Tag Archives: Vouchers

More Americans Choosing Homeschooling Than Enrolling In Government Schools


I can’t imagine why (besides wanting to avoid sexually explicit indoctrination, gun hysteria, censorship of religious expression, anti-patriotism, Obama worship and Marxist propaganda)!

Dr. Susan Berry writes at Breitbart:

As dissatisfaction with the U.S. public school system grows, apparently so has the appeal of homeschooling. Educational researchers, in fact, are expecting a surge in the number of students educated at home by their parents over the next ten years, as more parents reject public schools.

A recent report in Education News states that, since 1999, the number of children who are homeschooled has increased by 75%. Though homeschooled children represent only 4% of all school-age children nationwide, the number of children whose parents choose to educate them at home rather than a traditional academic setting is growing seven times faster than the number of children enrolling in grades K-12 every year.

As homeschooling has become increasingly popular, common myths that have long been associated with the practice of homeschooling have been debunked.

Any concerns about the quality of education children receive by their parents can be put to rest by the consistently high placement of homeschooled students on standardized assessment exams.  […]

Similarly, the common myth that homeschoolers “miss out” on so-called “socialization opportunities,” often thought to be a vital aspect of traditional academic settings, has proven to be without merit. According to the National Home Education Research Institute survey, homeschoolers tend to be more socially engaged than their peers and demonstrate “healthy social, psychological, and emotional development, and success into adulthood.”

Read more at Breitbart

Home School Enrollment Increases Nationwide, According to Report

Want To Tell The State To Stick It? Homeschool Your Kids

How home schooling threatens monopoly education

Study: Home-schooled Teens Better Socialized, Prepared For College

He who Controls the Children, Controls the Future

Attorney General Holder: Parents Have No Right to Educate their Children

‘Common Core’ Threatens Homeschooling Freedom

Why Christians Should Care About School Choice

Why Christians Should Care About School Choice


This is one of many reasons why we homeschool, but homeschooling is not for everyone.   Parents have a God-given right and responsibility to choose the best education for their children.  They should NOT be forced into a government monopoly that deliberately undermines the values they are trying to instill in the next generation.

Alliance Defending Freedom offers a timely warning:

When discussing the school choice issue with other Christians, I often here responses like “How are we supposed to be salt and light in the schools if we pull our kids out?” and “We can counter-act the bad stuff they learn in school by teaching them about God at home and in church.”

These are valid concerns, but the truth is that our children are not being salt and light; rather, they are being corrupted by the very system they are trying to influence. A recent study by the Barna Group found that approximately 70% of kids who grew up in a Christian church were no longer faithful to the church by their 20s. According to Barna, this is a fairly recent phenomenon. During the first half of the 20th century, young adults pretty much stayed faithful to the Christian faith. But this trend changed during the 1960s, when we saw the Bible and prayer taken out of government-run schools while at the same time witnessing the birth of the Sexual Revolution.

For decades, the anti-Christian crowd has been using government-run schools to undermine and attack Christianity. And that strategy continues today. Just last week, the Southern Education Foundation issued a paper claiming that Georgia’s school choice program (where individuals and corporations can receive tax credits for contributing to charitable funds that award scholarships to enable underprivileged kids to attend private schools) is supporting Christian schools with “anti-gay” policies. SEF claims that any private, Christian school that expects it teachers and students to adhere to Biblical standards of conduct—including those that prohibit pre-marital sex, adultery, and homosexual behavior—is “anti-gay” and that those schools should not be allowed to participate in the scholarship program.

If a private school teaching Biblical morality is “anti-gay,” then wouldn’t parents and churches that teach these same ideas also be “anti-gay.” And this is the message that is being taught 8 hours a day, 5 days a week to our kids attending government-run schools. They are taught that Biblical values and beliefs are bigoted, ignorant, and unacceptable. So we if think that 2 hours a week (if that) at church can counter-act 40 hours a week of teaching that Christianity is wrong, we are fooling ourselves.

If you take seriously the Biblical command that you, as a parent, are to train up a child in the way he or she should go, then you realize that the command means more than just taking them to church once or twice a week. It means making sure that every aspect of their education affirms, not mocks, Biblical principles and values.

Read more at Alliance Defending Freedom

Part I of the Case for School Choice

IndoctriNation: A Powerful Film for Christian Parents

Why is the Church Silent on Education?

It’s Time To Take Back Education

Support School Choice!

Keep government out of the schools

Whoever Controls the Schools Rules the World

School Choice Week 2013


It is maddening how a century of “progressive education reform” has conditioned American parents to unquestioningly surrender their children to a system that has proven to fail no matter how much money it gets or reforms are tried.

