When Black isn't Black

[Cambridge]

ed said:

To cite that money allocated to the poorest area schools is less than that to higher income areas is very misleading. If you had to guess where the poorest areas are I think most would probably say in the rural South. Probably true. And the fact of the matter is that in the rural South everything receives less money because it's not there.

Not politically correct to say so but, in my opinion, the primary cause of poor education is the existence of so many single moms with no father to support and help educate the children in the homes. Unfortunately a much higher percent of these are in African American families. I think the education system in this country is in need of major overhaul but it will never succeed with the large number of children being raised by single moms and grandmothers.

Higher percentage? Per capita maybe, but not gross. No way, no how.

[EasyEd]

My meaning: higher percentage of African Americans than the percentage of others.

[jerseyhoya34]

The relationship between family status and educational attainment is very weak statistically and insignificant in the case of African Americans, according to the General Social Survey. Not an easy issue here, and there is not an easy solution.

[hoyaboy1]

jerseyhoya34 said:

The relationship between family status and educational attainment is very weak statistically and insignificant in the case of African Americans, according to the General Social Survey. Not an easy issue here, and there is not an easy solution.

IMO social values are an even bigger problem. There's a reason that poor asians achieve more highly than wealthier black students.

[joehoya07]

sirsaxa said:

Do you think the Goverment has a responsibility to educate young people? All young people?

Does it disturb you that vouchers would cause public tax dollars to go to support catholic schools and other religious schools, thereby breaching the church-state boundary?

No, parents have the responsibility to educate their children. Vouchers give parents back a share of their own money that they paid in taxes to choose the school that is best for their child. Catholic schools are hardly bastions of rich elitists. They are mostly composed of kids from middle class families. And since parents are simply being given back their own money, the "church/state boundary" argument doesn't hold water. Vouchers also increase competition, forcing public schools to improve to retain/increase their funding.

[Cambridge]

Competition? I'm not sure how a school which doesn't control its own budget can "compete" with a private school. A school system can compete, but even within a school system there is gross disparity between quality of education.

I also totally disagree with how you place full responsibility on the parents for education. That smacks of elitism itself. I believe our founding fathers intended for all men to be created equal and to be given equal chance to succeed in this world. By tieing a child strictly to the ability or inability of their parent to effectively raise them and their parents' income, you are inherently dooming those who are least fortunate and require the most aid from society to failure.

Let's put it this way. Which parents will be more likely to have the time and luxury to shop around for the best school for their child: the good natured, supportive, housewife or the struggling, two job, 80 hours a week single mother worrying about feeding the children? I think its probably the former in 99% of the cases.

If you harbor some anger at the alleged laziness or poor parenting of those "single mothers" you are lashing out at....that is fine, but please don't hold the child liable for the "mistakes" or "shortcomings" of their parents. That runs contrary to everything this country stands for.

Besides ensuring quality education for all children regardless of their background, race, income, family history, etc only ensures that we are fully investing in the future. Those children will make up our future work force and are vital investment that we seem all too eager to sweep under the rug. You think disasters like Katrina happened because a levy broke? I believe that problem began long ago, when our nation stopped believing in the tenants of Brown v. BOE and decided it was alright if some students got a better education than others...and then better jobs...and then better representation...etc because they somehow deserved it.

[Cambridge]

I also find it slightly humurous and ironic that many on this board who hold the most staunchly "conservative" Catholic ideals seem most deadset against equal education for all children. All I'm saying is which side do you think Jesus would be on? I know in my heart what the answer is.

Besides, wasn't the Catholic church the first public educator. I mean, the church was the state, so their schools were pretty much be default public schools - open to everyone and treating all God's children as vessels of the Holy Spirit.

