FWIW, I think that traditional education should *not* be compulsory beyond middle school. I know this may sound crazy at first, but what really hampers public schools is their requirement to take on all comers. That means they basically are baby sitting a percentage of students who simply don't want to be there. This group is what I call the 'lowest common denominator' and this group is what sets the bar so to speak when it comes to acceptable knowledge for graduation. Schools aren't going to fail them they just move them on through despite their short comings. For those who don't want a traditional education they could be required to be enrolled in a trade school. Public schools could then concentrate on getting students ready for college.
Let's face it, a high school degree is not worth much. If that's all one has they probably would be better off with a trade school degree anyway.
How would that *not* enable massive educational iniquity?
Because it would enable people now stuck in bad (public) schools to have a choice to get out of them and find better ones for their kids. It might true that there will be inequity of outcomes...but there would be greater equity of opportunities. Furthermore, ven its most vehement supporters would scarcely claim that public schools offer equal quality of education across socioeconomic lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ
you people don't even want to guarantee a high level of education for all
First of all it is a fallacy to assume that you can "guarantee a high level of education for all". Second, implicit in your statement is the typical "one size fits all" philosophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ
lowers the price somewhat for those who can't afford a good school.
Somewhat?
Quote:
The United States Department of Education released a statement recently detailing the average cost per pupil in public and private schools and found that the average public school cost was approximately USD$7,200 per student while the average private school cost per pupil was just USD$3,500. The Department of Education also stated that less than 25% of private schools are considered "elite," costing more than $10,000 a year.
The United States Department of Education is saying that private schools are less costly (by more than half) per student than public schools!
You average statistic is bullshit. While it might be true, it does not reflect the REAL cost of schools to people of middle to low income -- the tax base for schools is property, far less than 50% of people with children in schools are paying that much. What this means, Chris, is that these families will be more than likely unable to afford the education their children currently get. Your proposed system makes things worse for average income earners.
Edit: Your house would have to be worth over $400000 for you to be paying the average public school tuition in property taxes a year, or $200000 for private tuition.
Education isn't a family by family venture, nor should it be. If your neighbor is more poorly educated, it affects you more directly than if they can afford a new boat or not...
I should note that your suggestion that people in the late 18th/mid-19th century were better educated is a bit of a turd. Access to education (formal) was limited to the wealthiest of the wealthy -- the subjects they covered were the classics: read latin and greek and NOTHING else. There was no formal training in math, at least not the the level and depth that we have, there was virtually NO science (perhaps you like that -- get rid of them thar science so dat mi kiddies don't hafta think), there was no literature per se -- the novel barely existed at that time period. Your statistics are as usual irrelevant in this regards, a sign of a well educated population is equity in literacy between genders and classes... you don't have statistics on women, i wonder why... Your statistics are more than likely white men in the 'reading' class.
So there you go... Your economic rational is weak -- average americans cannot afford public schools as is or even private schools. Your statistics are vague and not supportive of your arguments. Your statements on history are hopelessly unadvised, and your general view on this issue is wrong...
Children should be given every real opportunity in the world to get the best education possible. I went to one of the best high schools in the nation, it was public, its population was economically and racially diverse by order of the justice department, it was more work and more intense than the super elite college i attended afterward (which in comparison was a cake walk). My parents could have easily afforded to send me to a nationally known private school (in fact they offered as much), but I got the best education I could have at my local high school. Hands down.
For further proof: Look at the charter schools which have failed completely in every local I have ever lived. Sure, there may be some, somewhere, that provide a good alternative... but they don't live up to the standards of the public school they replace (on average)...
You average statistic is bullshit. While it might be true, it does not reflect the REAL cost of schools to people of middle to low income -- the tax base for schools is property, far less than 50% of people with children in schools are paying that much. What this means, Chris, is that these families will be more than likely unable to afford the education their children currently get. Your proposed system makes things worse for average income earners.
OK. You're right. Let's just continue with bandaging the marvelously effective system we have now.
It might true that there will be inequity of outcomes...but there would be greater equity of opportunities.
If I understand, you prefer to eliminate public schools. Taxes would drop drastically, but many low income households would not be able to afford the cost of school. True, the private sector would step in, but it would not work for all, and mean applying for financial aid, which is more red tape for the poor.
What is your opinion of a voucher system? Every child has a voucher for public education, but it may be used for say $3000 toward tuition at a private school. This is less than half the cost of a student in a typical public school. Since I sent my son to both elementary and high schools for less than this amount, every family would have a choice, which is what you appear to want.
