Japan also has the highest child suicide rate, but you don't hear me though.

Quote :

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

The whole basis of a the voucher system means that the voucher provides the minimum form of education. This would be inadequate and parents would have to supplement it to get a worthwhile education.

Quote :

"Yes, they really do have control over their decisions. Your attitude is typical of why poverty tends to perpetuate itself."

Your attitude victimizes them and doesn't allow them to have control. Pure capitalism feeds the poor further into the grasping lock jaws of the beast that is poverty.

Quote :

"except that you are refusing to do anything to make a change except complain. "

O I have many plans of reform and have suggested many here.

Federalization of schools
equalization of schools+ raised standard
increased progressive taxes to fund schools
decentralization of poor areas
end of property tax zoning era
attacking corruption
I could go on and on

Quote :

"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 mean 10%? Nobody LIKES taxes but I think everyone knows they are necessary for society to thrive. The whole "everyman for himself" thing is an anarchist ideology. What have rich babies worked for?

Quote :

"You don't deserve anything that you haven't worked to obtain and that includes a good education for your children."

I'm sorry but I don't think you could say that with a straight face. Punish children for their parents mistakes? This is America...or at least should be.

8/7/2008 2:25:09 PM

ezra klein had an interesting take on a related topic a while back:

One of the problems that some low-income schools have is that rather than boasting a lot of intensely involved, fairly affluent parents willing to come together and raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to better the school, they find coalitions of intensely involved, fairly affluent parents willing to come together and raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to sue the city so their kids can go to a whiter, richer school. So that sucks. Meanwhile, as Dana points out, one of the big problems afflicting urban schools is that parents look at aggregate achievement, rather than achievement for kids with similar demographic characteristics to their kids:

Quote :

"So were the litigious Fairfax parents correct to freak out about South Lakes? Let's look at the numbers. At South Lakes High, 46 percent of students are white, 20 percent are black, 16 percent are Hispanic, and 11 percent are Asian. One-third of the school's population qualifies for free or reduced-price lunch. In other words, this is both a racially and socioeconomically diverse school. How does this affect the most academically talented/privileged proportion of the student body? Well, more than half of white kids and almost half of Asian kids participate in the IB program, as do about 20 percent of blacks and Hispanics. An overwhelming majority of all the students enrolled in IB score a 4 or better, indicating excellent instruction and achievement. As for the SAT, the average combined score for white kids at South Lakes is 1730 out of 2400. Now let's look at Oakton High School, which affluent parents sued to get their kids into. Oakton is 67 percent white and only 11 percent black and Hispanic. Less than 9 percent of students there qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. Oakton has an AP program in which white students are just as successful as their similar white peers at South Lakes are on the IB exams; of the black students participating in AP though, less than half scored three or higher. Tellingly, on the SAT, Oakton's white kids score 1730, essentially the exact same score as white students at South Lakes."

So there's no evidence that the kids at the richer school do better than the kids at the poorer school. But the parents think the poorer school is so terrible that they'll spend $125,000 of their own dollars trying to save their kids from the hellish fate of South Lakes High...where the data shows they'll do as well or better than they'll do at Oakton. Folks like to talk a lot about how teacher's unions stand in the way of better schools. But no one really wants to talk about the ways in which well-meaning, mostly white parents worsen the problems.

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=08&year=2008&base_name=the_problems_with_parents

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 2:31 PM. Reason : is there a way to do a quote box within a quote box?]

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 2:32 PM. Reason : quote]

8/7/2008 2:29:39 PM

Quote :

"The whole basis of a the voucher system means that the voucher provides the minimum form of education. This would be inadequate and parents would have to supplement it to get a worthwhile education."

Provided that minimum was equal to our current educational system, I fail to see how a system of choice would be worse? Logically, the schools at the bottom of the spectrum would be incentivized to keep up with their peers, thus all schools would strive to be above the current minimum else risk losing funding.

Quote :

"Pure capitalism feeds the poor further into the grasping lock jaws of the beast that is poverty."

This is simply false. Capitalism has provided incentives for people to better themselves. Government handouts have systematically incentivized people to remain receiving handouts, thus disincentivizing productivity. Behind every human action is an incentive that spurred that action. What incentives do government handouts provide?



[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2008 2:35:58 PM

Quote :

"You mean 10%? Nobody LIKES taxes but I think everyone knows they are necessary for society to thrive. The whole "everyman for himself" thing is an anarchist ideology. What have rich babies worked for? "

Nobody is suggesting that taxes are bad as a whole. However, I think that most everyone would agree that they don't like their money paying for entitlement programs or for public education if you are sending your kids to private school. You ask, "what have rich babies worked for?" Their parents have worked for decades to make sure that they can provide more for their children than others. You are suggesting that hard work not be rewarded and that they be no more entitled to education than poor children. Poor children have a right to an education,Ii agree with that statement. At some point, people need to take responsibility for their own condition in life and do something to make it better besides begging for support and nannying from the government.


Schools will never all be equal because the parents of these children don't value education. Wealthy parents tend to value education. Smart people/families tend to pursue good educations and eventually, maybe after a few generations of keeping their shit together, become wealthy.

.

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM. Reason : asdf]

8/7/2008 2:40:35 PM

I think at the heart of this debate is one's value of personal freedom. Do you believe each parent should have the freedom to choose their child's education or do you think the government should deny and supersede such freedom in the name of an agenda that has continually failed for over a half century?

8/7/2008 2:50:09 PM

Quote :

"Their parents have worked for decades to make sure that they can provide more for their children than others. You are suggesting that hard work not be rewarded and that they be no more entitled to education than poor children."

This country was sort of built on the fact that its not about what your grandparents did its about what you can do. Hard work pays off in many more ways than education but all of the population benefits from everyone being well educated. Sure it makes it harder to exploit dirt poor people and make billions in benefits from uneducated people but society on a whole benefits from a well educated youth.

Quote :

"Poor children have a right to an education"

Ok then. The money has to come from somewhere is the part you have a hard time understanding.

Quote :

"At some point, people need to take responsibility for their own condition in life and do something to make it better besides begging for support and nannying from the government. "

You're suggesting it take 3 generations of hard work just to get the basic necessities to move up in life. I believe in upward mobility and hope for every American citizen.

Quote :

"Schools will never all be equal because the parents of these children don't value education. Wealthy parents tend to value education. Smart people/families tend to pursue good educations and eventually, maybe after a few generations of keeping their shit together, become wealthy. "

I'm just saying all public schools should be equal and adequate. Sure there will always be the availability of private education that can be much much better but I'm talking strictly public. Rich parents can still send their kids to Richy Rich schools and foot the taxes for public schools without a problem.

Quote :

"Provided that minimum was equal to our current educational system, I fail to see how a system of choice would be worse? Logically, the schools at the bottom of the spectrum would be incentivized to keep up with their peers, thus all schools would strive to be above the current minimum else risk losing funding."

We've all already acknowledge the fact that education is currently in need of a fix.
Icentivized by what method? tests? odear that will make things even worse for these "poor schools".