[tgo]

why should the government have a monopoly on education? monopoly's are inherently inefficient and a government monopoly has shown to be the worst kind. the govt should get out of the education business. the education of our youth is a public good that everyone benefits from but that doesnt mean they should be providing said education, just the means to attain it. Private schools are already heavily regulated and regularly tested to insure that they teach the same basics that the public schools are supposed to be teaching.

competition works in every other part of the economy, why wouldnt it work in education, why wouldnt new schools begin to form in areas where there is demand? no one is saying this would happen over night and there wouldnt be growing pains but the alternative of the current system is completely unacceptable.

why should the children with parents who care about their education be held back because some parents dont care? if all the parents who care (or even if we conceed a point of argument to cambridge and classify them as parents who have the time and ability to care) take vouchers and leave the public schools then wouldnt the school be better equiped to educate those who were left since they would be able to focus more directly on their unique educational hurdles? also, in every area where vouchers have been instituted, the amount given to the family fleeing the public school system has been less than half of what the per pupil expenditure has been for that district. now i was sfs so maybe you cant trust my math but if you have 100 students and are spending $8,000 each on them for a budget of $800, 000, then you take 10 of those students and give them $4,000 each, now you have 90 students and a budget of $760,000 left to educate them, if more money for education is so important then this sounds like a great trade for the school system and more importantly the students who stay behind.

lastly, the school systems are already set up with caste systems. every public school system has "gifted" programs of some sort which you have to fight and claw to get into regardless of the talents of your child, so those with ability and interest have already seperated their children from the others, would those who oppose vouchers say we should abolish those programs since they are siphoning resources away from the general population for the sake of creating elite programs within the schools? how do you reconcile that?

[GIGAFAN99]

tgo said:

why should the government have a monopoly on education? monopoly's are inherently inefficient and a government monopoly has shown to be the worst kind.

That's sort of true. The market economy argument is not particularly sound in many "public goods" cases.

The market for Porsches and the market for education are not analogous. Porsches get allocated to those with X willingness to pay and the resources to pay at a point where Porsche is willing to sell. The market clears when all the supplied Porsches are sold.

But the goal of the "education market" is not the same unless you want education to be scarce and alllocated to only those with X willingness to pay or resources. The education market "clears" if you will when a sufficient number of people are educated to produce a societal benefit that outweighs the associated costs. So the avoidance of externalities like crime, poverty, health costs etc. play a role in how the education market is measured.

My point is that you can't paste a private economic argument onto a public finance problem. If people don't have Porsches, they'll drive a Hyundai or take the bus. If people don't have education, they're more likely to tax other parts of the public finance system (police, health care) and adversely affect private enterprise as well (low job skills, theft, panhandling).

Specifics of a successful system are harder to devise or implement. But I just think that we have to look at education not as a "moral right" or a "business" but in a way that is more complex because this issue, I feel, is a more complex one.

[SFHoya99]

gigafan99 said:

tgo said:

why should the government have a monopoly on education? monopoly's are inherently inefficient and a government monopoly has shown to be the worst kind.

That's sort of true. The market economy argument is not particularly sound in many "public goods" cases.

The market for Porsches and the market for education are not analogous. Porsches get allocated to those with X willingness to pay and the resources to pay at a point where Porsche is willing to sell. The market clears when all the supplied Porsches are sold.

But the goal of the "education market" is not the same unless you want education to be scarce and alllocated to only those with X willingness to pay or resources. The education market "clears" if you will when a sufficient number of people are educated to produce a societal benefit that outweighs the associated costs. So the avoidance of externalities like crime, poverty, health costs etc. play a role in how the education market is measured.

My point is that you can't paste a private economic argument onto a public finance problem. If people don't have Porsches, they'll drive a Hyundai or take the bus. If people don't have education, they're more likely to tax other parts of the public finance system (police, health care) and adversely affect private enterprise as well (low job skills, theft, panhandling).

Specifics of a successful system are harder to devise or implement. But I just think that we have to look at education not as a "moral right" or a "business" but in a way that is more complex because this issue, I feel, is a more complex one.