The impact on the current system should be minimal, and a transition to more private school would occur naturally, through supply and demand. At first, there will be waiting lists for private schools, and many would have to continue attending public schools. As more private schools become available, the transition would begin.
The argument against vouchers is that it would deprive public schools of adequate funding. True, but not in the way opponents make it sound. Right now, Portland Public Schools is adjusting to smaller enrollments, which is like the impact of a voucher system and shift to private schools. Only, in the case of Portland, it is mostly a shift of school aged population to suburban schools. I suspect there is also a shift to private schools within the city of Portland. Property values have skyrocketed, and the typical household income may now be higher here than in the suburbs.
The declining of public school enrollment is being dealt with in Portland, and is not causing an unmanageable problem. The school district is closing some schools and selling the property. In one case, a former public school building was purchased by a private high school, because they needed to expand.
How 'bout we actually have reforms unimpeded by the cynical anti-education lobby?
Every good reform is hindered by people who don't believe that the schools are worth it...
We have been "reforming" things for decades now. This might be an indication that we are trying to make a silk purse from a sows ear. Have you even stopped to consider the possibility that the system as it currently existed in fundamentally flawed? Or are you simply blinded by your own assumptions of what it is and should be? Have you even tried to consider the other possibilities beyond superficial, pithy dismissals of them?
If I understand, you prefer to eliminate public schools.
I think that, on the whole, a private, competitive, free-market system of schools will provide the greatest benefits for the greatest number of people, with the greatest number of options and flexibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
but many low income households would not be able to afford the cost of school.
Probably not as many as the chicken-littles would have us believe...and there would solutions for these.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
True, the private sector would step in, but it would not work for all,
Why do you assume this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
What is your opinion of a voucher system?
Voucher systems might be a step in the right direction...but still not a complete solution...a couple of reasons:
1. It seems to not be granular enough...what if you want to do more than simply choose school B over school A? What if you want to choose the math program from school A, the history program from school C, the science program from school D, etc.? Well, then you can sub-divide the "voucher" into "voucher units" or some such thing...but now you have just created a new currency system. Why? You've simply made things more complicated. Why not just let people have their money and let them choose...if enforcement is any issue...testing is a way to handle this. Also, can I use them for home school expenses? How so? How regulated will this be (see next point)?
2. Vouchers still have government as the intermediary...meaning that government gets to control what you do/don't spend the "money" on. This gets really tricky...and already most people recoil in horror that anyone might be able to use the "taxpayer's" money to send their kid to a religious school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
The impact on the current system should be minimal, and a transition to more private school would occur naturally, through supply and demand.
As a transitional step...I agree. Better than nothing. My goal would be for complete freedom for parents...and no government intervention (short of some kind of limited testing to ensure parents are not neglecting their kids education).
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
The argument against vouchers is that it would deprive public schools of adequate funding.
Only for the one's that probably should be deprived of it because they are not meeting the desires and demands of parents and students. So be it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
The declining of public school enrollment is being dealt with in Portland
The way declining enrollment was dealt with on Colorado a couple of years ago was to ask for more money due to some bizarre reasoning that because they had fewer kids, they needed more money (it passed)...in fact they used the opposite reasoning in two consecutive years! They both passed. I guess the public schools' failure to educate generations in any sort of logical thinking and reasoning is beginning to pay off now.
We have been "reforming" things for decades now. This might be an indication that we are trying to make a silk purse from a sows ear. Have you even stopped to consider the possibility that the system as it currently existed in fundamentally flawed? Or are you simply blinded by your own assumptions of what it is and should be? Have you even tried to consider the other possibilities beyond superficial, pithy dismissals of them?
Eat it, Chris.
Serious, fact based reform efforts have not been underway for any amount of time. We refuse to study the issues at hand, the government doesn't support studies of this sort; that is a problem.
If the institution was fundamentally flawed there wouldn't be an increasing number of people attending college...
Vouchers historically stem from post-Little Rock Southern Whites attempts to find 'legitimate' means to maintain segregation under the auspices of 'equal opportunity' and 'random' selections.
I don't believe that current attempts have the same racist background, however they are a bandage on a system rather than a fix. Vouchers or similar 'reforms' don't actually fix things, they attempt to avoid the problem (originally blacks, now ... presumably poor schools?). Truthfully, like charter schools energies would be better directed at integrated approaches to improving poor schools.
You also have to remember that schools in rural areas are also quite poor, and opportunities to find outside educational choices are limited...