It’s maddening that we have tacitly accepted the notion that government bureaucrats should decide where, when, how, and even what our children learn.

It’s maddening that no matter how much their child’s needs are not being met, poor parents are virtually powerless to do anything about it, while their children remain trapped in failing and – often dangerous – government schools.

Every parent deserves a choice.  Every child deserves a chance.  It’s LONG past time to take back the power that rightfully belongs to parents to determine what is best for their children when it comes to education.

Rachel Sheffield writes at the Heritage Foundation:

The third annual National School Choice Week is officially underway. Once again, school choice advocates—including parents, teachers, schoolchildren and administrators, and many others—will come together to promote educational choice, with more than 3,600 events taking place nationwide.

School choice is something to celebrate, because it gives families the power to choose the best schools for their children—helping children to improve educational outcomes and increasing overall parental satisfaction.

School Choice Students Graduate at Higher Rates

For example, students who participate in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (DCOSP)—a private school voucher program for low-income K-12 students—graduate at significantly higher rates than their peers, according to the results of a “gold standard” (randomized, control group) study. More than 90 percent of DCOSP students graduate high school, compared to just 70 percent of their peers.

Similarly, research reveals that students who participate in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP)—the nation’s longest running school choice program—for all four of their high school years had a 94 percent graduation rate, compared to a 75 percent graduation rate for their peers who attended four years of public high school.

School Choice Means Academic Gains

Research also shows that students who participate in school choice programs do better in school. In a review of all the “gold standard” evaluations of school choice programs in the United States, researchers found that nine of the 10 studies revealed positive, albeit generally modest, academic improvement for school choice students.

Parents Are More Satisfied with their Child’s Academic Experience

Parents of school choice students also report high levels of satisfaction with their children’s schools. In Florida, 93 percent of parents whose children participate in the McKay Scholarship Program—a voucher program for special-needs students—report being satisfied with their child’s school, compared to just 33 percent of parents whose special-needs children were enrolled in public schools. DCOSP parents are also more likely to report satisfaction with their children’s schools and are more likely to describe their schools as safe. And Milwaukee school choice parents also report high satisfaction rates with the schools their children attend.

Education comes in many forms—from private school choice to online learning, to charter schools and public schools and home schooling. Parents should be empowered to give their children the education that best meets their child’s unique learning needs. School choice makes this possible by giving families from every background the ability to set the course for the brightest educational future for their children.

This week, find out how you can get involved in National School Choice Week.

Read more at the Heritage Foundation

Support School Choice!

Why Has Non-Teaching Staff Surged in Oregon Public Schools?

America’s Bloated School Bureaucracies

‘Common Core’ Banishes Literature, Replaces With Government Propaganda

America Has Become Socialist Because Of Socialist Education

Obama’s War On School Choice

It’s Time To Take Back Education

Learn more about Freedom of Education

Learn more about the Separation of School and State

Want To Tell The State To Stick It? Homeschool Your Kids


I’ve often said that it’s an incredibly dangerous conflict of interest for any government to be involved in shaping the hearts and minds of future voters and citizens.

Government-run schools have a built-in incentive for teaching the next generation to think the way the ruling class wants them to, to vote for bigger government intrusion into their lives, and to be unquestioningly loyal to the Nanny State, which they are indoctrinated to view as their benefactor.

This is one of MANY reasons why I – a public school graduate myself – choose to homeschool.

Bill Flax writes at Forbes:

The swelling legions of homeschoolers poke a subtle rebuke at America’s ever expanding nanny state. Under both parties,Washington has systematically invaded private spheres and co-opted public services historically performed by local bodies. But a spontaneous groundswell of freedom minded folks has continued America’s rich inheritance of rugged individualism.

The God-fearing, flag-waiving, gun-toting homeschool crowd embodies the American spirit of mutual self-reliance. You won’t encounter a more neighborly bunch. Their children thrive without government “help.” Their support networks blossom sans the state’s sanction. Meanwhile, taxpayers waste a fortune securing abysmal academic results. In 2012, SAT scores fell to their lowest level since tracking began. As spending soars, assessment scores plummet.

The modern homeschool movement comes largely by Christians aghast over an academic establishment overrun by progressives. Schools long ago became laboratories for instilling statism and distilling politically correct groupthink. Values clarification anyone? With public education increasingly geared toward multicultural agitation against America’s godly heritage, many parents resolved to safeguard the hearts, souls and minds of their young.

