Way back in the day I wrote an essay on school choice. I've updated it with more recent references and tailored it to the current presidential race and thought I'd have it critiqued here...


One of the growing concerns voiced by Americans is the rise in economic inequality. While the proverbial pie is expanding, many believe it unjust that some pieces are growing at a faster rate than others. One of the main reasons we have witnessed an increase in income inequality is an imbalance between the demand for high-skilled labor and the supply. Technological progress has played a central role in increasing the premium on skilled labor given it tends to substitute low-skilled processes. As Alan Greenspan writes in his memoir, The Age of Turbulence:

“Technological advance is rarely smooth. It can take years for labor markets to adjust to a surge in such demand. They do so by bidding up skilled-worker pay scales, which attracts workers from abroad and encourages resident workers to acquire more schooling or otherwise gain greater skills. But the response takes time, and access to skilled foreigners is constrained. In the interim, the rise in skilled-worker wage levels, unmatched by a proportionate rise for those with lesser skills, concentrates income in the upper brackets.” (pg 398)

While other countries have seen an increase in income inequality due to technological advance, income inequality in the U.S. has increased at a much faster pace. According to many economists, including Alan Greenspan, the primary culprit is our elementary and secondary educational institutions. Again, per Greenspan:

“A very likely significant part of the explanation for recent developments appears to be the dysfunction of elementary and secondary education in the United States. A study conducted first in 1995 by the Lynch School of Education at Boston College revealed that although our fourth-grade students on an international comparison scale were above average in both math and science, by the time they reached their last year of high school they had fallen well below the international average…This education disaster cannot be pinned on the quality of our children. Our students were average, or above, at age nine or ten. What do we do to them in the next seven or eight years that they test so poorly relative to their peers in other countries? …It is not surprising that, as a consequence, too many of our students languish at too low a level of skill upon graduation, adding to the supply of lesser-skilled labor in the face of an apparently declining demand.” (pg 399)

Arguably, it is the framework in which we supply education that has led to the demise in educational standards. The inefficiencies of a monopoly are well known and for the most part mostly understood. Yet few question the fact that our government has a monopoly on education. It is organized in such a way that competition is practically non-existent. Furthermore, parents are stripped of their freedom to choose what school is best for their child. Their choices are often limited to either a single, public school dictated to them or a private school in which they pay for in addition to the forgone public school. This monopolistic framework straightjackets parent’s ability to freely choose the school that’s right for their child. As such, public schools are faced with few incentives to cater to the wants and needs of their customers. The monopolistic framework does not incentivize administrators to increase efficiency or be conscience of how they spend taxpayers money. Spending has gone so far out of control that, according to the U.S. Department of Education, the expenditure per pupil, adjusted for inflation, has risen from $2,670 in 1961 to 9,266 in 2004.(1)

Given that expenditures have more than tripled while educational performance has declined, it is difficult to deduce that our public school system is underfunded. What can reasonably be suggested, however, is that the means in which we dispense educational services is vastly inefficient and in need of reform. What simply needs to take place is a transition from an inefficient monopoly to a publicly funded, but privately supplied, competitive system of schools. The primary difference between colleges and universities and elementary and secondary schools is that the former must always cater to the needs of its students else face the likelihood its pupils decide to get their education elsewhere. The absence of school choice insulates schools from the necessary incentives to provide better education without wasting resources on a burdensome bureaucracy.

An ideal system would be one in which parents were provided a tax credit to be spent on the school of their choice, provided their choice meets pre-defined standards. Giving parents the ability to vote with their feet provides a democratic voice that is often never heard by the current monopolistic system. Armed with a choice, parents would demand a broader array of schools that best fit their child. In the face of such demand, teachers and entrepreneurs would meet the such demands with a new supply of schools. For parents with special-needs children, new schools would form to specifically cater to their child’s needs. Children with an affinity for music may find new schools formed that cater to the musically gifted. While this may seem like wishful thinking, it may, too, have seemed preposterous to a former soviet citizen that, under a new system, they one day would have not only one choice in shoes, but over one thousand.

One of the principle concerns about providing parents with a choice is that existing public schools would be harmed. This would be true only to the extent that existing schools did nothing to improve their services vis-à-vis their new competition. In order to prevent pupils from seeking better alternatives, existing schools would have an incentive to improve their current service. Many studies involving school voucher programs have shown this to be the case. For example, in studying the effects of the largest voucher program in the U.S., Florida’s McKay program, which provides vouchers for students with disabilities, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MIPR) found that:

Public school students with relatively mild disabilities made statistically significant test score improvements in both math and reading as more nearby private schools began participation in the McKay program. That is, contrary to the hypothesis that school choice harms students who remain in public schools, this study finds that students eligible for vouchers who remained in the public schools made greater academic improvements as their school choices increased. (2)

Those who see the morality of providing parents the right to choose their child’s school and see the benefits that such choice entails will, fortunately, not have much difficulty choosing between presumed presidential nominees, Barack Obama and John McCain. Per a statement from Obama’s campaign, “…Obama has always been a critic of vouchers...Throughout his career, he has voted against voucher proposals.” Rather than diminish the monopolization of K-12 education, Obama proposes to strengthen it. More alarmingly, he proposes to mimic the likes of “No Child Left Behind” and allow even more of the Federal government in local classrooms. Offering a one-size-fits-all approach only exacerbates the already-excessive bureaucracy and leaves parents even more voiceless in their fight to better their child’s education.