Probably not as many as the chicken-littles would have us believe...and there would solutions for these. . . Why do you assume this?
I stated my point poorly, and you may be correct, that there are few very poor families who could not afford private school at all. I was considering low income households in general, often with many children. Private education would be an extreme hardship on such families. Private school do try to help with scholarships, but it requires a lot of volunteer work for just a few families. With all children going to private schools, I think it would not work, from what I have seen. My son's schools provided scholarships, and my wife put in many hours working on it, for not many families. (Who by the way did not show up to help, but considered it an entitlement, I guess.)
Quote:
Voucher systems might be a step in the right direction...but still not a complete solution...a couple of reasons:
1. It seems to not be granular enough...what if you want to do more than simply choose school B over school A? What if you want to choose the math program from school A, the history program from school C, the science program from school D, etc.?
I think your argument may be off a little here. Even with all private schools, few would go to three different schools for their classes. If they do, it can be worked out as in my son's high school. His school handled the details with the other school, not the parents. I don't know how it worked. Maybe the schools traded favors somehow?
Quote:
Well, then you can sub-divide the "voucher" into "voucher units" or some such thing...but now you have just created a new currency system. Why? You've simply made things more complicated.
I don't envision an actual piece of paper voucher. Whatever school a child attends simply gets a payment from the educational department, which are from tax dollars set aside for education. If the family moves and the child transfers schools, the funds go to the school the child actually attends. You are right that religious schools create a 'potential' problem, which would need to be worked out in advance. It could take special legislation.
Quote:
The way declining enrollment was dealt with on Colorado a couple of years ago was to ask for more money due to some bizarre reasoning that because they had fewer kids, they needed more money (it passed)...in fact they used the opposite reasoning in two consecutive years! They both passed. I guess the public schools' failure to educate generations in any sort of logical thinking and reasoning is beginning to pay off now.
Such tactics have been used here too. It is fortunate that the new head of Portland schools has enough common sense to solve the problem reasonably.
hardeeharhar, why don't you just admit that you are opposed to parents having a full range of choices in how they educate their kids. It really is that simple. That's fine. It's your right. But don't try to hide behind a smoke screen of justifications for this basic position that you hold. Dare I say that (on this issue) you are "anti-choice"?
With all children going to private schools, I think it would not work, from what I have seen.
I think it would work better than many people believe. Some people are scared. Some people simply don't wish to allow this kind of freedom. Lots of varying motives to maintain the status quo on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
Even with all private schools, few would go to three different schools for their classes.
Perhaps. But why the limitation at all. Some will choose. More may if they could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
If they do, it can be worked out as in my son's high school. His school handled the details with the other school, not the parents.
But why? Why couldn't we just let parents choose for themselves instead of relying on behind the scenes trades that may or may not happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
I don't envision an actual piece of paper voucher. Whatever school a child attends simply gets a payment from the educational department, which are from tax dollars set aside for education. If the family moves and the child transfers schools, the funds go to the school the child actually attends.
I understand that. I think you may have misunderstood me. My comment had little to do with "paper" of any kind. The point was that if you start doing things like sub-dividing the "vouchers" into (smaller) "units"...you effectively have created a new, alternative currency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
You are right that religious schools create a 'potential' problem, which would need to be worked out in advance. It could take special legislation.
Once again...much complexity and rules and regulations to try and accomodate what should be a simple thing. Let parents keep the money and decide for themselves. No special legislation is required to allow parents the freedom of sending their kids to whatever school (religious or otherwise) they want to.
In the end it all seems like we're trying to erect this elaborate obstacle course for what seems to be the primary purpose of maintaining the current system (government-funded and operated schools).
hardeeharhar, why don't you just admit that you are opposed to parents having a full range of choices in how they educate their kids. It really is that simple. That's fine. It's your right. But don't try to hide behind a smoke screen of justifications for this basic position that you hold. Dare I say that (on this issue) you are "anti-choice"?
Your system of choice is the same system of choice now. People can use their economic positions to move into nicer neighborhoods with nicer schools. No one is preventing them from doing so...
Or as in your case, people can use their economic position to enroll their children in nicer schools in nicer neighborhoods. They are the same.
I think that parents shouldn't have to make a choice. I want a system which is truly equitable, and that system can never exist when it is entirely privatized, and vouchers, charter schools and the like are simply wasted energy away from that goal.
Let's face it. You would rather have the wealthier "many" have a choice at the expense of the poorer 'few." You are a classist.
Your system of choice is the same system of choice now.
Incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
People can use their economic positions to move into nicer neighborhoods with nicer schools.