[…]  J. Gresham Machen, the foremost defender of fundamentalism in the modernist controversy of the past century, also led the battle against compulsory public education. A fierce libertarian, Machen cautioned, “If you give the bureaucrats the children, you might as well give them everything else as well.”

We have. See election 2012.

Barack Obama – who spent his past assailing the American system – would not be president without overwhelming support from twenty-somethings imbued with a reverence for the state. No longer the family tree, “government is the only thing we all belong to” claims the ruling party.

Ron Paul senses the urgency, “Expect the rapidly expanding homeschool movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to rebuild a free society with constitutional protections.” Dr. Paul warns, “We cannot expect a federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties.” Proving his point, homeschool parents were instrumental behind several UN treaties stalling in the Senate.

Like the local self-government formed indigenously by settler communities on America’s frontier, homeschoolers spontaneously built a support apparatus from the ground up. The free market at work, parents can readily access almost any curricula, subject matter or activity.

The Department of Education’s Dr. Patricia Lines countered the notion of homeschoolers withdrawing from America’s social fabric, “Like the Antifederalists these homeschoolers are asserting their historic individual rights so that they may form more meaningful bonds with family and community. In doing so, they are not abdicating from the American agreement. To the contrary, they are affirming it.”

Read more at Forbes

They have it exactly right.  If anyone is going to save our nation, it will be the few who have been taught to think for themselves, to buck the system, to question the status quo, and to be reliant on themselves instead of the government.

How home schooling threatens monopoly education

Study: Home-schooled Teens Better Socialized, Prepared For College

He who Controls the Children, Controls the Future

Free the Children, Cut the Budget: States have no business running schools

IndoctriNation: A Powerful Film for Christian Parents

Member of Education Establishment: Parents Don’t Know What’s Best for Their Children

Homeschooling Sees Dramatic Rise in Popularity

Number of Homeschoolers Growing Nationwide

Education: Keep it in the family

Anti-Christian Bigot Bill Maher Attacks Home Schooling As ‘Madrassas’ Opposed To ‘Reason’

The Third Wave of Homeschool Persecution

Threat to Parents’ Rights a Bigger Issue than Rights of a Child

Support School Choice!

Romney Gets Boos, Standing Ovation From NAACP

One of the many reasons the black community has voted so loyally for Democrats is because for years, that’s the only side that has fully engaged with them and courted their votes.   For decades, Republicans have virtually given up reaching out to them as a voting block and have failed to make the argument for why their policies are best for ALL Americans.   If Democrats are the only ones showing up to speak in their churches and associations, why should they give the other side a hearing?  Who are they going to believe?

Kudos to Mitt for having the guts to take his argument directly to the black community and make the statement that the issues we face together as a nation are colorblind.

From Investors Business Daily:

The GOP candidate showed the content of his character at the NAACP convention by not pandering to blacks beset by illegitimacy, poverty, crime and joblessness — and an indifferent president who stayed away.

For refusing to pander to black voters in his speech to the NAACP convention, Mitt Romney was accused by MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell of pandering to his white base.

The speech, O’Donnell insisted, was part of a GOP “Southern strategy” used to appeal to “racial and racist voting.” Over at the Daily Beast, Michael Tomasky came unhinged, contending that Romney’s attempt to describe the plight of black Americans under President Obama’s hope and change, and offering real solutions to fixing the government that oppresses them, made him “a spineless, disingenuous, supercilious, race-mongering pyromaniac.”

Romney knew he’d be booed when he said he’d get rid of ObamaCare, the job- and growth-killing behemoth that is the fruition of the cradle-to-grave nanny state on which many people have become increasingly dependent. He knew his accurate description of minority joblessness in this third recovery summer wouldn’t bring applause. He told the truth anyway, even if it didn’t get him one more black vote, and even if the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People attendees, for whom advancement has been replaced by dependence, couldn’t handle the truth.

“In June,” said Romney, “the overall unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.2%” — but the rate for blacks “actually went up, from 13.6% to 14.4%.”

He noted that black students account for 17% of students nationwide, with 42% of those trapped in failing schools. He spoke of “neighborhoods filled with violence and fear (and) empty of opportunity.”

And on a matter that separates most black church leaders from Obama, he pledged to defend traditional marriage as the president embraces the gay version.

Romney’s speech didn’t pander to anybody.

Nor was it demeaning or insensitive to his audience. He merely pointed out that Obama’s philosophy of dependence on government was not the answer to their need for jobs, education and stable communities.

