Lieberman’s Law
December 8th, 2006 by Peter
Like many parents who send their children to parochial school, Manchester resident David Blackwell wants more of his property tax dollars used to support nonpublic education.
“It think it just makes sense,” said Blackwell, whose advocacy has helped prompt Manchester officials to tap into a little-used state law that allows school boards to loan textbooks to nonpublic school students.
Blackwell’s argument is a familiar one – that towns such as Manchester save millions of dollars because hundreds of local children attend private and parochial schools.
That “little-used law” is based on a bill sponsored by then-state Sen. Joe Lieberman in the mid-70’s:
In Connecticut, tax dollars are not used to provide tuition assistance for parochial schools, but local boards of education are required by state law to supply nurses and provide bus services to select nonpublic schools.
The textbook loan program is discretionary, but John L. Cattelan, the director of the Connecticut Federation of Catholic School Parents, is among those who believe that communities would be wise to take advantage of it.
But Lieberman’s law may need some fine-tuning in the next legislative session:
Typically, nonpublic schools use state funds to order secular textbooks, which technically remain the property of the local boards of education.
In Connecticut, though, local funding is required. And the law says that school boards may only lend books that are currently in use in their district.
Further, the law stipulates that only students who live in a particular town may borrow the books – which is problematic because most nonpublic schools have students from a variety of towns.
Wait just one minute! Are you trying to tell me that the Courant ran an article about providing textbooks with public finds to children in parochial schools? The Courant is allowing itself to become a schill for the voucher-seeking, prayer-in-school preaching right. I am horrified. Perhaps this can be your next reader poll:
Have any of you cancelled your subscription to the Courant because of its right leaning tendencies?
a. Of course I have, and I am contributing the money I saved to the George Bush Rescue Fund.
b. Of course I have, and the time I save from not reading the paper is being used to picket against Plan B.
c. Of course I have.
How do people support the view that if they opt to send their childern to private or parochial schools, the tax dollars saved are “theirs” and they should have the right to a “voucher” in that same amount in reimbursement, or that “their” tax dollars should go to support non-public education in any fashion as a result?
By that logic, every year I, as a homeowner with no childern in school, should then receive a “voucher” as well, because if i wanted to, I could adopt, father a child, or rent a room to a family with children using the quality of the local schools as an incentive.
In my town, the average property tax is about $5,000 per household, but it takes about $10,000 per CHILD for education. Clearly, families with children in school are educating their childern on the tax dollars of those who have none, especially families with more than one child in school. If anything, the taxpayers as a whole deserve the break the schoool budget gets when parents opt out of public education, not the individual families, and I for one certainly don’t want my tax dollars going to support “religious” education.
In life you make choices. Want a non-public edcation for your child? That is certainly your right. Want me to help pay for your choice? Forget it.
Your tax dollars already go to support religious education, it pays for the busing and nurses. Public school textbooks can be used for religious schools as well.
I don’t support the use of public money for private education simply because where the money goes, so does regulation. The two will never be separated.
We don’t need the state regulating private schools and homeschools, and I believe that is what would happen if we allow public money to be used for private education, and that goes for any private education, religious or not.
On the other hand,
because we all pay for public/government education and not all of us use the resources – those who make the choice to forgo public/government education are paying twice to educate our children and that is not fair either. Perhaps instead of vouchers, people who use the school system should be assessed some sort of “use tax” and leave the rest of us who do not use the system to pay for our own choices independently. What’s fair is fair..
Ohhhh, dear, dear, Mr. Trent, your vision is quite obscured by the smokescreen excuses provided to you by unions.
I wonder, Mr. Trent, do you receive any tax dollars from the government? Are you a veteran? A retired public employee? An investor? A homeowner? A senior citizen? A minority? A graduate of higher education? A business owner? Need I go on?
I always wonder how one can fathom a situation unless they walk in another person’s shoes. That’s all you can do, is wonder. But, to have a definite opinion of a situation, in this case, a financial break for parents who literally save the taxpayer money, without even contemplating what financial lengths, rhyme or reason for WHY a parent chooses to place their child in a private/parochial school is beyond ignorant; and most particularly when you’ve never walked in their shoes.
