public school choice - the only sane approach

[natedogg]

Read the article before you comment. I'm curious to see how anyone can continue to oppose school choice after reading an article like this.

http://reason.com/0001/fe.ml.rampaging.shtml

natedogg

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious to see how anyone can continue to oppose school choice after reading an article like this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Easy. Join the teacher's union.

[lastchance]

Or live in a place with a decent school system. :P

Admittedly, this does not describe most inner-city schools, as well as certain states...

You wonder why they use DC for an example, and the answer is pretty obvious: DC public school system is crap.

The worse the regular public school system, the better private and charter schools look by comparison.

Just pointing out some of the bias in the article. Definitely agree with the conclusion though.

Also, "Bible-based values" is kind of a warning bell.

Reason.com is a libertarian site. I tend to be a centrist. A communist to some, and a fascist to others. You should look at sites which offer points of view which differ from yours. Also, you should take into account from where you read each article. EG, if the Los Angeles Times wrote it, you can bet it leans to the FAR left. If you got it from Rush Limbaugh, it came from the FAR right.

One other thing, there is one thing the article cannot refute, and it is a mathematical truth. People who already pay for private schooling will now get money back for doing nothing. They made the choice to pay extra instead of letting state tax take care of it, and if the voucher system goes through, they will get money back. Also, those who opt for private schools have more money to spend, and therefore the price of education is less overall fro them (in opportunity costs.) In other words, it's a tax break for the rich!

[lehighguy]

I was unaware that there were any good public schools. Having gone to a "good" school district in the suburbs, I doubt they even exist.

[lehighguy]

This is the stupidest line of reasoning I've ever heard. Ever. I'm not even going to get into how stupid it is because a million other people are going to jump onto this and flame you for me.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
One other thing, there is one thing the article cannot refute, and it is a mathematical truth. People who already pay for private schooling will now get money back for doing nothing. They made the choice to pay extra instead of letting state tax take care of it, and if the voucher system goes through, they will get money back. Also, those who opt for private schools have more money to spend, and therefore the price of education is less overall fro them (in opportunity costs.) In other words, it's a tax break for the rich!

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that the government has a prescription drug program, is that a tax cut for the rich if they can qualify, like they do for social security? I have to say Abe, that argument is rather weak. If you oppose school choice, you need to find a better arguement than that one.

[Analyst]

Of greater concern to me, and something that I've almost never seen discussed, is the impact of vouchers on the price of private schooling. Does anyone doubt that private schools, at least in areas such as mine where demand is high, would raise their prices in response to the widespread availability of vouchers?

In the short term, at least, demand would increase while supply remained constant, and prices would of necessity increase. Rich people will get a break, some middle-income people who had been on the margin will now be able to afford private schooling, but I suspect that lower-income families will remain, for the most part, shut out.

Long term is potentially a different story, depending on how the supply of (hopefully high quality, but perhaps not) private schooling can increase.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Of greater concern to me, and something that I've almost never seen discussed, is the impact of vouchers on the price of private schooling. Does anyone doubt that private schools, at least in areas such as mine where demand is high, would raise their prices in response to the widespread availability of vouchers?

In the short term, at least, demand would increase while supply remained constant, and prices would of necessity increase. Rich people will get a break, some middle-income people who had been on the margin will now be able to afford private schooling, but I suspect that lower-income families will remain, for the most part, shut out.

Long term is potentially a different story, depending on how the supply of (hopefully high quality, but perhaps not) private schooling can increase.

[/ QUOTE ]


You can't assume that economic theory will work in the short term and not assume the same for the long term. What about the, or which of the required resources used to supply a school makes you believe those resources would be limited in the longterm in any significant or noteworthy way?

Perhaps this is why it is not being discussed.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
I was unaware that there were any good public schools. Having gone to a "good" school district in the suburbs, I doubt they even exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I haven't gone to a private school. Might be different, but I know how to read, do math, play poker. So I think I'm fine. :P

Of course, my school isn't anywhere near Lakeside (the school Bill Gates and Paul Allen went to) good, for example, nor any public school. But it's not like most private schools are Lakeside good either.

[ACPlayer]

School choice already exists. You can send you child to public school, private school, parochial school or home school. As a parent all those choices are valid and available.

Redistributing tax money out of public schools into private and public schools is about as dumb an idea as has been postulated by anyone recently.