Thank you.

To say that the goal of "education market" is to have an efficient market sounds like the goal of someone who's number one goal is to spend as little as possible on it.

Personally, I think each child should get an equal chance regardless of whether or not their parents (or parents parents) were successful. I know parents tend to think of children as extensions of themselves, but let's not pass down the sins of the father.

That's not to say our educations system is great, or that we spend our money well, or that you can use some free market concepts. But the goal isn't a market economy. Because in a market economy, someone's alway unemployed, someone is always left wanting.

----

Another pet peeve I have is the ridiculous use of stats some time. People constantly point to the resources/quality of education correlation as evidence that "resources aren't important to education." This is, of course, silly. What it means is that we can't prove they are -- that there are a ton of other factors at play. It does not mean they are not important.

[I'd also like to see if those stats are adjusted for standard of living. School districts with more funding also have to pay more for insurance, teachers, land, etc.]

[It is also ridiculous to quote $/student or $/capita as if expenses are variable.]

[EasyEd]

"I also find it slightly humurous and ironic that many on this board who hold the most staunchly "conservative" Catholic ideals seem most deadset against equal education for all children."

Cambridge, I fail to see where anyone is proposing to deny anyone access to a good education. That's why some of us strongly support the use of vouchers. I served in the military and got the GI Bill which aided in paying for my education. I could use that "voucher" virtually anywhere I wanted to, including Catholic colleges.

I object, however, to equating equal education with equal $s. If I am a teacher in the rural South, my salary will be lower than if I teach in Fairfax County VA. But I can buy a decent home in the rural South for $125K where it would cost me $700K in Fairfax County. So my salary requirements are not the same and the school budget will reflect that.

I strongly support equal ACCESS to education and a good education for everyone.

[joehoya07]

cambridgehoya said:

I believe that problem began long ago, when our nation stopped believing in the tenants of Brown v. BOE and decided it was alright if some students got a better education than others...and then better jobs...and then better representation...etc because they somehow deserved it.

It's fantasy to believe that we can create an educational system in which all students get an equal education. The level of one's education is directly proportional to the amount of work one is willing to put into it. Students that work harder do deserve to get better jobs and better representation. The state monopoly on education has been an unmitigated disaster.

And it's ridiculous to assert that Christ would be a champion of the public school system, where the only moral offense is mentioning the Deity.

[Cambridge]

joehoya07 said:

cambridgehoya said:

I believe that problem began long ago, when our nation stopped believing in the tenants of Brown v. BOE and decided it was alright if some students got a better education than others...and then better jobs...and then better representation...etc because they somehow deserved it.

It's fantasy to believe that we can create an educational system in which all students get an equal education. The level of one's education is directly proportional to the amount of work one is willing to put into it. Students that work harder do deserve to get better jobs and better representation. The state monopoly on education has been an unmitigated disaster.

And it's ridiculous to assert that Christ would be a champion of the public school system, where the only moral offense is mentioning the Deity.

That's just the problem, you aren't tieing a child's performance with what school they attend...rather you are tieing it to the income, socio-economic positioning and to a large degree, race, of their parents. I fail to see how that is just. Those children have done nothing but been born, either fortuituously or unfortunately, yet you are more than willing to allow that to determine much of their fate. Does a child's early education have complete and final bearing on their fate? Of course not. Will there be exceptions who overcome all odds?Of course, but those are EXCEPTIONS.

There is no end to the studies that show students with the earliest, most consistent and balanced education (that includes arts, sports, extra curriculars, etc) succeed at a much higher clip than those who attend schools that lack the resources to even repair the buildings they are housed in.

