This one's for Freddie and Kate30 Oct 2007 06:03 pm I lied: I have to respond. I didn't call you hypocrites. You do not, as far as I know, have children. I reserve the charge of hypocrite for parents who have moved to good school districts, but "support public schooling" by voting against vouchers. The rest of you, I think are wrong, but perfectly fine, moral, upstanding human beings. 'Kay? TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry: Comments (42)
Okay, this us uberlame of me, but, I now realize the s-load of school voucher comments I just made will come to naught thanks to Megans's (thanks!) failure to inform me the debate had moved on, so, with apologies to The Atlantic's bandwidth budget (because I'm utterly confident the brilliance of my arguments will convert one and all to the obvious rightness of combining market forces and public education): ...the tuitions will rise to cover much (almost all) of the [direct subsidy + current tuition]. There should be an impact on the margin, where some parents that can almost afford private schools now can. Those students would benefit...that huge pile of money now going to private schools is no longer available to the public schools. BradL: I think your comments dovetail somewhat with Lizardbreath's thoughts about lack of specificity: it's true, we're only talking hypotheticals or possibilities here -- we're not really talking about concrete plans. Still, your contention that a "huge pile of money" would be diverted to private schools is a bit of a red herring. While it may be true that voucher plans that have been tried out in the US have had this effect, there's no reason voucher plans ought to be structured in this manner, and every reason why they shouldn't. Ideally, a true school choice plan would utilize a centralized funding mechanism that gives every student in a given state a voucher of equal spending power. Under such a system, there effectively would no longer be any substantive difference between "public" and "private" schools. The government, in other words, would largely be getting out of the business of owning and operating schools in favor of a funding-only (and oversight) role. This is similar to how Medicare works. Unlike in Britain, America's national government mostly doesn't own and operate healthcare facilities. It wisely limits its role to funding. I live in Massachusetts, for instance, and in my state an average (at least last time I looked) of around $10k is spent on each public school student's education. If education in my state became voucherized, and every Massachusetts student thereby had a $10,000 portable scholarship to spend (that's a pool of around $10 billion according to my math), it's hard to imagine that a significant number of new schools wouldn't be founded by educators attracted to this pool of money. And that, in turn, would limit the ability of existing private schools to raise tuition. So I doubt your theory that vouchers would completely be absorbed by price increases is valid, unless you assume the voucher program is poorly and illogically structured. Of course, many -- I would say nearly all -- voucher programs in the United States to date have been thusly structured. But that's more an argument about political will: the American polity to date hasn't really been serious about injecting choice and competition into K-12 education, so we've normally had plans where only a portion of the normal per capita education dollar is allowed to be portable. Understandably, such milquetoast reforms have produced underwhelming results. 
But what if they aren't producing "well-educated, economically productive citizens"? It'll take government oversight to determine that. alwsdad: I have no problem with government oversight, and fail to see how any use of taxpayer money in education is plausible without it. If a given school doesn't meet government standards, it will no longer be eligible for taxpayer money. What's so complicated about this? Moreover, hopefully it never gets to that point, because, again, students would be free to vote with their feet and leave poorly performing schools.
The 2000 CA Proposition 38 voucher initiative proposed giving $4,000 dollar vouchers to students. This nominally saved the state $3,000 since the state spent $7,000 per public school student. ndm: Your citation of this fact doesn't support the notion that injecting competition into public K-12 is bad. Rather, it supports the notion that voucher programs introduced in the US have typically been poorly structured, parsimoniously funded, and lacking in boldness. Or, to put it another way, the California proposition in question should have made the value of each voucher $7,000.00, and not $4,000.000. Why not make the whole enchilada portable? Answer: because doing so would risk shattering the calcified foundations of the status quo, and we can't have that.
[sarcasm] Personally, *I* think by going to a school that nobody with vouchers could even possibly afford, MEGAN has lost the moral right to talk about this topic.... [/sarcasm] Kate, she's neither going to stop posting or try to engage in a serious argument, fwiw.
Jasper, I highly doubt that the variable cost per student was $7,000 if that was the total cost.