That is not what I am talking about. Clearly people can (within limits) do this now. Why should anyone be forced to move to change schools? Answer me that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
Or as in your case, people can use their economic position to enroll their children in nicer schools in nicer neighborhoods. They are the same.
No they are not. Under my suggestion, no one would be forced to mvoe or change home or neighborhoods to choose a different school. Furthermore, new schools that currently do not exist would come into existence to meet new and different needs that emerge from the new freedom of choice (and the economic reality that goes along with that).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
I think that parents shouldn't have to make a choice.
So? Just because you don't think they should have to does not provide substantive rationale for preventing them from doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
I want a system which is truly equitable,
That doesn't exist now. Not even close. In a private, competitive system, the variety of choices would expand, the quality would increase and the costs would go down. All of these things would benefit all "customers" (rich and poor).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
and vouchers, charter schools and the like are simply wasted energy away from that goal.
Wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
You would rather have the wealthier "many" have a choice at the expense of the poorer 'few." You are a classist.
Wrong.
What makes you so afraid of giving people this freedom?
Capitalism is not an equitable system, any claims otherwise are signs of intense naiveté. Your system cannot be fair, students of wealthier individuals living near businesses, er, schools, will have a better chance at getting a quality education than students of even moderate means.
Look at public versus private colleges for a taste of what would occur under your system...
Edit: Capitalism does not increase quality. It increases profit for business owners. Quality, in fact, goes down as items become more profitable. Privatized educational systems will suffer from the same economics -- pressure to keep costs down and profits high with no real judgement of educational value. Capitalism also doesn't work well when you have a service contract type setting -- each student will presumably be required to sign a contract for attendance for a year. Do you honestly expect parents to be able to evaluate, accurately, the educational value their students are receiving and act on that every year? Do you honestly expect schools to appear as needed to provide the proper amount of education at the appropriate economic levels if there are failing schools? Your proposition is as stupid as it is naive....
Capitalism is not an equitable system, any claims otherwise are signs of intense naiveté. Your system cannot be fair, students of wealthier individuals living near businesses, er, schools, will have a better chance at getting a quality education than students of even moderate means.
Look at public versus private colleges for a taste of what would occur under your system...
You are evading the question:
What makes you so afraid of giving people this freedom?
or, put another way...
Do you really think that giving parents a choice in the schooling for the children is a bad thing?
Since you are evading my direct questions, let me add a couple more...
Kids (people in general) need food, clothing and shelter too (in addition to education)...why don't we nationalize/socialize/governmentize the acquisition of these things? Why should we leave these to the free-market when it is obvious that everyone will not be able to get the same (equitable) level of food, clothing and shelter?
What makes you so afraid of giving people this freedom?
or, put another way...
Do you really think that giving parents a choice in the schooling for the children is a bad thing?
Since you are evading my direct questions, let me add a couple more...
Kids (people in general) need food, clothing and shelter too (in addition to education)...why don't we nationalize/socialize/governmentize the acquisition of these things? Why should we leave these to the free-market when it is obvious that everyone will not be able to get the same (equitable) level of food, clothing and shelter?
Parents have a choice in schooling their children. If there was a market for low cost private school education, such institutions would exist. Oh wait. There isn't... You see, your entire argument depends upon the shutting down of public schools to create a market that doesn't naturally exist.
Education is fundamentally different than all other exchanged goods. Quality of education actually legitimately affects the course of a persons life. In very few cases (for which we do actually provide government money towards) do food, clothing, and shelter matter in this manner. A person wearing a $20 shirt will not be significantly more clothed than a person wearing a $1 shirt. A person with a quality education will be significantly more educated than a person with a bad education. See the difference? Capitalism works fine when the market doesn't deal with things that actually matter for a person's livelihood -- and there are very few things that do, one really. It isn't like you can choose NOT to eat sushi every night, that choice will never exist for education.
Parents have a choice in schooling their children. If there was a market for low cost private school education, such institutions would exist. Oh wait. There isn't...You see, your entire argument depends upon the shutting down of public schools to create a market that doesn't naturally exist.
Now you are simply being either stupid or dishonest. Which is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
Education is fundamentally different than all other exchanged goods.
No it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
Quality of education actually legitimately affects the course of a persons life.
As does proper food, clothing and shelter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
In very few cases (for which we do actually provide government money towards) do food, clothing, and shelter matter in this manner.
Wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
Capitalism works fine when the market doesn't deal with things that actually matter for a person's livelihood
This is such a stupid (or wilfully dishonest) statement I cannot even imagine where to begin refuting it.