Read more at Investors Business Daily

Romney’s NAACP Speech: To Do Better For Blacks 

Obama avoids African-American convention

Mitt Romney walks on water at NAACP, media proclaims him a lousy swimmer

NAACP Boos Romney When He Mentions Repealing Obamacare

Video: NAACP Crowd Cheers Mitt Romney For “Defending Traditional Marriage”

Biden tries to derail Romney’s charter-school pitch to NAACP

MSNBC: Romney’s NAACP Speech Part of His “Southern Strategy” To Appeal To “Racist” Voters

[adrotate group=”51″]

Romney backs vouchers, more school choice

But will he abolish the unconstitutional, bloated, meddlesome Department of Education?

Stephen Dinan writes at The Washington Times:

Mitt Romney vowed Wednesday to expand Washington’s school voucher program as part of a broader nationwide push for school choice, and he accused President Obama of failing to fulfill his own education promises from 2008 because he is too beholden to teachers unions.

Opening a new line of attack on the president, Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, said unions are the chief impediment to education reform, and that Mr. Obama has repeatedly sided with them instead of with parents and students attending failing schools.

The attack was part of an education speech Mr. Romney delivered in the nation’s capital to the Latino Coalition, a Hispanic small-business advocacy group, and signaled an astute political calculation: Hispanic voters regularly place education among their top issues, even higher than immigration, and they generally support vouchers and stricter school standards.

“Here we are in the most prosperous nation, but millions of children are getting a Third World education. And America’s minority children suffer the most,” Mr. Romney said. “This is the civil rights issue of our era. And it’s the great challenge of our time.”

Mr. Romney’s chief reform would be to give children who receive federal education money a choice of any public or charter school in their state or, in cases where it’s legal under state law, private schools. He also said he’ll push for more usable evaluations of schools so parents have the information they need to make choices, and said he’ll streamline federal teacher quality programs to reward states that are doing best at training and retaining good teachers.

Read more at the Washington Times

John Gizzi observes at Human Events:

[I]n calling education “the civil rights issue of our era and our greatest challenge,” Romney has raised a fresh question that will impact on his party’s candidates for the House and Senate and on the platform that will be crafted at the Republican National Convention this summer: Namely, whether he will support abolishing the U.S. Department of Education, an issue that was contained in the national GOP platform from 1980 to 2000 and that many GOP office-seekers this year are calling for strongly.

In his 40-minute speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Romney did call for taking the scores of federal education programs and bloc-granting them to the states.  This is a proposal that has long been popular with conservatives.  But he stopped short of saying he would call for shutting down the 33-year-old Cabinet-level department, which was lobbied for by the National Education Association and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter.  Romney was cheered by a standing-room-only luncheon crowd after taking shots at teachers unions, citing them as “an example of a group that has lost its way” and blaming their financial support of the Democratic Party as the reason President Obama believes in ending scholarship programs that permit parents to send children to charter schools.

But talk of a “bold policy” and expansion of scholarship programs is sure to lead to questions from conservatives as to whether he can pursue this and shut down the Department of Education at the same time.

Read more at Human Events

Support School Choice!

Time to Abolish the Unconstitutional Government School Monopoly

Romney Education Plan: More School Choices, More State Control

Keep government out of the schools

FreedomWorks Petition: Abolish the Federal Dept. of Education

Education And The Founding Fathers

It’s Time To Take Back Education

Learn more about Freedom of Education

Learn more about the Separation of School and State

[adrotate group=”19″]

Obama’s War On School Choice

It is a dangerous conflict of interest for any government to control an education industry which shapes the hearts and minds of future voters. School choice is crucial to breaking the state monopoly and restoring parents’ God-given right to direct the education of their children – which is why the Left so vehemently opposes it.

Though he sends his own children to private school, Obama cares more about pleasing his Big Labor campaign donors than he does about giving poor children a chance to escape failing schools and have the same opportunity as his daughters.

Jason R. Riley opines at the Wall Street Journal:

In his State of the Union address last month, President Obama spoke about the importance of kids staying in school and even urged states to raise the dropout age to 18. So it’s passing strange that his new $3.8 trillion budget provides no new money for a school voucher program in Washington, D.C., that is producing significantly higher graduation rates than the D.C. public school average.

The Opportunity Scholarship Program offers vouchers to low-income students to attend private schools. A 2010 study published by Patrick Wolf of the University of Arkansas found that the scholarship recipients had graduation rates of 91%. The graduation rate for D.C. public schools was 56%, and it was 70% for students who entered the lottery for a voucher but didn’t win.