McCain’s policies on education are in stark contrast to those of Obama. McCain stated that “we must fight for the ability of all students to have access to any school of demonstrated excellence. We must place parents and children at the center of the education process, empowering parents by greatly expanding the ability of parents to choose among schools for their children….Choice and competition is the key to success in education in America.” (3)

In over half a century we have witnessed increasing costs per pupil and an increasing number of teachers per pupil, yet very little progress in education. (4) Attempts to reverse this trend have had little effect as they merely patch an already-broken system. As with any monopoly, the government’s monopoly on education has proven to be extremely inefficient, wasteful and, most importantly, lacking the necessary incentives for progress and innovation. Unfortunately, Barack Obama promotes the kind of change that will only add a Federal layer to the existing, onerous layers of state and local bureaucracy. Continuing down the same path will only cause American students to slip farther behind their peers in other countries. The most innovative and efficient sectors of our envied economy have progressed they way they have due to consumer choice and competition. Sadly, these two, powerful forces of change are lacking in the sector where we need them most.


References

1) http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
2) http://www2.edweek.org/media/obama_vouchers_response.pdf
3) http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Education.htm
4) http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/ch_2.asp

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 9:59 PM. Reason : formatting]

8/6/2008 9:58:35 PM

tl;dr

8/6/2008 9:59:55 PM

Quote :

"Given that expenditures have more than tripled while educational performance has declined,"

Throwing more money at problems needs to stop.

Nice piece, btw.

8/6/2008 10:06:22 PM

^, ^^, ^^^ ... I Agree

8/6/2008 10:23:01 PM

Actually a good read. He may be old, but he's right.

8/6/2008 10:35:41 PM

Quote :

"The most innovative and efficient sectors of our envied economy have progressed they way they have due to consumer choice and competition. Sadly, these two, powerful forces of change are lacking in the sector where we need them most. "

Do you really think people are intelligent and reasonable enough to realize this?

8/6/2008 10:48:05 PM

this is all bullshit republican rabble and a way for the upper class to cut out the poor and their children and basically have 2 different americas within america. bullshit. every school should be good enough.

8/6/2008 11:03:06 PM

while I mostly agree on the premise I do have to question the expeditures statistic. The early 1960's hardly seems an appropriate place to start looking at expeditures given the social changes at the time.

On the otherhand I do also have to question wethebests assertation (to no ones surprise).

If I recall correctly in a previous thread you asserted that the upperclass flee from poor and dowtrodden areas and indeed seek to rig the system to prevent their prodigy from mngling with the common folk. If that is the case I fail to see how giving these people their tax money back would signifcantly impact the lower classes as clearly that money isn't going into poor schools anyway. Instead I suggest that the freeing of public resources from having to cater to every rich kid with a lawyer and a problem with grilled cheese for lunch would actualy bennefit the poorer schools as public recources could be more concentrated and focused.

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 11:55 PM. Reason : stupid auto correct]

8/6/2008 11:52:41 PM

Quote :

"this is all bullshit republican rabble and a way for the upper class to cut out the poor and their children and basically have 2 different americas within america. bullshit. every school should be good enough."

One thing is clear, whatever it is at which you are the best, it's not logic or reading comprehension. Hunt's proposal seeks to maximize the performance of all schools through competition.

Of course, if you took a minute to collect your thought (notice no plurality), you may be able to reasonably argue that allowing parents to choose a school using vouchers may lead to segregation, among other things. This has been ruled to be detrimental to the health of the United States by the Supreme Court and as such, any schools not accepting pupils based on someone's race would quickly find themselves in court.

On the other hand, true competition in schools may be bad for some but also may benefit the country overall by forcing an increase in quality within the public sector.

It's interesting that on the one hand there is a person (original poster) who as at least attempting to find solutions to an obvious problem and on the other is a person who is basically calling names.



[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 8:47 AM. Reason : sadf]

8/7/2008 8:42:33 AM

Quote :

"while I mostly agree on the premise I do have to question the expeditures statistic. The early 1960's hardly seems an appropriate place to start looking at expeditures given the social changes at the time."

I used the '60s merely because that was the earliest the data went back. The data should still highlight that whatever changes occurred did little in the way of improving the system. Using the cost/pupil from the '70s still shows a doubling of costs, so the trend is still upwards.

Quote :

"vouchers may lead to segregation"

While at the margin this may occur, I don't foresee it being the problem many believe it to be. This may not be an entirely perfect example, but retailers, restaurants, and other businesses people choose among, do not appear to be dominated by segregation. Further, segregation already occurs in today's public schools via honors and AP classes.