Jasper, I highly doubt that the variable cost per student was $7,000 if that was the total cost. I fail to understand your point. What I'm saying is that voucher systems should be based on total, and not variable/marginal cost. Do you agree or disagree, and why? Again, if we were truly serious about injecting competition into public K-12, we would make all public education dollars -- and not just a portion thereof -- portable. But we're not really serious -- or at least there's not a degree of seriousness sufficient to override entrenched interests (the most powerful of which is not teachers unions as is commonly supposed but rather upmarket suburban parents).
I assumed your point is that the voucher should reflect the entirety of the cost-savings to the government of exit. Why you would choose one arbitrary higher number such as total-per-student spending, rather than some other arbitrary number (say, twice per-student spending) as your boldness, doesn't seem logical.
Crossposted from Drum thread because jasper moved the thread here. jasper writes:"ndm: Your citation of this fact doesn't support the notion that injecting competition into public K-12 is bad." I never said it did so that's a lame start to an argument with me. jasper continues: "Or, to put it another way, the California proposition in question should have made the value of each voucher $7,000.00, and not $4,000.000." So much for all that backtracking into means-testing earlier today. One reason why the whole enchilada was not made portable was that with 650,000 students in private schools doing so would have cost the state an additional $4.5B. So which programs do you want to cut and which taxes do you want to raise to find that $4.5B? People do not oppose voucher programs because they "risk shattering the calcified foundations of the status quo" they oppose voucher programs because large-scale voucher programs are not practical within current education funding levels.
Jasper, look at the threads below for the reason that basing the voucher on the average per student is a bad idea. Megan conceded that most students would be entitled to somewhat less than the average, as there are some expensive-to-educated students.
...it's hard to imagine that a significant number of new schools wouldn't be founded by educators attracted to this pool of money. And that, in turn, would limit the ability of existing private schools to raise tuition. So I doubt your theory that vouchers would completely be absorbed by price increases is valid, unless you assume the voucher program is poorly and illogically structured. Here are my underlying assumptions: In reality, I'd expect some degree of regulation would go with the money, which means overhead. Probably (though not necessarily) some real estate costs, the cost of the teachers themselves (which I would expect to rise as a] the schools have more money to pay them with -- competition works in both directions and b] the cost of bringing in new talent from other areas rises. I'd also expect some companies to stay away from risk -- the political (and therefore monetary) support for vouchers can go away, while any sunk costs to school won't. (Disclosure: I worked for a voucher-based distance learning company for a while. When the state pulled support, the company was out quite a bit of capital, and had to face the decision of abandoning the kids who had enrolled but now couldn't pay, or cutting them loose saving money. They kept the kids, and there was a big round of layoffs. Depending on state funds can be dicey.) So, with that, I'd guess a meaningful but moderate growth in available private schools would take place, while demand for them would literally skyrocket. The subsidies would quickly get built in to the tuition prices. 2. That a direct subsidy gets factored into demand rather quickly. If the government gave each of us 20k to buy cars tomorrow, what would happen to the price of cars? The subsidy effect isn't 100%, but it is large. Eventually, the price would go down to the [competitive price + subsidy], right? (Again, this is a basic Econ principle, and I am happy to be corrected where wrong). 3. (to Still, your contention that a "huge pile of money" would be diverted to private schools is a bit of a red herring. ) I am also assuming that the voucher would be available to all (or at least the broad middle), not only parents with kids in public school today. 4. Logically structured: there is a lot of room for policymakers (and, ah, lobbyists) to miss here. This seems like the kind of program that is a lot harder to get right than get wrong. Not saying it's impossible (by any stretch), just that I wouldn't build in an assumption that they will get it right. Ideally, a true school choice plan would utilize a centralized funding mechanism that gives every student in a given state a voucher of equal spending power. This makes sense to me, in that it seems to argue for a "whole tuition" voucher, which is what it would take to really counteract the fact that subsidies would drive tuition upward quite a lot. And oversight to make sure that the education meets some minimum standard would help. And maybe a means test. But every one of these things is a sticking point that would need to be fought for.
How many times are you going to pull this, "my readers just don't understand me" stunt? I understood and I still think you have no right to question their moral compass. It is possible for you to take your own child out of public school and be against voucher without being a hypocrite. Plain and simple. Just because you reason differently than they do does not make you right and them wrong.