Since you have now demonstrated:
a) Your complete lack of understanding or recognition of reality, and
b) A refusal to answer direct questions, and
c) A willingness to be completely dishonest...
There doesn't seem to be any point in continuing this.
But...if you'd like to continue, you can answer these questions:
- Do you really think that giving parents a choice in the schooling for the children is a bad thing?
- What makes you so afraid of giving people this freedom?
You are smoking crack again, Chris. Seriously lay off the pipe. I am not wrong about clothing/food, and you know it. I have answered your question time and time again, and you refuse to acknowledge it. What about the way things are now that prevents entrepreneurs from starting private schools that do exactly what you think they should do? There isn't anything at all that does, so the lack of a large private educational enterprise indicates that there isn't a market for it -- if you disagree with this statement, then you really don't understand capitalism...
Edit: Chris, what exchangeable item allows people without any tools to recreate it? There is only one... Hint: it is education, you dimwit, and thus education is unique...
Comments
Let's face it, a high school degree is not worth much. If that's all one has they probably would be better off with a trade school degree anyway.
How would that *not* enable massive educational iniquity?
Because it would enable people now stuck in bad (public) schools to have a choice to get out of them and find better ones for their kids. It might true that there will be inequity of outcomes...but there would be greater equity of opportunities. Furthermore, ven its most vehement supporters would scarcely claim that public schools offer equal quality of education across socioeconomic lines.
you people don't even want to guarantee a high level of education for all
First of all it is a fallacy to assume that you can "guarantee a high level of education for all". Second, implicit in your statement is the typical "one size fits all" philosophy.
lowers the price somewhat for those who can't afford a good school.
Somewhat?
The United States Department of Education released a statement recently detailing the average cost per pupil in public and private schools and found that the average public school cost was approximately USD$7,200 per student while the average private school cost per pupil was just USD$3,500. The Department of Education also stated that less than 25% of private schools are considered "elite," costing more than $10,000 a year.
The United States Department of Education is saying that private schools are less costly (by more than half) per student than public schools!
Edit: Your house would have to be worth over $400000 for you to be paying the average public school tuition in property taxes a year, or $200000 for private tuition.
Education isn't a family by family venture, nor should it be. If your neighbor is more poorly educated, it affects you more directly than if they can afford a new boat or not...
I should note that your suggestion that people in the late 18th/mid-19th century were better educated is a bit of a turd. Access to education (formal) was limited to the wealthiest of the wealthy -- the subjects they covered were the classics: read latin and greek and NOTHING else. There was no formal training in math, at least not the the level and depth that we have, there was virtually NO science (perhaps you like that -- get rid of them thar science so dat mi kiddies don't hafta think), there was no literature per se -- the novel barely existed at that time period. Your statistics are as usual irrelevant in this regards, a sign of a well educated population is equity in literacy between genders and classes... you don't have statistics on women, i wonder why... Your statistics are more than likely white men in the 'reading' class.
So there you go... Your economic rational is weak -- average americans cannot afford public schools as is or even private schools. Your statistics are vague and not supportive of your arguments. Your statements on history are hopelessly unadvised, and your general view on this issue is wrong...
Children should be given every real opportunity in the world to get the best education possible. I went to one of the best high schools in the nation, it was public, its population was economically and racially diverse by order of the justice department, it was more work and more intense than the super elite college i attended afterward (which in comparison was a cake walk). My parents could have easily afforded to send me to a nationally known private school (in fact they offered as much), but I got the best education I could have at my local high school. Hands down.
For further proof: Look at the charter schools which have failed completely in every local I have ever lived. Sure, there may be some, somewhere, that provide a good alternative... but they don't live up to the standards of the public school they replace (on average)...
You average statistic is bullshit. While it might be true, it does not reflect the REAL cost of schools to people of middle to low income -- the tax base for schools is property, far less than 50% of people with children in schools are paying that much. What this means, Chris, is that these families will be more than likely unable to afford the education their children currently get. Your proposed system makes things worse for average income earners.
OK. You're right. Let's just continue with bandaging the marvelously effective system we have now.
It might true that there will be inequity of outcomes...but there would be greater equity of opportunities.
If I understand, you prefer to eliminate public schools. Taxes would drop drastically, but many low income households would not be able to afford the cost of school. True, the private sector would step in, but it would not work for all, and mean applying for financial aid, which is more red tape for the poor.