Quote :

"This is simply false. Capitalism has provided incentives for people to better themselves. Government handouts have systematically incentivized people to remain receiving handouts, thus disincentivizing productivity. Behind every human action is an incentive that spurred that action. What incentives do government handouts provide?"

The ability to walk before you can run. Sure some people will be happy just walking but many, once able to walk, will still want to run. Capitalism, by design has a few people sprinting on a human track and could not work without government interference.

Quote :

"I think at the heart of this debate is one's value of personal freedom. Do you believe each parent should have the freedom to choose their child's education or do you think the government should deny and supersede such freedom in the name of an agenda that has continually failed for over a half century?"

I don't think anyone is or ever has denied parents freedom to choose their childs education. (unless of course you're talking about poor people who have no options but public school by bus.)

8/7/2008 3:03:42 PM

Quote :

"The whole basis of a the voucher system means that the voucher provides the minimum form of education."

Absurd. What would the city do with the other half of the education budget? I believe the vouchers should be set high enough to leave education budgets unchanged and since most private schools currently cost half what we currently pay per pupil for public education, I expect to see schools competing to give free laptops to every student combined with on-site health spas. And yes, it should be illegal to refund unused portions of school vouchers.

8/7/2008 3:16:13 PM

You're not making sense. You're saying 4= 1+1+1+1+1 if you split it aprat. If the money is the same as it is now at the minimum schools (which is already a huge problem which I thought we were trying to fix.) and money is going into other private schools then there is less money in the cheapest schools.

8/7/2008 3:51:11 PM

^ you clearly don't understand how vouchers work.

Read up on the topic, and get back to us.

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 3:53 PM. Reason : 2]

8/7/2008 3:52:58 PM

haha they don't "work" thus won't ever be used. Its just a way for rich people to try to figure out a way to trick the rest of the population into letting them out of being accountable and funding public schools.

8/7/2008 3:57:25 PM

Quote :

"Icentivized by what method? tests?"

As per my original post, they are incentivized by the threat of losing pupils to other schools. Why do you think companies bother with satisfaction surveys, focus groups, ect? Because they want your business. The fact that you have the ability to choose another company is incentive enough for them to cater to your every need in order to retain your business. This same process, which you seem to find so esoteric, would occur if parents were given a choice.

Quote :

"I don't think anyone is or ever has denied parents freedom to choose their childs education. (unless of course you're talking about poor people who have no options but public school by bus.)"

What else do you call it when you leave parents with two choices: a public school of the government’s choosing or a limited number of private schools (limited due to the government’s monopoly on education) in which parents must pay for in addition to the public school? It's not just "poor people" who can't afford paying for two school systems at once, otherwise many more parents would be sending their child to better, private schools. This is like the government saying, “sure, you can own any home you want, but only after buying this one from us.” That, by almost any definition, is a denial of choice.



[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 4:50 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2008 4:46:56 PM

Quote :

" As per my original post, they are incentivized by the threat of losing pupils to other schools. Why do you think companies bother with satisfaction surveys, focus groups, ect? Because they want your business. The fact that you have the ability to choose another company is incentive enough for them to cater to your every need in order to retain your business. This same process, which you seem to find so esoteric, would occur if parents were given a choice. "

Mcdonalds isn't making healthy food because they might lose people to chicken fila. They put out a shitty product at a cheap price.

Schools will suck and will be full simply because they cost the amount of the voucher.

Quote :

"What else do you call it when you leave parents with two choices: a public school of the government’s choosing or a limited number of private schools (limited due to the government’s monopoly on education) in which parents must pay for in addition to the public school? It's not just "poor people" who can't afford paying for two school systems at once, otherwise many more parents would be sending their child to better, private schools. This is like the government saying, “sure, you can own any home you want, but only after buying this one from us.” That, by almost any definition, is a denial of choice. "

They don't "buy" that public school its something every citizen even the ones without any children at all pay for. They can choose wherever they want to send their kids.

I think many people don't use private schools because either a, they dont care or b they don't have the means to get their kids to them. (transportation)

Poor people have no choice because they don't have the money to afford or at least want to afford private school.

8/7/2008 5:03:35 PM

Quote :

"As per my original post, they are incentivized by the threat of losing pupils to other schools. Why do you think companies bother with satisfaction surveys, focus groups, ect?"

Yes, this is Alan's argument. Public schools can not loose their patrons regardless of how much they suck. The teachers can loose their jobs if the school is unhappy with them and there are others in the market for teaching jobs. However, the administrators answer to the schoolboards, and here you start to look the chain of responsibility around on itself and get positive feedback.

With vouchers, public schools WILL loose students.

Quote :

"Poor people have no choice because they don't have the money to afford or at least want to afford private school."

hmm, maybe we should give these people the option of attending a private school...

perhaps we could give them a voucher or something.

8/7/2008 5:16:39 PM

and i've said over and over the voucher would only pay to go to a school that is equal or probably worse than public schools are today. The schools won't need to be good because the only requirement these poor parents will have of it is that the voucher cover all costs.

8/7/2008 5:19:02 PM

engrish plz?

8/7/2008 5:22:09 PM

^^ you still haven't provided a logical reason why choice would lead to worse schools than we have today

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 5:22 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2008 5:22:22 PM

because private companies will want to maximize profits just as they do in every other industry. They might not be worse but they certainly wouldn't be btter. I want to fix the problem not throw in the towel.

8/7/2008 5:27:52 PM

Quote :

"because private companies will want to maximize profits"

Exactly. Profits provide the incentive for new entrants to the market. They also provide an incentive for existing schools to do everything they can to cater to the needs of parents. How is this bad? If a school is gunning only for profits without meeting the needs of parents/students, parents would no longer enroll their child there. The mere threat of this would align the school's incentives so that they focus on catering to parents/students as a means attract their business.

This is econ 101



[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 6:01 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2008 5:58:55 PM

I'll admit that yes, it could turn bad by certain companies entering into this market. It will depend on how you set it up. You have to look at what people's sensitivities are.

Specifically for low-income 100% voucher paid education...

The School
- Must meet the basic education requirements, else the government cuts or reduces the voucher funding
- Income constant per student, so increase # of students
- Keep costs low

The Parents
- Convenience cost of transportation, ie lower it
- Reduce or eliminate costs exceeding voucher stipend

So, we're interested in the bad things that can happen, so therefore we assume that both parties have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the actual education of the kid. Meaning that all education is left up to federal standards.

Parent puts kid in geographically closest school
School cuts costs
Kid does worse on test
School gets less money
School spends more money on test teaching, and goes in the red
School highers cheaper teacher
School goes under
Parent puts kid in next geographically closest school

I don't know how it would end, because I don't know what framework they would be operating under. From the standpoint of a motivated kid, this worse case could still feasibly work if they had proper resources, and if the federal government could just give them all the $100 laptop and establish a standard WikiBook for every subject in the curriculum, then well... might not be so bad.

8/7/2008 6:23:28 PM

Quote :

"Mcdonalds isn't making healthy food because they might lose people to chicken fila."