The tuition at Riverdale Country School for grades K-5 is $30,800. For grades 6-12 the tuition is $33,100. And then there is the "registration fee" of $750. There is no politically-realistic chance of a school voucher program making a significant dent in these fees.
Actually Megan I think it's the apology that is out of order. How many of these high-minded suburbanites would oppose vouchers if the alternative were two-way busing (some from their neighborhood to your's, some from your neighborhood to their's) to achieve a "better" mix of students in classrooms. Heads would spin at how quickly new private schools would spring up following imposition of busing. Like all the Christian academies following desegregqation in the Deep South. Though given that we're talking about suburbia, some of the religious affiliations might differ.
I totally agree. I am lucky in that I live in a section of my city with some very good schools, and also that I can afford to go private if I wish. I am all for vouchers.
The hypocrite charge makes no sense at all to me. A hypocrite advocates people behave in one way while behaving differently himself. Here we have people who: 1. Think vouchers are bad public policy. How is this hypocritical? Even people who for example: 3. Think the mortgage interest deduction is bad public policy. are not hypocrites and 1 and 2 are not even opposed like 3 and 4. That McArdle thinks this is a convincing point is just evidence that her belief in vouchers is theological rather than rational.
Megan, I know you're sick of debating this topic, but could you (or someone who agrees with Megan's basic points) please clear up one thing I'm confused about? It seems to me that, when parents are given the choice of what school to send their kids to, they're going to pick the best-looking one according to some criteria. Now, there may be some disagreement about which is best, or what criteria is most important, but generally everyone is going to want to go to the nice new school in the suburbs with the small class sizes and high test scores. Let's call this "School A" School A, even with a massive influx of voucher money per student, cannot fit everyone in. In a real market system, they'd just raise prices until the number of people wanting to pay equaled the number of open spots. This would essentially funnel money away from poor schools, to the best schools, without much changing the out-of-pocket rates students pay. Inequality gets worse, if anything. So we have to prohibit price increases past the value of the voucher, or the system goes to hell. At this point, as I see it, School A has two basic solutions left: They can create strict academic entrance requirements (GPA-based, test-based, or both). Unfortunately, the people we're trying to help get into good schools are the people who tend not to do well when measured academically. This method wouldn't make the problem much worse, but it wouldn't get much better either. The other option is to choose students randomly. This is the best way I can see to ensure that rich suburban kids aren't favored over poor inner-city kids. On the other hand, if you're going to use lotteries to limit school enrollment, doesn't that totally eliminate the element of choice that was the entire point of mobility in the first place? I'm not morally repulsed by vouchers, I just am confused about how best to solve this problem.
You know this just dawned on me about a week ago. Quoting Brad L.: That a direct subsidy gets factored into demand On one level I'm kind of pleased to have figured this out. But wait a second, how can that be? After all it seems kind of I don't think this idea is in fact that widely known, and thus Let's expand on Brad's hypothetical. Suppose the government What are the consequences? Well first of all, for people buying cars, they suddenly get If you wanted to buy a $24,000 car, now it costs $4000 -- from Second the money has to come from somewhere. The usual mechanism If the government raises taxes and we assume the taxes are Basically that's it for the immediate consequences. But as Give it long enough, say 20 years, and that $24,000 car, the Why? (And I'm not talking about inflation.) The reason why this happens is that price is set by the intersection If we assume that 20 years later the same number of people Worse, the makers of the $44,000 car have by this point Why? Because the original interesection of desire and ability to pay So, our consequences 20 years later are far different than in As far as the car buyer is concerned, if we ignore taxes it's As far as the taxpayer is concered, and this includes the car As far as the car manufacturer is concerned it's great: for Economics can be amazingly, deliciously, counterintuitive. The same logic applies in many other situations. In the case Likewise, if you want to know why college tuitions have risen If you want to why health care costs have risen so dramatically It's difficult to stop these programs before they start because
One reason why the whole enchilada was not made portable was that with 650,000 students in private schools doing so would have cost the state an additional $4.5B. So which programs do you want to cut and which taxes do you want to raise to find that $4.5B? ndm: I wouldn't cut programs. I'd raise taxes. I never claimed good education is cheap. It's not. It's usually expensive. But bad education, too, is often expensive. Just ask New Yorkers. Jasper, look at the threads below for the reason that basing the voucher on the average per student is a bad idea. Megan conceded that most students would be entitled to somewhat less than the average, as there are some expensive-to-educated students. Cardinal Feng: Megan may concede this. But I don't. If you want good education, fund it properly. Raise taxes if you must, and alocate extra funds for the "expensive-to-educate" students, by which I assume you mean students with learning disabilities. The tuition at Riverdale Country