What is your opinion of a voucher system? Every child has a voucher for public education, but it may be used for say $3000 toward tuition at a private school. This is less than half the cost of a student in a typical public school. Since I sent my son to both elementary and high schools for less than this amount, every family would have a choice, which is what you appear to want.
The impact on the current system should be minimal, and a transition to more private school would occur naturally, through supply and demand. At first, there will be waiting lists for private schools, and many would have to continue attending public schools. As more private schools become available, the transition would begin.
The argument against vouchers is that it would deprive public schools of adequate funding. True, but not in the way opponents make it sound. Right now, Portland Public Schools is adjusting to smaller enrollments, which is like the impact of a voucher system and shift to private schools. Only, in the case of Portland, it is mostly a shift of school aged population to suburban schools. I suspect there is also a shift to private schools within the city of Portland. Property values have skyrocketed, and the typical household income may now be higher here than in the suburbs.
The declining of public school enrollment is being dealt with in Portland, and is not causing an unmanageable problem. The school district is closing some schools and selling the property. In one case, a former public school building was purchased by a private high school, because they needed to expand.
OK. You're right. Let's just continue with bandaging the marvelously effective system we have now.
How 'bout we actually have reforms unimpeded by the cynical anti-education lobby?
Every good reform is hindered by people who don't believe that the schools are worth it...
How 'bout we actually have reforms unimpeded by the cynical anti-education lobby?
Every good reform is hindered by people who don't believe that the schools are worth it...
We have been "reforming" things for decades now. This might be an indication that we are trying to make a silk purse from a sows ear. Have you even stopped to consider the possibility that the system as it currently existed in fundamentally flawed? Or are you simply blinded by your own assumptions of what it is and should be? Have you even tried to consider the other possibilities beyond superficial, pithy dismissals of them?
If I understand, you prefer to eliminate public schools.
I think that, on the whole, a private, competitive, free-market system of schools will provide the greatest benefits for the greatest number of people, with the greatest number of options and flexibility.
but many low income households would not be able to afford the cost of school.
Probably not as many as the chicken-littles would have us believe...and there would solutions for these.
True, the private sector would step in, but it would not work for all,
Why do you assume this?
What is your opinion of a voucher system?
Voucher systems might be a step in the right direction...but still not a complete solution...a couple of reasons:
1. It seems to not be granular enough...what if you want to do more than simply choose school B over school A? What if you want to choose the math program from school A, the history program from school C, the science program from school D, etc.? Well, then you can sub-divide the "voucher" into "voucher units" or some such thing...but now you have just created a new currency system. Why? You've simply made things more complicated. Why not just let people have their money and let them choose...if enforcement is any issue...testing is a way to handle this. Also, can I use them for home school expenses? How so? How regulated will this be (see next point)?
2. Vouchers still have government as the intermediary...meaning that government gets to control what you do/don't spend the "money" on. This gets really tricky...and already most people recoil in horror that anyone might be able to use the "taxpayer's" money to send their kid to a religious school.
The impact on the current system should be minimal, and a transition to more private school would occur naturally, through supply and demand.
As a transitional step...I agree. Better than nothing. My goal would be for complete freedom for parents...and no government intervention (short of some kind of limited testing to ensure parents are not neglecting their kids education).
The argument against vouchers is that it would deprive public schools of adequate funding.
Only for the one's that probably should be deprived of it because they are not meeting the desires and demands of parents and students. So be it.
The declining of public school enrollment is being dealt with in Portland
We have been "reforming" things for decades now. This might be an indication that we are trying to make a silk purse from a sows ear. Have you even stopped to consider the possibility that the system as it currently existed in fundamentally flawed? Or are you simply blinded by your own assumptions of what it is and should be? Have you even tried to consider the other possibilities beyond superficial, pithy dismissals of them?
Eat it, Chris.
Serious, fact based reform efforts have not been underway for any amount of time. We refuse to study the issues at hand, the government doesn't support studies of this sort; that is a problem.
If the institution was fundamentally flawed there wouldn't be an increasing number of people attending college...
Edit:
What assumptions do I have, Chris?
I don't believe that current attempts have the same racist background, however they are a bandage on a system rather than a fix. Vouchers or similar 'reforms' don't actually fix things, they attempt to avoid the problem (originally blacks, now ... presumably poor schools?). Truthfully, like charter schools energies would be better directed at integrated approaches to improving poor schools.
You also have to remember that schools in rural areas are also quite poor, and opportunities to find outside educational choices are limited...
Probably not as many as the chicken-littles would have us believe...and there would solutions for these. . . Why do you assume this?
