No Quick Crucifix
By Steven WaldmanPosted Monday, July 8, 2002, at 1:49 PM ETThe Supreme Court's school voucher decision has led to a flood of speculation about whether the ruling is bad for a) public schools, b) minority religions, c) atheists, or d) the Constitution.
There's another question to consider: Will it be bad for Christianity? Conservatives who have, in other contexts, argued that everything the government touches turns to dreck may want to review their earlier arguments. We now have many years of experience with religiously oriented educational and charitable institutions receiving federal money, and we can predict some of the unintended side effects:
1. Mission Dilution. The concern expressed by government skeptics has always been that no matter how well-intentioned, state aid distorts the decision-making of institutions that receive government money. Some conservatives raised concerns about Bush's faith-based initiative precisely because they feared government cash would come with too many strings. Critics have pointed to groups like Catholic Charities, saying it's become less religious since becoming a big government-aid recipient. You get government money, you have to live by government rules.
For more than 30 years the federal government has been giving grants and loans to young people to attend post-secondary religious schools—religious colleges, graduate schools, and even seminaries. Right now, students use federal grants and loans to attend schools ranging from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University to the Rabbinical College of America in New Jersey, affiliated with the Lubavich Rabbi Menachem Schneerson (thought by some Orthodox Jews to have been the Messiah). The Lubavich rabbis don't field a football though that would be one ticket I'd pay big money for—but any schools that do have formal athletic programs must abide by Title IX requirements for women's sports. It would be only a matter of time before the local St. Xaviers would become subject to certain government regulations as well.
2. Growth of Minority Religions. If voucher programs proliferate, the biggest winners may end up being Muslim schools. When Humari Bokari was principal of St. Leo's Catholic school in Milwaukee during the 1990s, she said she "didn't get much of a boost in attendance" from vouchers. But when Bokari became principal of an Islamic primary school, she said vouchers made a big difference. In 10 years, the school went from seven students to 360 in part, she told Beliefnet.com, because of vouchers. Muslim educators believe the Supreme Court's voucher decision could be significant because it comes at the moment that Muslims are focusing on expanding their schools.
The growth of Muslim education, to be clear, would not be "bad for religion," but it should give pause to those Christian voucher proponents who thought chipping down the wall between church and state would put their God back in the schools. Many non-Christian private schools will benefit from vouchers. Take the Instilling Goodness Elementary and Developing Virtue Secondary School, a Buddhist institution in Ukiah, Calif., or Hare Krishna boarding schools, or the Washington Islamic Academy, which has world maps without Israel on its walls, according to the Washington Post.
Another lesson from the federal student-aid program is relevant. The availability of aid has fueled a boom in shady trade schools, some of them of dubious value. The Department of Education has spent much time trying to distinguish legitimate cooking schools from bad ones. Will education officials now have to do the same for religious schools? And what standards will they use?
The government is going to quickly face a choice: Take a very pluralistic approach to vouchers, which will end up funneling federal money to schools that promote religions unfamiliar to most Americans, or alternatively, pick which schools promote "legitimate religions." Since the latter is virtually impossible—and almost certain to fail judicial review—the government will most likely have to allow vouchers to be used at a very wide range of religious schools. Expect to see a boom in school experiments from smaller religious groups who until now may not have viewed K-12 education as financially viable.
3. Tuition Inflation. The federal student aid programs are mostly viewed as having been successes, primarily because they enabled middle- and lower-income families to attend expensive private schools. But they have also helped trigger tuition inflation. College prices have risen far faster than inflation, a development many analysts believe was fueled by the availability of financial aid. College administrators can set tuition higher because the extra cost will be covered by government grants and loans.
The same could happen to K-12 religious schools. Say a particular Catholic school has 1,000 students each paying $4,000 a year, and the new government voucher pays $4,000. The school would be crazy not to increase the tuition to $5,000. Each student would pay only $1,000 a year—much less than before—and the school would get to increase its tuition revenue a whopping 20 percent.
School vouchers could have many positive potential outcomes for education, and possibly some for organized religion. For example, low-income churches that otherwise could not afford to set up schools might now do so. But if history is any guide, the national voucher movement will make religious education more expensive, less pure, and less Christian.