For example, I attended the Richmond public schools from K through 8th. I attended the top two schools in the system. My middle school was a "magnet" school. Yet we lacked any extra curriculars, had no sports teams at all, had no space for athletic activities at all other than a broken down half court bball court, 35 of us shared 8 working outdated apple computers in science classes (lucky to have anything at all), and daily we went in and out through top of the line metal detectors and security systems. That's right, where do you think the money was being spent -- on high priced metal detectors, security cameras and security guards. You may well counter that that was due to the violence in the system...however, I would posit that things got more violent once all the constructive activities (ie sports, music, arts, etc) were cut from the curriculum due to funding and pumped into security. Idle hands so to speak.

In the end, urban public schools have been turned into nothing more than high security holding stations...where the american public waits for their self-fulfilling prophecy of teenage pregnancy, drop outs, drugs, gang violence to fester. IF we give them nothing, lock them down and show obvious lack of respect and care for their existence, children will become exactly what it is we fear they will -- ghosts who have no future, therefore no reason to strive for it.

Please read the cover story in Harpers from over the Labor Day weekend. It was a thoughtful, indepth look at how far (or sadly how little) we've progressed and the inherent link between the availability of resources (NOT MONEY BUT RESOURCES) and success.

I see no reason why the greatest country in the world with the strongest economic power and most resources in history can not at least try to provide equal education opportunities for its children. It seems shortsighted and counterproductive to our own wellbeing to systematically sabotage the future of our own economy and democracy. Because, quite frankly, that's exactly what we are doing.

You act like these numbers you toss out about spending per capita mean anything beyond the differences in cost of upkeep. Of course NYPS will have a monsterously high per student spending rate. Why? Because those buildings alone cost millions of dollars per year to upkeep and building in the NY metro area. (and that amount isn't even enough to prevent asbestos poisoning, lead paint exposure, leaking roofs, and other hazardous conditions) Plus, in order for a teacher to live in the immeadiate area, they will have to be paid a certain amount just to get by. And in order to keep those teachers in the failing school system, you have to offer them more and more incentives, resources and support...or they'll just move out to the suburbs and spend less on rent and abandon the inner cities.

I mean, how often do we express concerns about Gtown's lack of resources and how that will effect our ability to retain, attract and develop a strong faculty and student body. It seems horribly shortsighted if you can have those concerns with regard to Gtown, but discount them in regards to public schools.

Basically, what I take from this discussion is that any public initiative or endeavor is a bad thing...and should be dismantled, if not overtly, then at least subtly and discreetly.

I guess if the libertarians had their way, we should all return to our "keeps", hoarde our dry goods and gold and look out only for those in our immeadiate family or clan. Forget about law and order. Forget about art and culture. Forget about the welfare of our fellow man. Forget about our obligations to future generations. Forget all that was given to us by previous generations and focus on the me, the here, and the now. Greed is good. Sounds delightful.

[fsohoya]

Actually, Cambridge, if we libertarians had our way we would be living in a much better society. Take all your "love of fellow man" arguments: Right now, your conception of loving your fellow man is to force other people, ultimately backed up by the government's monopoly on the legal right to have them jailed or killed, to love their fellow men. Your idea of charity is to have the government force people, against their will, to be charitable. Your idea of a "good" society is one in which coercion, ultimately at the barrel of a government gun, is used by the politically powerful to make people do what they think is right. That, sadly, is the definition of oppression, not a "good" society.

Of course, the really sad thing about your analysis of a libertarian society is that it assumes that people of their own free will refuse to help others unless forced to. Obviously, if you've read the Chonicle of Philanthropy anytime recently, or have donated to your favorite charity, you know that that isn't reality. Moreover, if it were reality that everyone is hopelessly selfish, then whomever controls the government will inevitably use it for their own selfish ends, not real charity, making your government-driven "good" society just as evil as the selfish libertarian one, only with a few people holding power over everyone else rather than all individuals governing themselves.

So this is what it all comes down to: In a libertarian society, assistance for the poor will happen, we will also take care of our "keeps," and we won't resort to forcing other people to do the charitable work we ourselves don't want to do or don't want to pay for. That means no more charitable freeloading. Unfortunately, Cambridge, that also means that if you want your "art and culture" you might actually have to pay for it yourself.

