NationStates Jolt Archive

What is your opinion on the use of school vouchers, or giving passes for students to choose to attend any school of their choice, including private schools, in order to foster better competition between educational centers and create a more productive educational system overall?

I'm not extremely well-versed in the subject, but the concept of it seems like a good idea to me. Some of its critics here in the States suggest a variety of problems might result from this practice, including the fact that the government, if it began giving funding to private schools, may then seek to mandate the curriculum and teaching methods of such facillities, thereby negating their status as "private" institutions. I think this could be combatted as long a clause was included in related legislation that it made it clear that the private facillities still have the right to operate their programs as they see fit. There are other problems, I'm sure, but this seemed to be a large one in critics' minds, from what I've read.

So, what is your opinion the subject?

Vouchers are a terrible idea. They're another way to further stratify the already terrible class system we have. The good students go to their damn prissy private schools, and the rest are left out in the rain. It just makes the public schools even worse, which is not the solution to anything.

Vouchers are a terrible idea. They're another way to further stratify the already terrible class system we have. The good students go to their damn prissy private schools, and the rest are left out in the rain. It just makes the public schools even worse, which is not the solution to anything.
Isn't the entire point of the system that anyone can choose what school they go to, though? I don't really understand your reasoning.

Vouchers are a terrible idea. They're another way to further stratify the already terrible class system we have. The good students go to their damn prissy private schools, and the rest are left out in the rain. It just makes the public schools even worse, which is not the solution to anything.
It gives the public schools some sort of incentive to improve. Right now it doesn't matter how crappy the public schools are, because many parents don't have an alternative place to send their kids.

but, if the public schools were only funded as they attracted students, and the parents were free to send their kids to whichever school they wanted, then the schools would compete with each other for students, forcing them to improve.

Isn't the entire point of the system that anyone can choose what school they go to, though? I don't really understand your reasoning.
That's pretty much what the argument against vouchers amounts to. The teachers are scared that the students won't choose the public schools. The public schools are scared that they might have to compete. When you see as many Democrats against vouchers as there are, you can bet it's a good idea. Like I always say, if Teddy Kennedy is against it, it must be the right thing to do.

It gives the public schools some sort of incentive to improve. Right now it doesn't matter how crappy the public schools are, because many parents don't have an alternative place to send their kids.

but, if the public schools were only funded as they attracted students, and the parents were free to send their kids to whichever school they wanted, then the schools would compete with each other for students, forcing them to improve.
The remarkable thing about public schools is that they are funded way in excess of a lot of private schools. A couple years ago, I read a comparison between some of the better Atlanta private schools, costing about $7,000 per student per year and the Atlanta city schools at a cost of about $10,000 per student per year. Guess which ones produced the most graduates.

But the liberal mantra is "We just need a little more money" and everything will be fine.

The goal of vouchers is to increase choice among parents. This one class-war-mongerer said that vouchers would cause "rich kids" to go to good private schools, and "poor kids" to be "left out in the rain"

I believe he is wrong and that the outcome will be the opposite. His argument is very emotional, but let's look at the mechanism of vouchers:

With vouchers, the government will pay families to go to a private school. They will have to pay less education taxes, and the government may even pay part, or all, or their tuition, depending on how the program will work. So, poor people, if they get vouchers, may be able to go to private schools With the government's subsidization.

The anti-voucher people argue that education is to important to be left to the private sector because they are greedy and could indoctrinate children with corporate propganda. By the same logic, the government should control the food supply because the private corporations could put chemicals into the food. This didn't work very well in Ukraine:

http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/
http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/icons/button03.jpg


Private vouchers allow more choice among schools. If you aren't sending your child to public schools, then why must they pay for it. Critics argue that vouchers will divert funds from public schools, but I believe that they will help because the government will just pay for a private education, which costs much less than a public one. Heck, Catholic schools can educate people on $3,000/year (fact from "Education Myths" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0742549771/sr=8-1/qid=1153526584/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-1733028-9140144?ie=UTF8)

Government monopolies rarely work well. That's why Amtrak SUCKS, and why the postal service is not as efficent as it could be. In short, vouchers help break that monopoly and help the poor.

The goal of vouchers is to increase choice among parents. This one class-war-mongerer said that vouchers would cause "rich kids" to go to good private schools, and "poor kids" to be "left out in the rain"

I believe he is wrong and that the outcome will be the opposite. His argument is very emotional, but
I agree with you that he is wrong. It seems that the intent behind the idea of school vouchers is to combat the fact that rich kids go to good private schools and poorer children get a lesser education at public schools. The idea is that anyone can go anywhere, which means that parents can send their kids to the best schools, with the poorer schools, in effect, upping their standards and finding creative ways to better attract students in order to make themselves counted among the "best."

It's a good idea.

Assuming that competition between private schools does indeed lead to more efficient and effective schools (make up your own mind about that, I think it's probably true), it's a way of enabling everyone to have the benefits of private education.

That's pretty much what the argument against vouchers amounts to. The teachers are scared that the students won't choose the public schools. The public schools are scared that they might have to compete. When you see as many Democrats against vouchers as there are, you can bet it's a good idea. Like I always say, if Teddy Kennedy is against it, it must be the right thing to do.
Public schools get paid by student if they lose students to private schools, they lose money. Which they don't get enough of anyway, not around here.

Well, here's the problem: The educational quality of the US school system has declined steadily over the past 15 years despite the fact that we have the third highest per-capita student expenditure in the world and real state/federal/local spending on education has grown each year at a rate of 2.5%; not only are we spending nominally more on education but we're spending 44% more in real terms compared to the levels in 1990.

Clearly, something has to be done; I tend to think vouchers cause too much controversy so I thought of another idea to address the problem:

In my plan, public schools are reorganized in order to give parents a choice as to where to send their kids within the public system, with the result being that it creates competition within the overarching public system much like how divisions of a corporation or departments of the government compete with each other. Funding could be allocated on a basis of attracting students, and parents could be eligible for tax vouchers if they want to send their kids to another district rather than the one they live in.

Fix education: remove tenure.

Fix education: remove tenure.

Absolutely. The problem has to be attacked at all levels, including that of the teachers and administrators.

Tenure is one of the most flawed concepts I've ever heard; I had more than a few of those teachers during my time in school and too many of them did not deserve to be drawing a salary especially with the number of young teachers in our district that had to work as substitutes because there were no positions open. The tenures were either burned out, unmotivated about teaching, rude, or incompetent to the point of being unable to teach.

That's not to say all of the tenured teachers were like that, but you could easily separate the tenured and untenured teachers just by comparing their attitudes. There were some older teachers who wern't tenured that had more energy and enthusiasm than tenures that were a decade younger.

It gives the public schools some sort of incentive to improve. Right now it doesn't matter how crappy the public schools are, because many parents don't have an alternative place to send their kids.

but, if the public schools were only funded as they attracted students, and the parents were free to send their kids to whichever school they wanted, then the schools would compete with each other for students, forcing them to improve.
Wrong again. They can't compete if nobody cares enough about them to fund 'em.

Competition just widens the gap between the good schools and the bad schools. And I know someone's going to tell us to close all the bad schools, and then there will only be good schools. But seriously, think about it for a little while.

America's crapsack of a public schools system is not something that can ever be solved by legislation (though if they would ditch some of the standardized tests, it'd help!). It has to be an actual societal shift on the local level, putting more emphasis on everyone being able to get and actaully getting a good education. Nixing tenure would probably help, too.

It has to be an actual societal shift on the local level, putting more emphasis on everyone being able to get and actaully getting a good education.
Isn't that what vouchers would accomplish? There would be nothing stopping anyone from getting a good education, provided that vouchers would allow students to go to any school that they wish to. Plus, the lower quality schools would have incentive to become better in order to attract students, so wouldn't that raise the overall bar for education as a whole?

Vetalia mentions a "school of choice" system within the public school districts. This system already in my home area, and it seems to be working quite well. People go to certain schools based on the schools' curriculum strength in various areas. Thus, each of the schools in my area pull in different people for these strengths and have incentive to keep their programs fresh as well as improving in their other, weaker areas. I'd say that using the concept of "school of choice" within public school districts as well as including vouchers for private schools would make for an overall better educational system.

Vouchers are a terrible idea. They're another way to further stratify the already terrible class system we have. The good students go to their damn prissy private schools, and the rest are left out in the rain. It just makes the public schools even worse, which is not the solution to anything.
Ofcourse it's the solution, your problem is you're weak, and you need to somehow justify the degeneration of the strong to suit you. Too bad. "The rest" need to shapeup and either learn, or grow one heckof a body to become an athelete if they want to hope to survive. They're not above anybody else and neither are we. That's why we competively climb a ladder to social sastifaction.

I think a voucher system is a step in the right direction, infact, all schools should be privatized. It's clear public schools are just not working, as all things sanctioned by the goverment. It's incompetant, faulty, and not half as good as a privately organized social service.. Why? Because not only does the goverment feel it doesn't have to be great cause it has no solid competition, but also because they cannot dedicate thier money like they're suppose to, a goverment winds up trying to fill many pots instead of just one pot of stew. What ends up happening is every pot only has a bit of stew. You'll be lucky to get a chunk of meat out of those small sized pots..

So do your country a favor and giveup on this lameass idea of a working socialism, and fill your own God-damn pot..

Isn't the entire point of the system that anyone can choose what school they go to, though? I don't really understand your reasoning.
Most people cannot. Seeing as most student have to walk or bus to work, being able to change schools is out of the question.

Most people cannot. Seeing as most student have to walk or bus to work, being able to change schools is out of the question.
Actually, I'd say that it's quite a common thing that a number of schools are situated in the same town, private and public alike, and are not necessarily in very far proximity from one another. True, the distance between schools may be an issue for some people, but the point of handing out school vouchers is that all schools will improve ther curriculum due to competition. Of course, if implented, this won't be a perfect system, but then again, the current public school system is far from perfect itself.

Well, here's the problem: The educational quality of the US school system has declined steadily over the past 15 years despite the fact that we have the third highest per-capita student expenditure in the world and real state/federal/local spending on education has grown each year at a rate of 2.5%; not only are we spending nominally more on education but we're spending 44% more in real terms compared to the levels in 1990.

Clearly, something has to be done; I tend to think vouchers cause too much controversy so I thought of another idea to address the problem:

In my plan, public schools are reorganized in order to give parents a choice as to where to send their kids within the public system, with the result being that it creates competition within the overarching public system much like how divisions of a corporation or departments of the government compete with each other. Funding could be allocated on a basis of attracting students, and parents could be eligible for tax vouchers if they want to send their kids to another district rather than the one they live in.

Interestingly enough, the one forum debate in which I stayed long enough to concede defeat was on school vouchers. Vetalia's proposal is largely identical to the one I came up with following that defeat (though I would also favor creating an absolute cap on enrollment for all school campuses and another cap on enrollment for school districts, for much the same reason that anti-trust legislation was developed to regulate businesses).

Another thing that could help the public school system is to replace the pass/fail standardized tests in No Child Left Behind with the testing equivalent of vouchers: standardized competition. (Good examples of standardized competition are the Science Olympiads, where you compete against other students to get to successive levels of competition.) Instead of administering a test each year to determine whether a student has or lacks the basic skills needed to move up in grade level, my ideal education system would adminster a test with questions far beyond grade level at the beginning and end of kindergarten and at the end of every subsequent year of schooling and reward those students that did well on that test. The top few percent of students would be allowed to enter special schools for the gifted (and the very best of those students would move up into even more prestigious levels of schooling); those who did well would recieve prizes and recognition for their achievement. There would also be competitions during the school year for students to show their excellence and be recognized for it.

In short, it would be like taking the principles of the high school athletics department and applying it to the entirety of the school system. :)

There are precedents for all the mechanisms I have noted above: the beyond-grade level standardized testing is analogous to those programs where gifted students take the SAT or ACT in seventh grade, the selective schools for the gifted are based on some schools currently in existence in several states (both thoroughly evidenced on the Wiki list of Gifted and Talented programs), and the academic competitions during the school year are based on competitions that occur now in at least one state ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Interscholastic_League]UIL academic competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifted_and_talented_programmes) in Texas).

Yes, you can find anything on Wikipedia. Even things that give a distinct sense of deja vu.

Ofcourse it's the solution, your problem is you're weak, and you need to somehow justify the degeneration of the strong to suit you. Too bad. "The rest" need to shapeup and either learn, or grow one heckof a body to become an athelete if they want to hope to survive. They're not above anybody else and neither are we. That's why we competively climb a ladder to social sastifaction.

I think a voucher system is a step in the right direction, infact, all schools should be privatized. It's clear public schools are just not working, as all things sanctioned by the goverment. It's incompetant, faulty, and not half as good as a privately organized social service.. Why? Because not only does the goverment feel it doesn't have to be great cause it has no solid competition, but also because they cannot dedicate thier money like they're suppose to, a goverment winds up trying to fill many pots instead of just one pot of stew. What ends up happening is every pot only has a bit of stew. You'll be lucky to get a chunk of meat out of those small sized pots.

So do your country a favor and giveup on this lameass idea of a working socialism, and fill your own God-damn pot..
Take a laxative. It may help you loosen up. On second thought, judging by your post, take twelve.

First of all, I'm not a socialist. Second of all, demonstrate how I am weak (and no, your own extrapolations of my words do not count worth shit). Third, drop the stew analogy. Education is not a thing that there is a finite quantity of.

I like the voucher plan. It actually gives poor people the opportunity to go to better private schools, and it increases their options, not further stratifies classes.

Right now, the schools get (lets say) 10,000 per student. Giving the poor a $10,000 voucher per child and giving them the option of sending that to a private school leads to A. more private schools B. far more people have the opportunity to go to said private schools.

In our current public school system, something like two thirds of total funds are wasted. As in, a private school can do almost as much with 3,000 per student as a public school can with 10,000 per student.