I'll let 6M elaborate.

[lehighguy]

Private school vouchers are used in Ireland, Denmark, HK, and a variety of other countries. Private schools educate a majority of kids. In all of those cases the private market moved in to provide the necessary facilities. And there was no shortage of schools with tuitions exactly equal to the voucher. I mean, think of the market for a school with that price. It jsut makes economic sense.

[lehighguy]

Let me understand this. Even if I decide to send my kid to private school, I still have to pay taxes to fund a public school my kid doesn't go to. When I ask to reallocate my tax dollars to the school my child actually attends I'm stealing it?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
When I ask to reallocate my tax dollars to the school my child actually attends I'm stealing it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say anything about stealing? Cant you think about something without putting out red herrings? You are way too emotional in your thinking - take a deep breath and try rationality instead.

As an economics major you should see the major flaw with the vouchers. However, you have to put your personal preferences aside and think objectively.

6M knows what I am talking about.

[lehighguy]

As an economics major I see that I'm getting a lot more utility out of each tuition dollar in more effective private schools.

As an economics major I can see how effective the system has been in other countries.

[ACPlayer]

.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
School choice already exists for the wealthy

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your post.

[ QUOTE ]
Redistributing tax money out of public schools into private and public schools is about as dumb an idea as has been postulated by anyone recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

So.. the two responses against school vouchers rest on the argument that it shouldn't happen because the rich would get some benefit from it too.

Brilliant. You guys would see the whole world starve before agreeing to a helpful universal policy that benefited the poor and included the rich.

Never mind addressing the argument of whether these vouchers would be good for the kids in public school. No, that's irrelevent because OH MY GOD SOME RICH PEOPLE WOULD BENEFIT!

Unbelievable the overwhelming simple-mindedness required to see the world that way.

HOW TO EVALUATE A PUBLIC POLICY THE LIBERAL/DEM/WHATEVER WAY:

1. Will the policy hurt the rich?
2. If not, oppose it.
3. Will the policy benefit the rich in any way, even if it will also benefit others?
4. If so, oppose it.
5. Ignore any and all consideration of the policy's effect on any other member of society.


natedogg

[ACPlayer]

Your fix of my post was not what I said.

I did not say anything about the rich.

First lehighguy goes off on my accusing him or stealing and now you go off with a lecture on class warfare.

Sheeesh!

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Your fix of my post was not what I said.

I did not say anything about the rich.
... now you go off with a lecture on class warfare.

Sheeesh!

[/ QUOTE ]

No, your post said "School choice already exists" and I fixed it to say "School choice already exists for the rich" because your first statement was so glaringly wrong I assumed it was a typo.

Seriously, the rhetorical device you used, namely redefining the issue, is the same cheap tactic being used by Social Security stonewallers: "We already have private accounts, they're called 401Ks".

To say, "we already have school choice" is specious because what you are talking about is something completely different, and you know it. Try addressing the issues honestly at least. You'll get more respect from people.

natedogg

[ACPlayer]

My position on choice is totally honest.

Parents have the same choice in education as in buying health insurance for their kids, as in buying a car to transport the kids, as in buying sneakers for their kids.

This type of choice is the American choice.

So, I reject your communistic and socialist alleged fix of my post.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
My position on choice is totally honest.

Parents have the same choice in education as in buying health insurance for their kids, as in buying a car to transport the kids, as in buying sneakers for their kids.

This type of choice is the American choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Middle income families have their choice restricted since they're already squeezed by taxes to pay for public schools. Lower-middle-income families are really the worst off in this regard, since many of them could afford private schools if not for the tax load. Lower income families don't have much of a tax load, but can't afford private schools anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
So, I reject your communistic and socialist alleged fix of my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that the money is already being stolen from the taxpayers, the "fix" is no more communistic or socialistic than the current situation.

[MtSmalls]

Some time around the turn of the century, it became the accepted norm that education, through the 12th grade, was a public good. That is, it falls into the same categories as roads, police and fire squads, jails and courts etc.

I pay taxes that subsidize a wide variety of things I don't use. I pay taxes into school districts that I don't use, as I don't have kids. I pay taxes that subsidized a new baseball stadium that I don't visit,etc, etc etc.