School for grades K-5 is $30,800. For grades 6-12 the tuition is $33,100. And then there is the "registration fee" of $750. There is no politically-realistic chance of a school voucher program making a significant dent in these fees. ndm: Depends. In Massachusetts on average the public sector spends about $10k per pupil. In several states it's even higher. I'd call 30%-40% of the tuition of a very expensive school "a significant dent." Moreover, an exclusive private school might be able to more easily grant a scholarship to enable a poor student to attend if the government is picking up a third of the cost. And anyway, I don't think the main goal of a voucherized system is to enable every student to afford the very most expensive private schools. I think the main goal is to inject competition into K-12. There exist highly affluent, much sought-after public school districts in this country that educate students for a third of the cost of the Riverdale Country Days of the world; the economics of education obviously don't require $30,000 per pupil expenditures to deliver a good product. And if most states were to change to a system where billions of dollars in taxpayer paid "portable scholarship" money was up for grabs, I fail to see how we could prevent new education providers from entering the market. The hypocrite charge makes no sense at all to me. A hypocrite advocates people behave in one way while behaving differently himself. Here we have people who: 1. Think vouchers are bad public policy.2. Prefer to send their children to "good" schools. How is this hypocritical? James B. Shearer: the hypocrisy lies in taking the position that poor people shouldn't have a choice in where to send their children to schools. It doesn't make it any less so to dress it up as an opinion about the desirability of a particular public policy. That's exactly the point: the desirability or lack thereof barely affects the wealthy person who can afford to send his child to a good school. The hypocrisy lies in the sentiment characterized by the words "School choice for me but nor for thee." School A, even with a massive influx of voucher money per student, cannot fit everyone in. In a real market system, they'd just raise prices until the number of people wanting to pay equaled the number of open spots. Joel Bernstein: I doubt it. We don't see this with nearly any private schools at either the high school or college level under the status quo. I mean, Harvard no doubt could auction off thousands of extra seats to people able to shell out six figures for a year of learning. But if it did so it would quickly find its brand deteriorating. You're assuming, I think, that most providers of product in a voucherized system would be profit seekers. Although some may well be (and I'd welcome them) I doubt the majority would be. And at any rate, if an education provider were seeking profits (as opposed to being a non-profit like most private schools are today) it might conceivably try to increase its take by increasing the size of the customer base instead of increasing tuition. This would essentially funnel money away from poor schools, to the best schools, without much changing the out-of-pocket rates students pay. No, as has been pointed out before, unlocking billions of dollars of public funds that have hitherto been held prisoner by a government monopoly would entice new providers of education to enter the market, thereby holding down prices. In some cases already extant schools would increase enrollment. And your "starving the poor school" scenario doesn't compute either. If a truly massive "flight" from a given public school were to occur, then we should all yell "hallelujah" because we've just shut down a school that deserved to fail. Colleges that fail to serve their customers are allowed to go out of business; public K-12 is too critical for us not to allow this same dynamic. So we have to prohibit price increases past the value of the voucher, or the system goes to hell. If every student in a given state possessed a portable tuition voucher worth eight or ten grand (or whatever), so much money would be at stake that I suspect most schools would be unable to ignore this market. And that means the government would posses the leverage to put in place regulations that would address the various issues you raise. Perhaps any school seeking vouchers might be required to price a certain number of its admissions at the "voucher only" price; perhaps they might be required to admit a certain percentage of their students via a blind lottery; perhaps some schools could specialize in providing contractual services to states for the education of special needs students. The point is, where there's a political will, there's a creative way to deal with any problem the status quo currently (and not always so admirably) deals with. Finally, a thought experiment. Imagine back in 1642, when American public education was born in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the good Puritans running the show had simply told the several professional teachers in the community to send their bills to the colonial government for payment. Imagine if you will that it simply had not occurred to the Puritans' successors to get into the business of owning and operating schools, but, convinced that public education was a necessity to keep Satan at bay, they had implemented a system of public education whereby the government confines its role to footing the bill. Imagine this model solidifying, and spreading to the other colonies, and eventually becoming the principal modus operandi of public education in the United States down to the present day. Finally, imagine someone proposing in 2007 that the government step in and take over the education institutions, and put an end to the centuries-old American custom of allowing families to choose their own schools. The fact is, we'd think the person proposing such an idea were nuts, and we'd shout him down.