Vouchers are a terrible idea. They're another way to further stratify the already terrible class system we have. The good students go to their damn prissy private schools, and the rest are left out in the rain. It just makes the public schools even worse, which is not the solution to anything.

This doesn't hold water. Vouchers can let any student leave a failing school, not just the "prissy good students". The whole point is that anyone can go anywhere - it introduces an element of competition between schools for the scarce resources of students and funds, providing incentive to improve. This is in addition to the basic benefit of giving students more freedom in their choice of schools.

This doesn't hold water. Vouchers can let any student leave a failing school, not just the "prissy good students". The whole point is that anyone can go anywhere - it introduces an element of competition between schools for the scarce resources of students and funds, providing incentive to improve. This is in addition to the basic benefit of giving students more freedom in their choice of schools.
Not really. If there's only one school within reasonable travelling distance the students are stuck with that school. Generally the poorer the student, the more chance that they have to go to school by foot, bike or bus. So they're stuck with that choice.

The private schools don't have to allow anyone in through their doors and can keep charging exhorbitant fees over and above the voucher for the privillege of attending. It would still prevent poor parents from sending their children there.
So all a voucher system does is give a tax break to rich parents and no real benefit to poor.

You can't compare academic results between public and private schools. There's too many other factors (eg school resources, conditions at home), not least that private schools get to choose who they admit - a luxury not available to public schools.
As a private school's reputation and profitability depends on good results (among other things), they'll accept students who they feel would do well (academically or athletically), and - very important to note - will only let students who will pass sit the exams. This artificially inflates their pass rates.

You really think a top private school would accept a belligerent violent 14 yr old student with behavioural problems and a reading age of a 7yr old, just because the parents turn up at the gate with an education voucher? Knowing full well that they're going to be very disruptive in class, fail their exams miserably and blemish the reputation of the school?


As for the arguments that it will cause poorly-performing public schools to improve - how exactly? This is the argument most commonly presented. Somehow the market will cause a poor school with burnt out teachers, disruptive underperforming students, no resources and a dwindling student population to better itself.
How exactly?
The fear of closure will make students and teachers work harder?
Having all the best students leave will make the worst students want to study better?
The threat of closure, disruptive students and poor working conditions will make brilliant driven motivated teachers clamour to work there?
It's just poorly thought out premise based on the mantra that the market will solve all problems without giving any real answers as to how it will achieve that.

If public money is going to a private school, then the public has the right to dictate that schools curriculum.
It would cause further stratification, as well as diminish the ability to educate those in rural areas.
It would create a business in a sector that does not function as a business. Results in education are not immediate, and therefore, a school cannot be judged untill years after a class has moved on. In order to compete in a marketplace, results must happen rapidly.
Private schools are not inherently good, or even decent. They function on a completely different system from public schools, and are therefore not comprable.
Most every nation that outperforms the US in education, notably, China, Japan, Korea, Finland, and many others, function on a public school only system or a system like that of the US. The problem isn't in a lack of competition...it is poor management of the existing system.
The cost of infrastructure alone would make competition nearly non-existant.

among other problems.

It gives the public schools some sort of incentive to improve. Right now it doesn't matter how crappy the public schools are, because many parents don't have an alternative place to send their kids.

but, if the public schools were only funded as they attracted students, and the parents were free to send their kids to whichever school they wanted, then the schools would compete with each other for students, forcing them to improve.
They could move. The only place that would see any level of increased competition are schools that are located in urban areas...if that. There is no way a town of only 1000 students could maintain more than maybe two or three schools. Competition would not significantly increase in any area.

Actually, one of the top reasons families move is to find a better school district.

Also, if a school isn't getting decent funding, they could always cut corners instead of improving. Its the beauty of corruption.

Isn't the entire point of the system that anyone can choose what school they go to, though? I don't really understand your reasoning.

The vouchers aren't a 'go to the school of your choice free' ticket. They are worth a certain amount toward tuition. Which means that anyone that can't afford the difference between the voucher and the tuition doesn't get to go to that school. It creates an even greater divide between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. The quality of the education a child receives should depend on the ability of the child and the determition of hs or her parents and not the size of their checkbook.

The remarkable thing about public schools is that they are funded way in excess of a lot of private schools. A couple years ago, I read a comparison between some of the better Atlanta private schools, costing about $7,000 per student per year and the Atlanta city schools at a cost of about $10,000 per student per year. Guess which ones produced the most graduates.

But the liberal mantra is "We just need a little more money" and everything will be fine.

Actually, when parents are shelling out $10,000+ to send their kid to private school, and they know that the school can kick their kid out for not performing, they tend to value the education more and make sure little Johnny and Susie are doing their work. Same for when they get a voucher and know there are plenty of people willing to fill the seat their kid has if the kid fails.

In the public schools, which they perceive as "free" simply because they don't consider that their taxes help pay for it, they tend NOT to be as involved -- even when teachers beg them to do so. (Can't tell you how many hang-ups and false numbers we get -- too depressing.)

And where do private school kids, expelled when they fail, end up? ;)

Well, here's the problem: The educational quality of the US school system has declined steadily over the past 15 years despite the fact that we have the third highest per-capita student expenditure in the world and real state/federal/local spending on education has grown each year at a rate of 2.5%; not only are we spending nominally more on education but we're spending 44% more in real terms compared to the levels in 1990.

Clearly, something has to be done; I tend to think vouchers cause too much controversy so I thought of another idea to address the problem:

In my plan, public schools are reorganized in order to give parents a choice as to where to send their kids within the public system, with the result being that it creates competition within the overarching public system much like how divisions of a corporation or departments of the government compete with each other. Funding could be allocated on a basis of attracting students, and parents could be eligible for tax vouchers if they want to send their kids to another district rather than the one they live in.


This is done in my city; which has led to chronic lateness for some kids who travel 3 hrs by bus and train to get to a better school. There is also no guarantee they WILL do better -- some of those whose parents are sending them to the magnet schools could not care less.

Actually, when parents are shelling out $10,000+ to send their kid to private school, and they know that the school can kick their kid out for not performing, they tend to value the education more and make sure little Johnny and Susie are doing their work. Same for when they get a voucher and know there are plenty of people willing to fill the seat their kid has if the kid fails.

In the public schools, which they perceive as "free" simply because they don't consider that their taxes help pay for it, they tend NOT to be as involved -- even when teachers beg them to do so. (Can't tell you how many hang-ups and false numbers we get -- too depressing.)

And where do private school kids, expelled when they fail, end up? ;)
Honestly, I've got quite a bit of sympathy for public school teachers that want to teach. My wife teaches 8th grade Social Studies, so I hear quite a bit about the 'collateral' duties that teachers are required to do. But, like any place else, there are a number that don't put out the effort that they should. Those teachers, the lousy administrators, and the school boards that always need to try something different are a large part of the trouble that our schools are having. What the public school system needs, on a district by district basis, is a big layoff. That works to get rid of the dead weight that holds a company back and I think it would work to revitalize public schools, too.

By the way, some of my wife's 'favorite' students come from your part of the country. Are you exporting all you behavior and academic problem children?

Here is how the voucher system will fail.

(1) Everyone will want to send their kids to the best school.
(2) There only being a very limited number of places, not many will get into the best schools (which will negate all those arguments about parental choice).
(3) These schools will therefore cherrypick the students that will make their stats look good.
(4) This will create a gap between private and public schools.
(5) Tax whingers will then erroneously point to this as proof that private is better than public.
(6) Morale in public schools will crash as no matter how heroically they perform as educators, they will still be labelled failures.
(7)Standards of education in the poorest areas will therefor fall further.

How do I know this? Because they introduced this kind of parental choice thing in the UK a few years ago and this is exactly what happened.

Yeah, the problem is not the students or school. It is lack of directed funding and the existance of tenure. And the idea that all students can be taught the same junk in the same way simultaneously.

They could move. The only place that would see any level of increased competition are schools that are located in urban areas...if that. There is no way a town of only 1000 students could maintain more than maybe two or three schools. Competition would not significantly increase in any area.
Rural school do quite well in that respect. If you're already travelling 80 miles to get to a school, why not travel 120 miles the other direction?

Also, if a school isn't getting decent funding, they could always cut corners instead of improving. Its the beauty of corruption.
Which, with a voucher system, would drive away students, thus reducing their funding even further. Such practises wouldn't be sustainable.

Rural school do quite well in that respect. If you're already travelling 80 miles to get to a school, why not travel 120 miles the other direction?driving 80 miles (which doesn't happen as it currently stands, as far as I know) is quite different from traveling 120 miles...an extra 40 minutes to an hour to be exact.


Which, with a voucher system, would drive away students, thus reducing their funding even further. Such practises wouldn't be sustainable.Nope. Results of the corners being cut wouldn't begin to show for atleast four years...possibly up to a decade or more. As I said, education does not display immediate results. That is why there are laws to make it mandatory.
Enron and Worldcom practices wern't sustainable, and yet, those men got very rich. Sustainable isn't an issue with corruption.

Here is how the voucher system will fail.

(1) Everyone will want to send their kids to the best school.
(2) There only being a very limited number of places, not many will get into the best schools (which will negate all those arguments about parental choice).
(3) These schools will therefore cherrypick the students that will make their stats look good.
(4) This will create a gap between private and public schools.
(5) Tax whingers will then erroneously point to this as proof that private is better than public.
(6) Morale in public schools will crash as no matter how heroically they perform as educators, they will still be labelled failures.
(7)Standards of education in the poorest areas will therefor fall further.

How do I know this? Because they introduced this kind of parental choice thing in the UK a few years ago and this is exactly what happened.
School choice I've seen doesn't allow the schools to choose or refuse students. All ties are broken by lottery, thus stopping your train at point 3.

driving 80 miles (which doesn't happen as it currently stands, as far as I know) is quite different from traveling 120 miles...an extra 40 minutes to an hour to be exact.
I live in a bigger, more empty country than you do.

I don't even know where you live, but it's a pretty safe bet.

I think vouchers are a good idea. I do not think that with vouchers, the state should get a say in the curriculum. Parents get a say, and the vouchers should only be good for accredited schools.

The public school system in my city is crap. Students shouldn't have to attend there because their family doesn't have the money to send them to a private or parochial school.

There were kids whos parents didn't eat so they could afford tuition at my Catholic grade school. A kid who smelled badly, since his family couldn't pay the hot water bill. A parent shouldnt have to choose between a meal and a decent education for his child, or between a hot shower and a good school.

Well, I think that people would try to crowd in to some of the "good" schools, then people wouldn't want to go THERE anymore because of the hugeness of the school and the bad teacher-student ratio. It would be tons of shifting around and instability, and I don't know how good that is for kids. But heck, whatever.

My two cents (sense):

Speaking from both the perspective of an American and an economics major:

Point A: The American public school system is as follows:
People live in a district. People pay property taxes in that district. Public schools get funded by the property taxes of that district. There is one public school per district. If you live in district (x), you have to go to public school (x). You have no choice.

Point B: Also: There is a correlation between how well a school performs and how much money they get, but it is not necessarily a cause-and-effect relationship. Schools that get more money tend to get more funding because those areas value education more. The same correlation applies to households that have many books. Such households value education, so they have books. A kid doesn't become smarter because there are more books in his/her house, but they are brought up in a household that values education. Likewise, a kid doesn't become smarter because the school has more money, but they do become educated more efficiently when that school knows how to put its money to good use. The money that a school recieves from its budget is reflect in how high the property taxes are (Point A), and how well the school has performed given their previous budget, and how many students are enrolled. That's supposed to be how the system works. One of the cheif reasons they don't is because of inflated school budgets, and for point C...

Point C: Teacher's unions. They are too strong. If they go on strike, no one can substitute for them, and no politician dares to go against teachers. That would be "immoral." However, when they go on strike and demand higher wages, (especially ones with tenure) they suck up resources that schools would otherwise have to hire new untenured teachers, or to buy new equipment (such as updated text books).

Those are the three biggest points that I have. I have my own solutions, but I'll post them later. Right now I'm supposed to be hanging out with a few friends. I'll leave any more analysis up to you guys.

Privatizing schools is a good idea – the public system here is absolutely garbage. While there are some amazing teachers, some are horrid, and the administration is typical bureaucratic nonsense. Typical waste and inefficiency, which is endemic to government programs, is a serious drag on the education system. Every teacher I know says that just throwing more money into the budget (the government’s idea of a solution) is not going to help.

Were vouchers available when I went to school I would have jumped at the chance to go to a different school. Even if I could just go to a different public school I would have been happy. I see this as the same sort of issue as streaming kids – it just makes sense. Lumping the dumb kids in with the smart kids keeps everyone back. Allowing students to choose their school, to pick one with an agreeable philosophy, would benefit everyone.

Some say that this just further stratifies the students, and in my view it does, and it should. Not everyone is exactly the same, people are different. I would have thought that it was such an obvious comment that it wouldn’t have to be made.

Those that want to focus on high-level academics should be able to go to a school that specializes in high-level academics. Those interested in vocational programs should be able to go to a school which focuses on vocational programs. Those who refuse to learn and are disruptive disciplinary problems do not get the opportunity to ruin the education of dedicated students who actually value education.

I also see this as an opportunity for students to get some individualized attention, rather than being shoved through a one-size-fits-all curriculum based on their age. I would like to see the end of moving students through based on how old they are – there should be testing to determine a students placement – be it holding them at the same level or advancing them several steps ahead. Each subject area should also be tested individually – students who can barely grasp basic math should not be put into more advanced classes simply because they have a good grasp of history.

Students could be offered a place at a school which focuses on the strengths of that student. While there will never be an infinite number of possibilities to choose from, any choice at all is better than none.

Standardized testing should be given to ensure that the school is able to teach the students – if any school proves to be ineffective they can no longer accept vouchers. The testing should reflect the improvement of the students – so it should be adjusted so that a school focusing on learning disabilities is not kept to the same standards as one teaching geniuses. This way a school which accepts remedial students will be judged by the relative improvement.