Oh really? Why is McDonalds selling salads? Hint it isn't due to government mandate.

8/7/2008 7:04:26 PM

^ 7777 Posts!

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 7:14 PM. Reason : ]

8/7/2008 7:14:05 PM

at 7pm on the 7th

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 7:32 PM. Reason : 70th post in this thread. ]

8/7/2008 7:31:19 PM

Quote :

"You're suggesting it take 3 generations of hard work just to get the basic necessities to move up in life. I believe in upward mobility and hope for every American citizen. "

See, your idea of wealthy and my idea of wealthy are probably very different. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that you can't "make it" in your lifetime. You are arguing that poverty acts in a circular fashion for those families "trapped" in it. I am saying, in contra, that in order for your family to really become wealthy it takes a few generations of not having any fuck ups. Having a good flow of generation after generation completing higher education. I am betting that there are a lot of parents out there who have struggled to make it into middle class and want the best for their children and are willing to scrimp and save to make sure that their kids don't end up back at the starting line. Allowing them to opt out of public education and use a voucher and a little of their extra money may help them do that. Why do you have such a problem with that. It seems to me that you don't believe in hard work.

Quote :

"I'm just saying all public schools should be equal and adequate. Sure there will always be the availability of private education that can be much much better but I'm talking strictly public. Rich parents can still send their kids to Richy Rich schools and foot the taxes for public schools without a problem. "

It's funny that you think that it's only rich folks that don't want their kids in public schools. Where are you getting that from?

Quote :

"This country was sort of built on the fact that its not about what your grandparents did its about what you can do. Hard work pays off in many more ways than education but all of the population benefits from everyone being well educated. Sure it makes it harder to exploit dirt poor people and make billions in benefits from uneducated people but society on a whole benefits from a well educated youth. "

The resources don't exist to make sure everyone has an "equal" AND "outstanding" education and honestly even if there were enough resources it would be a huge misallocation of those resources most of the time. Not everyone is intelligent enough to go to college, or at least colleges shouldn't be letting everyone and their brother in. In my opinion, there are too many people wasting their money in college. At this point, anyone can get an undergraduate degree. A college degree is pretty much the equivalent of a high school education in today's world.

That is one really redeeming quality about much of Europe's educational structure. Particularly Germany. They try to determine at an early age whether you should be on an engineering track, a mangerial/business track, or maybe a carpentry track. Sadly, there are a ton of idiots roaming about this country that believe that they are special and smart when that is just not true. Spending millions of dollars to make sure that every Joe Sixpack from the trailer park can do differential equations is not the answer.

8/7/2008 10:58:47 PM

Quote :

"I am saying, in contra, that in order for your family to really become wealthy it takes a few generations of not having any fuck ups."

no...
it doesn't.

--
We obviously want to have incentive to encourage parents to get their kids educated. But really... that's where the passing down of stuff should end. Parents can play a role in school up to college, and contribute financially to college, then it's up to the kid.

Obviously there's a balance to be struck, as you don't want parents to act as if they're completely divorced from their kids success, but you want someone's success to clearly be their own success.

8/8/2008 12:18:30 AM

Quote :

"I am betting that there are a lot of parents out there who have struggled to make it into middle class and want the best for their children and are willing to scrimp and save to make sure that their kids don't end up back at the starting line. Allowing them to opt out of public education and use a voucher and a little of their extra money may help them do that. Why do you have such a problem with that. It seems to me that you don't believe in hard work."

I don't believe that a kid getting a decent education should be based on weather or not his parants work hard. This punishes kids with bad parents. Every kid should have the education you are talking about and then if somebody wants an education that is ABOVE AND BEYOND a good education THEN their parents can work hard and get it. Some kids are held back more than enough by their parents at home and in the community. They certainly don't need to have their education limited as well.

A good, free education should be guaranteed to every American.

Quote :

"It's funny that you think that it's only rich folks that don't want their kids in public schools. Where are you getting that from?"

You said if somebody wants to pay more money for a better education its their right to because its their money which implies wealth. Weather it be rich wealth or middle class wealth they are still rich mentally.

Quote :

"The resources don't exist to make sure everyone has an "equal" AND "outstanding" education and honestly even if there were enough resources it would be a huge misallocation of those resources most of the time. Not everyone is intelligent enough to go to college, or at least colleges shouldn't be letting everyone and their brother in. In my opinion, there are too many people wasting their money in college. At this point, anyone can get an undergraduate degree. A college degree is pretty much the equivalent of a high school education in today's world."

You're contradicting yourself. If its the equivalent of a high school education, and anyone can make it why shouldn't they let anyone in? Obviously the ones that get a degree are intelligent enough and you can't tell a kid at a young age they can't go to college. Anyone who doesn't have a mental disability can work hard, study hard and make it to college. If its the equivalent of a high school degree then anybody that doesn't get it is pretty much screwed so how are they wasting their money? (assuming they are passing)

Its sickening that you want to say kids with bad parents shouldn't be able to do anything with their lives. Like they don't have it hard enough as it is and your ideas aren't even unique is the sad part, there are millions of scumbags that want things to be this way.

Quote :

"Sadly, there are a ton of idiots roaming about this country that believe that they are special and smart when that is just not true. Spending millions of dollars to make sure that every Joe Sixpack from the trailer park can do differential equations is not the answer. "

"if you were joe sixpack would i throw you in jail"

It is the answer because whose to say they can't do what they want to do? These kids should be able to grow up and get the necessary information to figure out which track they want to take and then pursue being what they want to be, not what some stupid guidance counselor told them they should do. You really hate America.

Quote :

"We obviously want to have incentive to encourage parents to get their kids educated. But really... that's where the passing down of stuff should end. Parents can play a role in school up to college, and contribute financially to college, then it's up to the kid."

A kids future shouldn't be left solely in their parents hand because many parents could care less how their kids end up and there are even some out there that don't want to be outdone by thier kids and want their kids to live the same hard life they lived believe it or not.

8/8/2008 10:00:42 AM

Quote :

"If the money is the same as it is now at the minimum schools (which is already a huge problem which I thought we were trying to fix.) and money is going into other private schools then there is less money in the cheapest schools."

The money follows the student with a voucher. As such, if you want more money then attract more students. The goal is to close the government schools and since the voucher is so ungodly high (what we are currently paying per-pupil for government schools) then only expensive boarding schools would not be free after the voucher.

There is an extra benefit if we make the vouchers means-tested so that the rich which currently send their children to governments schools will be forced to pay their own way, thus freeing up even more money so the value of the voucher can actually be set higher than what we currently pay for attending government schools. We're talking labrynths of education here; sold gold statues, free transportation to and from not only school but afterschool activities which, BTW, would also be included in the voucher.

Quote :

"Mcdonalds isn't making healthy food because they might lose people to chicken fila. They put out a shitty product at a cheap price. Schools will suck and will be full simply because they cost the amount of the voucher."

Then the amount of the voucher was set ungodly too low. However, if I get my way and the voucher amounts to what we currently spend for government education, roughly twice that of most private schools, then there will definitely not be problem of vouchers being too small. We could close the government schools, fire everyone, and be spending exactly the same amount on education.