Because the president’s teachers union allies are opposed to school choice for poor people, Mr. Obama ignores or downplays these findings. He repeatedly has tried to shutter the program, even though it is clearly advancing his stated goal of increasing graduation rates and closing the black-white achievement gap.

Read more at the Wall Street Journal

Obama’s Budget Kills DC’s Successful School Voucher Program, Increases Subsidy on a Car No One Wants to Buy

Obama’s Snubbing of D.C. Voucher Opportunity Scholarship Program Reveals His Priorities

Member of Education Establishment: Parents Don’t Know What’s Best for Their Children

[adrotate group=”53″]

National School Choice Week: Effective Educational Options For Every Child

View on YouTube

January 22-28 is National School Choice Week

Get involved at National School Choice Week

Time to Replace Top-Down Education Control with School Choice in Oregon

Support School Choice!

[adrotate group=”19″]

Union President Announces Plan to Take Over Charter Schools, Make Them ‘Ours’


If there’s one thing unions can’t stand, it’s competition.  Like true Marxists, they demand complete control of a complete monopoly, and will be satisfied with nothing less.

The Education Action Group reports at Big Government:

MINNESOTA — Charter schools are popping up all across the nation, with 41 states offering families access to the alternative public schools.

Because the large majority of charter schools are not unionized, they can focus solely on serving students instead of pacifying the financial demands of school employee unions.

The unions know they cannot stop the spread of charter schools, so they have decided to take them over.

Late last year, the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers decided to authorize its own charter schools. An email written by MFT President Lynn Nordgren and posted on Eduwonk.com explains the union’s decision.

“ … [C]harter schools are not going away despite 20 years of protesting,” Nordgren writes. “Because of this, it is time to figure out how to… stop the de-professionalization of teaching, the bleeding out of our unions and the miseducation of too many students… It is time to ‘get in the game’ and make it ours.”

We all know that “the miseducation” of students is really the unions’ specialty, and they guard it jealously.

Nordgren writes that the MFT’s decision to open charter schools will “keep our union responsibilities and rights as an option, and make sure teachers are respected and have a voice in the schools in which they work.”

Translation: the unions want charter schools to choke on all their rigid work rules, pay schedules and adult-centered demands which will render the alternative public schools no different than their government-run counterparts.

The union’s new philosophy about charter schools is simple: if you can’t beat ‘em, infiltrate and destroy them from within.


[adrotate group=”19″]

FreedomWorks Petition: Abolish the Federal Dept. of Education

Let your voice be heard!

Abolish the Federal Dept. of Education

Abolish the Federal Dept. of Education

Let’s bring education back home.

Bring education back to the states and local communities, eliminating the massive federal bureaucracy trying to dictate our children’s lives: The Federal Dept. of Education (DOE).

Since it began in 1979 the budget of the DOE has nearly quintupled to an astounding $69.9 billion, while the American education system continues a disappointed record of mediocrity. In recent annual PISA education rankings, American education was called “average” and commenting on the ranking USA Today lamented that “U.S. students trail global leaders.”

With consistently poor results, why should we allow the federal government to tax our money only to have the failing and expensive DOE return it back to the states?

Let’s bring our tax money back home. Let’s bring education back home. Sign the petition to support abolishing the Federal Dept. of Education!

Do We Need the Department of Education?

Time to Abolish the Unconstitutional Government School Monopoly

Abolish the Unconstitutional Department of Education

Learn more about Freedom of Education

Learn more about the Separation of School and State

[adrotate group=”19″]

Privatize the Schools

What the education industry needs more than anything is free market competition.   The only people schools should have to answer to are the customers they serve (parents and students), and the local school boards their customers elect to represent them.   Private schools have been able to not only educate with such a system, but do the job better than their bureaucrat-heavy public counterparts, and for a fraction of the cost.

Michael Espersen writes at PJ Media that “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem“:

In 2009, when President Barack Obama began his pitch to sell an overhaul of the nation’s health care system to the American public, conservatives of good conscience rallied together in opposition. We don’t need government to provide people with health care because it would raise costs, lower efficiency, and put unnecessary obstacles in between patients and their doctors, conservatives rightly said.

Conservatives understand the limitations of government, and that a proxy takeover of a private industry can only result in a disservice to the consumer. Conservatives know that government has no place in making demands of patients, their doctors, or their insurance providers. But why would government ever have a place in making demands of children? For decades, government has drastically increased its influence in the education of children in the K-12 setting, and for what? SAT scores are hitting all-time lows. The reality is that every single weekday in the United States, tens of millions of children sit in classrooms they don’t want to be in simply because the law demands it of them, and conservatives ought to begin the conversation of what is to be done about it.