The school districts around here tend to have around $10k per student – I don’t know about you, but I can find some pretty good private schools for that kind of money.

Those that argue “but they only take the good or rich students so poor students wouldn’t have anywhere to go” are forgetting that it is simply the law of supply and demand – so long as there is not a demand for private education for poor and mediocre students, the only schools you will find are those catering to the capable and wealthy. Were students given vouchers, I will guarantee you that you will see a lot of schools appear that cater to every kind of student.

IMHO, school vouchers are a fantastic idea. IIRC, they were madly successful in Milwaukee. I just wish some of the people i went to elementary school with had this kind of choice. Incredibly bright kids, but stuck in a failing school system.

I Really like this idea. In Edmonton Canada I believe students are allowed to attend what ever public school they want. Rather than most places where you must attend the school closest to you. It forces the schools to provide better programmes, better variety, or to specialize. Even if you can't afford to go across town every day to your prefered school, the chances are that the school in your area is still very nice because it needs to compete for students.

I am all for this system. Friedman made specific mention of it in Capitalism and Freedom. One of the cleverest systems I have yet to hear. If it were up to me, we would be using it right now...subsidising the individual over failing organisations seems preferrable to me.

Privatizing schools is a good idea – the public system here is absolutely garbage. While there are some amazing teachers, some are horrid, and the administration is typical bureaucratic nonsense. Typical waste and inefficiency, which is endemic to government programs, is a serious drag on the education system. Every teacher I know says that just throwing more money into the budget (the government’s idea of a solution) is not going to help.

I will grant that the current school system in the United States is extremely inefficient. Unfortunately, the comments I have seen indicate that most of the really good private schools are unlikely to accept voucher students, allowing private schools run by religious organizations to receive voucher students could lead to major legal problems (depending on the obstinacy of the extreme left wing of the PC crowd and whether these parochial schools weave religion into their curriculum), and the for-profit charter schools created as an option for voucher students are often worse than public schools.

I believe that the only good models for funding schooling are the non-profit and public financing models. If current trends are any guide, for-profit public schools are too risky for both businesses and students to be considered as a primary means of education.

Were vouchers available when I went to school I would have jumped at the chance to go to a different school. Even if I could just go to a different public school I would have been happy. I see this as the same sort of issue as streaming kids – it just makes sense. Lumping the dumb kids in with the smart kids keeps everyone back. Allowing students to choose their school, to pick one with an agreeable philosophy, would benefit everyone.

Some say that this just further stratifies the students, and in my view it does, and it should. Not everyone is exactly the same, people are different. I would have thought that it was such an obvious comment that it wouldn’t have to be made.

I agree with you fully that students should be allowed to enter schools that match their abilities and interests (see my earlier post in this thread for more).

Those that want to focus on high-level academics should be able to go to a school that specializes in high-level academics. Those interested in vocational programs should be able to go to a school which focuses on vocational programs. Those who refuse to learn and are disruptive disciplinary problems do not get the opportunity to ruin the education of dedicated students who actually value education.

This is a great idea, but it does not require privatization of schooling in order to come about. An overhaul of the public school system (akin to the program outlined in my earlier post) would serve this purpose as well.

I also see this as an opportunity for students to get some individualized attention, rather than being shoved through a one-size-fits-all curriculum based on their age. I would like to see the end of moving students through based on how old they are – there should be testing to determine a students placement – be it holding them at the same level or advancing them several steps ahead. Each subject area should also be tested individually – students who can barely grasp basic math should not be put into more advanced classes simply because they have a good grasp of history.

In other words, offer a final exam at the beginning, middle, and end of each course to see if they have already mastered the material, allowing them to move into a higher-level course if they have and keeping them in the same class if they have not? Great idea. :)

Students could be offered a place at a school which focuses on the strengths of that student. While there will never be an infinite number of possibilities to choose from, any choice at all is better than none.

Great idea, but not a reform that requires the privatization of schools.

Standardized testing should be given to ensure that the school is able to teach the students – if any school proves to be ineffective they can no longer accept vouchers. The testing should reflect the improvement of the students – so it should be adjusted so that a school focusing on learning disabilities is not kept to the same standards as one teaching geniuses. This way a school which accepts remedial students will be judged by the relative improvement.

Here I disagree with you: creating a be-all and end-all test to determine school funding and grade progression just leads to teachers teaching their students how to do well on the test (and nothing more) and, in extreme cases, to teacher-organized cheating. (In Texas, where the TAKS test serves as that be-all and end-all test, over 500 schools are suspected of cheating on the TAKS test last year, and I have lost of first-hand experience concerning teachers who teach students how to pass the test, rather than teaching students how to master the material.) These problems are the main reason that I consider the No Child Left Behind Act a terrible mistake.

Instead of using a single, be-all and end-all test, I would rather use a combination of final exam scores (as per the three-final system I mentioned earlier, with higher weight given to those students who passed the final exam at the midterm and especially the start-of-term test dates) and school performance in a vastly increased array of academic competitions (which would offer the same sort of rewards for schools, teams, and individual players that athletics competitions do now). Reward the best students sufficiently, and there will be intense competition to be one of the best students... and competition is good for both individual students and for schools, right?

The school districts around here tend to have around $10k per student – I don’t know about you, but I can find some pretty good private schools for that kind of money.

Those that argue “but they only take the good or rich students so poor students wouldn’t have anywhere to go” are forgetting that it is simply the law of supply and demand – so long as there is not a demand for private education for poor and mediocre students, the only schools you will find are those catering to the capable and wealthy. Were students given vouchers, I will guarantee you that you will see a lot of schools appear that cater to every kind of student.

Or, you could make it so that the public schools are subject to competition with other public schools, with big incentives for a school to be the best at a particular field. This would bring the benefits of competition to schooling while also leaving in place safeguards that prevent students from receiving an inferior competition due to con artists and other criminals.

(On another note, I am starting to see enough evidence to conclude that teachers' unions could probably use a big nerf.)

Here I disagree with you: creating a be-all and end-all test to determine school funding and grade progression just leads to teachers teaching their students how to do well on the test (and nothing more) and, in extreme cases, to teacher-organized cheating. (In Texas, where the TAKS test serves as that be-all and end-all test, over 500 schools are suspected of cheating on the TAKS test last year, and I have lost of first-hand experience concerning teachers who teach students how to pass the test, rather than teaching students how to master the material.) These problems are the main reason that I consider the No Child Left Behind Act a terrible mistake.

Instead of using a single, be-all and end-all test, I would rather use a combination of final exam scores (as per the three-final system I mentioned earlier, with higher weight given to those students who passed the final exam at the midterm and especially the start-of-term test dates) and school performance in a vastly increased array of academic competitions (which would offer the same sort of rewards for schools, teams, and individual players that athletics competitions do now). Reward the best students sufficiently, and there will be intense competition to be one of the best students... and competition is good for both individual students and for schools, right?



Or, you could make it so that the public schools are subject to competition with other public schools, with big incentives for a school to be the best at a particular field. This would bring the benefits of competition to schooling while also leaving in place safeguards that prevent students from receiving an inferior competition due to con artists and other criminals.

(On another note, I am starting to see enough evidence to conclude that teachers' unions could probably use a big nerf.)

Teacher's unions are a big nerf, especially in New York (I don't know about other states). Granted, unions are needed, but they need to have a cap of some sort.

Other than that, Be-all, end-all testing has it's good points as well. In Israel and Japan, they have those kind of tests, and they both have excellent education systems. The difference is that tests like the SAT are changed to reflect the national average - the test is designed in such a way that 1000 is supposed to be the average score. That means if the nation gets dumber, the test gets easier. Different in Japan and Israel, the test largely remains the same, with an extremely high standard.

Yes, I do agree with you that many schools do teach-to-the-test, which is generally a bad thing, but if you maintained how the tests were applied and the high standards in it, it may be okay.

As far as the voucher system would go, I think it should look something like this:

-Each family would get one voucher per child, worth about 10,000 dollars a year to the school.* That money would come directly from the state pool of money, not from property taxes.

-If a school accepted vouchers, they would have to follow a certain set of rules, such as no discrimination based on sex, skin colour, religion, etc.

-They would have to abide to a core curriculum that would have a core understanding in literacy and arithmetic, with a few other subject areas, allowing for specialization within the school.

-Acceptance into the school (initially) would be on a first-come-first serve basis. The student could stay in the school as long as he/she performed to sufficient standards, and kept good behavior. That decision of whether or not to keep the student would ultimately be up to the school's discretion. The school may stop them from graduating from that school if they have not performed up to standards. This would prevent students from entering the school in their senior year, coming from a poor-performance school.

-Benefits should be awarded to schools that perform well, as provided by the state.

Pro's:
-Encourages schools to perform better to attract the "voucher market" and other benefits as mentioned above.
-Encourages students to try to find the best school for him/her, in a similar way students try to get into the best university when they graduate from high school.
-Eliminates many of the class barriers, since all students are given equal chance to enter the school.
-*may* decrease cultural tensions, but that's just hypothesis.
-Increased quality of education overall.

Con's:
-encourages over-crowding in a school. Something would have to be done to limit how many students could be in a school.
-Though the overall quality of education would be increased, it's possible, though not definite, that the quality would rise faster in richer neighborhoods than in poorer ones. Again, just hypothesis.

Aside from the voucher issue, someone, whether an innovative teacher, or the government, needs to address the issue of the teachers unions. They are hurting education, badly. Buffalo, my home city, is a prime example.



*Rates might have to be changed for regional inflation

Teacher's unions are a big nerf, especially in New York (I don't know about other states). Granted, unions are needed, but they need to have a cap of some sort.

Other than that, Be-all, end-all testing has it's good points as well. In Israel and Japan, they have those kind of tests, and they both have excellent education systems. The difference is that tests like the SAT are changed to reflect the national average - the test is designed in such a way that 1000 is supposed to be the average score. That means if the nation gets dumber, the test gets easier. Different in Japan and Israel, the test largely remains the same, with an extremely high standard.

Yes, I do agree with you that many schools do teach-to-the-test, which is generally a bad thing, but if you maintained how the tests were applied and the high standards in it, it may be okay.

I actually do see some merit to standardized testing (my proposal uses a comprehensive test to determine whether a student gains entrance into and/or stays in elite schools for the gifted), but I still prefer to use standardized final exams and student-body participation in and performance in academic competitions as measures of school accountability, especially as the "standardized finals and standardized competition" approach makes it easier for parents to determine whether a school excels in their child's area of interest.

As far as the voucher system would go, I think it should look something like this:

-Each family would get one voucher per child, worth about 10,000 dollars a year to the school.* That money would come directly from the state pool of money, not from property taxes.

-If a school accepted vouchers, they would have to follow a certain set of rules, such as no discrimination based on sex, skin colour, religion, etc.

-They would have to abide to a core curriculum that would have a core understanding in literacy and arithmetic, with a few other subject areas, allowing for specialization within the school.

-Acceptance into the school (initially) would be on a first-come-first serve basis. The student could stay in the school as long as he/she performed to sufficient standards, and kept good behavior. That decision of whether or not to keep the student would ultimately be up to the school's discretion. The school may stop them from graduating from that school if they have not performed up to standards. This would prevent students from entering the school in their senior year, coming from a poor-performance school.

-Benefits should be awarded to schools that perform well, as provided by the state.

Pro's:
-Encourages schools to perform better to attract the "voucher market" and other benefits as mentioned above.
-Encourages students to try to find the best school for him/her, in a similar way students try to get into the best university when they graduate from high school.
-Eliminates many of the class barriers, since all students are given equal chance to enter the school.
-*may* decrease cultural tensions, but that's just hypothesis.
-Increased quality of education overall.

Con's:
-encourages over-crowding in a school. Something would have to be done to limit how many students could be in a school.
-Though the overall quality of education would be increased, it's possible, though not definite, that the quality would rise faster in richer neighborhoods than in poorer ones. Again, just hypothesis.

Aside from the voucher issue, someone, whether an innovative teacher, or the government, needs to address the issue of the teachers unions. They are hurting education, badly. Buffalo, my home city, is a prime example.



*Rates might have to be changed for regional inflation

Overcrowding could be alleviated either by a cap on enrollment or a cap on, for lack of a better term, market share, much like the size of businesses used to be limited by anti-trust legislation.

Your idea has some merit, but I think that it fails to address the underlying problems and is thus a band-aid rather than a real solution. I'll repost my idea for solving the underlying problems with public education here, for convenience:

Interestingly enough, the one forum debate in which I stayed long enough to concede defeat was on school vouchers. Vetalia's proposal is largely identical to the one I came up with following that defeat (though I would also favor creating an absolute cap on enrollment for all school campuses and another cap on enrollment for school districts, for much the same reason that anti-trust legislation was developed to regulate businesses).

Another thing that could help the public school system is to replace the pass/fail standardized tests in No Child Left Behind with the testing equivalent of vouchers: standardized competition. (Good examples of standardized competition are the Science Olympiads, where you compete against other students to get to successive levels of competition.) Instead of administering a test each year to determine whether a student has or lacks the basic skills needed to move up in grade level, my ideal education system would adminster a test with questions far beyond grade level at the beginning and end of kindergarten and at the end of every subsequent year of schooling and reward those students that did well on that test. The top few percent of students would be allowed to enter special schools for the gifted (and the very best of those students would move up into even more prestigious levels of schooling); those who did well would recieve prizes and recognition for their achievement. There would also be competitions during the school year for students to show their excellence and be recognized for it.

In short, it would be like taking the principles of the high school athletics department and applying it to the entirety of the school system. :)

There are precedents for all the mechanisms I have noted above: the beyond-grade level standardized testing is analogous to those programs where gifted students take the SAT or ACT in seventh grade, the selective schools for the gifted are based on some schools currently in existence in several states (both thoroughly evidenced on the Wiki list of Gifted and Talented programs), and the academic competitions during the school year are based on competitions that occur now in at least one state ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Interscholastic_League]UIL academic competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifted_and_talented_programmes) in Texas).