Joel Bernstein, I'll attempt to give you an answer. It's just going to be First off, let's step back for a moment and ask what the We know that all three are underperforming because we can observe Although our teachers, students, and parents are all in general Vouchers, if done the right way, can separate good teachers from We want to have schools were most of the parents are engaged, most By doing this we set up a situation where the rewards for being Imagine vouchers and we have created a situation where parents We want a system that pushes the three principle parties to better The critical role to empower is not the teacher nor the student but
So, with that, I'd guess a meaningful but moderate growth in available private schools would take place, while demand for them would literally skyrocket. Brad L: This scenario would only obtain if politics or regulatory policy translated into high barriers to entry. I really have no argument with those saying the type of radical reform I want to see enacted is not currently feasible from a political standpoint. They're obviously correct. My only argument is with those who claim a fully voucherized system couldn't work from the standpoint of technical or economic feasibility. Absent political interference, there really wouldn't be any reason I could foresee that would prevent a group of educators from, say, forming a non-profit corporation, renting some office space, and trying to gain the business of education customers. We see this all the time in post-secondary education. I fail to see why it's technically more difficult to open a new campus for 15 year old high school students in an office somewhere than it is to do the same for 31 year-old night school degree candidates. While it's true that a high school in an office park might find it tough to compete against an existing school with beautiful facilities and a leafy, green campus, it shouldn't be impossible to do so. And should such a school manage to attract customers despite its lack of an attractive physical setting and first-class facilities, we can probably conclude that it's kicking butt when it comes to, you know, academics. That a direct subsidy gets factored into demand rather quickly. If the government gave each of us 20k to buy cars tomorrow, what would happen to the price of cars? The subsidy effect isn't 100%, but it is large. Eventually, the price would go down to the [competitive price + subsidy], right? (Again, this is a basic Econ principle, and I am happy to be corrected where wrong). Here's why you're wrong: if government gave $20K for everybody to buy a car, we'd be talking conservatively about injecting literally a couple of trillion dollars worth of new demand into the market. I don't think Americans currently spend much more than a few hundred billion annually on new vehicles. Going from 300 billion to 2.3 trillion would literally mean demand for new vehicles would increase more than seven fold. But no such dynamic would be in place if we made public education funding portable. We'd simply be taking the existing, say, $600 billion we currently spend on public schools and allowing it to follow students to the schools of their choice. Surely if opinion polls are to be believed, the vast majority of families would opt to stay with the schools they currently attend. There'd be no net increase in demand, other than any allocated amount we deemed necessary to deal with issues such as that of private school student "reentry" into the public trough. If proper regulations were in place to hold down such costs, I'd doubt we'd need much more than a 15% increase to cover this expense. This is a far cry from the 700% increase associated with your car voucher scenario. Again, making the existing public education expenditure portable does not imply an increase in the demand for educational services. For that you need new babies.
Jasper: "James B. Shearer: the hypocrisy lies in taking the position that poor people shouldn't have a choice in where to send their children to schools. It doesn't make it any less so to dress it up as an opinion about the desirability of a particular public policy. That's exactly the point: the desirability or lack thereof barely affects the wealthy person who can afford to send his child to a good school. The hypocrisy lies in the sentiment characterized by the words "School choice for me but nor for thee."" That's ridiculous, it is not hypocritical to buy something that a poor person can't afford.