8/7/2008 9:39:43 AM

This thread did need some devil's advocate...

Quote :

"Of course, if you took a minute to collect your thought (notice no plurality), you may be able to reasonably argue that allowing parents to choose a school using vouchers may lead to segregation, among other things. This has been ruled to be detrimental to the health of the United States by the Supreme Court and as such, any schools not accepting pupils based on someone's race would quickly find themselves in court."

Segregation is the first thing that comes to mind, but there's so much more to it. After all, we don't live in a society that openly accepts direct segregation anymore - the key word is systematic segregation. None of the bad things would apply exclusively to minorities of course, just disproportionately to those groups.

I think people agree that such a program would improve education for the vast majority. I think the main concern is that some kids would be left behind. Naturally, we can't allow children to be left behind... or get ahead.

And then you can get into some details... most well off people will pay a little more than the basic voucher to get a slightly better education. Think of supply and demand, if that extra education is worth it, they will pay for it as they don't have to forgo the government assistance as they do now. Of course, there will also be a huge number of people to whom education would be worth less than the government set floor - meaning they send their kids to schools that use voucher money only. That, in itself, divides schoolchildren into two categories. But now think of the worst neighborhoods out there. What kind of competition for supplying education will exist for the set government payment? Since the people running those places will also be trying to make a profit, it could be like the Bronx check 'n go for elementary education.

Furthermore, classroom dynamics are different from rich communities to poor communities. It's a purely economic reason - that rich people spend more resources on their children (and have fewer of them). If the job of teaching is much more pleasant in rich communities, that shifts the supply of decent teachers further away from the poor to the rich. There's also the obvious fact that rich (educated) communities have a greater supply of educated people who desire to teach, and if we accept that school teaching requires education (I think we can do this), then it further depletes needy areas of quality education. Furthermore, it is thinkable that standardized exams will continue to exist and become even more important as a means of keeping schools teaching and not just playing Simon Says all day. Who has to spend more time teaching for the exams? It's not the rich communities. The rich communities with plenty of money and more educated teachers and students will knock out the standardized material quickly and spend the rest of the time giving a real quality education (think AG all year long) while the poor communities will flounder, fail the tests, get punished with fewer resources, flounder further and continue the cycle. This is what we've seen with NCLB, but it could happen to a much further extent with the voucher programs.

What we're left in inner cities is the product of education with a fixed price being paid, inadequate teachers, and poor patrons. The situation would be volatile (frequent closing of schools and hasty establishing of new schools), basically everyone would be in the red, it would be dangerous, have terrible infrastructure (who's building the physical buildings here), and overall a nasty situation likely worse than what we have now. Plus, any families in the area with the means to do so would opt out at first chance, depriving the system of parent interaction and oversight that might have happened otherwise.

--
*sigh*
So that's my essay on why this is not a good idea. I'll leave it to someone else to critique.

But really, I certainly believe this would be a worthwhile experiment, and it touches on so many other issues. Many peak oil people talk about going back to living in communities - that's what this would cause, and it's something that could NOT HAPPEN AT ALL without a school voucher program. Just image if the criteria for getting the funding was that the kids pass the standardized tests. End result?

Everyone is community home schooled. Forget school teachers, out of the labor market of moms, there is at least one out of a class size of kids who would be delighted to make a living off teaching the neighborhood kids. Hell, this sounds like a pretty sweet living to me, and I'm male graduate student. But at the same time, those communities could hire people with real teaching experience and get a value light years beyond public schools, since they have to answer to you and not a corrupt system. Teacher salaries would also be higher by cutting out the admins. Add on, you can have participation in huge numbers from the community.

And you better believe churches would have some place in this. Face it, a church environment is far superior to a public school, I wouldn't care how much my kid had to praise God if it resulted in a superior education.

In conclusion:
Yes, good for all of us.
Good for Durham? *Carl face*

8/7/2008 10:51:29 AM

Its not a matter of racial segregation. Green would be the segregating color in this idiotic idea.

Quote :

"Hunt's proposal seeks to maximize the performance of all schools through competition."

no shit and copetition leads to the better schools costing more. look here.

Quote :

"An ideal system would be one in which parents were provided a tax credit to be spent on the school of their choice, provided their choice meets pre-defined standards. Giving parents the ability to vote with their feet provides a democratic voice that is often never heard by the current monopolistic system. Armed with a choice, parents would demand a broader array of schools that best fit their child. In the face of such demand, teachers and entrepreneurs would meet the such demands with a new supply of schools. For parents with special-needs children, new schools would form to specifically cater to their child’s needs. Children with an affinity for music may find new schools formed that cater to the musically gifted. While this may seem like wishful thinking, it may, too, have seemed preposterous to a former soviet citizen that, under a new system, they one day would have not only one choice in shoes, but over one thousand. "

The schools that cost the amount of the voucher would end up sucking like a 2 dollar pair of shoes and poor kids would be in them while the middle class kids would be getting nikes and addidas. All the good teachers would want to work for the most expensive schools. The mean in the quality of education would drop significantly while the rich would be getting an infanately better education that they are now, thus their incentive to push this nonsense.