A stunningly large percentage of the school districts in this country are underfunded to being with. Start taking out 'voucher' funds from schools for kids that transfer, how much more underfunded are they going to be?

If you want a better school system, start at the top and reduce the salaries paid to state level administrators and start paying teachers more. Start attracting real talent into the school systems instead of bashing them.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of greater concern to me, and something that I've almost never seen discussed, is the impact of vouchers on the price of private schooling. Does anyone doubt that private schools, at least in areas such as mine where demand is high, would raise their prices in response to the widespread availability of vouchers?

In the short term, at least, demand would increase while supply remained constant, and prices would of necessity increase. Rich people will get a break, some middle-income people who had been on the margin will now be able to afford private schooling, but I suspect that lower-income families will remain, for the most part, shut out.

Long term is potentially a different story, depending on how the supply of (hopefully high quality, but perhaps not) private schooling can increase.

[/ QUOTE ]


You can't assume that economic theory will work in the short term and not assume the same for the long term. What about the, or which of the required resources used to supply a school makes you believe those resources would be limited in the longterm in any significant or noteworthy way?

Perhaps this is why it is not being discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

My last sentence commented on the long term, though the focus was on the inevitable short-term issues. In the long term (5 years? 10 years?), the supply of private schooling would of course increase in response to vouchers. What I don't know is by how much (quite dependent upon the size and availability of the vouchers), and therefore what the market price of that education would be. This would determine how effective the vouchers are in bringing "choice" to the majority of people.

There can be no question that those currently running private schools and those sending their children there would enjoy a tremendous economic benefit from vouchers.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
Private school vouchers are used in Ireland, Denmark, HK, and a variety of other countries. Private schools educate a majority of kids. In all of those cases the private market moved in to provide the necessary facilities. And there was no shortage of schools with tuitions exactly equal to the voucher. I mean, think of the market for a school with that price. It jsut makes economic sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

The availability of voucher-priced private schooling would depend on the size of the vouchers. How big are we talking here?

[ACPlayer]

So, get rid of the tax load. I have no problem with dismantling the public school system and returning the money to the tax payers to do as they see fit.

I agree that tax payer funded schooling is a socialist idea. Vouchers does not change that.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Of greater concern to me, and something that I've almost never seen discussed, is the impact of vouchers on the price of private schooling. Does anyone doubt that private schools, at least in areas such as mine where demand is high, would raise their prices in response to the widespread availability of vouchers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a guy who understand macro pricing theory.

Note that the cost of education in colleges has spiraled, part of the reason is, staring withe the GI Bill and on to Sallie Mae and other low cost financing sources.

You cannot inject tax payer funded incentives into private markets without creating severe distortions in the pricing. Capitalism works on the principle of unfettered markets and laissez-faire economics (I had so hoped that 6M would have jumped in here).

Now, as a society we need to decide -- do we want public education or do we want free market education. If we want tax payer funded public education, the money should stay in the public schools. Otherwise we go for the private sector approach - perhaps just perhaps with some support for a very, very small segment of the population.

Schoot vouchers are a horrific idea. Kill the idea NOW.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
So, get rid of the tax load. I have no problem with dismantling the public school system and returning the money to the tax payers to do as they see fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[ACPlayer]

If this is what America wants then this is the correct way. Strangling the public schools with vouchers and in the process meddling with the private school system with govt sponsored vouchers is idiotic. It is the cowards way of killing public schools by avoiding the real debate or the real hard work of fixing the public school system.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
It is the cowards way of killing public schools by avoiding the real debate or the real hard work of fixing the public school system.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Fixing" something suggests that once it was not broken, but now is; and that it can be repaired.

Was the public school system ever "not broken"?

Can the public school system be "fixed" or repaired?

These may be more than merely idle questions.

[ACPlayer]

Dunno on whether it was ever fixed or even if it is presently broken.

I do know the following for sure:

1. School vouchers are a bad idea
2. Those who advocate school vouchers are really wanting the get rid of public schools, but are unable to say so for political reasons. However, they are not looking at the impact on private schools.
3. If there are no public schools then illiteracy in America will rise, but perhaps median literacy will rise as well.

I suspect that if the control of the schools was truly local. Many schoold districts would operate better, be more responsive to local issues and concerns. I also suspect that they will be able to reduce their costs.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

I do know the following for sure:

1. School vouchers are a bad idea
2. Those who advocate school vouchers are really wanting the get rid of public schools, but are unable to say so for political reasons. However, they are not looking at the impact on private schools.


