti-semitism, or marxism, which are at least as dangerous as religion.
But if you want to get into the legal issues, I think that this program is clearly Constitutional. First and foremost, taxpayer money is not given to religious schools, it is given to parents. Second, students may opt out of religious services if they do choose to go to a religious school.
And this program clearly does not result in government endorsement of religion. Parents are free to put their children in any school that they want. This includes normal MPS schools, secular private schools, or religious schools, but it is the parents that do the choosing.
I see very little government entanglement with religion here.
What grounds are there for substituting government judgement for parentla judgement?
By
PaulNoonan, at 3:16 PM
"it's more likely that the schools teaching these leesons will fail to prepare students properly and be shut down."
Why would you assume that? The 9/11 hijackers were educated men. There's no reason that you can't learn the basics of reading and math while also learning Death to America, Death to Israel.
"I suspect that if a market existed for that in the US that it would already exist. Perhaps it does."
It does: the Islamic Saudi Academy in Alexandria, Virginia.
"What grounds are there for substituting government judgement for parentla judgement?"
We do it all the time. The government judges how parents discipline their children, mandates a reasonable level of care, and forces parents to give their children an education. What's wrong with the government also deciding that a parent who chooses to take taxpayer money has to use that money at a school that won't teach values that we as a society find abhorrent?
By
MDS, at 9:27 AM
But those men were educated here, in schools that did not teach such lessons. You might say that that was more of an "in your spare time" thing.
If the KKK opened up a school would it last? Would it do well? Probably not, due to public pressure, as well as outright failure to educate. I see the same result in your example.
Your contention then, is that there is a market for islamofascism, and that some school will be able to survive catering to that market.
My contention is that there may very well be said market, but that the school will fail. I might also point out that if such a market did exist, that not chartering a school would in no way prevent those parents from instilling those values, but it would prevent us from being able to readily identify them.
"We do it all the time."
That is not an answer to the question posed. I asked what grounds are there for substituting government judgement for parental judgement.
"What's wrong with the government also deciding that a parent who chooses to take taxpayer money has to use that money at a school that won't teach values that we as a society find abhorrent?"
The answer to that question is that government doesn't know dick, so to speak. It certainly doesn't represent "society." I don't think society is very bright on this issue anyway, and as someone who disagrees with society on a fairly regular basis, the idea of restricting the teaching of things that certain people find abhorrent strikes me as abhorrent. That kind of thinking leads to book burnings.
Parents are in a better position to judge what is best for their kids than some far removed government bureaucrat. If you want to substitute government judgement, there should be some very compelling justification.
I'm not in favor of teaching kids a bunch of godly hoo-ha, but if I designed a curriculum it would look drastically different from anything in any school today. However, I think that my kids (when they exist) would do better in my curriculum, and I will probably shop around to find one that closely matches it. By what justification do I tell someone that they do not share this right with me?
And, as I said before, I think that it would be a monumental feat of judicial activism to declare this program in violation of the 1st amendment.
As for that school in Virginia, I hope it fails, but I am unsurprised that it exists, and I am willing to live with it, because I believe that eventually reason will win out.
By
PaulNoonan, at 10:09 AM
"idea of restricting the teaching of things that certain people find abhorrent strikes me as abhorrent"
Right, but I didn't say anything about restricting the teaching, I said something about restricting the government from financing the teaching. You seem to favor small government (and you don't seem to have much use for organized religion), and yet you want to create government programs that finance religious schools. I don't understand.
By
MDS, at 10:56 AM
I suppose that my position is best explained by my desire for small government. This program, yes, is a government program. It is the government giving money to people, and that should upset small governmnet types.
However the alternative is a much larger big government program: Normal public schools, and bad public schools at that.
This is one reason that I support the program even though, in a vaccuum, it appears to be a rather large government program (the program also saves the state money, as the cost per student is less in the choice program than it is in the normal system).
I suppose I would favor even less government intrusion into education, but that is not politically feasible, so I will accept this program as a compromise, and hope that it is successful and expands.