Now that really does sound delightful!

[Cambridge]

fsohoya said:

Actually, Cambridge, if we libertarians had our way we would be living in a much better society. Take all your "love of fellow man" arguments: Right now, your conception of loving your fellow man is to force other people, ultimately backed up by the government's monopoly on the legal right to have them jailed or killed, to love their fellow men. Your idea of charity is to have the government force people, against their will, to be charitable. Your idea of a "good" society is one in which coercion, ultimately at the barrel of a government gun, is used by the politically powerful to make people do what they think is right. That, sadly, is the definition of oppression, not a "good" society.

Of course, the really sad thing about your analysis of a libertarian society is that it assumes that people of their own free will refuse to help others unless forced to. Obviously, if you've read the Chonicle of Philanthropy anytime recently, or have donated to your favorite charity, you know that that isn't reality. Moreover, if it were reality that everyone is hopelessly selfish, then whomever controls the government will inevitably use it for their own selfish ends, not real charity, making your government-driven "good" society just as evil as the selfish libertarian one, only with a few people holding power over everyone else rather than all individuals governing themselves.

So this is what it all comes down to: In a libertarian society, assistance for the poor will happen, we will also take care of our "keeps," and we won't resort to forcing other people to do the charitable work we ourselves don't want to do or don't want to pay for. That means no more charitable freeloading. Unfortunately, Cambridge, that also means that if you want your "art and culture" you might actually have to pay for it yourself.

Now that really does sound delightful!

Sounds like landed gentry to me. Everyone's place determined by birthright. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that's why we founded this country...to get away from all that.

Funny, so libertarians who love the market economy somehow believe:

1) everyone will get basic necessities because the market will provide for all more efficiently
2) even if it doesn't provide equally, that's what we want
3) those we don't care about don't deserve our charity anyways

The problem w/ arguments like this is the fact that many neighborhoods, when left to market forces, end up lacking basic human necessities like supermarkets, hospitals, schools...those people can't afford to move to other neighborhoods yet recieve none of the services that would allow them to better themselves over the generations to more out of that situation.

btw isn't a Catholic libertarian slightly oxymoronic. I mean we are talking about a centralized governmental agency with a capital city, executive power, judicial branch and legislature who taxes and grants benefits based on a covenant with the people. somehow that is ok, but one ratified by the people and decided upon by the majority of your fellow citizens smacks of totalitarianism. fascinating.

consider me bemused.

As to your larger philosophical point about the good of man...I think you miss my point. I don't care if it is the state or the KOC.

Men working together are always stronger than those that work alone. I don't care what structure there is to organize charity and welfare for the most unfortunate...I couldn't care less whether its the church, the state, the boy scouts, whatever...but I want to ensure that it happens.

Why? Well, quite frankly I find it hard to sleep at night knowing that things could be better and probably should be better for most children in the US.

At this point roughly 25% of children in the US go to bed hungry - that is determined as not receiving the sufficient # of calories for a healthy diet. That is 1 in 4. ONE IN FOUR. The worst part is that number is getting closer and closer to 1 and 3 every year.

I agree with your concerns about the ineffective nature of the government and the wonderful charitable spirit of americans in general, but I just want to ensure that we are always striving to aid our fellow man...especially children. Give them every chance. That's all I'm asking for.

[Cambridge]

fsohoya said:

So this is what it all comes down to: In a libertarian society, assistance for the poor will happen, we will also take care of our "keeps," and we won't resort to forcing other people to do the charitable work we ourselves don't want to do or don't want to pay for. That means no more charitable freeloading. Unfortunately, Cambridge, that also means that if you want your "art and culture" you might actually have to pay for it yourself.

So you don't vote? I'm confused. How do you not determine where your tax dollars go? Did you not have a chance to voice your concerns? Did you not get a chance to have your opinions registered?