[/ QUOTE ]

I support vouchers and do not want to get rid of public schools. Your attempt to read my mind has failed.

[ QUOTE ]

3. If there are no public schools then illiteracy in America will rise, but perhaps median literacy will rise as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Literacy was on the rise and had achieved near 90% before public schools were started in this country.

natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

Schoot vouchers are a horrific idea. Kill the idea NOW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the inconvenient fact that they are working just fine everywhere they've been tried.

Short of eliminating all funding for schooling altogether, vouchers are likely the best way for us to provide the opportunity of education to all children while still giving parents control. Vouchers can't result in a system that is much worse than what we have now.

natedogg

[Dead]

What are you going to say when the various state governments start imposing all the regulations on the voucher-accepting schools that they impose on their own public schools? By then the private schools participating in these ventures will be fully aboard the Rethuglican gravy train and they will become government subsidiaries.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Literacy [in the U.S.] was on the rise and had achieved near 90% before public schools were started in this country.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one claim that I'd like to see backed up !

Source ?

[Trainwreck]

LOL!

I seem to remember surviving 12 years of public school, and personally I think that time is WASTED on most kids.

Revamp the whole thing completely and teach them actual valuable skills and info, and DO NOT pass them to the next level until they are up to speed, and realize many will need extra help to get there and make sure taking more time is not stigmatizing.

Some of it is just a matter of discipline which can be instilled and should be, IMHO a priority.

Rent a cops in every class room, YES, definitely. Surprise visits from parents, definitely encouraged, I could go on and on and on....

>TW<

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Your attempt to read my mind has failed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont have to read your mind, I can read what you write.

The political agenda behind this drive are twofold (INO):

1. Break the backs of the public school system by starving it of money.
2. Divert tax payer money into the church sponsored schools. An idea that should be ruled unconsitutional.

The unintended consequences are

1. Messing with the free markets under which the private schools currently run, which will inevitably drive the cost of private school education even higher.

2. Brining private schools under the control of the govt which will inevitably start to lay down rules of conduct for these institutions (again see what happened with higher education0

The real problem is that the debate is dishonest. The only think offered in favor of the debate is anecdotes about "succeses" rather than a comprehensive analysis of the impact of vouchers on the system as a whole -- that however is beyond the capability of sound bite politicians -- and apparently beyond what you are willing to do. Anecodotal articles are not evidence.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Vouchers can't result in a system that is much worse than what we have now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly have not seen any analysis of the long term or medium term impact of vouchers on public or private school education. Have you? Or is this just an off the cuff opinion?

I do stand by my opinion that citizens armed with govt issued vouchers invading the private markets for goods and services will distort the pricing of those goods and services.

I do stand by the opinion that when the govt starts issuing vouchers that are used to buy the services the govt will then start interfering with the operaions of the service providers.

Why will that not happen with the services of educators?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Vouchers can't result in a system that is much worse than what we have now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly have not seen any analysis of the long term or medium term impact of vouchers on public or private school education. Have you? Or is this just an off the cuff opinion?

I do stand by my opinion that citizens armed with govt issued vouchers invading the private markets for goods and services will distort the pricing of those goods and services.

I do stand by the opinion that when the govt starts issuing vouchers that are used to buy the services the govt will then start interfering with the operaions of the service providers.

Why will that not happen with the services of educators?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a silly objection since obviously the existence of free public schools is already distorting the market.

natedogg

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
What are you going to say when the various state governments start imposing all the regulations on the voucher-accepting schools that they impose on their own public schools? By then the private schools participating in these ventures will be fully aboard the Rethuglican gravy train and they will become government subsidiaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
The unintended consequences are

1. Messing with the free markets under which the private schools currently run, which will inevitably drive the cost of private school education even higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubtful. Supply will increase to meet the new demand. Increased competition will lead to more efficiency. Even if the absolute price does rise, will it rise by more than the value of the vouchers?

[ QUOTE ]
2. Brining private schools under the control of the govt which will inevitably start to lay down rules of conduct for these institutions (again see what happened with higher education0

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a much, much more likely outcome, and definitely something to watch out for.