Yes, you can find anything on Wikipedia. Even things that give a distinct sense of deja vu.

I read that response before, but I don't see how my solution fails to reach the underlying problems.

As far as the voucher system would go, I think it should look something like this:

-Each family would get one voucher per child, worth about 10,000 dollars a year to the school.* That money would come directly from the state pool of money, not from property taxes.

-If a school accepted vouchers, they would have to follow a certain set of rules, such as no discrimination based on sex, skin colour, religion, etc.

-They would have to abide to a core curriculum that would have a core understanding in literacy and arithmetic, with a few other subject areas, allowing for specialization within the school.

-Acceptance into the school (initially) would be on a first-come-first serve basis. The student could stay in the school as long as he/she performed to sufficient standards, and kept good behavior. That decision of whether or not to keep the student would ultimately be up to the school's discretion. The school may stop them from graduating from that school if they have not performed up to standards. This would prevent students from entering the school in their senior year, coming from a poor-performance school.

-Benefits should be awarded to schools that perform well, as provided by the state.

Pro's:
-Encourages schools to perform better to attract the "voucher market" and other benefits as mentioned above.
-Encourages students to try to find the best school for him/her, in a similar way students try to get into the best university when they graduate from high school.
-Eliminates many of the class barriers, since all students are given equal chance to enter the school.
-*may* decrease cultural tensions, but that's just hypothesis.
-Increased quality of education overall.

Con's:
-encourages over-crowding in a school. Something would have to be done to limit how many students could be in a school.
-Though the overall quality of education would be increased, it's possible, though not definite, that the quality would rise faster in richer neighborhoods than in poorer ones. Again, just hypothesis.

Aside from the voucher issue, someone, whether an innovative teacher, or the government, needs to address the issue of the teachers unions. They are hurting education, badly. Buffalo, my home city, is a prime example.



*Rates might have to be changed for regional inflation
This couldn't work, simply for the fact that it infringes on the rights of private schools to accept students, allow students to graduate, and set their curriculum as they see fit. Such controlling of private schools in direct of violation of their role as "private" institutions.

I read that response before, but I don't see how my solution fails to reach the underlying problems.

Look at schools' athletics programs - being a successful high school athlete in the United States will bring a student a lot of glory. As such, at least 50% of the student body in most schools will try to become a member of the athletics teams in the hope of becoming a school hero. By contrast, most students have little incentive to do more than the bare minimum in the classroom (except for those in the hunt for valedictorian), and many face anti-intellectualism from peers as well. I doubt that any plan that does not raise academic competition to the same level of prominence as athletic competition will succeed at encouraging students to excel academically, and if students are not encouraged to succeed academically then the status quo is likely to endure, regardless of how much effort the school puts into educating students.

not extremely well-versed in the subject, but the concept of it seems like a good idea to me. Some of its critics here in the States suggest a variety of problems might result from this practice, including the fact that the government, if it began giving funding to private schools, may then seek to mandate the curriculum and teaching methods of such facillities, thereby negating their status as "private" institutions. I think this could be combatted as long a clause was included in related legislation that it made it clear that the private facillities still have the right to operate their programs as they see fit. There are other problems, I'm sure, but this seemed to be a large one in critics' minds, from what I've read.

Verve, I fully support your initiative.

Your objection about the government stepping in to "regulate" the cirriculum disappears if you answer this question: (and then I'll finish this after)

Who should be responsible for the edcation of children?

government or parents

Verve, I fully support your initiative.

Your objection about the government stepping in to "regulate" the cirriculum disappears if you answer this question: (and then I'll finish this after)

Who should be responsible for the edcation of children?

government or parents

I recognize that the question is notnecessarily intended for me, but I'll throw in my two cents anyways:

Q: Who should be responsible for the education of children, government or parents?
A: Yes.

Unfortunately, my Internet cutoff is 22:30 in the summer, as opposed to 1:00 during the school year. I'll check back on this thread in the morning.

I live in a bigger, more empty country than you do.

I don't even know where you live, but it's a pretty safe bet.
congrats...does that somehow validate your point?

IMHO, school vouchers are a fantastic idea. IIRC, they were madly successful in Milwaukee. I just wish some of the people i went to elementary school with had this kind of choice. Incredibly bright kids, but stuck in a failing school system.
"Madly successful in Milwaukee"?
Ahh...nope.

In Milwaukee, many private schools that accept vouchers charge voucher students significantly more than non-voucher students. In fact, one third of Milwaukee's private voucher schools' charge voucher students between 200 and 400 percent of the tuition charged to non-voucher students. The total overcharge of voucher students (and the public schools) is equivalent to 40% of the overall expense of the city's voucher program.
In otherwords, most poor students still couldn't afford to go to the wonderful private schools. The vouchers just subsidised rich parents school choice. Further, the private schools were still allowed to choose who they wanted in through their doors - and so, obviously, chose those students who were more likely to do well.

The official research team designated by the Wisconsin state legislature to analyze the Milwaukee voucher program concluded that voucher students performed no differently on standardized tests than Milwaukee Public School students. Students who received vouchers did no better than those who applied but didn't receive them.

In fact the only significant differences found were from students being taught in smaller class-size environments, irrespective of whether they were on vouchers or not.
Shock Horror! Smaller class size leads to better education. Who would have thought that?
Still, best ignore it and concentrate on a system (vouchers) which has yet to prove anything, regardless of the amount of money thrown at it, eh?

Empirical tests of voucher systems suggest they simply do not work. The largest and most important voucher program, for example, was begun in the city of Milwaukee in the early 1990s. The program provided vouchers of up to $3,600 to low-income students in the Milwaukee Public Schools. The vouchers could be redeemed at any non-sectarian private school that chose to participate in the program. But this experiment was far from successful:

* While the program created 1,450 slots for low income students during the 1994-1995 school year, only 830 students participated in the program (Doerr, Menendez, and Swomley, in The Case Against School Vouchers, pp. 47ff).
* Of all the students that switched to private schools, 40% of them did not return the next year (Doerr, Menendez, and Swomley).
* One of participating private school closed during the course of the program, and several others bilked the city out of thousands of voucher dollars by over-reporting the number of voucher students they enrolled (Church and State, April 1996, p. 15ff.).
* Scores for voucher students did not improve (John Witte, "The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program," in School Choice: Examining the Evidence, ed. Edith Rasell and Richard Rothstein).

In a comprehensive study of a large-scale private school voucher program in New York City during the 1990s, the leading think-tank Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. found an at-best weak relationship between vouchers and improved school performance for students receiving vouchers. "On standardized tests," Mathematica found, "students offered a scholarship generally performed at about the same level as students in the [non-voucher] control group."

Around 80% of private schools are religious-based. Government vouchers indirectly funds these schools - thereby violating the constitution of seperating Church and State.

Voucher-based competition generates negative outcomes that are not acknowledged by voucher proponents. Researchers found that test-score improvements in Florida public schools subject to voucher-based market forces are the result of those schools' practice of "teaching to the test" in specific subject areas. "Teaching to the test" means that teachers find out in advance the content of standardized tests and then gear their curriculum to the exams. It is the consensus of educational researchers that "teaching to the test" is an extremely undesirable method for improving student achievement.

Public schools often respond to the demand for improved performance on standardized tests by removing low-performing students from official test-score tabulations. This is achieved by classifying such students as "special" students: "limited-English," "bilingual," "special education," or "learning disabled." Voucher-based competition will compel public school administrators to push more and more low-performing students into "special" programs, in an attempt to artificially improve test scores. Anyone here think that this teaching method is good education?

stuff taken from various sites:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2054
http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/peters-againstvouchers.shtml
http://www.the13thstory.com/krg/words/vouchers.html

Empirical tests of voucher systems suggest they simply do not work. The largest and most important voucher program, for example, was begun in the city of Milwaukee in the early 1990s. The program provided vouchers of up to $3,600 to low-income students in the Milwaukee Public Schools.

I disagree with your statistics, but lets say you are perfectly right with them, does that change the argument that ultimately parents should have the right to send their children to the school of their choice? And get a refund of the amount that would have been spent on their child in the government-controlled schools if they do so?

This couldn't work, simply for the fact that it infringes on the rights of private schools to accept students, allow students to graduate, and set their curriculum as they see fit. Such controlling of private schools in direct of violation of their role as "private" institutions.

I didn't say private schools had to accept it. If you were a school that accepted vouchers, you would have to follow those rules. But you could still be a school and not accept vouchers - that would be a private school.

I disagree with your statistics, but lets say you are perfectly right with them, does that change the argument that ultimately parents should have the right to send their children to the school of their choice? And get a refund of the amount that would have been spent on their child in the government-controlled schools if they do so?
Not if all the vouchers are doing is subsidising rich parents choosing to send their children to private non-secular schools - schools which still have the right to turn away anyone they don't feel would pass (or wouldn't 'fit in') and still have the right to charge significantly over and above the vouchers, thereby preventing poor parents (the ones the vouchers are suposedly meant to be helping) from sending their children there anyway.
That's not the point of vouchers. It's trumpeted that it's all about removing barriers, creating choice and competition which in turn will improve education standards.
Studies have yet to show any improvement.

The only significant improvement in achievement standards are from having low student to teacher ratios.
Low class-size = better grades.
Simple as that.
Yet that's always ignored.


btw, if you disagree with my stats, feel free to check them yourself.

What is your opinion on the use of school vouchers, or giving passes for students to choose to attend any school of their choice, including private schools, in order to foster better competition between educational centers and create a more productive educational system overall?

I'm not extremely well-versed in the subject, but the concept of it seems like a good idea to me. Some of its critics here in the States suggest a variety of problems might result from this practice, including the fact that the government, if it began giving funding to private schools, may then seek to mandate the curriculum and teaching methods of such facillities, thereby negating their status as "private" institutions. I think this could be combatted as long a clause was included in related legislation that it made it clear that the private facillities still have the right to operate their programs as they see fit. There are other problems, I'm sure, but this seemed to be a large one in critics' minds, from what I've read.

So, what is your opinion the subject?

Funny I was watching youtube yesterday and Hillary Clinton was going on about the same thing! Her point was how can you give vouchers to say private schools, catholic schools. Would you give the vouchers to the white supremisist school or the school of jehad(cos one exists right?!) but she made a fair point.

Many of the private schools right now are indeed religious – this is because it is mostly the desire for a religious education that inspires parents to pay a lot of money out of pocket for the education. Unless you mean to say that the vast majority of parents want their children to attend a religious school, this will change if voucher programs were set up. If parents and students had the choice of what school to attend, schools will fill that need. Saying that there are not enough secular private schools right now is putting the cart before the horse – few products begin with a supply before there is a demand.

Like the religious argument, overcrowding will be ameliorated by simple market forces – when schools get too crowded, people will choose a different school, thus bringing the numbers down and eliminating the overcrowding. One of the lovely things about a free market system is that it is largely self-correcting.

Current voucher programs are highly restrictive, preventing the schools from doing a decent job to begin with – by restricting them and making them go through a bureaucratic nightmare they are setup to fail. There was a charter school in DC that was doing very well – it took troublesome teens that could barely read and turned them around. The students made massive improvements – which rather annoyed the teachers union so they put a lot of pressure on the school board to shut it down (using the excuse that ability levels were substandard – yeah, 11th graders were reading at an 8th grade level, but they only came in as 9th graders with a 3rd grade ability if not illiterate – personally I call that a success).

Thus, when you force schools to conform to the rules and curriculum setup by the teachers union and the board of education (which both have a vested interest in seeing them fail) then no, they do not perform any better than a public school.

If they have a 50/50 chance of doing better or merely equivalent, I say it is a good idea. Even if private schools do no better at improving the education of students then the public schools, at least the students and parents will have the choice of where to go to school so they can find an atmosphere where they feel comfortable learning and can focus on their area of interest.

Someone earlier made a comment that schools in wealthier areas would probably improve faster and cited this as a problem. If schools are improving what does it matter that some are improving faster than others? I really don’t get the philosophies some of you have – keeping everyone from improving because some would improve faster than others is a bad thing yet some people hold this up as an ideal. Why should we keep everyone worse off just because some will get there faster than others? It is simply petty and vindictive to want to hurt everyone – I would prefer compassionate people to run things rather than someone with such spiteful agendas.

Isn't the entire point of the system that anyone can choose what school they go to, though?No. Where did you get that idea?

The only way the government could make it possible for all families (at all incomes) to choose "whatever school they want" would be to pay full tuition at private schools.

Of course, this is not possible while private schools set their own prices: they could charge whatever they want if the government promised to pay!

Thus, the only way to control costs would be for the government to set the per student price... and our society's capitalist mindset certainly isn't going to allow that! Elite schools, at any rate, intentionally distinguish themselves by charging tuition that only wealthy parents can afford.

Such a system would be more market socialist than capitalist. Not necessarily a bad idea, at that... but not one that our government is going to consider.

Instead, "vouchers" in the United States have always meant specific amounts of money--usually in the range of $2000-3000--that parents can use "toward" the cost of private schools.

Now, advocates of vouchers like to point out that many private elementary and secondary schools cost this much or less, so that even the poorest parents could use their voucher to send students to one of the (cheaper) private schools.

However, there is utterly no evidence that these schools would rather accept many more students at $2000 than simply stay at their current size while raising tuition by up to $2000--which their current students could afford, since this much would be subsidized by the government.

Indeed, there are very good economic reasons to believe that this is exactly what would happen.

Meanwhile, even if cut-rate schools open that are willing to settle for the government's vouchers (and nothing more), it will never be the case that all parents can choose "any school they want." Wealthy parents will continue to send their students to the most elite schools... except that now the government will reward them with a $2000 subsidy for doing so!!

Despite all this, advocates of vouchers cling to the myth that "increased" competition (there has, after all, been competition for some time now) will magically improve the conditions of public schools.

How is this supposed to work, exactly?