I guess my question is do you have a problem with democracy in general? Representational government? Or just the poor?

[fsohoya]

I vote. But am I to understand that you think just because people can vote then they assent to everything the government does to them, or that it somehow justifies everything government does? People in the Soviet Union got to vote. I think even people in the early days of Nazi rule in Germany got to vote.

Now, as for your overwhelming concern for others, can I ask what all the government assistance we have provided up to now has done? The answer, as we all know, is very little. In contrast, the free market has improved the lives of all people, rich and poor alike. (And don't even get me started on how poor people last decade are not poor people this decade.)

By the way, landed gentry? How did they maintain their status? Government, not the free market, which produced an entire merchant class.

Now, I haven't said I am Catholic, but since I am let me quickly explain to you why "Catholic Libertarian" is not oxymoronic: I don't have to be a Catholic. I can leave the church whenever I want, and for what it's worth, the Church can't legally have me killed. Not so the government. Libertarians believe you have every right to join whatever organization you please. You can even surrender your rights to it. The critical point is that you surrender your rights voluntarily, not because people you may or may not have voted for force you to.

Which brings me to the final critical issue: "As to your larger philosophical point about the good of man...I think you miss my point. I don't care if it is the state or the KOC."

I'm afraid for me the ends can't justify the means quite so easily. It does matter to me whether people are helping freely by joining the KOC, or being forced to help by government, even a government of "majority rule." (Tyranny of the majority, anyone?) I fear for the future of this country if everyone is as willing to sacrifice freedom for expediency as you seem to be, Cambridge.

[SFHoya99]

No libertarian has ever managed to present with an acceptable free market solution to the problem of the commons.

Nor has any libertarian managed to convince me that their point of view doesn't generate an extremely short term outlook.

[Cambridge]

fsohoya said:

I vote. But am I to understand that you think just because people can vote then they assent to everything the government does to them, or that it somehow justifies everything government does? People in the Soviet Union got to vote. I think even people in the early days of Nazi rule in Germany got to vote.

Now, as for your overwhelming concern for others, can I ask what all the government assistance we have provided up to now has done? The answer, as we all know, is very little. In contrast, the free market has improved the lives of all people, rich and poor alike. (And don't even get me started on how poor people last decade are not poor people this decade.)

By the way, landed gentry? How did they maintain their status? Government, not the free market, which produced an entire merchant class.

Now, I haven't said I am Catholic, but since I am let me quickly explain to you why "Catholic Libertarian" is not oxymoronic: I don't have to be a Catholic. I can leave the church whenever I want, and for what it's worth, the Church can't legally have me killed. Not so the government. Libertarians believe you have every right to join whatever organization you please. You can even surrender your rights to it. The critical point is that you surrender your rights voluntarily, not because people you may or may not have voted for force you to.

Which brings me to the final critical issue: "As to your larger philosophical point about the good of man...I think you miss my point. I don't care if it is the state or the KOC."

I'm afraid for me the ends can't justify the means quite so easily. It does matter to me whether people are helping freely by joining the KOC, or being forced to help by government, even a government of "majority rule." (Tyranny of the majority, anyone?) I fear for the future of this country if everyone is as willing to sacrifice freedom for expediency as you seem to be, Cambridge.

Wow, did you really compare our democracy to Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia? That is incredible. So, your theory is that because the democratically elected government occasionally or even often does things that you don't agree with it is on par with totalitarian regimes that systematically executed millions of innocent citizens.

[Note: Also, you might want to explore the irony of comparing our nation to Germany and the USSR when you could make pretty compelling arguments that the collapse of the welfare state (massive unemployment, hyperinflation) created the zeit geist necessary to produce the Third Reicht and the lack of a welfare state altogether (near feudal, status tied to land based economy) created the Red Revolution in mother Russia.]