Parents don’t choose to place their children in private or parochial schools for any other reason but to allow their children a freedom of speech and religious expression that has been taken away from them in the public schools because of people such as yourself, who misinterpret the legality of “Separation of Church and State.”
The facts are clear. Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winner for his famous economic views, who has recently passed away, has studied the profit side of allowing the private sector of education to compete with public education, for decades. His findings were so evident that he dedicated his life and his fortune to this very issue.
It is because our local and state tax dollars are the highest % of their budgets, without seeing much output, which one must consider a competition incentive, as is done in every other business sector, except education. Why is this?
If you cannot put yourself in parents’ shoes to truly empathize with them for their decision to choose private/parochial education, then I ask you to at least look at this from an educated economic point of view.
As a parent of three children, and a tax payer, prove to me otherwise. Your opinion carries no weight with me.
Peter:
Isn’t it interesting to note that for the first 200 years of our existence, all education was private or home based and yet we boasted a 90+ % literacy rate for all Americans. Let’s face it, public education has been an unmitigated disaster. If I had to do it all over again, I would find a way home school my kids.
When you have high school graduates who can’t spell, no wonder we cannot compete internationally and are in danger falling dangerously behind in educating the next generation of Americans. Instead we should abolish the Federal Dept of Education, which is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars and gives a bunch of detached bureaucrats effective control your child’s education. And as we all know, anytime the Federal Government assumes control over any aspect of our existence, its all down hill.
I would like to praise Trent for admitting that sending a child to a private school saves taxpayer’s the money that would have been spent on that student in public education. It is rare to see an opponent of school choice programs exhibit such honesty.
Also, if it takes approximately $10,000 to educate a child in public schools, then a school choice program which tuition assitance to students enrolled at private schools (which spend significantly less per child – depending on the school) would save taxpayer’s even more money because it would enable more parents to afford a private school.
This would mean smaller class sizes (always a positive with the teacher’s unions) and smaller tax bills. Not to mention creating competition which would increase parental choices and raise the level of educational success of our students.
All in all a win for everyone – except perhaps the unions and bureaucrats.
Yes, I want my “no children” voucher immediately. I pay taxes for schools my wife and I will never use, and if people get vouchers for putting their kids in elective private schools, I want a voucher, too. It’s only fair.
Have all you liberals gone childless just to convince me that Darwin was right? 😉
Seriously, CT Bob, folks like you will need other people’s children to pay for your social security checks someday. Guys like Dave Blackwell are not making an unreasonable request considering what they’re contributing and sacrificing for society.
Simon, though I unfortunately don’t have much time to address the overall post issue, I must beg to differ with you on the Hartford Courant’s being a shill for “voucher-seeking, prayer-in-school preaching right.” Or anyone on the right, for that matter. Perhaps your being “horrified” was just sarcasm, I don’t know.
The Courant is one I read online often enough, along with other CT papers, to know that it ranks right up there among the most liberal-biased papers (along with the Conn. Post which has become downright moonbatty since they fired Frank Keegan and hired Jim Smith). But as to The Courant having “righ-leaning tendencies?” Well, when there are snowballs in hell perhaps.
In general most major news media outlets are considered left-leaning. That isn’t me saying that, it’s a PoliSci professor at the uber-liberal UCLA: http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
They found “a systematic tendency for the U.S. media outlets to slant the news to the left….Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, NPR’s Morning Edition, NBC’s Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC’s Good Morning America. Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts. All of our findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.”
Note: they didn’t just find opinion on the left, they found that these outlets “SLANTED the news to the left.” That’s changing the news, not just reporting it, or as I have said it’s “Skews Reporting” not “news reporting.”
About the only major paper in CT I know of that is truly more central or right-leaning is the Waterbury Republican.
Cheers!
I have to comment on “Chris’s” concerns about the so-called Courant’s right-leaning tendencies.
Don’t worry, Chris, these types of articles appear on occassion so editors can deny the Courant’s bias. I can assure you that it doesn’t, nor will it ever, happen very often.
On a side note,
When I ran for state rep 12 years ago, the local board of ed members expressed concern about school choice alternatives, because that could leave public schools with the task of having to educate only the more “difficult” students, and having to still maintain the physical facilities with fewer students.