After the private schools uniformly increase tuition and/or more private schools open, presumably they will be able to pay teachers more--maybe even as much as the public schools pay now. (Yes, public school teachers are paid more and partly for that reason they tend to be more qualified... like, say, actually having a degree in education.) So sending more money to private schools (money which is, by the by, drained away from public schools) should probably produce some "brain drain" on the public school staff.

Meanwhile, discriminating consumers (wealthy and middle-class parents of smart students) will, at least at the margins, choose prestigious private schools over public schools. These parents are the ones who would otherwise be at the PTA meetings demanding improvements, or marching down to their state capitol or Washington demanding improvements... and otherwise taking an active interest in the state of the public schools.

Historically, this kind of pressure has been what moves reforms in public institutions. There is a classic book on it by Albert O. Hirschman called Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Anyone who wants to argue about "competition" and public institutions should definitely read it before opening her/his mouth.

In short, vouchers are just a subsidy to wealthy parents at the public expense. They will do nothing to help public schooling, and everything to destroy it.

Not if all the vouchers are doing is subsidising rich parents choosing to send their children to private non-secular schools - schools which still have the right to turn away anyone they don't feel would pass (or wouldn't 'fit in') and still have the right to charge significantly over and above the vouchers, thereby preventing poor parents (the ones the vouchers are suposedly meant to be helping) from sending their children there anyway.
That's not the point of vouchers. It's trumpeted that it's all about removing barriers, creating choice and competition which in turn will improve education standards.
Studies have yet to show any improvement.

The only significant improvement in achievement standards are from having low student to teacher ratios.
Low class-size = better grades.
Simple as that.
Yet that's always ignored.


btw, if you disagree with my stats, feel free to check them yourself.

Vouchers as traditionally conceived by the conservative movement are flawed, since most private schools will simply drive away voucher students (the exceptions are mostly parochial schools and charter schools, and the latter are often inferior to the public schools from which their students come). As such, voucher programs are in reality much closer to the "school of choice" program mentioned by Vetalia that most conservatives realize (with the exception that they bring a few public school students to parochial schools - probably those with poor, religious parents - and they may subsidize private school educations for the rich). Heck, one conservative I debated on the topic of school vouchers acknowledged this explicitly (which led to me conceding the debate, since my argument broke down when evidence appeared that most voucher funds go to other public schools).

That said, regarding your assertion that low class size leads to the only significant improvement in achievement: if you look at the top 10-50 students in a ranked school, I suspect that academic competition (for valedictorian, salutorian, and Top Ten honors, among others) has as much impact on achievement as class size does; furthermore, by creating sufficient competition and sufficient rewards for average students and underachievers, we can dramatically raise classroom achievement. I base this assertion on three pieces of evidence (an axiom, anecdotal evidence, and an article ["The Expert Mind" in the August 2006 issue of Scientific American).

First, is it not true that, if the reward is high enough, people will work to achieve that reward? This definitely holds true for athletics, where students and parents practice outside of school in the hopes of becoming a star in high school, college, and eventually professional sports. I have also seen evidence of such an effect in the competition for valedictorian honors (which are much like sports in that hundredths of a point can be the difference between first and second); the top students in a school that ranks will study more and take harder classes than more average students, and may even break the rules in order to gain an advantage (yes, I see cheating as the academic equivalent of steroid use in sports).

If that is not sufficient evidence of the benefits of academic competition, consider my own story of academic glory. As I have mentioned in previous threads, I competed in and was extremely successful in UIL and TMSCA math/science competition while at my old school. This was due to a combination of previous knowledge (books served as one of my main refuges from the world when I was younger) and my drive to get a perfect score in one particular event.

I did not expect to win math/science competitions when I first joined my school's team. I was good, yes, and I expected that I would probably place at local competitions, but win? Nah, there had to be somebody with better scores out there... right? So, I went to the first competition and took the tests like I would take any other test. The first three competitions lived up to my expectations: I placed, but I didn't win. When the Science scores were posted, however... wait a minute, I'm in first...

For a few more matches, I thought that my continued wins were still just flukes. However, as I saw more and more scoreboards, I began to realize that I had found an event that I absolutely excelled in. As my scores increased, I began to study new material (often purchased by my parents), in order to gain more points on the tests. I took practice tests more seriously, as well, in order to figure out the patterns of questions favored by the test-writer. As time went on, I could predict what material to read over in order to excel at the tests... and the rest is history.

If that is not sufficient evidence, consider the Scientific American article I mentioned above. This article shows that I am not alone - the combination of initial success and studying to excel that led me to academic success is also responsible for chess grandmasters, professional athletes, and music virtuosos. The article also mentions experiments with offering small monetary rewards to students in "failing" schools if they perform well enough on periodic tests, and comments that "the early results have been promising".

The conclusion is clear: competition creates experts, and it creates them in academic settings just as easily as it creates them in sports and games. Why shouldn't we harness this to our advantage?

Guess which ones produced the most graduates.

It's relatively easy to produce graduates when you have the option of turning away the students who can't cut it.

This is one of the mistakes people make in comparing private to public education. They look at grades, graduation numbers, university enrollments... and, seeing that private schools do better on these measures, they imagine that it must be because private schools perform their educative functions better than public schools.

What nonsense. If public schools could limit class sizes to what was convenient rather than what they could afford, if they could turn away students who cause problems in the classroom or who cannot handle academic work... and above all if they could limit themselves to teaching the families who are likely to send their students to college of course they would look a million times better!

A suggestion:

Check out the stats for the OECD countries that do have an excellent educational system. Find out how they handle their public/private dichotomy.

From every OECD study I've seen on the subject, the US system - the whole system, including both public and private schools - has serious issues. But it's not because some schools are public and others are private. I can't think of a single nation that has only public schools or only private schools.

The problems go deeper than school choice or lack thereof. Until someone takes the time to figure out where these other countries are succeeding and where the US is failing, it's not going to get better.

It may very well be something as simple as parental involvement; US parents spend more time at work and less time at home than parents in any other country. It's one reason why the US has such an excellent GDP and productivity rates.

Or it may be much more complicated. Either way, school choice and school vouchers are just a stop gap. Even the excellent schools can only accept so many students before their student/teacher ratio tanks, and there isn't enough classroom space or equipment to go around. Which means they either can't accept all the students (and some get left behind), or ALL students are adversely affected.

Isn't that what vouchers would accomplish? There would be nothing stopping anyone from getting a good education, provided that vouchers would allow students to go to any school that they wish to.True.

Unfortunately, vouchers would do nothing to change the fact that students can only go to any school they can afford.

Seriously, think about it.

You run an elite secondary school. You have a beautiful campus, with just enough students to create a lively social life without a sense of crowding.

Moreover, your clientele prefer this school partly because it means their children don't have to associate with poor kids--or worse, minorities.

That's why they're willing to pay $10,000/year or more for this school.

Suddenly the government offers to give everyone a $3,000 yearly stipend for private schooling. Obviously there are still many parents who cannot afford your school... nevertheless, you get a flood of applications from people who want to take advantage of these "vouchers."

You want to make more money, sure... but accepting more students? You might have to put up a new building, and the campus already looks so beautiful. Parents of current students are already grumbling that they don't want class sizes to increase. Moreover, while you can reassure yourself that you are neither a racist nor an elitist, many of these applications come from people that are not "your kind of people"... you know the parents won't be happy.

But, you can't just keep turning them away... sooner or later, someone's going to cry "discrimination"... and you are getting federal money now, so you really have to pay attention to the law. (Yes, even if the vouchers go directly to the parents, this would count as federal funding for the schools. Remember, the courts have already ruled on this with respect to federal loans and grants for college students.)

Wouldn't it just be easier if they couldn't afford it again? Just a $2000/year tuition increase, and the applications might drop off again... and then you would be making a killing AND your parents would be getting a net $1000/year from the government!!

Everybody wins.

Except the poor kids, whose schools lose $3000/year for every rich kid that goes to private school.

I disagree with your statistics, but lets say you are perfectly right with them, does that change the argument that ultimately parents should have the right to send their children to the school of their choice?Let's say, arguendo, that I agree with you. And get a refund of the amount that would have been spent on their child in the government-controlled schools if they do so?
No, this does not follow.

Generalized education is a public good. We don't charge you taxes so that we can pay for your child--if we did we wouldn't tax childless people at all, or people whose children have finished school.

Instead, we decide (democratically, of course--so you get your say) that as a matter of public policy it is worthwhile for all children to have a basic education. We believe that they are more likely to become productive citizens (hence, less draining on public services for the rest of their lives and less likely to become criminals that make society worse for the rest of us). We believe that as we go about our day, it is better to deal with people (store clerks, taxi drivers, janitors, whatever) who have some education; they are more sociable, more reasonable, and more likely to have been socialized to a hard day's work.

In short, educating everyone else's kids benefits you, too... even if you're too ignorant to realize it.

I hate school vouchers with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns. Even though I am a person who would more likely than not be given the voucher choice, I feel that private education, in almost all of its forms, promotes an elitist attitude of the world.

Rather than abandoning public schools in favor of private school vouchers, I think that private primary education institutions should be nationalized and incorporated into the public education system. This should be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy (they'll be able to afford a tax increase because they won't be paying for a private, elitist prep school anymore).

But i think that my idea will never happen because of clear cut favoritism for the wealthy in both mainstream parties. The government would rather increase the luxury of the rich than provide the average citizen with a decent shot at sucess in life.

I hate school vouchers with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns. Even though I am a person who would more likely than not be given the voucher choice, I feel that private education, in almost all of its forms, promotes an elitist attitude of the world.

Rather than abandoning public schools in favor of private school vouchers, I think that private primary education institutions should be nationalized and incorporated into the public education system. This should be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy (they'll be able to afford a tax increase because they won't be paying for a private, elitist prep school anymore).

But i think that my idea will never happen because of clear cut favoritism for the wealthy in both mainstream parties. The government would rather increase the luxury of the rich than provide the average citizen with a decent shot at sucess in life.


Oh where to begin…

I was going to write a long diatribe about how outlawing private schooling is ludicrous, not to mention the imposition of a fascist system is anathema to most people, but I find I no longer have the heart to point out to you why capitalism is so much better than socialism.

Perhaps one day you will grow up and come to your senses.

Oh where to begin…

I was going to write a long diatribe about how outlawing private schooling is ludicrous, not to mention the imposition of a fascist system is anathema to most people, but I find I no longer have the heart to point out to you why capitalism is so much better than socialism.

Perhaps one day you will grow up and come to your senses.

Perhaps one day you will stop telling other people how to live their lives or what ideology they should follow. I am anxious for your to try to convince me that capitalism is better than socialism. Don't pull out the Stalinism-is-Socialism or Nazism-is-Socialism argument. I've heard it a thousand times and anymore, I just roll my eyes and stop listening.

Rather than abandoning public schools in favor of private school vouchers, I think that private primary education institutions should be nationalized and incorporated into the public education system. This should be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy (they'll be able to afford a tax increase because they won't be paying for a private, elitist prep school anymore).

What about parents who wish to send their children to religious schools? Would you deny them that option?

What about parents who wish to send their children to religious schools? Would you deny them that option?

Interesting... forgot about that part. I guess we could leave religious schools alone... for now. I primarily have problems with secular private schools, because they are symbols of social elitism.

I primarily have problems with secular private schools, because they are symbols of social elitism.

Religious private schools can be "symbols of social elitism" as well. Disallowing secular private schools while permitting religious private schools seems arbitrarily discriminatory to me.

The remarkable thing about public schools is that they are funded way in excess of a lot of private schools. A couple years ago, I read a comparison between some of the better Atlanta private schools, costing about $7,000 per student per year and the Atlanta city schools at a cost of about $10,000 per student per year. Guess which ones produced the most graduates.

But the liberal mantra is "We just need a little more money" and everything will be fine.

HAHAHAHAHAHaHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

$7000 is incredibly cheap for a private school. That sounds more like the tuition for a semester at a 3rd or 4th-tier private school than tuition for a year there. Take, for instance, the school that my fiance attended, Darlington:

Grades 9 - 12, Boarding $31,300.00
Grades 9 - 12, Day 13,700.00
Grades 6 - 8 13,100.00

Students who do not live with their parents nearby, by the way, are required to board. And this is not a top-tier school. It isn't even a 2nd-tier school. And it is in the Atlanta area (although not in the city-proper).

Schools cheaper than this are almost always parochial - often run by churches - and are, more often than not, substandard in many ares.

Religious private schools can be "symbols of social elitism" as well. Disallowing secular private schools while permitting religious private schools seems arbitrarily discriminatory to me.

Because I am agnostic, I am discriminatorily required by society to have a higher respect for religious groups then they have for me. The religious schools also could have 1st Amendment protections because of the religious nature of the school. It's a tough decision.

HAHAHAHAHAHaHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

$7000 is incredibly cheap for a private school.I believe he was talking about a comparison of costs.

Private schools spend much less per student than public schools do. That doesn't mean they won't charge much more than what they spend--profit and all.

;)

As for the original question, I don't think it is a good idea, unless public schools are not available in that area. I also think that such vouchers could only be used to pay for schools that, if they are tied to religion at all, are only tied to it very loosely - with no required attendance at any type of proselytizing.

The point of public money in education is to ensure that everyone has access to said education. This is accomplished by funding public schools. If one decides not to take advantage of this access, but wishes education through another route instead, then one can do that on their own.

It's kind of like private security. We all have the legal right to call the police when in danger. We don't have to directly pay for them. However, if we want something else, we must pay for it - and the government isn't giving out "security vouchers" to pay for bodyguards.

I believe he was talking about a comparison of costs.

Private schools spend much less per student than public schools do. That doesn't mean they won't charge much more than what they spend--profit and all.

;)

Sonds like a rather useless comment, in that case. How are vouchers going to help if the schools that parents want their kids to go to cost that much? We either end up paying out the ass in taxes so that someone's kid can go to a top-tier school, or the same people who already can't afford private school still can't afford it because the tuition is so much higher than the vouchers.