You do realize you sound just like those long haired hippy folk who go to jamband music fests and talk about communal societies free from the bounds of puritanical laws, where man will govern himself based on the his pure compassion and sense of moral justice. I mean, those guys say the same thing. You would probably love to live on one of their communes up in VT or NH. They also hate the centralized government and often compare our current government to some fascist totalitarian conspiracy. I guess if you go far enough to either side you end up in the same utopian vision.

Anyways, as to your point about the Church versus State...first off, you can leave either just as easily. Think about it, leaving the Church would mean leaving behind salvation and potential loss of contact of loved ones (at least in the afterlife theoretically). Leaving the State would pose similar risks, as you would have to leave loved ones behind whether you imposed self-exile on yourself or merely hung out in a cabin somewhere in the woods.

As to death, it is true the state can have you legally killed - however, we can address that via elections, legistlation and judicial cases, and in time it will probably change. However, the Church, well, at least figuratively they'll always be able to kill you. They can excommunicate you quite easily...which would condemn you to Hell, which by my understanding is a far, far worse fate than unjust execution, or martrydom which would catipult you into Heaven amongst the glorious angels. Just saying...if you believe in the theology, which one is more threatening?

As to Tryanny of the Majority, the Bill of Rights was established specifically to deal with that issue. It's entire purpose is to protect those unable to from the tyranny of the governing majority. Thankfully, we don't exist in a mere common law state, but one bound by a covenant between the state and the people, one that clearly allows for us to control and shape the way we govern ourselves.

I understand your point about freedom, and to a large degree I am in accord. However, this discussion was inspired by my belief that all men are created equal and are free from ties to the past. Therefore, they should be placed on equal footing and given the same initial opportunities. In my mind, that even footing is a comprehensive equal education for all children. What they make of them, is up to them. You want to collapse elements of the welfare state...that's fine with me, just don't start with the schools, because that only puts more strain on the other programs you are eager to cut.

My point being, that I am also concerned about freedom, yet I include freedom from heritage amongst those sacred freedoms. You should be who you make yourself, not who you are because of who your father or mother is.

[fsohoya]

I am not saying our country is tantamount to Stalinst Russia or Nazi Germany. I am, however, making it clear that just because you or I can vote does not make us free. The incredible part is that I had to point that out to begin with.

As for the protection provided by the Bill of Rights, the Constitution was actually written to protect us from the federal government in all things except those powers granted to it in article 1 section 8. Unfortunately, the same sort of fuzzy thinking that somehow imagines we are entitled to a "sacred" government-guaranteed "freedom from heritage" is exactly why the Constitution was abandoned long ago. The federal government hasn't restricted itself to the powers granted it in the Constitution for decades because too many people are willing to read into it anything they want - or to just ignore it - if that serves their conception of some higher good.

Concerning the church/state issue, at least the punishment if I leave the church, as you describe it, ultimately comes from God. The punishment from the state comes from men who just think they are gods.

Finally, it is not a secret that the welfare state is a failure and that empowering people to take charge of their own lives is the key to both individual and collective success. Which, of course, is ultimately what school choice is about: empowering families to seek out their own educational solutions, rather than being subject to the benevolence of those in charge of "the system." And if you think the public schools will, or even could, ever provide all students with an equal footing in life, you might be beyond hope. You'll need a government that can equalize intelligence, family characteristics, exposure to literature, talents, just plain old good luck, and countless other factors before we will ever live in a fantasy land where through the grace of government children can gain true "freedom from heritage." At least if you give parents school choice, though, they won't have to wait for other people giving them an education. With choice, they can go get it themselves, and their kids can maximize the gifts they do have now, not when public school "leaders" get their act together.

In the end, you'll have to excuse us libertarians for wanting to concentrate on the rights of individuals. For some reason, we think they are more important than vague notions of the "collective good" which have so rarely produced anything but collective misery. (I refer you again to Stalinsit Russia and Nazi Germany.)