Quote :

"This monopolistic framework straightjackets parent’s ability to freely choose the school that’s right for their child"

There are plenty of private schools everywhere for parents to choose from. There are already specialty schools(science, music, sports etc), and all types of religious and other private schools to fit everyones demand and pocket. If you don't like public schools simply don't use them but don't try to get rid of them all together just because YOU don't like them.

Quote :

"McCain stated that “we must fight for the ability of all students to have access to any school of demonstrated excellence"

This problem can simply be fixed by making every school just as good as the best school and every school offering a wide array of programs. Every school should be of the same quailty. High quality. Then it wouldn't matter where kids were assigned.

Quote :

"Throwing more money at problems needs to stop."

You're right. Money needs to be applied and not thrown. Reform is needed but privatization is not.

8/7/2008 10:54:16 AM

Quote :

"The schools that cost the amount of the voucher would end up sucking like a 2 dollar pair of shoes and poor kids would be in them while the middle class kids would be getting nikes and addidas. All the good teachers would want to work for the most expensive schools."

Alright, between this and my post I think we've pretty well established the fears for poor places.

Check 'n Go for elementary education.

Quote :

"The mean in the quality of education would drop significantly while the rich would be getting an infanately better education that they are now, thus their incentive to push this nonsense."

Maybe you mean the median. The top 10%, I assure you, will bring up the mean to a higher level than what it is now.

Quote :

"There are plenty of private schools everywhere for parents to choose from. There are already specialty schools(science, music, sports etc), and all types of religious and other private schools to fit everyones demand and pocket. If you don't like public schools simply don't use them but don't try to get rid of them all together just because YOU don't like them."

Sure. But we just want the right to not pay for these schools we're not using.

This uses the whole democrat idea of "things provided by the government don't cost anything". Free fruit right? Don't take them if you don't like 'em.

8/7/2008 11:02:02 AM

I have a helicopter and never drive. Lets hand out vouchers to drive on the road.

I have a private security group. Lets hand out vouchers to pay for police service

I have private emergency services on site. Lets hand out vouchers for ems/fire rescue

etc etc

8/7/2008 11:07:00 AM

- Ideally, I can opt out of paying for the roads by not paying for gas. Then I can fly my hydrogen powered hang glider to work, partially funded by the money I did not pay for the roads.

- You can't literally opt out of police protection. There would be a logistical reason for this that is not applicable to public schools.

I like the helicopter example. Epically since the school vouchers would reversely decrease gas use.

8/7/2008 11:13:19 AM

wethebest is working on the assumption that poor schools have problems for reason other than that they're populated by the offspring of poor people.

I think that's an incorrect assumption. I hate to lump people together like that, but it's pretty clear.

As far as segregation goes, all vouchers would really do is put all the honors classes in one school and standards classes in another. I seriously doubt there would be a significant change to the overall population.

8/7/2008 11:16:07 AM

Quote :

"ll vouchers would really do is put all the honors classes in one school and standards classes in another."

thus keeping bright kids out if their parents can't afford the "honors" schools which in a private world, would be more expensive ie harvard

8/7/2008 11:21:46 AM

Look at universities today. What's far and away the most significant barrier to entry into colleges? Money or academic performance?

Let's say the gov't gave you a $15k/yr voucher to go to college. Would your future be doomed if you had to rely on only the voucher? Hell no.

Do you think high schools running in the same type of system wouldn't produce similar results?



[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

8/7/2008 11:28:18 AM

I don't see kids getting scholarships for high school, and epically anything before that. Or maybe the filthy rich wouldn't mind paying extra to saturate their school with the brightest people who don't have (a crapload of) money.

Quote :

"wethebest is working on the assumption that poor schools have problems for reason other than that they're populated by the offspring of poor people."

haha, this is quick to get into the social elitist arguments. But from a different angle, wethebest and I have already said things to this effect. Teachers don't want to teach in schools in poor communities - not just because of the location or something, but because of the type of kids who are enrolled.

Bill Gates spent a lot of money to try and prove this wrong - that changing the environment will cause children from the most gangsta' hood to excel academically. In controlled circumstances, he won that bout - but we're talking about teachers going into the neighborhoods, meaning that after every session trying to promote inquisition and intelligence, they go home to a community that promotes ignorance and impulsiveness.

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 11:39 AM. Reason : ]

8/7/2008 11:39:13 AM

Quote :

"Money needs to be applied and not thrown. Reform is needed but privatization is not"

Wow, that is pretty naive. A free market will fix most problems when allowed to work. Govt putting their hands into things usually fucks things up for all, which then makes people call for more govt intervention.. and more problems.