I hate school vouchers with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns. Even though I am a person who would more likely than not be given the voucher choice, I feel that private education, in almost all of its forms, promotes an elitist attitude of the world.
Vouchers are not incompatible with public education.

As mentioned above, the city of Edmonton allows students to choose whichever public school they'd like, and the funding follows the students. It's a de facto voucher system. And Edmonton's public schools are excellent, because they compete with each other for students.

Your complains about elitism are an entirely different issue. I happen to disagree with you, but it's not relevant to the voucher debate.

I do find it amusing that you ask that people not tell you how to live your life, and yet the socialism you espouse isn't voluntary.

Vouchers are not incompatible with public education.

As mentioned above, the city of Edmonton allows students to choose whichever public school they'd like, and the funding follows the students. It's a de facto voucher system. And Edmonton's public schools are excellent, because they compete with each other for students.

Your complains about elitism are an entirely different issue. I happen to disagree with you, but it's not relevant to the voucher debate.

I do find it amusing that you ask that people not tell you how to live your life, and yet the socialism you espouse isn't voluntary.

First of all, the debate here is whether or not vouchers should be used to go to private schools, which is what the issue is in the US. Second of all, did i ever say that people should be forced to follow a socialist system?

No, i didn't. I am rigidly anti-authoritarian, and in my opinion, the only forms of socialism that are not doomed to fail are the anti-authoritarian strains, which require the voluntary cooperation of everyone. But my socialist ideology is not the issue here. Using public education money to send kids to private schools is.

True.

Unfortunately, vouchers would do nothing to change the fact that students can only go to any school they can afford.

Seriously, think about it.

You run an elite secondary school. You have a beautiful campus, with just enough students to create a lively social life without a sense of crowding.

Moreover, your clientele prefer this school partly because it means their children don't have to associate with poor kids--or worse, minorities.

That's why they're willing to pay $10,000/year or more for this school.

Suddenly the government offers to give everyone a $3,000 yearly stipend for private schooling. Obviously there are still many parents who cannot afford your school... nevertheless, you get a flood of applications from people who want to take advantage of these "vouchers."

You want to make more money, sure... but accepting more students? You might have to put up a new building, and the campus already looks so beautiful. Parents of current students are already grumbling that they don't want class sizes to increase. Moreover, while you can reassure yourself that you are neither a racist nor an elitist, many of these applications come from people that are not "your kind of people"... you know the parents won't be happy.

But, you can't just keep turning them away... sooner or later, someone's going to cry "discrimination"... and you are getting federal money now, so you really have to pay attention to the law. (Yes, even if the vouchers go directly to the parents, this would count as federal funding for the schools. Remember, the courts have already ruled on this with respect to federal loans and grants for college students.)

Wouldn't it just be easier if they couldn't afford it again? Just a $2000/year tuition increase, and the applications might drop off again... and then you would be making a killing AND your parents would be getting a net $1000/year from the government!!

Everybody wins.

Except the poor kids, whose schools lose $3000/year for every rich kid that goes to private school.
I see a flaw related to, but much larger than this one, unfortunately.

Private schools would take advantage of the income of middle to upper class families. They would, as you said, increase tuition to a point where lower class voucher-holders could not afford it, but to a point where middle to upper class people could reasonably afford it, with the aid of vouchers to pay for the majority of the cost. This would, again, cause for a have/have not's barrier.

Yup...so maybe vouchers aren't such a great idea...

First of all, the debate here is whether or not vouchers should be used to go to private schools, which is what the issue is in the US. Second of all, did i ever say that people should be forced to follow a socialist system?

No, i didn't. I am rigidly anti-authoritarian, and in my opinion, the only forms of socialism that are not doomed to fail are the anti-authoritarian strains, which require the voluntary cooperation of everyone. But my socialist ideology is not the issue here. Using public education money to send kids to private schools is.

What if we privatise all the schools? Are you still worried about elitism, then?

Sonds like a rather useless comment, in that case. How are vouchers going to help if the schools that parents want their kids to go to cost that much? We either end up paying out the ass in taxes so that someone's kid can go to a top-tier school, or the same people who already can't afford private school still can't afford it because the tuition is so much higher than the vouchers.You're absolutely right; it's a stupid argument.

What it's supposed to prove is that the public schools are inefficient. "Look," we are told, "private schools spend much less per student, but still manage to produce more graduates and have more students going to college!"

Well, yes. Then again, this discounts both costs that public schools cannot avoid (e.g. special education) as well as the ability of private schools to pick and choose among applicants. Or the fact that private schools can cut costs by hiring underqualified teachers--a move that public schools cannot match because they are bound to legislated standards (like teaching certification).

Actually, mounting evidence tends to reverse the common wisdom that private schools outperform public schools when it comes to actually educating students. See, for example, this recent article (http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v86/k0505lub.htm).

After accounting for variables such as socio-economic status, public schools perform about as well (even slightly better than) private schools.

This should be no surprise to anyone who has actually witnessed the difference in attitude between the profit-oriented administration of the average private school and the education-driven administration of public schools.

I see a flaw related to, but much larger than this one, unfortunately.

Private schools would take advantage of the income of middle to upper class families. They would, as you said, increase tuition to a point where lower class voucher-holders could not afford it, but to a point where middle to upper class people could reasonably afford it, with the aid of vouchers to pay for the majority of the cost. This would, again, cause for a have/have not's barrier.

True, but even the cheap schools would be competing against each other. So you're still giving the entire primary education system a healthy dose of accountability that is sorely lacking now.

Because I am agnostic, I am discriminatorily required by society to have a higher respect for religious groups then they have for me. The religious schools also could have 1st Amendment protections because of the religious nature of the school. It's a tough decision.

Why not just leave the private schools alone? Sure, they're elitist, but as long as they provide effective education, what difference does it make? Anyone who doesn't want to pay for them doesn't have to.

What if we privatise all the schools? Are you still worried about elitism, then?

At that point, I'm worried about more than just elitism. With the costs of private schooling, many poor to average income families will not be able to pay for their children to be educated, and if they do, it will not have the same quality as education catered to those with more disposable income.

Completely privatized education is anthetical to a free, democratic society. One of the few equalizers of a person's potential in America is the existence of free, public education. Without that, there would be significantly less social mobility.

Plus, take into account the kids that might prefer to go to a less prestigious/rigorous school where they know they can get good grades, the better to get into a good university.What, you think the colleges can't tell which school is which?

What, you think the colleges can't tell which school is which?

I actually edited that part out of my post because I realized, after I'd posted, how insipid it was. ;)

This should be no surprise to anyone who has actually witnessed the difference in attitude between the profit-oriented administration of the average private school and the education-driven administration of public schools.

My parents are both public schoolteachers, so I've gotten to hear more than I ever wanted to about the workings of school administrators and what motivates them.

There are plenty of good ones, yes. But don't be deceived into thinking that our public schools are some kind of holy temples of knowledge. If my experience is reflective of reality, they're by and large a group of people trying to control increasingly bratty kids, looking forward to retirement, and hoping they don't get sued in the meantime.

There are plenty of good ones, yes. But don't be deceived into thinking that our public schools are some kind of holy temples of knowledge.Ah, surely not! My own high school was so bad that I dropped out after my junior year.

I'm just saying that, judging by the best empirical evidence, the superiority of private schools as educational institutions turns out to be... well, capitalist myth.

If my experience is reflective of reality, they're by and large a group of people trying to control increasingly bratty kids, looking forward to retirement, and hoping they don't get sued in the meantime.And that's different from private school teachers... how?

;)

And that's different from private school teachers... how?

;)

Not at all, probably. I just want to be careful about imputing noble motives to those in public education while dismissing private school employees as greedy corporate sell-outs. :)

At that point, I'm worried about more than just elitism. With the costs of private schooling, many poor to average income families will not be able to pay for their children to be educated, and if they do, it will not have the same quality as education catered to those with more disposable income.

Completely privatized education is anthetical to a free, democratic society. One of the few equalizers of a person's potential in America is the existence of free, public education. Without that, there would be significantly less social mobility.
But there are no low-cost private schools now only because public schools fill that market niche.

Without the public schools, poorer families would still want schools, and someone would provide them. If you then offer all families a stipend to spend at the school or their choosing, you've just provided those poorer families with exactly what they had before, except the service isn't being provided by government employees.

Or do you think that no one would try to fill that demand for low-cost schools?

But there are no low-cost private schools now only because public schools fill that market niche.

Without the public schools, poorer families would still want schools, and someone would provide them. If you then offer all families a stipend to spend at the school or their choosing, you've just provided those poorer families with exactly what they had before, except the service isn't being provided by government employees.

Or do you think that no one would try to fill that demand for low-cost schools?

Ah, the "THE MARKET FIXES ALL!" idea. Sorry, doesn't swing with me. There was a time before public schools. Guess who got educated?

But there are no low-cost private schools now only because public schools fill that market niche.

Without the public schools, poorer families would still want schools, and someone would provide them. If you then offer all families a stipend to spend at the school or their choosing, you've just provided those poorer families with exactly what they had before, except the service isn't being provided by government employees.

Or do you think that no one would try to fill that demand for low-cost schools?

They would either be very low quality, or still out of the price range of many people. Much of the cost of education in today's society is picked up by taxpayers without children. With a private system, that cost would be transferred to parents, who would have to pay the full costs of their children's educations.

The market would only try to fill the demand for low cost schools if they could have a considerable profit from doing so. If the market can't make a profit, which is fairly likely due to the cost's of modern education, there would be no low cost private schools.

They would either be very low quality, or still out of the price range of many people. Much of the cost of education in today's society is picked up by taxpayers without children. With a private system, that cost would be transferred to parents, who would have to pay the full costs of their children's educations.

The market would only try to fill the demand for low cost schools if they could have a considerable profit from doing so. If the market can't make a profit, which is fairly likely due to the cost's of modern education, there would be no low cost private schools.
So umm, why not allow private schools to compete openly with public schools? Why not subsidise the individual directly, and allow those who withdraw their kids due to dissatisfaction with public schools to send them to private ones? Why not give poorer individuals vouchers if they decide they don't want to use public schools? Why constantly force people into making decisions? On what grounds do you decide what is ethical for me?

Good post btw Soheran.

Not at all, probably. I just want to be careful about imputing noble motives to those in public education while dismissing private school employees as greedy corporate sell-outs. :)No greedier than anyone else, at any rate.

I think we can assume that anyone who goes into teaching has at least some desire to advance education. Or at least, they did at one time.

The difference is that private school teachers, and especially private school administrators, are rewarded for maximizing the profits of the school--a goal which may often conflict with the best interests of the students.

Apologists will argue that the profit motive itself will necessarily pressure schools to advance educational goals. But this is far from obvious. If recent capitalist history has taught us anything, it is that branding, advertising, and a thousand other considerations are at least as important to profits as a quality product. This is especially true for a product like education, when even consumers (parents) may have only a foggy idea about what really constitutes good education.

Hence, it is an empirical question: does the profit motive actually lead to a superior educational institution?

Apparently not. Recent research suggests that, all things being equal, public education is at least as good if not better than private schooling at the elementary and secondary levels.

Public school teachers are not rewarded when the school makes a profit--because it doesn't. They are rewarded (if at all) for achievements as educators.

Maybe the capitalists are right, after all. It is all about the incentives.

Apparently not. Recent research suggests that, all things being equal, public education is at least as good if not better than private schooling at the elementary and secondary levels.
So then, allow the free market to determine who is better. The government should give individuals the freedom to educate their children wherever they so choose, and prove that it is indeed more efficient. It is an arbitrary entity. It has no special right to exist without proving its worth.

Or do you think that no one would try to fill that demand for low-cost schools?Hmm, the same people who fill the demand for low-cost child-care?

Oh, wait.... :rolleyes:

Hmm, the same people who fill the demand for low-cost child-care?

Oh, wait.... :rolleyes:
Education is not a comparable market to child care. It is a much larger one, and a much more diverse one.

So then, allow the free market to determine who is better.The problem is that the market tends to deteriorate opportunities for the poorest consumers... and seeing that people are generally educated is a public good.

If we could decide, as a society, that it's "okay" to let poor people go without a basic education, then market schooling would make sense.

Until you can convince us of that, we need public education.

The government should give individuals the freedom to educate their children wherever they so choose,It does. That doesn't mean it has to help them pay for it.

So then, allow the free market to determine who is better. The government should give individuals the freedom to educate their children wherever they so choose, and prove that it is indeed more efficient. It is an arbitrary entity. It has no special right to exist without proving its worth.

Sure. Permit private schools.

Just don't subsidize them.

Ah, the "THE MARKET FIXES ALL!" idea. Sorry, doesn't swing with me. There was a time before public schools. Guess who got educated?
What did the economy look like then? Plus, I didn't say there shouldn't be government funding for these schools - just that they wouldn't be run by the govenment.

Plus, isn't education mandatory these days? Don't you think maybe that's partly responsible for the increased education rates?

The problem is that the market tends to deteriorate opportunities for the poorest consumers... and seeing that people are generally educated is a public good.

If we could decide, as a society, that it's "okay" to let poor people go without a basic education, then market schooling would make sense.

Until you can convince us of that, we need public education.
Incorrect. If vouchers are used to target the poorest consumers, they wouldn't need to worry about not being able to afford education. Intense competition between government and private corporations would drive down prices and offer more diverse education.

It does. That doesn't mean it has to help them pay for it.
No, it doesn't. It is not so easy just to move so as to go to a better school. You are forced by practical considerations to go to the school serving your vicinity.

Education is not a comparable market to child care. It is a much larger one, and a much more diverse one.Really? How do you figure?

The market for education is made up of all the people with school-age children.

Those children, presumably, were once child-care age children. That is, by definition, the market for child-care.

The fact that more of these children do not wind up in child-care (I suppose this is the reason you think they are not part of the market?) has much to do with the fact that their parents cannot afford it.

Indeed, privatize education and you will see the market for education shrivel to a similar size.

Sure. Permit private schools.