The American model of education in modern times stands on the basis of an assortment of premises. Education is something all children deserve, so it should be free and accessible to everyone, the politicians say. It would be wrong to subject children to the risky ups and downs of the marketplace, they continue, so schools need to be protected and run by people who will run them in the interests of children and not for their own profit. Naturally, they go on, children aren’t sure of what they want to do when they grow up, so we should have them study a diverse array of topics and subjects to give them an idea of where they might want to direct their lives. Politicians want us to believe that an institution created on these premises is a model for success. There are few things further from the truth.

Problems are inherent in every single one of the premises listed above. However, before one can understand the problems that exist within the public school system, one must understand the nature of the market itself. In a free market there is a distinct relationship between two private parties, the consumer and the provider. The consumer enters the marketplace expecting to exit with something that he wants. Meanwhile, there are providers that have what he wants, and they engage in a peaceful war with one another for the honor of being deemed the superior provider of service by the consumer who pays whom he wills. The providers know that the consumer will only pay the provider whom he believes best serves his interests, so the providers increase quality, decrease prices, among other strategies to offer the consumer a better deal.

They do this not because they necessarily care about the consumer as a person, but because they want his business and know that if they don’t get it, someone else will. Soon, the consumer in need pays a provider in exchange for the service that he deems best serves his needs. The favored provider gets what he wants, and the consumer is equally satisfied. The only people harmed by the exchange are the providers who did not do a good enough job of helping the consumer. Voluntary cooperation between people looking to satisfy each other’s needs makes society better.

Sounds great, right? Sometimes government tells us things aren’t so great; it tells us it must intervene on behalf of the consumer, using euphemisms like “regulation” and “consumer protection” to make demands of providers. Without the government’s intrusion, providers will naturally seek to serve consumers in order to be patrons of their business, but when politicians tell them what to do the natural arrangement of the marketplace is no more. Providers can no longer use the fullness of their capacities in service of the consumer, they must now divert a part of those capacities in order to meet the arbitrary demands of statesmen. Providers now must serve two masters, the consumers, whom they would be serving anyway in order to receive payment, and the politicians, who pay them in nothing but demands. The end result is necessarily a loss for the consumer, who is now not as well off as he could have been.

Sometimes, government intrudes into the marketplace in an unprecedented way. Throughout history, government has completely taken over areas of service that would otherwise be private and turned them into a certain kind of public institution called a monopoly. A monopoly in this sense is an institution controlled by the government that is the sole provider, protected from competition, in a certain area of service.

The American K-12 public school system is a monopoly, since it is the primary forum by which children obtain an education.

Public schools are paid for by taxes and children attend them for free, not because school managers make them free but because government demands they be free. The price system is the mechanism by which providers keep each other in service to the consumer; providers lower prices in order to draw the attention of consumers to themselves and away from other providers. But when there are no prices, what empowers the consumer to choose what he thinks is best for himself, and thus employ providers that efficiently and easily supply it for him, is eradicated. When people no longer buy things on account of how much good it does them, but instead are simply handed something, they are made poorer, not richer. The public school monopoly is completely insulated from the needs of the consumers, them being the children and their parents. It has no reason to cater to anyone’s wants; it simply does what it does and whether or not people are satisfied is not even part of the equation. Whether they like it or not, they have to live with it. In this way, the monopoly will always, necessarily, be inferior to private enterprise.

Read more at PJ Media

Public Schools: Make Them Private

Children Pay The Price For Compulsory Education

If Only Government Schools Would Go Extinct

Vouchers ARE Government Money, and That’s the Problem

Free the Children, Cut the Budget: States have no business running schools

Keep government out of the schools

Katrina’s Silver Lining: The School Choice Revolution in New Orleans

Learn more about Freedom of Education

Learn more about the Separation of School and State

[adrotate group=”19″]

School Choice Week Jan 22 – 28th

Every parent deserves the right to chose where their children go to school!

View on YouTube

Get involved at National School Choice Week

Support School Choice!

[adrotate group=”19″]

Vouchers ARE Government Money, and That’s the Problem

I’ve always viewed vouchers as a temporary measure to wean people off of government schools by opening them up to the wide range of choices that can become possible when the current monopoly is broken.  But it’s also true that government money = government control, and that is why a lot of private schools would refuse to accept them even if they were offered.

Adam Schaeffer writes at the CATO Institute:

The recent decision of a Colorado court to halt a first-of-its-kind voucher system instituted by a local school district has, not surprisingly, been subjected to widespread criticism from school choice supporters.