Personally, if public schools concentrated on education and not ‘moral indocrination’ there would be less demand for alternative educational choices.
However, the real problem with public education is not teachers, but the decline in strong, nurturing families. As long as our society continues in our current direction, we’ll see a continued decline in the strength of our society’s foundation along with increase in consequences.
That’s why the mission of the Family Institute of Connecticut and other similar organizations are so important. Keep up the good work!
There are many people who do not use our transportation system because they don’t have drivers’ licenses. Yet, they derive the benefits of transportation.
You may not need to dial 911 for years at a time, but that doesn’t mean we shuoldn’t disconnect your 911 service.
Many towns run recycling and transfer stations. You are requested to participate in these programs, yet, if you want to spoil the environment, that’s your choice.
And at one time, you were eduated, hopefully to at least the high school level. It is your choice as to whether or not you wish to use the public educational programs. It is likewise an option available whether or not to opt into other governmental servicves that you may need to use or may choose to use or not. Because it is a requirement that all children under a ceratin age must attend school, and that state constitutions mandate such participation, there should be no qualm over how that is achieved. Because it is a state requirement, and a certain necesity in society, all children will be educated. Period. And towns allot a significant portion of their budgets to do so. Who teaches them – so long as they meet proficient levels- is of little consequence to anyone as long as standards and expected curricula in core subjects are taught and learned. But depriving religious families of a right for an education meeting state standards but not in public schools, you cause them double jeopardy and an undue burden simply to educate their families in oftentimes better qualified schools.
Who can fault a parent in the public school system from moving from one town to another because that town offers a better school atmospheres and standards? Or if in the public school choice setting, those same parents attempt to enroll those children into Magnet, Charter, or specific neighborhood schools? Catholic or other religious schools offer the same variation in curriculum as these and are simply one more choice among many.
“However, the real problem with public education is not teachers, but the decline in strong, nurturing families. As long as our society continues in our current direction, we’ll see a continued decline in the strength of our society’s foundation along with increase in consequences.”
Hear, hear, Dave Lyons! My belief exactly, but you are also right in that pre-college schools by and large have failed many if not most kids today. I forget where I was reading it recently, maybe TIME, that that whole push for “fun” reading and “fun” math in the past decade or two has failed and now the schools have had to revert to dull, boring, repetition learning of words, spelling, pronunciation, etc. to teach English and math. Forgive me, I can’t recall the labels that earlier method was given. That whole “coddling the student” movement failed abysmally and now we’re paying for it by dumbing down school requirements. It’s even at the college level that they’ve dumbed and watered down the requirements. Grade inflation is bad even at a few of the Ivies.
As a parent of two middle schoolers, both of whom attend Magnet schools, l think the issue is not “vouchers or not”. Vouchers are but one somewhat tenuous solution to what I see as an expansive issue. The “No Child Left Behind” act, has left my children behind. Forced to be in classrooms with ranges in learning that are too large to gap for any teacher, their education has been compromised. In fourth grade, my son had 28 plus students in his class, 6-7 of whom were severly special education. In 5th grade 25 plus, with 6-7 special ed students. One regular ed teacher, one special ed teacher. The odds are stacked against learning from the get go.
I am terribly dissappointed in the public school system. I recently received my sons CMT scores and he scored advanced in reading (5th grade scores) and his school didn’t register proficient. How is it that my childs needs were being met? They weren’t.
One of the things that makes me most angry is that the magnet schools they attend meet their needs very well. What this tells me is that we know how to do school, we just dont do it. We know what makes a good classroom, smaller sizes, extra hands, kids who want to learn. The magnet schools are very clear, if your kid gets into a lot of trouble, this may not be the place for them.
Consequently I have to shuttle my kids off to Hartford (of all places) to get a decent education. One hour on the bus in the morning, one hour on the bus in the afternoon. They get on the bus at 7 and home after 4. That’s along day for anyone, never mind a middle schooler.
So, the question, from my vantage point is, “If we know what a good school should look like, why are we not making it happen?