[lehighguy]

My high school took $8,000 in taxes per student to run. My charter school which was the best in the state and #1 math naitonaly only require $6,000 in taxes and no tuition to run.

[lehighguy]

The real price distortion is that you taxed people and said they could only spend thier money in a certain way.

Imagine if instead of purchasing your own house the government taxed you and provided public housing. Don't you think that would distort the housing market (sorry, I just got rent quotes from the public/subsidized heaven that is manhatten, so I'm a little pissed).

[lehighguy]

This is the only really big worry I have about vouchers. It's important we keep a wall around the autonomy of public schools. Just because they recieve voucher money doesn't mean the government should hold sway over them. This should be spelled out in any law that creates vouchers.

[ACPlayer]

I have no doubt that private schools can provide a cheaper alternative to public schools as long as they dont HAVE to take all the students and can pick and choose. They dont HAVE to provide special ed teachers, they dont have to provide ESL classes for non-english speakers, they dont HAVE to take the problem children.

Inject govt money into the equation and you can kiss all this bye bye.

Govt money is never the right answer.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Govt money is never the right answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This from the same guy that is OK with the government stealing your land??? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ACPlayer]

No. I am not in favour of govt stealing our land. (I love the way you guys get yourself worked up by using inflammatory words).

If you are referring to my analysis of Kelo, reread my posts. I found that I am in agreement with the majority that the constitution (as interpreted in the light of current set of precedents) does not protect your land from state governments economic development use. I pointed out that Thomas' dissent (for an interpretation of Public Use that is tighter than current precedents) was logical and reasonable, but I thought that the O'Connor dissent is flawed.

I also suggested (as did the majority) that the local legislatures fix the loophole to reflect the requirements and sentiments of the local population in each state/community.

Just because I find that the majority opinion appears to be correct, does not mean that I am in favor of govt taking land. All it means is that I agreed with the majority that the constitution does not clearly protect it.

Both positions are carefully reasoned, logical and driven by sound thining unfettered by emotions.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
No. I am not in favour of govt stealing our land. (I love the way you guys get yourself worked up by using inflammatory words).

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say you were in favor of it. I said you were OK with it.

[ACPlayer]

Unlike many others, I tried to put aside my personal preference of the OUTCOME and concentrate on trying to understand it from a consititutional POV.

Except for posts from Gryph and Elwood (i learnt a coupt of things from them -- thanks guys) in that thread, all I got from the opponents was a) oh no, they are coming for my house and/or b) public use is not public purpose even though that has been the interpretation for a long time without any evidence (other than further opinions of political hacks).

I am truly amazed how results oriented this crowd of "poker" players is in their thinking of policy. The public school debate is another example. Let me elaborate a bit more ===


When analyzing a complex system it behoves us to do a bottom up and a top down analysis. The proponents of vouvhers concentrate on anecdotes about "successes" for those who have benefited from assistance. However, no one that I know off has done a top down, systemic analysis of how vouchers will impact public schools or how they will impact the private school markets. Without seeing a systematic study I would say that the impact on both are likely to have many unexpected consequences for some of the reasons pointed out in this thread.

For your information, I am not OK with the govt stealing your property.

[wmspringer]

Probably because those most in favor of it are usually the ones who want to dismantle the public school system.

I've got nothing against charter schools; I used to teach at one and might very well do so again. However, as a whole, they have not been shown to do significantly better or worse than regular public schools.

I feel that they should do better than regular public schools because they have less interference from the government; the teachers have more freedom to teach, without interference from legislators who have never been in front of a classroom and have no clue about what's effective. Yet, those pushing for "school choice" are often the same ones who love to demonize teachers! /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Probably because those most in favor of it are usually the ones who want to dismantle the public school system.

I've got nothing against charter schools; I used to teach at one and might very well do so again. However, as a whole, they have not been shown to do significantly better or worse than regular public schools.

I feel that they should do better than regular public schools because they have less interference from the government; the teachers have more freedom to teach, without interference from legislators who have never been in front of a classroom and have no clue about what's effective. Yet, those pushing for "school choice" are often the same ones who love to demonize teachers! /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Don't fall into the trap of opposing some unarticulated motive you think they might harbor. Just analyze the proposal.

2. There is a huge difference between criticizing the teacher's union and criticizing teachers. But most opponents of school choice conflate the two. I will not speculate as to their motive/reason for doing this.

natedogg