Steven Waldman is editor in chief of Beliefnet, the leading multifaith spirituality and religion Web site. Notes From the Fray Editor:
The Politics Fray picked up when Waldman's piece provided yet another way to talk about vouchers. First, there was the slam-dunk on the math mistake first reported by Tommy Mac here. This was followed by a beautiful debate between Matt Pierce and Joe, the beginnings of which are below. Finally (at least in my excerpts), when asked what would happen if vouchers "worked" and kids came back smarter, Thrasymachus provided what I take to be the single best Fray post on vouchers ever. I hope that doesn't get him in too much trouble.
Notes From the Fray:
It's doubtful that religious schools will suffer many of the side effects Waldman points out.
Dilution isn't new, as religious schools have been diluted for a long time, especially in areas with failing public schools. The deciding factor for most parents in sending their kids to a religious school is the educational, not the religious, value. Adding Title IX and other requirements just provides a standard by which all schools should be made to measure up. If a religious school doesn't want to add these standards, it can choose not to accept voucher money (it's a free market). But it will say something to non-religious parents about the school's educational value as well.
The growth of unaccredited minority schools shouldn't be much of a problem because educational value, not religion, is the main factor drawing the majority of students to any school. Inner city non-Catholic parents rely on Catholic schools not for a 'religious education', but for a 'better education'. It's doubtful that the same non-Catholic parent would send their kids to a newly minted Hare Krishna or Muslim school where there isn't any proven education value. But what if the Krishna school was better? At least it offers one more alternative to failed public school systems where there previously were no choices for parents. Nobody's forcing you to send your kids there, and if it doesn't measure up, it will eventually go away on its own.
On tuition, as Waldman points out, overall private school costs will actually go down for most parents. But it will do something else he doesn't mention. It will allow private school taxpayers to see their taxes used to support their own kids' education. With the public school system, parents are already paying 'tuition' in the form of higher taxes to support their local schools; it's just that the public at large spreads out this educational subsidy broadly.
It's doubtful that vouchers will make religious education, "the national voucher movement will make religious education more expensive, less pure, and less Christian." (Waldman). It wasn't pure to begin with, it will ultimately be less expensive for parents who want to send kids to private schools, and why is less Christianity a bad thing? If Muslim parents want to send their kids to private schools, why should they be Christian? The presence of Muslim schools certainly won't drive Christian schools out of existence.
-- Matt Pierce
(To reply, click here.)
Dilution isn't new, as religious schools have been diluted for a long time, especially in areas with failing public schools.
the author doesn't deny this; he argues that vouchers -- by bringing more schools more closely tied to the state -- will be more diluted. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but given how certain voucher supporters (I think of Stephen Carter for one) feel religion serves as an independent check against the corrupt state, it probably gives some "religionists" pause
The deciding factor for most parents in sending their kids to a religious school is the educational, not the religious, value.
this is largely true ... though "educational" should be understood in a broad sense as including moral education, discipline, and a safe environment. Nonetheless, some do actually send their children to school (or home school) for religious reasons. Many will oppose further dilution.
Adding Title IX and other requirements just provides a standard by which all schools should be made to measure up. If a religious school doesn't want to add these standards, it can choose not to accept voucher money (it's a free market).
Some groups, such as Orthodox Jews and fundamentalists, feel religion is the deciding factor ... dilution would corrupt their school's mission, and they will likely lose out in the voucher race unless they make a "Hobson's Choice." This underlining assumption that interfering with religion is not much of a big deal in religious schools is troubling
It's doubtful that the same non-Catholic parent would send their kids to a newly minted Hare Krishna or Muslim school where there isn't any proven education value. But what if the Krishna school was better?
this is what the author is saying: vouchers will to some degree hurt CHRISTIAN schools; and since promote vouchers because they think Christian schools and the promotion of Christianity is helped, this is notable
Nobody's forcing you to send your kids there, and if it doesn't measure up, it will eventually go away on its own.