Not sure where all this talk about the failure of education comes from. My two kids attended public school in recent history. They both received excellent educations which enabled them to learn not only the 3R’s but to explore more creative areas as well. Both had the chance to take school trips to Europe before entering high school; both took foreign languages. Both played musical instruments. Both were accepted to excellent colleges. My daughter is multi-lingual (English, French, Italian and some Arabic); my son went off to engineering school to major in physics, ended up with a BS in Art and recently received his MFA from a prestigious art school. During high school, both worked after school, both volunteered in the community through school-sponsored programs.
My kids weren’t indoctrinated at school — that was MY job as a parent according to MY values. I certainly didn’t expect anyone to pay me for doing my job as a parent in that respect.
I expect the school system to teach basic societal values of personal responsibility: not to steal, cheat, lie, fight, etc. More complex moral values were taught at home. At no time did I find the school infringing where it didn’t belong.
I DID expect the school system to present differing viewpoints — how else do our children learn to think for themselves and learn to make value judgements? It is quite dangerous to send our children out into the world without the ability to judge whether something is right or wrong, no matter how enticingly it is presented to them. That’s just a prescription for disaster. When my kids would discuss having learned about something I disagreed with, I’d simply present my point of view and/or give them further reading, and ask them to think about it. I’m extremely proud of the thoughtful, kind, engaged and charitable human beings they’ve become as adults.
As a society, it is in our best interest to provide a free and equal education to all children, so that they can obtain the best job their abilities qualify them for. We should not steal from that goal in order to subsidize parents who have disenfranchised themselves and their children voluntarily.
I was, and remain, quite happy to pay taxes for education. Not only for the public education of my own children, but for the free, equal and non-denominational public education of ALL children.
What I will NOT do is pay taxes for, or otherwise subsidize, parents’ choice to indoctrinate their children in a particular religious and/or political belief. I didn’t expect other people to pay for my children’s moral education; it was my job and I did it. My mother, who chose to send me to parochial school, didn’t expect other people to pay for her choice. She bit the bullet and incurred the extra expense without whining because it was important to her.
If private schools are going to push for tax dollars, I’m going to push for private schools to be required to assume all the mandates public schools are required to, including adherance to the state health/family living curriculum.
If private schools are going to push for tax dollars, I’m going to push for private schools to be required to assume all the mandates public schools are required to, including adherance to the state health/family living curriculum.
And this is precicely why so many families in CT believe they are morally obligated to opt out of the public school system; because schools force adherance to the state health/family living curriculum, among other things.
All things being equal, I would agree with you. All things are not equal.
In addition to the health/family living curriculum, values that are contrary to traditional religious values are routinely encouraged; values such as “safe sex”, the normalcy of homosexuality, false history revision that tends to implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) view the role of religion negatively, and even a thinly veiled political perspective. These and numerous other examples clearly indicate to many, that public education is in the business of promoting, to put it bluntly, the anti-Christian religion of secular humanism. For many families in CT, including mine, the decision to send their children to public school is tantamount to a renunciation of their faith.
Now you may think I’m crazy, and that’s ok – but I’m certainly not alone. There are many, many families even in the liberal state of CT that opt for private education or homeschool precisely due to these circumstances. There are a large and growing number of families in CT, and elsewhere, that are recognizing the fact that not only are their children receiving a poor education, but they are being taught values in public schools that are contrary to the values that they wish to instill. Traditionally religious families such as mine have to pay extra to practice our first amendment rights.
Religion is already being taught in schools. Vouchers, et al, are a great way to ensure that all families have equal access to the education that they think is best for their children
Somehow the end of my comment was cut off, but I meant to end with:
Religion is already being taught in schools. Vouchers, et al, are a great way to ensure that all families have equal access to the education that they think is best for their children, and will promote a true diversity of ideas in society.
Those parents who decide that they wish to evade/avoid certain curricula which are taught in public schools are free to do so.
Parents who decide their children will receive better educations at home, in religious schools, or in other types of schools are also free to make that choice.
Parents who wish to remove their children from public schools for racist or elitist or any number of other reasons are also free to do so.
However, tax dollars should be spent to create a world-class free and equal public school system, not siphoned off to those who make personal choices regarding their children’s educations for whatever reason.
tax dollars should be spent to create a world-class free and equal public school system
I completely agree. When is that going to happen, I wonder? I also wonder if you would be as insistent if public schools universally promoted a conservative ideology with the same intensity as they currently promote liberalism.