I stated my point poorly, and you may be correct, that there are few very poor families who could not afford private school at all. I was considering low income households in general, often with many children. Private education would be an extreme hardship on such families. Private school do try to help with scholarships, but it requires a lot of volunteer work for just a few families. With all children going to private schools, I think it would not work, from what I have seen. My son's schools provided scholarships, and my wife put in many hours working on it, for not many families. (Who by the way did not show up to help, but considered it an entitlement, I guess.)
Voucher systems might be a step in the right direction...but still not a complete solution...a couple of reasons:
1. It seems to not be granular enough...what if you want to do more than simply choose school B over school A? What if you want to choose the math program from school A, the history program from school C, the science program from school D, etc.?
I think your argument may be off a little here. Even with all private schools, few would go to three different schools for their classes. If they do, it can be worked out as in my son's high school. His school handled the details with the other school, not the parents. I don't know how it worked. Maybe the schools traded favors somehow?
Well, then you can sub-divide the "voucher" into "voucher units" or some such thing...but now you have just created a new currency system. Why? You've simply made things more complicated.
I don't envision an actual piece of paper voucher. Whatever school a child attends simply gets a payment from the educational department, which are from tax dollars set aside for education. If the family moves and the child transfers schools, the funds go to the school the child actually attends. You are right that religious schools create a 'potential' problem, which would need to be worked out in advance. It could take special legislation.
Such tactics have been used here too. It is fortunate that the new head of Portland schools has enough common sense to solve the problem reasonably.
With all children going to private schools, I think it would not work, from what I have seen.
I think it would work better than many people believe. Some people are scared. Some people simply don't wish to allow this kind of freedom. Lots of varying motives to maintain the status quo on this.
Even with all private schools, few would go to three different schools for their classes.
Perhaps. But why the limitation at all. Some will choose. More may if they could.
If they do, it can be worked out as in my son's high school. His school handled the details with the other school, not the parents.
But why? Why couldn't we just let parents choose for themselves instead of relying on behind the scenes trades that may or may not happen?
I don't envision an actual piece of paper voucher. Whatever school a child attends simply gets a payment from the educational department, which are from tax dollars set aside for education. If the family moves and the child transfers schools, the funds go to the school the child actually attends.
I understand that. I think you may have misunderstood me. My comment had little to do with "paper" of any kind. The point was that if you start doing things like sub-dividing the "vouchers" into (smaller) "units"...you effectively have created a new, alternative currency.
You are right that religious schools create a 'potential' problem, which would need to be worked out in advance. It could take special legislation.
Once again...much complexity and rules and regulations to try and accomodate what should be a simple thing. Let parents keep the money and decide for themselves. No special legislation is required to allow parents the freedom of sending their kids to whatever school (religious or otherwise) they want to.
In the end it all seems like we're trying to erect this elaborate obstacle course for what seems to be the primary purpose of maintaining the current system (government-funded and operated schools).
hardeeharhar, why don't you just admit that you are opposed to parents having a full range of choices in how they educate their kids. It really is that simple. That's fine. It's your right. But don't try to hide behind a smoke screen of justifications for this basic position that you hold. Dare I say that (on this issue) you are "anti-choice"?
Your system of choice is the same system of choice now. People can use their economic positions to move into nicer neighborhoods with nicer schools. No one is preventing them from doing so...
Or as in your case, people can use their economic position to enroll their children in nicer schools in nicer neighborhoods. They are the same.
I think that parents shouldn't have to make a choice. I want a system which is truly equitable, and that system can never exist when it is entirely privatized, and vouchers, charter schools and the like are simply wasted energy away from that goal.
Let's face it. You would rather have the wealthier "many" have a choice at the expense of the poorer 'few." You are a classist.
Your system of choice is the same system of choice now.
Incorrect.
People can use their economic positions to move into nicer neighborhoods with nicer schools.
That is not what I am talking about. Clearly people can (within limits) do this now. Why should anyone be forced to move to change schools? Answer me that.
Or as in your case, people can use their economic position to enroll their children in nicer schools in nicer neighborhoods. They are the same.
No they are not. Under my suggestion, no one would be forced to mvoe or change home or neighborhoods to choose a different school. Furthermore, new schools that currently do not exist would come into existence to meet new and different needs that emerge from the new freedom of choice (and the economic reality that goes along with that).
I think that parents shouldn't have to make a choice.
So? Just because you don't think they should have to does not provide substantive rationale for preventing them from doing so.