8/7/2008 11:53:50 AM

Quote :

"Or maybe the filthy rich wouldn't mind paying extra to saturate their school with the brightest people who don't have (a crapload of) money"

just maybe? Hell-- my po-dunk Catholic middle school gave need-based scholarships.

Quote :

"Bill Gates spent a lot of money to try and prove this wrong"

Bill Gates could make his own school system with partial gov't aid under the voucher system. Imagine how great that would be for poor children.

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 11:59 AM. Reason : ]

8/7/2008 11:53:59 AM

Quote :

"Look at universities today. What's far and away the most significant barrier to entry into colleges? Money or academic performance? Let's say the gov't gave you a $15k/yr voucher to go to college. Would your future be doomed if you had to rely on only the voucher? Hell no. Do you think high schools running in the same type of system wouldn't produce similar results? "

The difference is we would be holding young kids responsible for their immediate future. We can't expect 5th graders to "work hard to try and get into a good middle school". Its just not plausible. Its completley fine in teens but young kids still haven't developed a full ability to reason and many don't even like school or realize its importance.

Quote :

"meaning that after every session trying to promote inquisition and intelligence, they go home to a community that promotes ignorance and impulsiveness."

Well I think these entire communities should be phased out and people spread around anyway but thats an entirely different discussion in and of itself.

Quote :

"Wow, that is pretty naive. A free market will fix most problems when allowed to work. Govt putting their hands into things usually fucks things up for all, which then makes people call for more govt intervention.. and more problems."

Nobody said it would be easy, nobody said it would be cheap but its the price we must pay for a sustainable society and its everyones duty as a citizen. If you don't like it don't use it. If you don't want to pay for it, leave because someone else glady will take your place and pay.

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 12:04 PM. Reason : fine]

8/7/2008 11:57:32 AM

Quote :

"We can't expect 5th graders to "work hard to try and get into a good middle school". Its just not plausible."

How is that not plausible? This is the attitude that spawns awful students.

(Also, 5th grade is middle school)

Quote :

"Well I think these entire communities should be phased out and people spread around anyway but thats an entirely different discussion in and of itself."

That sheds light on all your other pseudo-communist stances.

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 12:05 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2008 12:04:16 PM

Quote :

"That sheds light on all your other pseudo-communist stances."

Nothing communist about that at all. I'm not saying they should all live the same (schools yes should all be great and the same because kids don't have the ability to live responsible lives) but there definately be concentrated areas of poor people. This contributes to their poverty and allows them to be descriminated in many ways such as environmental factors (dirty industry near them) poor public services (poor water and waste management) etc etc. This leads to bad health and harder lives and increased poverty.

Spread poor people and affordable/government housing around throughout everywhere and have no more slums is what I'm saying.

8/7/2008 12:11:40 PM

Quote :

"What we're left in inner cities is the product of education with a fixed price being paid, inadequate teachers, and poor patrons. The situation would be volatile (frequent closing of schools and hasty establishing of new schools), basically everyone would be in the red, it would be dangerous, have terrible infrastructure (who's building the physical buildings here), and overall a nasty situation likely worse than what we have now."

I do not believe this would be the case. While there is a choice in family medical clinics, we do not see them suffering the characteristics you describe above.

Quote :

"Every school should be of the same quailty. High quality. Then it wouldn't matter where kids were assigned. "

I agree, but why has this not happened? Obviously the system in which our schools operate, a government monopoly, does not provide the necessary incentives for this to happen.



I don't think the rich would the the primary benefactor of school choice. They already have the resources to send their child to a private school. It would be those who currently cannot afford today's private schools who would benefit the most. From some of the above arguments, it sounds like many are advocating holding everyone back for fear that others may get ahead. Assuming our current system would represent the lowest common denominator under a system of choice, why would it be prudent to force all students down to the lowest common denominator for fear they will progress?

8/7/2008 12:12:09 PM

Quote :

"Spread poor people and affordable/government housing around throughout everywhere and have no more slums is what I'm saying."

The slums will follow poor people.

And the rich people will move away.

And even you would be pretty pissed off if the gov't built a public housing area right beside your home.

8/7/2008 12:19:07 PM

Quote :

"I do not believe this would be the case. While there is a choice in family medical clinics, we do not see them suffering the characteristics you describe above."

Ok then next time you get sick, go to one of them. I guarantee you nobody will do that.

Quote :

"I agree, but why has this not happened? Obviously the system in which our schools operate, a government monopoly, does not provide the necessary incentives for this to happen. "

Mainly due to zoning and such, rich parents have found ways to get all the money into their schools leaving most schools behind. (there are some great public schools out there). Bushes tax cuts and other policies haven't helped either.

Quote :

"I don't think the rich would the the primary benefactor of school choice. They already have the resources to send their child to a private school. It would be those who currently cannot afford today's private schools who would benefit the most. From some of the above arguments, it sounds like many are advocating holding everyone back for fear that others may get ahead. Assuming our current system would represent the lowest common denominator under a system of choice, why would it be prudent to force all students down to the lowest common denominator for fear they will progress?"