The Heritage Foundation’s Rachel Sheffield, for instance, argues “The judge’s decision is the result of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union that claims that the program violates the law by providing public money to religious organizations. . . . In typical statist fashion, these claims are born from a philosophy that holds that the money you earn is in fact not yours to keep but instead belongs to the state.”

The problem with this argument, and with vouchers generally, is that voucher money DOESbelong to the state. The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn that Rachel cites here concerned an education tax credit program in Arizona, not a voucher program.

Vouchers are grants of government funds, while tax credits are private funds. The court held that money spent and claimed as a credit, which is never collected in taxes in the first place, remains private money, not government spending like school vouchers. Other taxpayers can’t be harmed by the choices of those claiming credits because each taxpayer gets to decide, individually, what happens to their own money.

Under vouchers, as Justice Kennedy explained, “a dissenter whose tax dollars are ‘extracted and spent’ knows that he has in some small measure been made to contribute to an establishment in violation of conscience. … [By contrast,] awarding some citizens a tax creditallows other citizens to retain control over their own funds in accordance with their own consciences.”

The challenge to the AZ education tax credit program failed because only private funds are involved. A taxpayer challenging a voucher program would have standing under this decision.

State constitutions typically include provisions that are much more restrictive of how state funds can be used in education and which pose much greater threats to voucher programs. Colorado’s court ruling, for instance, identified five separate legal problems with the Douglas County voucher program.

Part of the reason Colorado’s program was stopped in its tracks is a state constitutional provision that reads: “No appropriation shall be made for charitable, industrial, educational or benevolent purposes to any person, corporation or community not under the absolute control of the state, nor to any denominational or sectarian institution or association.”

There is certainly room for a different interpretation of this provision, but ruling that vouchers are in violation of it constitutes neither judicial activism nor statist thinking. Indeed, it could be argued that this is the more conservative, originalist interpretation.

There is simply no way around the fact that vouchers are government funds, subject to whatever constitutional and statutory restrictions a state may place on their use. In the case of education, these restrictions are many and serious.

The most recent and bracing conclusion comes, again, from Arizona. In 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in Caine v. Horne that voucher programs for disabled and foster children violated a state constitutional ban on aid to private schools because it was an expenditure of government funds. That same court previously upheld a state tax credit program on the grounds that the credits did not constitute an expenditure of government funds. The status of vouchers as government funds was key to the decisions overturning Colorado’s earlier voucher program in 2004 and Florida’s in 2006.

Unlike vouchers, education tax credit programs have withstood every state and federal challenge advanced against them over the past two decades. Major credit programs in Indiana, Florida, Georgia and Pennsylvania – to name a few – have yet to be challenged. And for good reason; they are on solid constitutional ground at both the state and federal level.

Using state money to fund private school choice with vouchers opens a world of serious and legitimate risks to which education tax credits are not vulnerable.

Free the Children, Cut the Budget: States have no business running schools

Keep government out of the schools

Learn more about Freedom of Education

Learn more about the Separation of School and State

[adrotate group=”19″]

Union Protesters Superglue Catholic School’s Doors Shut, Intimidate Staff & Students During Gov. Walker Visit

View on YouTube

Afraid of a little free market competition, are we?

The Blaze reports:

The doors of an inner city Milwaukee Catholic school were super glued shut Thursday ahead of a visit by Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

“Some of these folks super glued our front doors at the prep school,” Messmer Prepatory School President Br. Bob Smith told WTMJ Newsradio.

Smith said a woman was walking around in front of the school, urging people to protest Walker’s visit.

According to Smith, one protestor said, “‘Get ready for a riot,’ because they were going to disrupt the visit.”

Smith said the governor’s Friday visit to read to schoolchildren did not have any political overtones and was unrelated to any of the controversy surrounding Walker and union collective bargaining rights.

“People ought to start acting like adults,” Smith said. “You‘ve got little kids who have no clue what you’re talking about, and you make something political when it isn’t, that’s just flat-out wrong.”

In March, doors at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee were super glued shut before a campus rally to protest Walker’s budget.