Quote :

"So, we're interested in the bad things that can happen, so therefore we assume that both parties have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the actual education of the kid. Meaning that all education is left up to federal standards."

Transportation is a problem already solved by most private schools. Where I live private schools charter vans which fan out into the city and pick up students and bring them to school. Schools stagger their times (such as by grade within the same school) so the same vans can be reused. Private Schools (even competing ones) often co-locate near each other so they can share transportation services. This service is sometimes included in tuition.

But, again, as families become richer their tendence is towards private schools which are not free, you must pay the entire tuition. As such, it seems to me that this demonstrates that the vast majority of parents care a lot about their childs education, it is just that they are not rich enough to pay for both government schools and private schools at the same time. As such, by rendering all schools free by providing an absurdly high voucher amount equal to what we currently pay just for government schools, parents will act on their demonstrated tendency to care about their childs education.

8/8/2008 10:45:05 AM

Quote :

"A kids future shouldn't be left solely in their parents hand because many parents could care less how their kids end up and there are even some out there that don't want to be outdone by thier kids and want their kids to live the same hard life they lived believe it or not."

Alright, well then let me repeat what I already said.

- A kid's future is, and will always be, in their parents hands
- A kid's future can not be left solely in their parents hands

The garbage you're talking leads to the idea where we separate kids from their parents as early as possible and put them in a common upbringing so their social position will be determined empirically on their own traits.

You can't do this, and as long as we live in families, period, we MUST absolutely imperatively have incentive for parents to be good parents. Your socialist smorgasbord tries it's damnedest to take away all responsibility for the parents under the vague idea that some parents out there already have no responsibility. Lower everyone down to the bottom, right?

--
I don't know about transportation. It's debatable as to weather vans or buses are more efficient, and although I think it's vans, it seems like a mute argument to say that you get more use out of the van investment since buses in school systems now are practically driven until they break down.

But this is all utterly dependent on location. Private schools could be smaller - just build a model where you gather kids in a certain age range in a certain radius and teach them in the local church for instance. This decentralization addresses both the transport and building infrastructure, the latter of which hasn't been addressed much in this thread so far. But decentralization isn't possible in many rural locations, and a place like Raleigh might see more centralization as university/research connected schools crop up rivaling some of the highest primary education standards in the world.

If we use this program to destroy public schools, will private schools be allowed to rent out classrooms? Will you force the public school if they don't want to rent them out (I promise, they won't)? Will private schools have to build or rent their own facilities? Will we have huge empty buildings where the public high school used to be?

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 11:30 AM. Reason : ]

8/8/2008 11:27:33 AM

Quote :

"Then the amount of the voucher was set ungodly too low. However, if I get my way and the voucher amounts to what we currently spend for government education, roughly twice that of most private schools, then there will definitely not be problem of vouchers being too small. We could close the government schools, fire everyone, and be spending exactly the same amount on education."

The only goal of private companies is profit. No matter what the voucher is set at companies will still try to make as much profit as possible so there will be schools that spend as little of the voucher money as possible to make more money.

Quote :

"Transportation is a problem already solved by most private schools. Where I live private schools charter vans which fan out into the city and pick up students and bring them to school. Schools stagger their times (such as by grade within the same school) so the same vans can be reused. Private Schools (even competing ones) often co-locate near each other so they can share transportation services. This service is sometimes included in tuition."

This could not work on a large scale. Especially in rural areas.

Quote :

"But, again, as families become richer their tendence is towards private schools which are not free, you must pay the entire tuition. As such, it seems to me that this demonstrates that the vast majority of parents care a lot about their childs education, it is just that they are not rich enough to pay for both government schools and private schools at the same time. As such, by rendering all schools free by providing an absurdly high voucher amount equal to what we currently pay just for government schools, parents will act on their demonstrated tendency to care about their childs education."

Instead of a high voucher amount, why not just dedicate this amount to every student? Parents are not the only ones who pay for schools. Everyone does. If you eliminate public schools and go to vouchers the tax burden will still be there to fund the vouchers plus the schools will make profits. The profits will outweigh the corruption. You're not just going to create money out of thin air. Somebody will lose out and its the poor.

Quote :

"The garbage you're talking leads to the idea where we separate kids from their parents as early as possible and put them in a common upbringing so their social position will be determined empirically on their own traits."

Not completely, just during the day. If half of their time is spent at school and half with their parents then the kids won't be as much of a product of their parents. The entire idea of school in theory is a common upbringing so social upbringing is determined on your traits. If not kids would just stay with their parents do what they do until they later took over their parents job.

Quote :

"take away all responsibility for the parents under the vague idea that some parents out there already have no responsibility. Lower everyone down to the bottom, right?"

No, raise everyone to the middle. I don't see how you can justify throwing kids away to punish their parents for not being responsible. Kids have nothing to do with the actions of their parents.

Quote :

"just build a model where you gather kids in a certain age range in a certain radius and teach them in the local church for instance."

So you want to move kids back into the 1700s? There are several Amish communities out there to send your kids to if this is your type of thing. Schools need to be large, versatile and technological. Your ideas will never take flight so I don't even know why I am arguing them. Privatization of schools is a ludacris idea in every way.

8/8/2008 12:41:15 PM

Quote :

"The only goal of private companies is profit. No matter what the voucher is set at companies will still try to make as much profit as possible so there will be schools that spend as little of the voucher money as possible to make more money. "

Right but remember the other side of the equation is that if they don't provide a good enough product, they loose vouchers. Lost vouchers is lost income. This is why when you pay money to NC state, they don't just hire people off the street to teach classes, they (in theory) seek out the best and the brightest they can afford. It's why McDonalds sells salads. If you don't give people what they want, you lose money and thus profits. And that is the exact problem with the public school system, if the school doesn't actually educate your child, just teaches them to pass the standardized tests, they still get the same amount of money.

Quote :

"If half of their time is spent at school and half with their parents then the kids won't be as much of a product of their parents."

Instead they will be the product of their peers. Their peers being a bunch of uneducated, unsupervised, undisciplined children.

Quote :

"The entire idea of school in theory is a common upbringing so social upbringing is determined on your traits."

Why should your "social" upbringing be determined by your traits, and not your society?

Quote :

"No, raise everyone to the middle. I don't see how you can justify throwing kids away to punish their parents for not being responsible. Kids have nothing to do with the actions of their parents. "

If the parents aren't responsible, take the children away. As in completely. I never understood this whole "leave children with irresponsible and bad parents, just use government coercion and money to raise them." Why, if the parents are irresponsible and harming their child, would you leave the child in their care?

Quote :

"Schools need to be large, versatile and technological."

And not a single government school will ever meet that for no other reason than by the very nature of it being a government school, everything must be compromised. What's wrong with small and diverse schools?

Quote :

"Privatization of schools is a ludacris idea in every way."

So why is it that in terms of performance, private schools outshine public ones in almost every way while still spending less per student?

8/8/2008 1:44:03 PM

ludicrous.