We want them to progress but that can't mean we have to throw in the towel on poor students.

Quote :

" The slums will follow poor people. And the rich people will move away. And even you would be pretty pissed off if the gov't built a public housing area right beside your home. "

Not saying to move the slums. I'm saying get rid of the entire idea all together. Spot the poor. I would not be mad if 1 governemnt family moved in nextdoor

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 12:21 PM. Reason : fine]

8/7/2008 12:19:47 PM

Quote :

"Bushes tax cuts and other policies haven't helped either"

I don't want to veer to far off topic, but funding for schools is done on a local level, primarily via property taxes. How do cuts in federal tax rates affect the local funding of schools?

8/7/2008 12:28:03 PM

Ideally we'd be in a situation where we could fund a federal mandate (NCLB) with federal money.

8/7/2008 12:31:08 PM

Schools with less local tax revenue need to be supplemented with federal aid. There needs to be a movement to shift it all further towards federal anyway. Doing it by property taxes would work if property values weren't segregated but right now its pretty much the bigger house you buy, the better education your kids get.

8/7/2008 12:33:36 PM

BS. The worst schools systems tend to be well-funded.

8/7/2008 12:38:42 PM

Quote :

"Spread poor people and affordable/government housing around throughout everywhere and have no more slums is what I'm saying. "

Yeah, we should totally punish those who have worked hard in their life by moving criminals and government leeches in next door to them. What a great idea! I don't buy the whole idea of getting stuck in poverty either. I came from some of the areas that many of you would call ghetto, I am from a broken home with an absent father, and a mother who used to drink a lot, every night. I joined the military to get money for college. In fact, the Navy was full of people just like myself who decided they wanted a better life for themselves. These were all young people from disadvantaged backgrounds of all different races.

The truth is the people that live in these areas are there out of choice. We live in a country where you can jump the border and within a few years make enough money to buy a home, a car, get your kids into school, etc. I have no sympathy. It sucks that rich kids have an advantage, but why punish them because their parents were better at the game of life than yours.

8/7/2008 12:41:03 PM

Quote :

"BS. The worst schools systems tend to be well-funded."

yep. because they are in poor areas. but if you've been reading there are many ways i plan to fix that. The most simple is bussing. No more schools in communities until we can get rid of the centralized slums. Right now, there are entire schools of poor kids.

Quote :

"but why punish them because their parents were better at the game of life than yours."

why punish them because their parnts were worse?

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 12:43 PM. Reason : more coming in another edit]

Quote :

". I joined the military to get money for college. In fact, the Navy was full of people just like myself who decided they wanted a better life for themselves."

The military does great but if someone doesn't liek the idea of being part of the evil things our nation does through its military then they have no way out. Morality or self perseverance?

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 12:44 PM. Reason : hmm more coming]

Quote :

"Yeah, we should totally punish those who have worked hard in their life by moving criminals and government leeches in next door to them."

Nobody said criminals. Felons can't get into the same welfare programs. Nobody would be punished

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 12:46 PM. Reason : except criminals of ocurse]

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 12:47 PM. Reason : we're coming along]

8/7/2008 12:41:35 PM

Quote :

"Mainly due to zoning and such, rich parents have found ways to get all the money into their schools leaving most schools behind. (there are some great public schools out there). Bushes tax cuts and other policies haven't helped either."

It seems like this should be an argument for the vouchers. If it's already happening, why not let it happen efficiently?

Quote :

"We can't expect 5th graders to "work hard to try and get into a good middle school"."

Yeah, this would make us like... a lot of the rest of the developed world.

Quote :

"Doing it by property taxes would work if property values weren't segregated but right now its pretty much the bigger house you buy, the better education your kids get."

So let's see you go into a PTA meeting Cary and tell them that local property taxes can't be used for public schools and they have to drop down to the same funding as everywhere else.

There's something about the free market that you can't run away from. As long as there exists a disparity in income, there will be people who want to spend more on their children's education. No matter how many shit tons of legislation you pass, you can not avoid this fact. The local funding for schools (and even the cereal in Harris Teeter that gives a dime to local schools when you buy it) is a natural response to a system trying to keep people with money from giving their kids a lifestyle proportional to their own.

Trying to do this equal education thing is like trying to make a gorilla wear pants. It's forcing a circle peg into a square hole.

8/7/2008 12:47:01 PM

Quote :

"It seems like this should be an argument for the vouchers. If it's already happening, why not let it happen efficiently?"

Don't throw in the towel and cement something wrong. Reverse it.

Quote :

"Yeah, this would make us like... a lot of the rest of the developed world."

Name a nation that makes young children at the age of 10 make decisions with consequences that will determine the rest of their lives. Thats why they are called kids. Many nations in Europe have adequate public education and healthcare for all. If you indeed want to go there.