>>Let's expand on Brad's hypothetical. Suppose the government What are the consequences? Mark- I think your analysis fails to consider the fact that currently the government is providing drivers with a "free" government-produced car (Trabant, anyone?). What is being suggested is that the money be provided as an option in lieu of the car, hence the demand curve effects will be far less drastic than you posit >>>> >>That's ridiculous, it is not hypocritical to buy something that a poor person can't afford. James- We are talking about something that is already considered a obligatory for the government to provide: an education for one's children. Money is already being spent, ostensibly to meet this obligation. My problem, and perhaps Jasper's, is with those who object to re-purposing this money so as to actually meet this obligation (as opposed to the current pretense of meeting it) for the poor, while still ensuring that this obligation is actually met for one's own children, come what may.
Have to agree with Greg on this one. The gov't is currently taking my $20K, and giving me a $10K-quality car. Those with the resources & desire say "no thanks" and buy their own car, even though they still must pay their $20K. If the gov't gave vouchers instead, you would find a lot more manufacturers clamoring to serve the $20K car market. And that competition is the incentive and accountability for quality, as well as the driver for lower prices.
Accusing the people whose minds you are presumably trying to change of moral turpitude is a bad way to change their minds.
I reserve the charge of hypocrite for parents who have moved to good school districts, but "support public schooling" by voting against vouchers. How about if we move to County X because it has better schools, while supporting, not vouchers, but state rather than county funding of schools? That, btw, is something we liberals have been fighting for for decades, off and on, but we always lose out to the well-off people in the rich counties who want their schools to be better than everyone else's. So kindly stop twisting this around into some sort of Rich Liberals Want Nice Things They Don't Want To Share With Poor People argument. The rich people who don't want to share are overwhelmingly conservative, which shouldn't be a surprise, because rich people are overwhelmingly conservative.
That's ridiculous, it is not hypocritical to buy something that a poor person can't afford. James B. Shearer: It's hardly "ridiculous," as a poor child can "afford" a school different from the one the district tells him he must go to, because he enjoys the eight or nine or ten or twelve thousand dollars worth of purchasing power provided by the taxpayer. Again, the poor child can afford a different school -- the government simply won't let him use that purchasing power at the school of his choice. Don't like the term "hypocrite?" Fine. How about "selfish A-hole?"
So kindly stop twisting this around into some sort of Rich Liberals Want Nice Things They Don't Want To Share With Poor People argument. low-tech cyclist: Many supporters of school choice like me do support equalized funding of eduction at the state level. A voucher system, to be truly equitable and to function efficiently, must give all consumers of public education equal purchasing power. But your critique is off base, because most "Rich Liberals" don't want to share choice with "poor people." You may want to fund their schools more lavishly, and I think that's commendable. But that's not the same thing as the freedom to choose which school works best for one's child. An affluent person -- even if he already lives in a rich school district -- can nonetheless decide that a neighboring school district is a better fit, and move there. He can likewise send his child to a private school. He has options. A poorer person mostly doesn't. That's what I want to change. It's not enough simply to spend more money, as most poorer residents of New York or Washington will tell you. Opponents of the idea of injecting competition into public education most assuredly do not want to share that "nice thing" called freedom.
Greg: "We are talking about something that is already considered a obligatory for the government to provide: an education for one's children. Money is already being spent, ostensibly to meet this obligation. My problem, and perhaps Jasper's, is with those who object to re-purposing this money so as to actually meet this obligation (as opposed to the current pretense of meeting it) for the poor, while still ensuring that this obligation is actually met for one's own children, come what may." You are assuming the point at issue which is whether vouchers are a better way for government to meet its obligation (which I would consider to be to provide an opportunity to get an education).
Jasper: "James B. Shearer: It's hardly "ridiculous," as a poor child can "afford" a school different from the one the district tells him he must go to, because he enjoys the eight or nine or ten or twelve thousand dollars worth of purchasing power provided by the taxpayer. Again, the poor child can afford a different school -- the government simply won't let him use that purchasing power at the school of his choice." That's not how things work. I would like my share of the money the government is currently squandering in Iraq but these decisions are made collectively not individually.