I quibble with suggesting that using vouchers as a way to provide parents the ability to send their children to the best schools, which sometimes are religious, has no amount of "force" to them -- the force is the fact they either send them to the religious schools or a substandard public one -- which apparently is not worth saving
It will allow private school taxpayers to see their taxes used to support their own kids' education.
it will also allow religions to get education funding from nonbelievers; at any rate, it is far from a big leap to suggest that the presence of vouchers will result in the raise of educational prices. This might be a good thing -- Catholic teachers, for instance, often get paid too little. And, if their mission is not just to further the faith, but education nonbelievers (w voucher money) there is one less reason to pay less.
At any rate, whenever the gov't offers funds (e.g. to police organizations via grant money), there is an incentive to use them. If schools are able to ask for more money form parents, who via vouchers have more money to pay, supply/demand suggests the costs will rise. It's basic economic theory.
It's doubtful that vouchers will make religious education, "the national voucher movement will make religious education more expensive, less pure, and less Christian." (Waldman).
Let's sum up (1)vouchers provide religious education more funds, so they have an incentive to raise prices since they are currently artificially low [plus decreasing attendance and scandal means one major source of funds, the Catholic Church, is on the decline]
(2)strings will dilute an already partly diluted church more ["less pure" doesn't mean not pure anymore -- just less pure than its current impure state]
(3)Vouchers will allow more minority churches that currently have a limited financial base to provide religious education ... so the current nonChristians in Christian schools will have more alternatives = less Christian education overall.
These are not necessarily bad things on a cost/benefit ratio. Nonetheless, it belies reality not to address the fact they exist.
-- Joe
(To reply, click here.)
If the kids come back smarter it won't change anything, because the assumption that religious schools can improve on public schools' performance is already built into the politics of this issue.
The really interesting outcome will be if the kids come back a LOT smarter. If America somehow finds itself leading the world in education as a result of the voucher program, then vouchers will become a global reality, and their place will be secure.
But here's another interesting question: what if one particular religion turns out to be better at teaching kids than any of the others? What will happen then? What SHOULD happen? (Based on the reasoning that resulted in the voucher system, the answer's not necessarily as simple as you think).
-- Thrasymachus
(To reply, click here.)
(7/9)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
"Skewer of Strange Tastes" and Other Dishes From the Futurist Cookbook
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons
Notes From the Fray Editor:
The Politics Fray picked up when Waldman's piece provided yet another way to talk about vouchers. First, there was the slam-dunk on the math mistake first reported by Tommy Mac here. This was followed by a beautiful debate between Matt Pierce and Joe, the beginnings of which are below. Finally (at least in my excerpts), when asked what would happen if vouchers "worked" and kids came back smarter, Thrasymachus provided what I take to be the single best Fray post on vouchers ever. I hope that doesn't get him in too much trouble.
Notes From the Fray:
It's doubtful that religious schools will suffer many of the side effects Waldman points out.
Dilution isn't new, as religious schools have been diluted for a long time, especially in areas with failing public schools. The deciding factor for most parents in sending their kids to a religious school is the educational, not the religious, value. Adding Title IX and other requirements just provides a standard by which all schools should be made to measure up. If a religious school doesn't want to add these standards, it can choose not to accept voucher money (it's a free market). But it will say something to non-religious parents about the school's educational value as well.
The growth of unaccredited minority schools shouldn't be much of a problem because educational value, not religion, is the main factor drawing the majority of students to any school. Inner city non-Catholic parents rely on Catholic schools not for a 'religious education', but for a 'better education'. It's doubtful that the same non-Catholic parent would send their kids to a newly minted Hare Krishna or Muslim school where there isn't any proven education value. But what if the Krishna school was better? At least it offers one more alternative to failed public school systems where there previously were no choices for parents. Nobody's forcing you to send your kids there, and if it doesn't measure up, it will eventually go away on its own.
On tuition, as Waldman points out, overall private school costs will actually go down for most parents. But it will do something else he doesn't mention. It will allow private school taxpayers to see their taxes used to support their own kids' education. With the public school system, parents are already paying 'tuition' in the form of higher taxes to support their local schools; it's just that the public at large spreads out this educational subsidy broadly.