I want a system which is truly equitable,
That doesn't exist now. Not even close. In a private, competitive system, the variety of choices would expand, the quality would increase and the costs would go down. All of these things would benefit all "customers" (rich and poor).
and vouchers, charter schools and the like are simply wasted energy away from that goal.
Wrong.
You would rather have the wealthier "many" have a choice at the expense of the poorer 'few." You are a classist.
Wrong.
What makes you so afraid of giving people this freedom?
Capitalism is not an equitable system, any claims otherwise are signs of intense naiveté. Your system cannot be fair, students of wealthier individuals living near businesses, er, schools, will have a better chance at getting a quality education than students of even moderate means.
Look at public versus private colleges for a taste of what would occur under your system...
Edit: Capitalism does not increase quality. It increases profit for business owners. Quality, in fact, goes down as items become more profitable. Privatized educational systems will suffer from the same economics -- pressure to keep costs down and profits high with no real judgement of educational value. Capitalism also doesn't work well when you have a service contract type setting -- each student will presumably be required to sign a contract for attendance for a year. Do you honestly expect parents to be able to evaluate, accurately, the educational value their students are receiving and act on that every year? Do you honestly expect schools to appear as needed to provide the proper amount of education at the appropriate economic levels if there are failing schools? Your proposition is as stupid as it is naive....
You are full of shit.
Capitalism is not an equitable system, any claims otherwise are signs of intense naiveté. Your system cannot be fair, students of wealthier individuals living near businesses, er, schools, will have a better chance at getting a quality education than students of even moderate means.
Look at public versus private colleges for a taste of what would occur under your system...
You are evading the question:
What makes you so afraid of giving people this freedom?
or, put another way...
Do you really think that giving parents a choice in the schooling for the children is a bad thing?
Since you are evading my direct questions, let me add a couple more...
Kids (people in general) need food, clothing and shelter too (in addition to education)...why don't we nationalize/socialize/governmentize the acquisition of these things? Why should we leave these to the free-market when it is obvious that everyone will not be able to get the same (equitable) level of food, clothing and shelter?
You are evading the question:
What makes you so afraid of giving people this freedom?
or, put another way...
Do you really think that giving parents a choice in the schooling for the children is a bad thing?
Since you are evading my direct questions, let me add a couple more...
Kids (people in general) need food, clothing and shelter too (in addition to education)...why don't we nationalize/socialize/governmentize the acquisition of these things? Why should we leave these to the free-market when it is obvious that everyone will not be able to get the same (equitable) level of food, clothing and shelter?
Parents have a choice in schooling their children. If there was a market for low cost private school education, such institutions would exist. Oh wait. There isn't... You see, your entire argument depends upon the shutting down of public schools to create a market that doesn't naturally exist.
Education is fundamentally different than all other exchanged goods. Quality of education actually legitimately affects the course of a persons life. In very few cases (for which we do actually provide government money towards) do food, clothing, and shelter matter in this manner. A person wearing a $20 shirt will not be significantly more clothed than a person wearing a $1 shirt. A person with a quality education will be significantly more educated than a person with a bad education. See the difference? Capitalism works fine when the market doesn't deal with things that actually matter for a person's livelihood -- and there are very few things that do, one really. It isn't like you can choose NOT to eat sushi every night, that choice will never exist for education.
Parents have a choice in schooling their children. If there was a market for low cost private school education, such institutions would exist. Oh wait. There isn't...You see, your entire argument depends upon the shutting down of public schools to create a market that doesn't naturally exist.
Now you are simply being either stupid or dishonest. Which is it?
Education is fundamentally different than all other exchanged goods.
No it isn't.
Quality of education actually legitimately affects the course of a persons life.
As does proper food, clothing and shelter.
In very few cases (for which we do actually provide government money towards) do food, clothing, and shelter matter in this manner.
Wrong.
Capitalism works fine when the market doesn't deal with things that actually matter for a person's livelihood
This is such a stupid (or wilfully dishonest) statement I cannot even imagine where to begin refuting it.
Since you have now demonstrated:
a) Your complete lack of understanding or recognition of reality, and
b) A refusal to answer direct questions, and
c) A willingness to be completely dishonest...
There doesn't seem to be any point in continuing this.
But...if you'd like to continue, you can answer these questions:
- Do you really think that giving parents a choice in the schooling for the children is a bad thing?
- What makes you so afraid of giving people this freedom?
Edit: Chris, what exchangeable item allows people without any tools to recreate it? There is only one... Hint: it is education, you dimwit, and thus education is unique...