Opponents of the idea of injecting competition into public education most assuredly do not want to share that "nice thing" called freedom. The rich-enough suburbanites who are being attacked as hypocritical liberals here are being extremely conservative in this instance. I would not agree that they don't want to share freedom. what they appear not to want is any risk that there will be a change for the worse in their schools. How could vouchers make their schools worse? One likely way is that the cost of a comprehensive voucher system turns out to be notably higher than promised, forcing the state to direct more of its education resources to the poor school district and away from the lovely suburban ones. Will enough of their neighbors oppose increase taxes to take away nice things from the schools? Will a state legislator cap taxes so the locality cannot raise taxes to meet the cut in state aid? Who knows? "I spent lots of money to get away from that hellhole of school district and I don't want to pay more now to solve its problems" may be selfish, but it certainly isn't opposed to freedom.
That's not how things work. I would like my share of the money the government is currently squandering in Iraq but these decisions are made collectively not individually. Nonsense. We're talking about government benefits, not national defense. "Things" usually work like this with respect to government benefits. Your poor neighbors on the wrong side of the tracks aren't forced to spend their food stamps in a government owned store they're assigned to, are they? They take this portable benefit to the store of their choice. Same thing with Medicare. You get to choose which doctor or hospital makes sense. The same applies to Social Security. Public sector benefits usually are portable, and usually are spent where the recipient of the benefit chooses. That's not surprising. Because people like freedom, and competition benefits society as a whole. I simply want that benefit to be applied to one of the most critical services rendered by the public sector.
Jasper: But your critique is off base, because most "Rich Liberals" don't want to share choice with "poor people." You may want to fund their schools more lavishly, and I think that's commendable. But that's not the same thing as the freedom to choose which school works best for one's child. An affluent person -- even if he already lives in a rich school district -- can nonetheless decide that a neighboring school district is a better fit, and move there. He can likewise send his child to a private school. He has options. A poorer person mostly doesn't. That's what I want to change. It may be what you want to change. Megan says that for her, it's all about the quality of the kids' education, not the incidentals. And I was responding to her, not you. So I don't think we're in the same conversation here. FWIW, though, I've run into very few libruls of any income bracket who are against public school choice. So that part of your argument's moot anyway. And with respect to private schools, increased affluence means increased choices; that's how life works outside of a socialist 'paradise,' which I'm sure you have even less interest in than I do.
FWIW, though, I've run into very few libruls of any income bracket who are against public school choice. So that part of your argument's moot anyway. It doesn't make it moot to me. I've "run into" lots of people -- liberal, conservative and otherwise -- who adamantly oppose changing the dominant "the school district will tell me where my kid goes to school" model. And anyway, if competition among public schools is desirable -- which you seem to believe -- why not extend this competition to allow in a school that happens NOT to be owned and operated by the government? What's so special and sacred about government ownership of the means of service provision? We don't require federal college money to be spent only on state colleges, do we?
>>You are assuming the point at issue which is whether vouchers are a better way for government to meet its obligation (which I would consider to be to provide an opportunity to get an education). Indeed I am, and quite explicitly too. As I said in another thread, the education of our young is the end and things like a public school system (or charter schools, or vouchers) are merely means to that end. Were it not the case that the system in place was failing so many of our children, in particular children of the poor, so abysmally the issue of school choice would be far less urgent so far as I am concerned. Do you think the point at issue is something different?
Jasper: I fail to see why it's technically more difficult to open a new campus for 15 year old high school students in an office somewhere than it is to do the same for 31 year-old night school degree candidates. While it's true that a high school in an office park might find it tough to compete against an existing school with beautiful facilities and a leafy, green campus, it shouldn't be impossible to do so. And should such a school manage to attract customers despite its lack of an attractive physical setting and first-class facilities, we can probably conclude that it's kicking butt when it comes to, you know, academics. Already happening. My area has a new charter school, Tech Valley High, which holds classes in a nondescript local tech park/office complex. The waiting lists are as long as your arm, too--and our area has some of the best public schools in New York State. (This charter is targeted toward high-achievers.)