Quote :

"There's something about the free market that you can't run away from. As long as there exists a disparity in income, there will be people who want to spend more on their children's education. No matter how many shit tons of legislation you pass, you can not avoid this fact. The local funding for schools (and even the cereal in Harris Teeter that gives a dime to local schools when you buy it) is a natural response to a system trying to keep people with money from giving their kids a lifestyle proportional to their own."

Nobodys saying they can't do that. They can spend 20k a year on school for their kids if they feel like it but they will also help pay for an adequate public school system weather they use it or not. ITS THEIR DUTY.

Quote :

"Trying to do this equal education thing is like trying to make a gorilla wear pants. It's forcing a circle peg into a square hole."

Equal education is not what I mean. I simply mean equal, adequate, high quality public education. It won't be mandatory that people send their kids to public school. If they feel the need to spend more money on their childs education, the private sector is still there to supply that demand.

8/7/2008 12:55:37 PM

Quote :

"Name a nation that makes young children at the age of 10 make decisions with consequences that will determine the rest of their lives. Thats why they are called kids. Many nations in Europe have adequate public education and healthcare for all. If you indeed want to go there."

If you're using Europe as the standard, most of the contintent sets children on educational tracks at a very early age.

8/7/2008 1:13:49 PM

Quote :

"Nobodys saying they can't do that. They can spend 20k a year on school for their kids if they feel like it but they will also help pay for an adequate public school system weather they use it or not. ITS THEIR DUTY."

Fine, now be specific. According to good old Alan, we pay $10k / (year-child) for education in the public system.

The voucher system would be a Tax credit of $10k for every child, with the requirement that you send your kid to school. Simple as that.

Now, if you want to talk a progressive tax, that would be a different story. Say, if you spend $20k for your child's education, then you only get a $4k voucher, with the other $6k going to 'needy' areas. This, as opposed to paying $20k with the standard $10k rebate.

Current system? You pay $20k and get no voucher. Oh, and most of the $10k for everyone else is being wasted on an inefficient government system.

It sounds like your position would result in favoring the progressive education voucher, though I'll admit it's complicated and a compromise. But the current system is choosing corruption. That's it.

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 1:15 PM. Reason : ^ I was going to say Japan and Germany, but it's generally a pretty tenable claim]

--
Scratch that, look at the progressive voucher in marginal terms.
$10k is free. We want to encourage additional spending. So the next $1k sees $500 go to improving the local conditions, and the other $500 is effectively an education tax or deduction from the voucher (however you want to see it) to encourage equality. So $20k spending results in a $15k education, instead of a $10k education in today's system.
I have my reservations about this as well, but the point is that no rational approach justifies the current system.

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 1:19 PM. Reason : ]

8/7/2008 1:14:12 PM

Quote :

"The military does great but if someone doesn't liek the idea of being part of the evil things our nation does through its military then they have no way out. Morality or self perseverance? "

That's a really ignorant statement. If you are enlisted or even an officer up to around O-9, you are no more culpable for the things this country chooses to do through its military than you are right now sitting on your ass typing on the inner nerd. You kids are a bunch of pussies these days. If you are scared, say your scared, don't hide behind some morality of not liking our foreign policy of taking things from other countries especially when you are proposing to take money from your citizens at home to prop up people who refuse to do for themselves.

Either way, people are aware of ways out of their condition and choose to rationalize why they can't use them. I say let them continue to slip through the cracks. If they don't care, why should I?

8/7/2008 1:22:10 PM

Quote :

"Name a nation that makes young children at the age of 10 make decisions with consequences that will determine the rest of their lives."

Don't you have to test just to get into highschool in Japan? And how you do on those tests determine which schools are available to you?

8/7/2008 1:24:29 PM

You do have to test. You even have to test to get into middle school, even though it's not as high pressure, and the gradient isn't as severe. Naturally, the largest gradient in education quality is in college, and this is why millions of 17 year olds practically destroy themselves studying for the college-specific entrance exams.

It also doesn't hurt to have money, political influence, etc.

Read watch Love Hina, Hana Yori Dango, whatever. There's lots of information and portrayals of the Japanese system and the stigmas, and social predestination that comes with it. I'm certainly not a fan of that, but it would be idiotic and utterly unfair to expect this kind of stuff with a public school system.

The US has social mobility, and this is a good thing. Determining placement by 5th grade performance almost necessarily decreases mobility, as it has little to do with an individuals ultimate drive for success.

Nonetheless, we have a surprisingly accurate selection mechanism for colleges. You practically have to work in a chemistry lab in your HS junior year to get accepted into MIT, and the application includes an interview. A complete voucher free-for-all would increase this kind of self-motivated action and basically let people get going with their lives earlier.

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 1:34 PM. Reason : ]

8/7/2008 1:33:16 PM

Yeah, the testing in Japan is ultra high-stakes.

And amazingly, their schools somehow manage to excel, in spite of their insistence on holding students accountable for their performance. It's so counter intuitive

8/7/2008 1:36:28 PM

Quote :

"I have my reservations about this as well, but the point is that no rational approach justifies the current system."

