public school choice - the only sane approach

[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??? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[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! [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[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! [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ 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