Just don't subsidize them.
It would make little sense to do so. In my opinion, if a parent wants to withdraw their child from a public school, and is not able to afford a private one, they should be allowed to claim the benefits they would have otherwise had via a voucher. Subsidising the individual is preferable in my mind to subsidising institutions.

*snip*
In what sense is child-care a market for which demand is inelastic, as is the market for education?

Hence, it is an empirical question: does the profit motive actually lead to a superior educational institution?

I would say rather that it is the demand for accountability in one's employees that usually accompanies a profit motive--combined, as you say, with a reasonable system of incentives.

I must confess that some anti-voucher people (not you, necessarily) seem to want it both ways: private schools are elite institutions of academic excellence affordable by only the super-rich, and yet they are also base bastions of mediocrity where dramatically underpaid and underqualified teachers indoctrinate students who in turn yield average test scores. Not having studied the issue in any depth beyond some anecdotal experience, I'm in no position to say who's right. So I'll respectfully withdraw from this discussion until I've had the chance to educate myself further. :)

It would make little sense to do so. In my opinion, if a parent wants to withdraw their child from a public school, and is not able to afford a private one, they should be allowed to claim the benefits they would have otherwise had via a voucher. Subsidising the individual is preferable in my mind to subsidising institutions.

That would only work if you price controlled the private schools. Otherwise, by raising demand through increased ability to pay, you are just giving them the capability to raise prices, make more money, and continue excluding the poor.

Furthermore, the public education system does not spend an equal quantity of money on each student. Those students who cost the most are also the ones least likely to benefit from a voucher program, because they're the least profitable to a private school. A voucher program would end up harming such students severely by depriving the public education system of necessary funds.

Incorrect. If vouchers are used to target the poorest consumers, they wouldn't need to worry about not being able to afford education.First of all, what are you arguing? By "target" the poorest individuals, do you mean that vouchers should be given only to the poorest individuals? That would change the market, because it would improve the real demand of the poor without also subsidizing the ability of wealthier individuals to pay. But I have never heard that proposal seriously discussed. Wealthy families want their subsidy.

Intense competition between government and private corporations would drive down prices and offer more diverse education.What makes you think so?

Nothing about market theory suggests that competition between government and private corporations does anything to improve the former. Indeed, studied carefully the example of the Post Office is proof to the contrary: it was much, much more efficient before it faced competition from the likes of FedEx... and lost its most quality-conscious consumers. You may not remember, but the mail used to be delivered twice a day, and "overnight" actually meant something.

See the Hirschman book I recommended earlier. It's considered a classic in political economy, and it demonstrates rather conclusively why competition does not always produce the most efficient results (not only when it involves government, but under certain other circumstances as well).

That would only work if you price controlled the private schools. Otherwise, by raising demand through increased ability to pay, you are just giving them the capability to raise prices, make more money, and continue excluding the poor.
But they already exclude the poor, so that's status quo. The difference is that the parents who don't use the public system get to take the costs they're not imposing upon that system and apply them elsewhere.

That would only work if you price controlled the private schools. Otherwise, by raising demand through increased ability to pay, you are just giving them the capability to raise prices, make more money, and continue excluding the poor.

Furthermore, the public education system does not spend an equal quantity of money on each student. Those students who cost the most are also the ones least likely to benefit from a voucher program, because they're the least profitable to a private school. A voucher program would end up harming such students severely by depriving the public education system of necessary funds.
The problem is this: a poorer parent may want their child to benefit from private school education. Better public schools tend to be in better areas. Hence, geographic location may be a problem...so the parent thus decides that a private school is preferable to a public school. They would prefer to use the money they paid in tax to send their child to the private school in question. Usually they accomplish this by the means of loans. So, as it stands, it is a question of limiting people in their range of choices. Indeed, private schools may be driven up in prices. So? Public schools will still exist as a safety net, and they are not necessarily worse than private schools. The idea is to give the parent a choice.

In what sense is child-care a market for which demand is inelastic, as is the market for education?How do you figure that the demand for education is inelastic?

Since when is the demand for education inelastic?

First of all, what are you arguing? By "target" the poorest individuals, do you mean that vouchers should be given only to the poorest individuals? That would change the market, because it would improve the real demand of the poor without also subsidizing the ability of wealthier individuals to pay. But I have never heard that proposal seriously discussed. Wealthy families want their subsidy.
What would be the point of giving vouchers to those rich enough to pay themselves for education? That would border on idiocy. Wealthier families already pay more in taxes, and under a reformed tax system would face fewer opportunities to evade taxes. They already prefer private schools. Why should they receive further benefits? By not sending their children to private schools now it is already as if they are not receiving vouchers.

*snip
I'll read up on it. However, I am so far unconvinced.

What makes you think so?
Umm, because it happens?

Part of it, at least. The city of Edmonton (which has been mentioned several times in this thread) does provide many diverse options for parents in terms of niche schools. There's a music-centric school. There's a military academy. There are others - there's only really one of each, but if you want to send your kid to such a school, such a school exists to serve you.

And they're all funded through the public system.

How do you figure that the demand for education is inelastic?

Since when is the demand for education inelastic?
Since it is necessary for one to be employed to be educated. Since then. It's also what most economists have concluded.

Umm, because it happens?

Part of it, at least. The city of Edmonton (which has been mentioned several times in this thread) does provide many diverse options for parents in terms of niche schools. There's a music-centric school. There's a military academy. There are others - there's only really one of each, but if you want to send your kid to such a school, such a school exists to serve you.

And they're all funded through the public system.Yeah, that's fine. But then the government is controlling prices, right?

That's market socialism. I like it.

It's not a privatized voucher system, in which the government only pays a (small) portion of tuition.

The problem is this: a poorer parent may want their child to benefit from private school education. Better public schools tend to be in better areas. Hence, geographic location may be a problem...so the parent thus decides that a private school is preferable to a public school. They would prefer to use the money they paid in tax to send their child to the private school in question. Usually they accomplish this by the means of loans. So, as it stands, it is a question of limiting people in their range of choices. Indeed, private schools may be driven up in prices. So? Public schools will still exist as a safety net, and they are not necessarily worse than private schools. The idea is to give the parent a choice.

Sure. If you can't afford a private education, you have to use the public education system instead. Lack of affordability does indeed involve a reduction in choice. If you're proposing a radical redistribution of wealth so that poorer families can have more of the opportunities that richer ones do, I can go with that.

But that's not what the voucher system involves. It involves handing a certain quantity of money to everyone who wants to send their children to private schools. Private schools, not necessarily wishing to increase class sizes or undermine their exclusive, elite image, can easily just raise prices, keep the students they already have, and make more money - without actually accomplishing anything for the poor families these programs are supposed to help.

Sure. If you can't afford a private education, you have to use the public education system instead. Lack of affordability does indeed involve a reduction in choice. If you're proposing a radical redistribution of wealth so that poorer families can have more of the opportunities that richer ones do, I can go with that.
The "R" word. Nah, I am simply into giving consumers more choice where it is possible.

But that's not what the voucher system involves. It involves handing a certain quantity of money to everyone who wants to send their children to private schools. Private schools, not necessarily wishing to increase class sizes or undermine their exclusive, elite image, can easily just raise prices, keep the students they already have, and make more money - without actually accomplishing anything for the poor families these programs are supposed to help.
The aid could be substantial enough if accompanied by a loan. Many poorer parents do indeed take out loans to send their children to private schools. Perhaps then, if the voucher system came in the form of a low interest loan (perhaps governmentally provided), it would work better.

Since it is necessary for one to be employed to be educated. Since then.Employment requires education because it's the standard.

If almost everyone has a high school education, then you definitely need one to compete.

Employers looking for cheap labor, however, would probably settle for the uneducated masses if only wealthy people (who would not work for scraps) had an education.

It's also what most economists have concluded.I doubt that; I'd appreciate a source.

Demand inelasticity seems to be inconsistent with your argument... If demand were inelastic, then dropping prices for private schooling should not result in a great difference in demand: if people wanted it, they'd already be paying for it.

If demand for education were truly inelastic, public education would hardly have been necessary in the first place. Most people would have managed to buy it for themselves.

"If taxpayers have an inelastic demand for education, they are insensitive to
price and subsidies will not affect their behavior."

It should be obvious that the entire pro-voucher argument is premised on elastic demand for education.

"If taxpayers have an inelastic demand for education, they are insensitive to
price and subsidies will not affect their behavior."

It should be obvious that the entire pro-voucher argument is premised on elastic demand for education.
I'm trying to find a source on it...from what I remember its elasticity depends on how advanced it is. It tends to be higher for elementary education than it does for secondary.

PS: Well, this source mentions it...but only private education. http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=1247

So we are both correct. Elasticity is inelastic for private schools, but the availability of public schools as an alternative makes it highly elastic.

Employment requires education because it's the standard.

If almost everyone has a high school education, then you definitely need one to compete.
Fun, another counter example.

In Alberta (the province where you'd find Edmonton, incidentally), there's a significant labour shortage. That shortage is worst in skilled trades (please send welders), but it's affecting all parts of the economy.

As such, Alberta has the lowest high school completion rate of anywhere in Canada. The labour shortage has so dramatically increased wages for unskilled labour that fully 35% of high school students are dropping out.

It would appear that a high school education is ceasing to be the standard there. Employers have recognised that if you don't have a degree, you're effectively unskilled, and thus whether you completed high school is irrelevant.

Fun, another counter example.

In Alberta (the province where you'd find Edmonton, incidentally), there's a significant labour shortage. That shortage is worst in skilled trades (please send welders), but it's affecting all parts of the economy.

As such, Alberta has the lowest high school completion rate of anywhere in Canada. The labour shortage has so dramatically increased wages for unskilled labour that fully 35% of high school students are dropping out.

It would appear that a high school education is ceasing to be the standard there. Employers have recognised that if you don't have a degree, you're effectively unskilled, and thus whether you completed high school is irrelevant.Great, that just serves to prove my point that there is no reason to believe demand for a high school education should be at all inelastic.

It would seem likely that in your area, if people had to pay for a high school education, even more would drop out to work instead... right?

snippy...
The conclusion is clear: competition creates experts, and it creates them in academic settings just as easily as it creates them in sports and games. Why shouldn't we harness this to our advantage?
First you need to have good teachers able to instil the knowledge and develop your obvious talents towards science & maths. You didn't just become excellent at science outside of the classroom. You would have been lucky enough to have teachers good enough to help you achieve your potential.

Since we're using anecdotal evidence...
When I was a kid, I was naturally gifted at maths. I used to help my brother, whose 6yrs older than me, do his maths homework. It all just seemed so easy and logical to me. I could quite easily grasp the work, without anyone showing me how.
When I finally got to High school, I was way ahead of everyone and regularly getting 100% in tests. Unfortunately I was in a maths class with the most boring, petty-minded teacher still considered living who took my success as 'proof' I was a smartarse. Even worse, I had him 2 years running; By the end of that period, I was getting 60-70% in tests, which pleased him greatly.

Luckily I then got into a class with, by far, the best teacher I've ever been privileged to be taught by and she managed to re-instil my love of maths.
I can honestly say that because of her, I became a maths teacher and ended up back teaching at my old school - the chance to teach alongside her was too good an opportunity to pass up.
In fact, of the 6 teachers in that maths dept (not counting her), 5 of us had been taught by her. Another 12 teachers at that school had been taught by her (including the principal, deputy principal and associate principal!) and all of them agreed that she was the main reason they decided to become teachers.
Great teachers have far more influence than most ppl realise or are willing to accept.

I would also argue that it's not competition that creates experts, rather than the internal motivation to succeed.

And regardless of whether competition creates experts, I'm talking about the rest of the student population that don't have exceptional ability and/or internal motivation to excel.
Low class-size will help them immensely. If you are teaching a class of 35, do the maths. In an hour's lesson, taking away whole class teaching time, collecting books, distributing homework, blah blah blah, that gives you, if you're lucky, 1 minute contact-time per student per lesson. So over a week, that's maybe 4 minutes of actual 1-2-1 teaching: the type of teaching that's been shown again and again to be the most effective.
If you have a student really struggling - or indeed an exceptional student like yourself wanting more - that can take up your entire class contact-time. Meaning every other student in the class misses out on what little teacher contact they get.
A smaller class=more 1-2-1 contact time=better results.

Low class-size will help them immensely. ,,, If you have a student really struggling - or indeed an exceptional student like yourself wanting more - that can take up your entire class contact-time. Meaning every other student in the class misses out on what little teacher contact they get.
A smaller class=more 1-2-1 contact time=better results.Right. And it's not just about in-class contact time.

I teach at a university, so our experiences will have certain differences... Still, the more important difference is between teaching twelve students and thirty... or sixty to six-hundred, as sometimes happens here.

Over the summer, when I have only a handful of students, I can spend time making extensive comments on their papers and exams--constructive criticism that does two things: 1) communicates to them specific areas for improvement; and 2) communicates to them that I pay attention to their work, I care about what they're doing. It also gives me the opportunity to do just that, to become intimately aware of each student's strengths and weaknesses. It helps me to help them.

By the time I get twenty or thirty students, I'm already straining to keep up with that kind of work: in order to return assignments to them promptly, I need to sacrifice time spent on actually grading them. And at this level, I only have to teach one or two classes at a time! My understanding is that the average high school teacher probably has more.

In a small class, when I see a student struggling I can shoot her an email or ask her to stay after class. In a larger class, there are just too many students with demands on my time: I simply can't do that for all of them. On the other hand, in a small class I can also take the time to actively encourage the best students--I can really get to know them, suggest additional readings that are more challenging, and so on. The larger the class, the less I know them, and the fewer opportunities I have to give them that "extra" attention.

Once again, I believe the contrast must be even more dramatic for teachers at the secondary level, who--at least in my experience--usually teach more than two to three classes per semester.

First you need to have good teachers able to instil the knowledge and develop your obvious talents towards science & maths. You didn't just become excellent at science outside of the classroom. You would have been lucky enough to have teachers good enough to help you achieve your potential.