The voucher system is simply not an option. We can't allow parents to limit their kids education. This has to stay entirely in the governments hand. Lets work on fixing the corruption.

Quote :

" That's a really ignorant statement. If you are enlisted or even an officer up to around O-9, you are no more culpable for the things this country chooses to do through its military than you are right now sitting on your ass typing on the inner nerd. You kids are a bunch of pussies these days. If you are scared, say your scared, don't hide behind some morality of not liking our foreign policy of taking things from other countries especially when you are proposing to take money from your citizens at home to prop up people who refuse to do for themselves. "

You aren't making the decisions or doing wrong (simply doing what you must do) but I and many people like me couldn't live with myself. I'm not denouncing soldiers in anyway but I myself could not take being the tool of said policy. Yes money should go to fellow citizens over harming foreign people.

Quote :

"Either way, people are aware of ways out of their condition and choose to rationalize why they can't use them. I say let them continue to slip through the cracks. If they don't care, why should I?"

the kids don't have control over this so it is all of our duty to provide for them.

Quote :

"and this is why millions of 17 year olds practically destroy themselves studying for the college-specific entrance exams. It also doesn't hurt to have money, political influence, etc."

It means everything. The last thing we want is more entrance tests. These tests are designed to weed out certain people. Cultural references in the reading portion that people who live in certain areas would have had no exposure to. Its pretty easy for them to fix the test to get the results they want. Its done to a certain degree on the sat.

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 1:42 PM. Reason : look it up]
preparation classes that cost money

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 1:43 PM. Reason : gonna hand out vouchers for those too?]

8/7/2008 1:40:08 PM

Quote :

"the kids don't have control over this so it is all of our duty to provide for them."

Yes, they really do.

Damn it, this is the area where I really just want to disown liberalism.

8/7/2008 1:43:56 PM

Quote :

"Yes, they really do."

REALLY???? kids control if they are born into poverty or not? kids control if they are born into irresponsible parents? kids control all that? Kids don't control anything. not even themselves to a certain degree until a certain age.

8/7/2008 1:54:40 PM

Quote :

"We can't allow parents to limit their kids education."

How does giving a parent the right to choose their child's school limit their kids education?

8/7/2008 1:57:36 PM

Because, believe it or not, there are parents out there that will spend the bare minimum and keep the rest of their money to themselves.

8/7/2008 2:03:58 PM

Quote :

"You aren't making the decisions or doing wrong (simply doing what you must do) but I and many people like me couldn't live with myself. I'm not denouncing soldiers in anyway but I myself could not take being the tool of said policy."

So what you are trying to say is that you are a huge vagina. I get it.


And your whole "just think of the children" rationale is pretty good, except that you are refusing to do anything to make a change except complain. What you fail to understand is that 90% of people are sick and tired of handing over some portion of their paycheck to people who think that they deserve something just because they were born. You don't deserve anything that you haven't worked to obtain and that includes a good education for your children.

8/7/2008 2:04:29 PM

Yes, they really do have control over their decisions.

Your attitude is typical of why poverty tends to perpetuate itself.

8/7/2008 2:07:09 PM

Quote :

"Because, believe it or not, there are parents out there that will spend the bare minimum and keep the rest of their money to themselves."

The last time I checked, retailers don't accept school vouchers as a form of payment. How else would choice limit education?


[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2008 2:07:43 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, the testing in Japan is ultra high-stakes. And amazingly, their schools somehow manage to excel, in spite of their insistence on holding students accountable for their performance. It's so counter intuitive"

The methods and organization of the Japanese education system have little to do with the nation's success. Japan is a society far more demographically uniform than us, where the bottom 10% are vastly richer than our corresponding bottom 10%. Long before WW2 they had mad urban migration and strong social order.

They had educated teachers, educated parents, reliable trains, and close communities. A school superintendent would have to try hard to fuck that up. Everything was just in place for them, and I in no way attribute the successes of Japan to their educational system aside from the fact that they have a decent one.

Their accountability in HS generally translates to better performance, but often at a significant time and money cost to the parents who are the ones who want to see their beloved only daughter get into the famous Keiyo University. It isn't particularly impossible when you accompany this with a birthrate of 1.1 child per woman, which is going to tear the country apart in a decade anyway. Ask me anytime you want a plan that gets short term gains in return for long term losses. These plans are not hard to come by.

A good system would have consistent accountability from birth to death accompanied with a smorgasbord of options. Their entrance exams keeps most people in their respective quintile of society, but what about after that? You know what the retention rate for 4-year graduation is at a common Japanese university is?

about 99%.

If there's a 1% chance you'll fail out of college, are you going to go to class. No, you won't. Do you know what the 4-year graduation rate at NCSU is?

about 25%

This means people go to class and study. Don't want to go to class? Fine, you can be part of the probably 20% of so who will just never ever graduate.
College has played a role in the success of the United States, to say the least. It seriously made a difference. They only difference the Japanese educational system made is that it wasn't a complete train wreck.

8/7/2008 2:09:19 PM