Greg: "... Were it not the case that the system in place was failing so many of our children, in particular children of the poor, so abysmally the issue of school choice would be far less urgent so far as I am concerned. Do you think the point at issue is something different?" I agree the point in contention whether vouchers would improve the current system. I don't think it is obvious they would. And I don't think calling people who don't think vouchers would improve the system overall hypocrites contributes anything to the debate.
>>I agree the point in contention whether vouchers would improve the current system. I don't think it is obvious they would. And I don't think calling people who don't think vouchers would improve the system overall hypocrites contributes anything to the debate. I'm not a great fan of hot-button terms because I find they are usually rhetorically counter-productive, but I can understand why Megan is steamed about this. Let's take a step back from vouchers in particular, to the issue of school choice in general. Would you agree that school choice would improve the outcomes for those possessing choice? Megan has pointed out, and I agree, that the majority of middle class parents who live or used to live in cities around the country have voted with their feet and at no small expense. They have "voted" for the proposition that choosing a school other than the public school where they live (or used to live) will improve the outcomes of their children. Do you feel they were mistaken in doing so?
Greg: "... They have "voted" for the proposition that choosing a school other than the public school where they live (or used to live) will improve the outcomes of their children. ..." Most people overestimate the difference between schools. To the extent that schools do make a difference the main reason is the influence of the other students, it is better to have smart rich kids as classmates than poor dumb kids. So parents are correct to prefer schools full of smart rich kids than poor dumb kids for their children (although they may overestimate the benefit). But it is obviously impossible for all children to attend schools full of smart rich kids. So I think this is a disengenuous argument.
But it is obviously impossible for all children to attend schools full of smart rich kids. So I think this is a disengenuous argument. Perhaps, but it's obviously not impossible for more children to attend "schools full of smart rich kids." Nor is it impossible for more kids to attend "schools full of smart poor kids." We're talking about whether or not we can realize a net improvement, not whether we can attain perfection. At least I am. While I don't think the issue of "who gets left behind" is one that ought to be taken lightly, I can't help but note the very old-fashioned dirigiste nature of this objection to school choice. It emounts to: "we know what's best for y'all, so y'all will therefore have no choice." It all seems so, er, statist, and is a model that is surely unsustainable in the long run, if the experiences of places like San Francisco and Seattle are any indication. And in any event, it's obviously possible to come up with plans that would allow for a maximum degree of choice for consumers of public education and at the same time safeguard the interests of the most vulnerable children. The two are not mutually exclusive. Government, for example, could require any school that receives taxpayer money to set aside a certain percentage of its admission slots for use by the education authority to place students who otherwise might be left behind.
>>Most people overestimate the difference between schools. To the extent that schools do make a difference the main reason is the influence of the other students, it is better to have smart rich kids as classmates than poor dumb kids. So parents are correct to prefer schools full of smart rich kids than poor dumb kids for their children (although they may overestimate the benefit). But it is obviously impossible for all children to attend schools full of smart rich kids. First off, I am skeptical of the concept that there are enough smart rich kids to provide useful peer effects for the children of the vast middle class while being insufficient in number to provide the same benefits for the significantly smaller number of children of the impoverished. Let me accept, for the sake of argument, your assertions that quality of pedagogy is meaningless, peer effects are all, and that even peer effects are overrated (propositions that I find rather dubious). It still is far from clear to me why we shouldn't allow the poor to act upon their delusions, as you would have it, in the same way that the middle class does, since the price tag does not appear to be wildly different one way or the other.
Greg, I was contrasting two extremes, in general the smarter and richer your classmates are on average the better. Dumb poor kids are geographically concentrated. Changing from the schools serving this area from public to private (with vouchers) will not raise the average quality of the students and cannot help overall. A mixed system may allow the voucher schools to appear to be doing better by creaming off the best kids but this is at the expense of the remaining kids. The same thing thing can be accomplished within a public system by tracking or elite magnet schools.
|
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email 
Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
Comment of the WeekThe State has its head
Object of the week
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
|
Okay.
Simply as a tactical question, as a matter of getting your opinion taken seriously, I think it's counterproductive. I understand those people really piss you off, and the reason isn't lost on me. But it kind of clouds your larger vision.
Posted by Freddie | October 30, 2007 6:09 PM