Only then do I get to the religion question. Is there some ground for excluding religious schools?
This is an area where I disagree with the populace, because in Milwaukee at least, there is clearly a demand for religious schools (and a demand for secular schools as well). So, if I want to make a case to exclude those schools from the choice program, I feel that I should have a good reason, because I will be trumping the decision of those people, and it is their kids that are at stake.
1. Perhaps it's unconstitutional, but I don't think so. I went to Law School at Marquette, a jesuit/catholic institution, and I received federal loans to do so. I am neither catholic nor jesuit, but I liked there program, so I attended there. I don't think that this set up led to excessive entangelment of state and religion. As long as an individual is making a choice, and the government is not being coercive, I see no constitutional problem. After all, I could have attended a secular institution too. In fact, it would have been cheaper. (Marquette's law school is largely secular in nature anyway, but it will suffice for an example.)
2. I could choose to attempt to use government power to force my hostility towards religious schools on a populace that wants them.
I grant that this would not be the same as a ban, as you pointed out, but it would represent unequal treatment to exclude these schools, and I think that their should be a justification to do so IF it is not unconstitutional.
Part of truly being small government is allowing those that disagree with you the freedom to do so, which is why I'm willing to allow these schools even though I disagree with them. It's an individualistic position.
I always picture myself as being in the position of having my ideas denied.
By
PaulNoonan, at 11:53 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
PaulNoonan, at 11:54 AM
Here's a good quote from my brother Danny, who is much more frank about the whole thing, that I agree with:
I hate religion and religious education more than most people. I think it is really scary and dangerous. But even I would be cautious to challenge a voucher program that gives parents options about where their kid goes to school. I certainly see nothing unconstitutional about it.
I'd hope that the market would eventually take care of religious schools the same way I believe it would take care of other types crappy schools. Some schools might spend 8 hours a day teaching math/science/literature/history/english/foreign language/art/music/economics/civics/social studies, and other's might spend 7 hours teaching math/science/literature/history/english/foreign language/art/music/economics/civics/social studies and one hour teaching that there is an invisible man in the sky that has a list of 10 things that you can't do and if you do them you burn in the fires of hell for all of eternity; but he loves you. Eventually, colleges and employers are going to start to realize that people from the latter schools spent 12X180 fewer hours learning useful information than those from the former. This is true for schools that would overemphasize other useless subject matter as well.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but the market is the only thing that could prove it.
By
PaulNoonan, at 11:56 AM
No one can top George Carlin when it comes to theology, so I have nothing to add.
By
MDS, at 12:31 PM
Amen.
By
PaulNoonan, at 12:42 PM
Danny's reposted comment assumes that colleges and employers find religious knowledge and/or beliefs valueless or somehow undesireable. While I place little value on them myself, there are MANY people out there who do and somehow I doubt that religion plays no role for them in their jobs and academic activities. Something tells me that someone who is strongly religious will be more attracted to a prospective hire who is religious than they would be to me, if only on a gut level. That "something" is the fact that I myself am more attracted to non-religious types.
By
Andrea, at 6:55 PM
"While I place little value on them myself, there are MANY people out there who do and somehow I doubt that religion plays no role for them in their jobs and academic activities. Something tells me that someone who is strongly religious will be more attracted to a prospective hire who is religious than they would be to me, if only on a gut level. That "something" is the fact that I myself am more attracted to non-religious types."
Very true. However, I think that eventually we will see that the people in positions of power over high school grads(employers, deans etc.) will, more and more, share my gut feeling (or reasoned opinion) that people with strong religious beliefs that attended religious schools will make inferior employees/college students. There will obviously always be exceptions to this. And there is a possibility that I am totally wrong. But the market is the only thing that can prove it.
By
DannyNoonan, at 9:36 AM
What if, instead of public schools, we were talking about pilot school. What if there were two schools for pilots. For graduation, one required X hours of flight time and the other reqired X-Y hours of flight time and Y hours of fairy tales. Assume Y is a somewhat significant number, like 10% of X.