Quote :

"The only goal of private companies is profit. No matter what the voucher is set at companies will still try to make as much profit as possible so there will be schools that spend as little of the voucher money as possible to make more money."

You're missing so many things here. What companies? The McDonalds of education? And the voucher program would surely encourage these private companies to leach off of taxpayer money.

Add private companies and you add the cost of a profit, that's how it works right?



And maybe they would... strike contracts with schools, possibly to the detriment of students...



Look, in order to run a company, you have to own something, and you get a return on that something. This is exactly why I was using the Church example, not to turn us back to 1700.

In the voucher program, who would be teaching, what would they be using to do it, and who would own those things? THESE are the questions.

Let's go back to that 10k per child in 2004 number. How much does a teacher make?

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=High_School_Teacher/Salary

We'll say generously that a teacher makes 50k per year in public schools. And we'll say that the class size is 20 pupils. And we'll say that a 50 ft by 50 ft classroom is needed for this, and we'll assume that no dual use with night and summer operations is possible. And we'll assume that we're renting commercial business space, which costs $7 per square foot per year for a school in Goodlettsville, Tennessee (http://www.leasemls.com/).

Yearly balance sheet
income: 20 * 10k = $200,000
Rent: 50 * 50 * 7 = $17,500
Salary: $50,000

So I've ran up expenses to $67,500. And we'll now assume we have to buy every student a $500 laptop. Every year. Don't even bother challenging this (http://www.buy.com/cat/laptop-computers/212.html)

20 * 500 = $10,000

Still doesn't look too bad. We'll use Wikibooks for all the subjects. And with a new decent laptop every year, I think we could claim to be fairly technologically with it. And we've run less than 80k out of 200k voucher funding.

I have a friend who works in a local high school. This person clearly has teaching certification and is perfectly capable, and would laugh at the insinuation that he makes anything close to 50k. Since he teaches English, he would probably need to work with other teachers, we'll say 4 large specialties are needed. It would also be a reasonable jump to presume he may know and have connections to other teachers, who would also, just maybe, be interested in working for themselves if the voucher program worked.

We'll use 6 teachers for the 4 areas, for inefficiencies, planning, increasing the 50k cost to 75k, putting the total just under 95k. Not included yet are transportation, food, and a few other things.

No capital needed other than deposits and whatnot. Otherwise everything is yearly costs. In other words, there is no 'profit' to add in this model, and if there was, it would go to salaries since they're working for themselves. Should a company open up a business with a large margin, my group of 6 motivated school teachers will undercut the fuck out of them.

The only way you can keep these people from doing this is to have a corrupt system that imposes crazy limitations on what people can and can't do. A racket. Like what we have now. Paint whatever picture you like of companies that would emerge, but the #1 input for real education is the teachers, and those won't change with or without vouchers. Mistaken pseudo-socialist ideas are what keep our teachers from teaching our kids, they would be perfectly capable of doing it on their own.

[Edited on August 8, 2008 at 2:29 PM. Reason : ]

8/8/2008 2:26:59 PM

Who would make sure every child was in school? What happens when there is space for 20 kids and theres an extra 20 kids one year?

Quote :

"The only way you can keep these people from doing this is to have a corrupt system that imposes crazy limitations on what people can and can't do. A racket. Like what we have now. Paint whatever picture you like of companies that would emerge, but the #1 input for real education is the teachers, and those won't change with or without vouchers. Mistaken pseudo-socialist ideas are what keep our teachers from teaching our kids, they would be perfectly capable of doing it on their own."

Schools being ran by the federal government instead of county and state govenrments would be much more efficient.

Quote :

"Right but remember the other side of the equation is that if they don't provide a good enough product, they loose vouchers. Lost vouchers is lost income."

No they don't. The only way they lose vouchers is if parents pull their kids. Well in poor areas schools will find ways other than providing a good education to appeal to low income families.

Quote :

"It's why McDonalds sells salads."

Mcdonalds sells salads only so people like you can say they sell salads. The other 95% of their menu is still dangerous. Likewise would happen with schools.

Quote :

"If you don't give people what they want, you lose money and thus profits."

There will be many parents who only want the schools cost to meet the voucher, maybe even companies taking it a step further providing the child with food, clothes, school supplies and all "educational tools". These types of parents won't judge schools by the education but by how much money they will save by sending thier kids to these schools and schools will respond to it by offering a shitty education dipped in glitter.

Quote :

"If the parents aren't responsible, take the children away. As in completely. I never understood this whole "leave children with irresponsible and bad parents, just use government coercion and money to raise them." Why, if the parents are irresponsible and harming their child, would you leave the child in their care?"

Yes but the irresponsible we're talking about is relative. These parents care for the safety of their kids so theres no way you could justify taking the kids even though we think not caring about the education their kids receive is irresponsible.

8/8/2008 4:12:02 PM

Quote :

""Right but remember the other side of the equation is that if they don't provide a good enough product, they loose vouchers. Lost vouchers is lost income." No they don't. The only way they lose vouchers is if parents pull their kids. Well in poor areas schools will find ways other than providing a good education to appeal to low income families."

I don't contradict you on this point, but it depends. Schools could loose the vouchers by failing to meet standards (attendance or otherwise), if you set it up as such. That would mean that you essentially shut down schools if you're taking the vouchers away. But if you're looking to reward good performance and punish bad performance by adjusting the voucher stipend (essentially what you accomplish if you give 19 vouchers in a 20 student school), then you fall into the NCLB trap where you don't know weather punishing is good or rewarding is good.

8/8/2008 4:43:43 PM

Quote :

"Yes but the irresponsible we're talking about is relative. These parents care for the safety of their kids so theres no way you could justify taking the kids even though we think not caring about the education their kids receive is irresponsible."

I would like to meet these parents that care whether the child dies or not but could care less whether they get an education or not. I really would, because I don't believe they exist.

However, even if they do exist, surely it is not in numbers high enough to matter. Assuming you are right, you cannot build and operate a school profitably serving a puny fraction of the population which only love dumb kids. Markets are good at serving wants, but not all wants get served. You may love Tibetan food, but I doubt you can find it in most cities because there are not enough such people in the area to keep such a service profitable. The same would go for schools. You may want a school which simply refunds most of the voucher to you, but since many parents would prefer an education it is unlikely you will find a school willing to cater to you.

Afterall, not caring about your child's education means sending them to whatever school is closest, which from the schools perspective is completely random: it may be a great school and your child got lucky. But as you admit, each additional student above fixed costs is almost pure profit and each student which leaves is almost pure loss, so every school will want to be the school that parents purposefully send their children to regardless of whether it is close or not. That is the only way to make huge profits, and in trying to do that the unintentional consequence is that all schools are doing whatever it takes to be comparatively great, even if most of their students' parents could care less.

8/8/2008 5:14:20 PM

Quote :

"Schools being ran by the federal government instead of county and state governments would be much more efficient."