Ed Morrissey observes at Hot Air:

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker visited Messmer Preparatory Catholic School yesterday, while the school repaired the first vandalism that had occurred at the facility in eleven years of operation.  While Walker read Dr. Seuss to the grade-school children inside, unions protested the visit and the school outside.  Want to guess which group was more well-behaved?  Actually, you don’t have to guess.  TheMacIver Institute shot video of the protest and the visit and then interviewed Messmer’s President, Brother Bob Smith.  We see childishness, petulance, and bullying — and then we see Messmer’s students (via Wisconsin Reporter)

It got ugly on the street outside the facility, which is no surprise, since Messmer is a “choice school” — an alternative to the union-gripped public school system. It’s an alternative that sends 85% of its high-school graduates to college. It’s also no surprise that “choice schools” threaten the union’s power in the state, which gave them extra added incentive to protest Walker’s visit … and to attempt to intimidate Messmer staff while doing so. The video provides a jarring disconnect between the well-behaved students on the inside and Brother Bob’s explanation of teaching positive discipline and self-control to the self-indulgent nastiness taking place on the sidewalk outside.

Read more at Hot Air

Wisconsin progressives attack charter school

Wisconsin union protesters disrupt Special Olympics event

Wisconsin Senate votes to end collective bargaining, union protestors storm capital building

Do Wisconsin’s Public Schools Deserve to Survive?

Teachers unions are the special interest blocking school choice

Support School Choice!

[adrotate block=”4″]

“Science” When It Suits Them: Progressives Oppose Intellectual Diversity

No group of voters or parents has the right to dictate to another group what their kids must be taught. In a free education market, parents could choose whatever schools supported their values without being forced to pay for a government-run monopoly that teaches only politically correct, government-approved material and attacks every traditional value and religious belief Americans hold dear.

This is a principle that even Darwinists who don’t believe in Creation, like David Harsanyi, can still recognize:

So every now and then, liberals are treated to a big self-righteous laugh at the expense of some backwoods Christian conservative candidate who “ignores science” by doubting evolution or global warming — or, gasp, both.

Much, for instance, has been made of Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s recent suggestion that evolution is a “theory that’s out there” with “gaps in it.” He even insinuated that evolution and creationism should both be taught in schools — because folks are “smart enough to figure out which one is right.”

Now, I have no interest in watching my kids waste their time with creationism, but unlike progressives, I have no interest in dictating what other kids should learn. Remember that these folks, bothered by the very thought of their offspring’s hearing a God-infused concept in school, have no problem forcing millions of parents to accept bureaucrat-written curricula at government-run school monopolies. They oppose home schooling. They oppose school choice. They oppose parents choosing a religious education with their tax dollars.

As a voter, like me, you may find Perry’s view on creationism disconcerting and a sign of an unsophisticated candidate. But the fact is that the progressives’ faith-based devotion to government is far more consequential than Perry’s faith-based position on evolution.

Despite the rare political dispute, in the real world, science — real science — is rarely controversial. It’s politicized science that is prickly. And science is easy to politicize. Maybe if schools began teaching students that “life” begins at conception and that each zygote, embryo and fetus is a unique human being in some early stage of development just waiting to be born, liberals would see the point.

No, my kids haven’t been chewing over Charles Darwin text or the Holy Bible in elementary school. There’s simply no time. Not with global warming out there.

Perry, not surprisingly, was also recently asked about “global warming.” He responded that “the issue has been politicized” and that pouring billions of dollars into “a scientific theory that has not been proven and … is more and more being put into question” is not worthwhile.

It is interesting watching the nation’s defenders of reason, empirical evidence and science fail to display a hint of skepticism over the transparently political “science” of global warming. Rarely are scientists so certain in predicting the future. Yet this is a special case. It is also curious that these supposed champions of Darwin don’t believe that human beings — or nature — have the ability to adapt to changing climate.

Like 99 percent of pundits and politicians, though, I have no business chiming in on the science of climate change — though my kids’ teachers sure are experts. Needless to say, there is a spectacular array of viewpoints on this issue. The answers are far from settled. There are debates over how much humans contribute. There are debates over how much warming we’re seeing. There are debates over many things.

But even if one believed the most terrifying projections of global warming alarmist “science,” it certainly doesn’t mean one has to support the anti-capitalist technocracy to fix it. And try as some may to conflate the two, global warming policy is not “science.” The left sees civilization’s salvation in a massive Luddite undertaking that inhibits technological growth by turning back the clock, undoing footprints, forcing technology that doesn’t exist, banning products that do and badgering consumers who have not adhered to the plan through all kinds of punishment. Yet there is no real science that has shown that any of it makes a whit of difference.

So no doubt, it is reasonable for voters to query presidential candidates about their views on faith, religion, God, Darwin and science. It matters. Sometimes, though, it matters less than they’d like you to think it does.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

If Only Government Schools Would Go Extinct

Time to Abolish the Unconstitutional Government School Monopoly

Learn more about Freedom of Education

Learn more about the Separation of School and State