Now, when grads of these two schools start looking for jobs at airlines, some of the employers will like to have a few pilots that can tell a good story. But most will want pilots that can fly planes. Several years down the road, the record would likely show that pilots with more hours of flight time crash less often. When the next round of hiring comes around, more employers will want pilots with more hours of flight time vs. fairy tale time. Eventually, there would probablyb e only a handful of shitty airlines that hired pilots that knew a lot about fairy tales in place of flight time.
By
DannyNoonan, at 9:43 AM
Danny,
Regarding the pilots:
On those long, 38 hour flights from Wright Patterson Air Force base to bomb what was once ancient Sumaria and back, the pilots with knowledge of fairy tales can keep each other entertained and moral high with tales of dashing bravery and conquested princesses. They will fly more fiercely and aggressivelly, for if they perish in battle, they know they will be carried off by attractive, blond, well-endowed, sword bearing valkeries to Valhallah.
Besides, the value of education to employers is largely singalling, unless it is ultra-technical, which high school and even most college, is not. By proving you can get up in the morning, put up with crappy and pointless rules (assumes normal people don't like to follow rules), and learn largely irrelevant material and coherently demonstrate proficiency in that material on an exam, you are showing an employer you can work for them. If you know about religion, I don't think that will hurt. Trying to convert a potential employer in an interview would though, granted.
As for the market proving religious people to be worse workers, the market can't prove that anymore than it can change a light bulb. Furthermore, ever hear of Marriot Hotels, Domino's Pizza, Notre Dame, or Yeshiva U?
Religions also allows for tight networks and cheap tee times at golf courses. It does feel wierd to hit on the beer cart girl in front of the pastor and start drinking the beer before you realize in 10:30am on Sunday though.
By
Phil, at 10:29 AM
So religion is a networking tool. Ah the false karass. Of course, that may have some market value as a time saver. It costs money to investigate qualifications, and a tight network can ameliorate these problems.
My thought on the subject is that as information flows more freely, and speeds up, that a lot of the concerns raised by Phil will dissipate. Information will start to become more perfect.
Danny's point isn't really that religious people can't be productive. It's that non-religious people will be more productive, in general. They will have a comparative advantage.
By
PaulNoonan, at 10:42 AM
"Ah the false karass."
heh
By
DannyNoonan, at 10:52 AM
I see Danny's point, but I still think its wrong. Why would they tend to be less productive? Because they believe in god and go to church for an hour on Sunday? Is a religous computer programmer going to take longer to finish his code because he has to sing amazing grace to himself, anymore than a secular programer will take a break to read about the new Highlander movie that's in produciton, or blog about how he suspects his religious co-workers are likely less productive than him? Comparative advantage? how so? If anything it would be the other way around. Working more hours for Non-religous people is more costly, because they have to forgoe scarce leisure time, because they think they will have no afterlife. Religous people can work more because they value leisuire time less, assuming they think they will have nothing but leisure time in heaven/Valhallah.
Seems to me that Economics is not the only, if indeed it is even one of the main social sciences to be used in political questions like this, which involve school access and what employers may think about people who come from what school. The market can't tell us much about that. Empirical Socialology and psychology seem better suited to address what is just as much a distributive as it is an allocative problem.
By
Phil, at 1:04 PM
If it is somehow beneficial to be religious for certain things, then why should we stop it?
That is the other point.
By
PaulNoonan, at 1:16 PM
"Why would they tend to be less productive? Because they believe in god and go to church for an hour on Sunday?"
My point isn't that they are spending time learning about god, it's that they are not spending that time learning about real things. At least that's my main point. Religious schools have LOTS of other problems in my view but I wasn't really attmpting to address any of them here. I was really just trying to say that the market should sort it all out and, as a gambling man, I would bet that in 100 years or so, the market will have weeded out most of the religious schools.
By
DannyNoonan, at 2:19 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home