Except this is unconstitutional. Where, in the constitution, is there mention of education? Education was specifically meant to be left to the states. We are a very diverse nation. You cannot simply prescribe a one-size-fits-all policy. If anything, this only removes parents even further from their child's education. Parents already painstakingly have to go through a state and local bureaucratic nightmare to get things changed. Adding a federal layer makes them that much more voiceless and removed from decision making.

Quote :

"Well in poor areas schools will find ways other than providing a good education to appeal to low income families. "

So low-income families prefer poor education to good education? I'm having trouble following your logic. Additionally, what businesses in the service industry do you know of that degrades their service against the wishes of their customers? Any business who runs on a model like this would rightly go out of business. Why else does H&R Block care so much about making sure you are satisfied? Why else does Apple computer strive to always keep a knowledgeable customer service department? Because both business thrive on repeat business. Suggesting that schools would somehow operate under a completely different set of incentives is simply incorrect.

8/8/2008 10:07:15 PM

Quote :

"Sales of healthier snacks such as salads have helped fast-food giant McDonald's report a 56% increase in first-quarter profits. The company has been marketing a new range of diet-conscious fast foods to meet consumers' changing tastes. Sales at restaurants open at least a year were up 9.4%, McDonald's said, with US sales 14.2% higher. It sold to 2.3 million more customers during the first quarter than in the same period last year. "

It appears McDonald's sells salads because they make a profit on them, not so

Quote :

" people like you can say they sell salads. "

8/11/2008 4:58:00 PM

Quote :

"I don't contradict you on this point, but it depends. Schools could loose the vouchers by failing to meet standards (attendance or otherwise), if you set it up as such. That would mean that you essentially shut down schools if you're taking the vouchers away. But if you're looking to reward good performance and punish bad performance by adjusting the voucher stipend (essentially what you accomplish if you give 19 vouchers in a 20 student school), then you fall into the NCLB trap where you don't know weather punishing is good or rewarding is good."

What happens when you shutdown a school? where do those kids go? If a school goes out of business in october, those kids are left out in the rain. Privatization can't happen. Not enough stability.

Quote :

"Except this is unconstitutional. Where, in the constitution, is there mention of education? Education was specifically meant to be left to the states. We are a very diverse nation. You cannot simply prescribe a one-size-fits-all policy. If anything, this only removes parents even further from their child's education. Parents already painstakingly have to go through a state and local bureaucratic nightmare to get things changed. Adding a federal layer makes them that much more voiceless and removed from decision making."

parents SHOULD be removed from public, free education. If they don't like it THATS what the private schools are for but everybody still has to pay taxes either way even childless.

Quote :

"So low-income families prefer poor education to good education? I'm having trouble following your logic. Additionally, what businesses in the service industry do you know of that degrades their service against the wishes of their customers? Any business who runs on a model like this would rightly go out of business. Why else does H&R Block care so much about making sure you are satisfied? Why else does Apple computer strive to always keep a knowledgeable customer service department? Because both business thrive on repeat business. Suggesting that schools would somehow operate under a completely different set of incentives is simply incorrect."

Any company puts out their products as low quality as they possibly can still sell them at. Uneducated parents will be mislead by bells and whistles of bad shcools. (free clothes, afterschool, transportation and supplies if you enroll here) and a piss poor education. The schools aren't going to say we are a bad education so how will undecuated parents know?

They were doing just fine before they sold salads but they were under heat to be healthy. They could basically make a profit selling anything they choose the reason they chose to sell salads was more fixing their reputation than making extra profit.

8/11/2008 5:16:04 PM

Quote :

"So the company introduced the lineup of three salad varieties, promoted milk and fruit in place of soda and fries in its kids' meals, and for a time last year offered an "adult" Happy Meal that included a bottle of water and a pedometer. Such actions have helped re-engage what Skinner calls "captive moms" who before might have only grudgingly stopped at a McDonald's to appease their kids. "

Looks like the CEO says that they're trying to capture a neglected section of the market.

Not trying to fix their reputation.

8/11/2008 5:35:56 PM

Quote :

"What happens when you shutdown a school? where do those kids go? If a school goes out of business in october, those kids are left out in the rain. Privatization can't happen. Not enough stability."

When Harris Teeter closes one of their stores, do its former patrons starve?

Quote :

"parents SHOULD be removed from public, free education. If they don't like it THATS what the private schools are for but everybody still has to pay taxes either way even childless."

I, and I'm sure almost every parent, would disagree. How are bureaucrats to know what's better for children than the children's own parents? Additionally, it is simply incorrect to assume that most parents have a choice in education simply because of the existence of private schools. Their choice is applicable only to the extent that they can pay twice for education.

Quote :

"Any company puts out their products as low quality as they possibly can still sell them at. Uneducated parents will be mislead by bells and whistles of bad shcools. (free clothes, afterschool, transportation and supplies if you enroll here) and a piss poor education. The schools aren't going to say we are a bad education so how will undecuated parents know?"

As previously requested, provide me an example of a company in the service industry (given education is, after all, a service, not a good) that has persistently provided poor service while maintaining profitability?

Quote :

"They were doing just fine before they sold salads but they were under heat to be healthy."

Obviously you haven't been following McDonald's sales growth. As a result of consumers' shift in preferences for healthier foods (as stated in the article quoted earlier), McDonald's suffered huge losses in revenue as more people were no longer interested in super-sized fries and Big Macs. McDonald's chose to offer healthier alternatives as a response to this shift, not as a PR ploy. Bottom line: given McDonald's customers have a choice in where they eat, McDonalds was incentivized to respond to their wants. As such, McDonalds responded to their desire for healthier alternatives and were rewarded for doing so.

The above process is why we have one of the most innovative, consumer-centric economies in the world.



[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 5:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2008 5:49:23 PM

Quote :

"Looks like the CEO says that they're trying to capture a neglected section of the market. Not trying to fix their reputation."

of course they would say that. no company is going to come out and say their objective is to make money and not the well being of the people.

Quote :

"When Harris Teeter closes one of their stores, do its former patrons starve?"

No people simply go to a grocery store further away but education is completly different as you have school years that require continuity and consistency. If a school shutdown you have already assumed every school will be pretty full so now the schools are overcrowded and lose effieciency. Some schools simply won't take any more students after a certain point and its not like there are empty schools right next to a school that shuts down. Parents will have to scramble to find a school that has room and will likely be outside its range of transportation and also have a different curriculium since all schools will be different. Disasterous. Kind of like if you watch a show on satelite every night that cable doesn't offer and satelite halts service except this show is a lesson for your child.

Quote :

"I, and I'm sure almost every parent, would disagree. How are bureaucrats to know what's better for children than the children's own parents? Additionally, it is simply incorrect to assume that most parents have a choice in education simply because of the existence of private schools. Their choice is applicable only to the extent that they can pay twice for education."

Why would they pay twice? Public schools have free tuition and everybody pays taxes regardless if thats what you're referring to. Schools would be good enough to not worry about under federal control but If parents don't like what is being taught then they have 3 options. home school, private school or shutup.

Quote :

"As previously requested, provide me an example of a company in the service industry (given education is, after all, a service, not a good) that has persistently provided poor service while maintaining profitability?"

