January 1, 2003
DEMOCRAT RACISM:
The Catholic Example (NY Sun, 12/31/02)If New York City's public school system could educate a child for what it costs to educate a child in one of New York's Catholic schools, the city would be spending about $6.5 billion less on its Department of Education each year. [...]The cost to educate the students in New York's Catholic schools averages $3,200 a pupil for Kindergarten through eighth grade and $5,800 a pupil for high schoolers, according to a spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of New York, Nora Murphy. Most of that comes from tuition, but contributions from graduates and other donors cover a 10% to 20% share. The public schools spend nearly double that, about $10,000 each in elementary and middle schools and more than $9,000 for each high-school student.
The two largest factors that account for the difference in costs are the government bureaucracy surrounding the schools and the enormous power of the city's teachers union. These two factors, minimized in the Catholic school system, are the biggest obstacles to education reform in New York's public schools. [...]
The city could try wrestling concessions out of its unions, laying off administrators, and increasing class sizes until it could educate a student for what it costs the Archdiocese - and then try improving quality so that it attains the same results.
But a simpler way might be to just offer a publicly funded voucher to any student who wants one, and let the schools sprout up to fill the need. If the demand for vouchers is still at 1999 levels, that would mean 162,500 students channeled out of the public school system. Assume that it costs $7,000 to educate each one - far more than the current level of spending on Catholic schools, but enough to adjust for whatever backdoor transportation funding the public schools are currently providing and for some of the capital costs of space for the influx of new students. The city still saves $406 million.
If you refuse to contemplate a reform that will provide inner city black kids with a better education and at least a chance to escape poverty, because you're beholden to largely white teachers' unions, isn't that objectively racist? Posted by Orrin Judd at January 1, 2003 10:07 AM
Making 'em swallow Catholic superstition
doesn't count as educating them, so that's
a bad bargain at any price.
If you suggest that secular schools will spring
up that are somehow as cost-efficient as
Catholic schools but, unlike Catholic schools,
provide a quality education, history does not
support you.
Ever hear of seg academies?
A friend of mine has started a charter high
school, one of several in the state. The
educational bureaucracy is mighty obnoxious
to them but aside from delaying transfers of
money cannot interfere under the Hawaii
law.
Although the charter schools have been operating
only a few years, the failure rate is extremely
high -- about 25% I think.
I mean financial collapse. Too early to say
what the kids are getting out of it.
And we also have the phenomenon of the
surf schools. Kids do nothing but surf all day.
These are, at the moment, financed entirely
by rich morons. I cannot see why government
money should be used to support them.
Harry:
So you'd sentence them, to ignorance just to avoid the possibility they might grow up Catholic?
The word "racist" means nothing at all if it loses the sense of hatred due to race. I agree siding with teacher unions over poor urban kids is a bad priority, but please: leftists misuse the label "racist" too much as it is.
Posted by: Kevin Colwell at January 1, 2003 10:06 PMWe oppose unilateral disarmament in all its forms.
Posted by: oj at January 1, 2003 10:34 PMoj,you didn't mention upscale,trendy left soccer moms?Thet totally oppose vouchers because they fear a flood of urban "gangsta's" pouring into their gated suburban communities,drive by's at the soccer field,etc.
And everyone of them would label you a "Racist" at the drop of a hat.
I disagree with Harry on this one. I see no problem with vouchers, as long as it is up to the parents to decide where to send their children, and the gov't attaches no strings as to the religious content, or lack thereof, of the schools that qualify.
Posted by: Robert D at January 2, 2003 11:01 AMOrrin, you miss the point. Right now, they grow up ignorant. Put them in a Catholic school, and they grow up ignorant.
Well, maybe not totally ignornant. I note above an outbreak of admiration for Orestes Brownson. I bet I'm the only person visiting this blog who learned about him in high school.
He converted to Catholicism and thus entered the Catholic history books, inasmuch as there has never been another philosopher in America who fell for Rome.
After I got out of high school, though, I learned more about Brownson. He turned out (text and context) to be a poor choice to feed to the naive teenagers.