It's doubtful that vouchers will make religious education, "the national voucher movement will make religious education more expensive, less pure, and less Christian." (Waldman). It wasn't pure to begin with, it will ultimately be less expensive for parents who want to send kids to private schools, and why is less Christianity a bad thing? If Muslim parents want to send their kids to private schools, why should they be Christian? The presence of Muslim schools certainly won't drive Christian schools out of existence.
-- Matt Pierce
(To reply, click here.)
Dilution isn't new, as religious schools have been diluted for a long time, especially in areas with failing public schools.
the author doesn't deny this; he argues that vouchers -- by bringing more schools more closely tied to the state -- will be more diluted. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but given how certain voucher supporters (I think of Stephen Carter for one) feel religion serves as an independent check against the corrupt state, it probably gives some "religionists" pause
The deciding factor for most parents in sending their kids to a religious school is the educational, not the religious, value.
this is largely true ... though "educational" should be understood in a broad sense as including moral education, discipline, and a safe environment. Nonetheless, some do actually send their children to school (or home school) for religious reasons. Many will oppose further dilution.
Adding Title IX and other requirements just provides a standard by which all schools should be made to measure up. If a religious school doesn't want to add these standards, it can choose not to accept voucher money (it's a free market).
Some groups, such as Orthodox Jews and fundamentalists, feel religion is the deciding factor ... dilution would corrupt their school's mission, and they will likely lose out in the voucher race unless they make a "Hobson's Choice." This underlining assumption that interfering with religion is not much of a big deal in religious schools is troubling
It's doubtful that the same non-Catholic parent would send their kids to a newly minted Hare Krishna or Muslim school where there isn't any proven education value. But what if the Krishna school was better?
this is what the author is saying: vouchers will to some degree hurt CHRISTIAN schools; and since promote vouchers because they think Christian schools and the promotion of Christianity is helped, this is notable
Nobody's forcing you to send your kids there, and if it doesn't measure up, it will eventually go away on its own.
I quibble with suggesting that using vouchers as a way to provide parents the ability to send their children to the best schools, which sometimes are religious, has no amount of "force" to them -- the force is the fact they either send them to the religious schools or a substandard public one -- which apparently is not worth saving
It will allow private school taxpayers to see their taxes used to support their own kids' education.
it will also allow religions to get education funding from nonbelievers; at any rate, it is far from a big leap to suggest that the presence of vouchers will result in the raise of educational prices. This might be a good thing -- Catholic teachers, for instance, often get paid too little. And, if their mission is not just to further the faith, but education nonbelievers (w voucher money) there is one less reason to pay less.
At any rate, whenever the gov't offers funds (e.g. to police organizations via grant money), there is an incentive to use them. If schools are able to ask for more money form parents, who via vouchers have more money to pay, supply/demand suggests the costs will rise. It's basic economic theory.
It's doubtful that vouchers will make religious education, "the national voucher movement will make religious education more expensive, less pure, and less Christian." (Waldman).
Let's sum up (1)vouchers provide religious education more funds, so they have an incentive to raise prices since they are currently artificially low [plus decreasing attendance and scandal means one major source of funds, the Catholic Church, is on the decline]
(2)strings will dilute an already partly diluted church more ["less pure" doesn't mean not pure anymore -- just less pure than its current impure state]
(3)Vouchers will allow more minority churches that currently have a limited financial base to provide religious education ... so the current nonChristians in Christian schools will have more alternatives = less Christian education overall.
These are not necessarily bad things on a cost/benefit ratio. Nonetheless, it belies reality not to address the fact they exist.
-- Joe
(To reply, click here.)
If the kids come back smarter it won't change anything, because the assumption that religious schools can improve on public schools' performance is already built into the politics of this issue.
The really interesting outcome will be if the kids come back a LOT smarter. If America somehow finds itself leading the world in education as a result of the voucher program, then vouchers will become a global reality, and their place will be secure.
But here's another interesting question: what if one particular religion turns out to be better at teaching kids than any of the others? What will happen then? What SHOULD happen? (Based on the reasoning that resulted in the voucher system, the answer's not necessarily as simple as you think).
-- Thrasymachus
(To reply, click here.)
(7/9)