Anything that is the cheapest of its kind relative to the most expensive.

Quote :

"Obviously you haven't been following McDonald's sales growth. As a result of consumers' shift in preferences for healthier foods (as stated in the article quoted earlier), McDonald's suffered huge losses in revenue as more people were no longer interested in super-sized fries and Big Macs. McDonald's chose to offer healthier alternatives as a response to this shift, not as a PR ploy. Bottom line: given McDonald's customers have a choice in where they eat, McDonalds was incentivized to respond to their wants. As such, McDonalds responded to their desire for healthier alternatives and were rewarded for doing so. "

Only becuase their press and reputation was becoming bad did it hurt them not because what they were offering. They still were making a killing though. They aren't making much directly off their healthy foods but the amount they are saving by helping their reputation makes putting these items on the menu well worth it. Its not like they put salads up and suddenly sold billions of them.

Quote :

" The above process is why we have one of the most innovative, consumer-centric economies in the world. "

The idea of consumers controling the future of our children is scary. Some things like roads, electricity and schools just can't be free market.

8/12/2008 11:54:27 AM

Quote :

"of course they would say that. no company is going to come out and say their objective is to make money and not the well being of the people."

Why? What did they have to gain if you are right and it was a lie? If you don't personally like salads, then as a consumer why would you care if McDonalds offers salads? The only consumers that do care would be those that want salads and are sick of their friends draggin them to a place they cannot get them.

Quote :

"If a school shutdown you have already assumed every school will be pretty full"

Why would you assume that? Business owners are not stupid and they realize that unexpected victory in competition is a real possiblity. In fact, they are counting on it (more profit!). The problem here is that you assume just because government run schools are short of space that privately run schools will also be short of space.

But one of the main complaints about the private sector is that it tends to overbuild capacity. Think about gas stations; on a corner that contains four gas stations, if one closes will the remaining three really be insufficient to serve everyone? As private schools serve such a small percentage of the population, their current organization is a poor measure of how a completely private system would operate. Just as Santiago, Chile's private bus system had 3000 distinct companies, not counting companies with only one bus, it is quite likely, due to the hotelling model, that Raleigh alone would find itself with several hundred teacher run schools with far more capacity than is needed to educate everyone. Schools would be at least as prevalent as churches are now.

And there much to be said for the comparison between churches and schools. One could argue that schools would become far more prevalent than churches are because, afterall, the government would be subsidizing school attendance far more than it currently subsidizes church attendance.

8/12/2008 3:53:54 PM

Quote :

"Why? What did theyi have to gain if you are right and it was a lie? If you don't personally like salads, then as a consumer why would you care if McDonalds offers salads? The only consumers that do care would be those that want salads and are sick of their friends draggin them to a place they cannot get them."

because hearing about how bad mcdonalds is constantly and hearing on the news they don't serve anything healthy hurts business more than selling salads makes profits.

Quote :

"Why would you assume that? Business owners are not stupid and they realize that unexpected victory in competition is a real possiblity. In fact, they are counting on it (more profit!). The problem here is that you assume just because government run schools are short of space that privately run schools will also be short of space."

theres a set number of kids each school year. if schuools are almost empty they will be short on funds to pay their overhead and they can't be too full. how would schools know how many kids are going to enroll each year since each school is its own entire system? thats why this would fail. op had a theory that deachers would be running the school and dividing up money to pay for things based on the set number of vouchers. well when those vouchers change are the teachers just not going to make any money? no they will cut the costs and eventually go out of busineses leaving kdis hanging possibly in the middle of the school year or just before its beggining.

Quote :

"But one of the main complaints about the private sector is that it tends to overbuild capacity. Think about gas stations; on a corner that contains four gas stations, if one closes will the remaining three really be insufficient to serve everyone? As private schools serve such a small percentage of the population, their current organization is a poor measure of how a completely private system would operate."

Don't compare schools to gas stations and grocery stores. it makes no sense because i can go to a different gas station and store every day and not lose anything but a kid can't go to a different school every day of the week. Also if there is only one school in your rural area one can't magically open up to fill the demand once that one closes it will take some time and kids would be left to find a school far away that "doesn't deliver" to the area.

Quote :

"And there much to be said for the comparison between churches and schools. One could argue that schools would become far more prevalent than churches are because, afterall, the government would be subsidizing school attendance far more than it currently subsidizes church attendance."

Again, riding a different bus from day to day is never a problem.

8/12/2008 4:06:18 PM

Quote :

"because hearing about how bad mcdonalds is constantly and hearing on the news they don't serve anything healthy hurts business more than selling salads makes profits. "

You can't crawl inside McDonalds mind and figure out their motives.

I've clearly quoted the current CEO, and he says they offer these items to capture a neglected segment of the market.

It's also increasing their profit margin. They fired the previous CEO, Green, after he had been there less than a decade because profits were lagging. That's pretty early for a McDonald's CEO to be let go. If these products did not increase their profit margin, I bet the current CEO would be fired as well.

8/12/2008 4:15:51 PM

Quote :

"theres a set number of kids each school year. if schuools are almost empty they will be short on funds to pay their overhead and they can't be too full."

I already answered that. Private enterprise always builds far more capacity than is needed. Why do you believe schools would work so differently from all other markets?

Quote :

"well when those vouchers change are the teachers just not going to make any money? no they will cut the costs and eventually go out of busineses leaving kdis hanging possibly in the middle of the school year or just before its beggining."

Yes, it is called running at business at a loss and at any given time a large percentage of all businesses, be they gas stations, restaurants, or churches, are doing just that. And, having to change schools in the middle of the year would be hassle; as such, parents should write contracts with penalties to disuade schools from shutting down during the year. That said, even the industry with the highest turnover of all, restaurants, turn over on average far less than once a year. What reason do you have to believe that schools would become the new record holders? If you are not going to have enough students to stay open this year then would you not know that before the school year started?

Quote :

"it makes no sense because i can go to a different gas station and store every day and not lose anything but a kid can't go to a different school every day of the week. Also if there is only one school in your rural area one can't magically open up to fill the demand once that one closes it will take some time and kids would be left to find a school far away that "doesn't deliver" to the area."

I gave you plenty of examples. A Gym membership cannot be transferred; are private gyms operated without enough capacity to handle one closing down? What about Churches? People rarely change churches and yet you do not need to drive very far to find another one. And because schools would be supported by a government voucher instead of pure charity with churches, schools would be at least as prevalent as churches are now (as I said before and you ignored because you know you have no response).

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 4:44 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/12/2008 4:42:34 PM

Quote :

"What happens when you shutdown a school? where do those kids go? If a school goes out of business in october, those kids are left out in the rain. Privatization can't happen. Not enough stability."

So school closes down, and next one available is further away.

No.

You don't go out of business with the asset of the school building on your balance sheet. A place that goes out of business is probably renting the building, if they are not, something similar to this will still happen. After they go under, the building or a lease for the building goes on the market. The building in question here would just happen to be optimally constructed for use as a school.

Any new school starting up to absorb the students would have to compete with the entire land-use market for a building, but after the last school went under *surprise* there's a new school building on the market. While acquisition of that old building is not guaranteed (except for when it is...), there are also other options, possibly less suitable for a school (possibly more so) that are also on the market. Hence, a market.

The fact that school includes a summer break, and that schools will go in and out of business on a yearly basis also might help.

Students are completely unchangeable, X many must be provided for. Classrooms are less flexible, but still flexible. Workers, on the other hand, are very liquidable.

Change in management of a school often is entirely on the table. Worse case scenario you would have the administration changed out every year...

Like my old high school.

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 4:51 PM. Reason : ]

8/12/2008 4:50:55 PM

mrfrog is right. Most schools that go out of business will not just close but be bought out, either by a new entrant or by an existing business seeking a new location or additional capacity for itself.

8/12/2008 4:59:35 PM

Quote :

"If parents don't like what is being taught then they have 3 options. home school, private school or shutup. "

Except that the majority of low-income parents have only the latter "choice." For example, do you really think that a single mother of three with a full-time job is able to home school or pay for a private school? It sounds like you don't think the poor are worthy of the same choice the wealthy are able to afford.

Quote :

"The idea of consumers controling the future of our children is scary."

Well in the case of education, those making the decisions in a system of choice would be parents, so the idea that parents are "controlling the future of our children" is not scary at all. In fact it is desirable. I, as do many, believe I would know better than anyone how my child learns best. As such, I should have a voice in my child's education.

It sounds like you prefer a soviet-style, centrally-planned monopoly on education where a parent's right to choose is supplanted by that of a government bureaucrat in D.C.



[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 5:52 PM. Reason : /]

8/12/2008 5:23:50 PM

Quote :

" Yes, it is called running at business at a loss and at any given time a large percentage of all businesses, be they gas stations, restaurants, or churches, are doing just that. And, having to change schools in the middle of the year would be hassle; as such, parents should write contracts with penalties to disuade schools from shutting down during the year. That said, even the industry with the highest turnover of all, restaurants, turn over on average far less than once a year. What reason do you have to believe that schools would become the new record holders? If you are not going to have enough students to stay open this year then would you not know that before the school year started?"

Many rural areas don't have a grocery store for 20 or 30 miles. What will kids do in areas that don't have schools because there isn't enough demand there? How will parents get them to schools an hour away? Will schools drive an hour to pick up 1 kid everyday?

Quote :

"A Gym membership cannot be transferred; are private gyms operated without enough capacity to handle one closing down? What about Churches? People rarely change churches and yet you do not need to drive very far to find another one. And because schools would be supported by a government voucher instead of pure charity with churches, schools would be at least as prevalent as churches are now (as I said before and you ignored because you know you have no response)."

A gym is a gym. I can go to a different gym every day of the week and still get the same workout. Churches don't actually produce anything. Terrible example which is why I ignored it. A church is just a building with chairs in it and 1 person preaching 1 day per week. Comparing a church to the complexity of a school is nonsense unless you're talking 18th century schools.

Quote :

"You don't go out of business with the asset of the school building on your balance sheet. A place that goes out of business is probably renting the building, if they are not, something similar to this will still happen. After they go under, the building or a lease for the building goes on the market. The building in question here would just happen to be optimally constructed for use as a school."

Everytime a company goes out of business there isn't another one there to fill its place right away especially if the reason was high cost low volume.

Quote :

"Except that the majority of low-income parents have only the latter "choice." For example, do you really think that a single mother of three with a full-time job is able to home school or pay for a private school? It sounds like you don't think the poor are worthy of the same choice the wealthy are able to afford."

How will this change with vouchers? The schools the amount of a voucher will still be piss poor. This would only help the rich pay for good private schools.

Quote :

"I, as do many, believe I would know better than anyone how my child learns best. As such, I should have a voice in my child's education. It sounds like you prefer a soviet-style, centrally-planned monopoly on education where a parent's right to choose is supplanted by that of a government bureaucrat in D.C. "

Parents are not being forced to send their kids to public school but if something is free and provided by the government the government ought to make sure its adequate. Many of the parents that don't know/want/willing to give whats best for their children also have no other option but public schools so that ends up working out well. If you want the sole voice in your childs education thats fine, but the government isn't going to pay for it. Their responsibility is to make sure the education they do pay for is adequate.

And why does everything planned or ran by the government have to revert back tot he sovietts? Thats just silly.

8/13/2008 11:25:27 AM

Quote :

"How will this change with vouchers? The schools the amount of a voucher will still be piss poor."

Again, please provide empirical evidence of companies who provide services who are able to persistently maintain profitability by providing "piss poor" service? It would also help if you could provide examples within industries subject to minimum standards.

Quote :

"Parents are not being forced to send their kids to public school"

Actually, yes, most parents are indirectly forced to send their child to public school. For the vast majority who cannot afford to pay for private schooling and cannot afford to home school, the only alternative is public school. Providing only one feasible alternative is indirectly forcing parents to send their children to public school.

Quote :

"And why does everything planned or ran by the government have to revert back tot he sovietts? Thats just silly."

Because that is just one of many examples of why central planning is a disastrously inefficient system of government. I could also have said former East Germany, North Korea, among many others.



[Edited on August 13, 2008 at 12:43 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2008 12:23:11 PM

Quote :

"Many rural areas don't have a grocery store for 20 or 30 miles. What will kids do in areas that don't have schools because there isn't enough demand there? How will parents get them to schools an hour away? Will schools drive an hour to pick up 1 kid everyday?"

Yeah, those kids living in rural area must have trouble with a one-size-fits-all approach education. Maybe we could offer a method of funding education that would allow flexibility. Like... a voucher program.

Quote :

"Everytime a company goes out of business there isn't another one there to fill its place right away especially if the reason was high cost low volume."

If the problem is low volume, that means you have to consolidate. This happens now, there are not public schools operating with 5 students per class for no reason at all.

You don't get rid of problems by making the government do it.

8/13/2008 1:07:54 PM

Quote :

"Actually, yes, most parents are indirectly forced to send their child to public school. For the vast majority who cannot afford to pay for private schooling and cannot afford to home school, the only alternative is public school. Providing only one feasible alternative is indirectly forcing parents to send their children to public school."

this won't change with vouchers. voucher amount and geography will still limithose who cannot afford to add to the voucher to likely one school and they won't be protected by that fact that the government makes sure that one school is up to standards.

Quote :

"Because that is just one of many examples of why central planning is a disastrously inefficient system of government. I could also have said former East Germany, North Korea, among many others. "

All examples of planned economies that were started in a bad economic crisis and bound to fail while you compare freek markets with examples of nations that imperialized or used slavery to get a jumpstart. Without such "cheating" I could very well be saying the same things the other way. So don't even go there.

Quote :

"You don't get rid of problems by making the government do it."

The government doesn't face the same porblems private companies would because the government makes sure everything that needs to be done is done, then figures out where to get the money later. while a private company isn't going to do anything in the first place unless its going to make a profit.

8/13/2008 5:07:30 PM