Yes and no - I was lucky enough to have some extremely good teachers, but after fourth grade these teachers were few and far between. (The most relevant teachers to your claim are my sixth-grade science teacher [more for support than for her class], my ninth-grade Chem teacher, and my UIL coach for grades 8-9.) Most of my other teachers simply didn't know what to do with me (for lack of a better term) and left me to my own devices when I finished the class assignments.

I would give most of the credit for leading me to excel to my parents, who provided me with lots of books and would usually acquiese when I wanted more reading material (either by taking me to the library or taking me to the bookstore).

That's not to say that class size and skilled, enthusiastic teachers (who need better pay, I might add) have no place in comprehensive education reform - especially for problem students, who desperately need the individualized attention (I would know - I was in that position once, hence the very good teachers I had in grades 2-4.) For the majority of the student body, however, I would think that competition is likely to be as effective as smaller class sizes, and academic competition can be implemented quickly while the second part of education reform (more and better teachers) is prepared.

A third element of classroom reform involves discipline and life outside the classroom. Even skilled and enthusiastic teachers can be worn out if they are teaching unruly students, especially if they are not allowed to use the disciplinary measures needed to keep these unruly students in line. Part of the problem here lies in school administrations - I have perceived a bias towards troublemakers in my past dealings with school administrators concerning hostile learning environments, especially if said troublemakers were important parts of the school's athletics teams. Another part of the problem lies with overburdened teachers who cannot be bothered to stop the rule-breaking (this, I will admit, is an area where better teachers and smaller classes would help more than academic competitions). The final part of the solution to unruly students is to change the home environment (we should find some means - probably financial incentives - to encourage parents to give books to their children and enrich their children's vocabulary).

Academic competition alone isn't a silver bullet that will solve public schools' problems, and I apologize if I gave that impression. However, initiatives to hire better teachers and reduce class sizes aren't silver bullets, either.

However, initiatives to hire better teachers and reduce class sizes aren't silver bullets, either.Sure they are, if we're going to believe every scientific study ever done on the subject.

Oh, wait... conservatives don't believe in science. Sorry, my bad. :rolleyes:

"vouchers" in the United States have always meant specific amounts of money--usually in the range of $2000-3000--that parents can use "toward" the cost of private schools.

This quote amazed me. If a voucher is $2000-$3000, and the average cost per student in a public school is $10,000, the fact that students on vouchers *still* compare to their peers while costing three times less just proves how good of an idea vouchers are.

This quote amazed me. If a voucher is $2000-$3000, and the average cost per student in a public school is $10,000, the fact that students on vouchers *still* compare to their peers while costing three times less just proves how good of an idea vouchers are.No, you're missing the point.

Students on vouchers go to schools that charge, say, $10,000. They probably would have gone there anyway.

When they get a voucher, the only difference is that the cost to them is now $7,000... because the state just gives them $3,000.

No, you're missing the point.

Students on vouchers go to schools that charge, say, $10,000. They probably would have gone there anyway.

When they get a voucher, the only difference is that the cost to them is now $7,000... because the state just gives them $3,000.

One educated child cost the state 10 grand. The other cost the state 3.

Why on earth would the state not want to support such a policy if people were willing to go to such a private school?

Its not like the state is forcing the family to send the child to a private school, merely giving the families that can afford $7,000 rather than $10,000 the ability to chose.

P.S. either private schools cheat with uber students OR they hire incompetants and pay them chump change. the two are mutually exclusive. Also, does anyone have a source for the average private school tuition? In my area as far as i kniw its around $4,500, not $14,500

One educated child cost the state 10 grand. The other cost the state 3.

Why on earth would the state not want to support such a policy if people were willing to go to such a private school?

Its not like the state is forcing the family to send the child to a private school, merely giving the families that can afford $7,000 rather than $10,000 the ability to chose.

Firstly, you are assuming that the average cost of the children who would go to private schools to the public school system is $10,000, when that statistic was in fact referencing the average cost of all the children who attend the public school system.

The children who cost the most, however, will stay in the public schools (because they're the least profitable for the private schools, and thus won't be accepted); the cost per student in the public schools will go up even as more funds are being diverted to the private schools.

Secondly, you assume the private schools will keep prices at the current level. Why? If the capability to pay for the service rises, the demand will rise as well, raising the price - and quite possibly keeping things exactly as they are now, only with higher tuition and a great deal of wasted government money.

P.S. either private schools cheat with uber students OR they hire incompetants and pay them chump change. the two are mutually exclusive.

No, they're not. Private schools can both be exclusive with the students they accept and hire incompetent teachers for low pay. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.

So parents are spending tens of thousands of dollars (your numbers) to send their children to be taught by incompetants and the children end up going on to college at a greater rate despite being taught by idiots without degrees?

In fact, I'd say teachers are more competant at private schools because of the lack of teachers unions, which makes the individual teacher far more accountable for his actions than normal.

What is your opinion on the use of school vouchers, or giving passes for students to choose to attend any school of their choice, including private schools, in order to foster better competition between educational centers and create a more productive educational system overall?

I'm not extremely well-versed in the subject, but the concept of it seems like a good idea to me. Some of its critics here in the States suggest a variety of problems might result from this practice, including the fact that the government, if it began giving funding to private schools, may then seek to mandate the curriculum and teaching methods of such facillities, thereby negating their status as "private" institutions. I think this could be combatted as long a clause was included in related legislation that it made it clear that the private facillities still have the right to operate their programs as they see fit. There are other problems, I'm sure, but this seemed to be a large one in critics' minds, from what I've read.

So, what is your opinion the subject?

I like it. As long as we could keep the feds out of micromanaging it, and the participating schools were required to maintain a certain end product level of curricular success as measured by ISTEP test results, SAT's, or a similar measure of scholastic aptitude. God knows the public school system is failing miserably at educationing our kids in the U.S. after the elementary school level. Particularly since the advent of "No Child Left Behind".


http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20001211edmath2.asp

Absolutely. The problem has to be attacked at all levels, including that of the teachers and administrators.

Tenure is one of the most flawed concepts I've ever heard; I had more than a few of those teachers during my time in school and too many of them did not deserve to be drawing a salary especially with the number of young teachers in our district that had to work as substitutes because there were no positions open. The tenures were either burned out, unmotivated about teaching, rude, or incompetent to the point of being unable to teach.

That's not to say all of the tenured teachers were like that, but you could easily separate the tenured and untenured teachers just by comparing their attitudes. There were some older teachers who wern't tenured that had more energy and enthusiasm than tenures that were a decade younger.
Merit pay.

Problem is, who decides, and how?

Sure they are, if we're going to believe every scientific study ever done on the subject.

Oh, wait... conservatives don't believe in science. Sorry, my bad. :rolleyes:

Me? Conservative? It seems you are sorely mistaken as to the political beliefs of your opponent.

As for the "every scientific study ever done on the subject": I do not currently have access to the resources I have on hand during the school year (one reason why I am relying on limited personal experience). If you have evidence that proves that competition between students does not have an effect on academic performance, then please, show me!

This quote amazed me. If a voucher is $2000-$3000, and the average cost per student in a public school is $10,000, the fact that students on vouchers *still* compare to their peers while costing three times less just proves how good of an idea vouchers are.
Whoosh!
Sound of the main point flying right past you.

You think those public school buildings, the computer room, the library, the sports center, the grounds are built and maintained for nothing?

Even if you have no-one going to that school, it's still going to cost a fortune in upkeep.

Public schools also spend a fortune on administration, that private schools don't need to. They have to account for every bit of govt money and have lots more guidelines to follow that private schools can get away with ignoring.

Great, that just serves to prove my point that there is no reason to believe demand for a high school education should be at all inelastic.

It would seem likely that in your area, if people had to pay for a high school education, even more would drop out to work instead... right?
Right.

What this is is a real world example of the elasticity of demand for education, and this one's only based on opportunity costs.

One educated child cost the state 10 grand. The other cost the state 3.As Soheran has already pointed out, the $10,000 figure is an average cost that may not reflect the real cost of teaching the students most likely to leave.

Another way to state the problem is to point out that the school needs the same number of teachers to teach 999 students as it does to teach 1000. With the one leaving on a voucher, it just has $3000 less to do it with. In fact, when you lose students up to a certain point, the average cost per student is inevitably going to increase: education as we know it is (partly) an economy of scale. Yet under a voucher system, even as costs per student rise (though real costs decrease), revenue decreases. This just shows you how useless averages are for this kind of evaluation.

Secondly, if you are correct then the pro-voucher argument about competition fails.

Let's assume you're correct. The real cost for teaching a public school student is $10,000/year. Now that student leaves, and the school district has to give the family $3,000/year. But the school district is still getting the same property tax revenue, which means it just saved $7,000!!!

Now, the school could either put that $7,000 into improving education, which might draw some of those private schoolers back into the fold... OR it can give everyone a little raise, allow education to decline even further, and get another $7,000 that it doesn't have to spend on educating a child for every family that gets fed up and leaves!!!

Capitalists are all about the "economic incentives," so according to their argument we know what the schools would do. Naturally there would be some political equilibrium at which people started to complain that the schools are altogether useless and demand a tax break... but that equilibrium would necessarily have a worse educational system than we have now!!

So, if you are right, public education gets worse. Of course, you're wrong... and it still gets worse, for all the reasons already stated.

So parents are spending tens of thousands of dollars (your numbers) to send their children to be taught by incompetants and the children end up going on to college at a greater rate despite being taught by idiots without degrees?First of all, no one said "incompetent." That's a straw man, since what we really said was "less qualified."

People imagine that when they send their children to private schools, they are necessarily paying for the best of the best, but this is simply not true. What they are doing is sending the best students to one place, where they tend to remain among the best students. They are also paying for smaller class sizes, which is what education research has universally shown to improve schooling.

Their teachers are not "incompetent," and I'm sure there are many fine private school teachers. In the very best cases, they actually are more qualified than public school teachers, since some private schools require advanced degrees to teach. But this is not representative of private schooling in general.

Typically, private schools have class sizes of 10-12 students, while public schools have class sizes of 25-30 students. That is a huge difference.

If you have evidence that proves that competition between students does not have an effect on academic performance, then please, show me!I never said it didn't, did I?

I merely stated the simple fact that class size has the biggest measurable effect of all.

I never said it didn't, did I?

I merely stated the simple fact that class size has the biggest measurable effect of all.
From the studies I've seen inside public schools, class size has been shown to have no significant impact on student performance.

I never understood the class size debate. My grade 4 class had 60 kids in it.

Also, does anyone have a source for the average private school tuition? In my area as far as i kniw its around $4,500, not $14,500Must be parochials.

Let's just look at secondary schools.

Overall average: $6,053.
Catholic: $4,845.
Other religious: $6,536.
Non-sectarian: $14,638.

Ah, what the hell? Why are parochial schools so much cheaper?

The principal reason is that most of them are run as non-profit organizations and they get funding from their church (at the local and/or broader levels). Hence, they charge tuition that effectively covers costs (they don't make any money on it)... so they are, economically speaking, non-competitive.

Surely these cannot be the schools that capitalists expect to save us through competition! Moreover, most parents don't seem to relish the thought of their children being taught by priests and nuns every day.

So, for the purposes of this argument, the schools that are supposed to "save" education are the ones that cost, on average, $14,638/year.

Source: Source: Table 61, Digest of Education Statistics 2002, National Center for Education Statistics.

I never said it didn't, did I?

I merely stated the simple fact that class size has the biggest currently measurable effect of all.

Modified for greater accuracy (not taking into consideration the possibility that current research does not support your claims) - future research may show that other factors have larger measurable effect than class size, but we will not be able to confirm or deny that hypothesis until further experiments are undertaken.

As far as I know, academic competition is a very good example of a factor in education whose effects have never been fully tested (the pilot program in Dallas and New York City public schools that was mentioned in the August 2006 issue of Scientific American has only run long enough to give early results). As such, it is currently impossible to rigorously determine whether academic competition has an effect comparable to or greater than that of class size using only scientific research (though this can and probably will change in the future).

From the studies I've seen inside public schools, class size has been shown to have no significant impact on student performance.

I never understood the class size debate. My grade 4 class had 60 kids in it.Here (http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ClassSize/academic.html) is the most balanced overview of the research I can find, and even this is overwhelmingly positive. Most of them are much more unequivocal in their praise of small class sizes. This one points out that the benefits are clearest for reading and math in elementary schools, and that they vary with teaching styles and other factors. Still, it is a nice summary of decades of research showing that class size matters.

As such, it is currently impossible to rigorously determine whether academic competition has an effect comparable to or greater than that of class size using only scientific research (though this can and probably will change in the future).Yes, and once those studies are done, we'll see.

But in the meantime it is the worst kind of feet-dragging to refuse to implement the one solution that does work because "something else might work better." On that reasoning, we'll never do anything.

Merit pay.

Problem is, who decides, and how?
Merit pay would be too difficult to implement and just wouldn't work.
What standard would you use?

If it's just on passes or grades, then teachers would start 'teaching-to-the-test', which is hardly ideal method of teaching. IN fact, it's a lousy way of teaching, one of the worst.

Also, schools in better areas tend to get better results, due to a variety of outside factors (parents income being one of them). So you would very well end up rewarding mediocre teachers simply because of the school they're in.

And what of outstanding teachers in poor schools?
My mother, for example, teaches in a school where over 70% of children come from broken homes, and the average annual household income is below $10000US.
As a result she has children (she teaches primary btw) who come in barely able to read or write.
eg. She had one student, an 8 yr-old, who was barely reading at a 4yr old level. By the end of the year, he was up to his age level - in fact bordering above it.
If we were to take just end-of-year results, my Mum's efforts would get her nothing. Look at it - an 8yr old reading at an 8 yr-old level, what has she done? Nothing! pfft. what a lousy teacher.
And if she had managed to get him to 'only' a 7 yr-old level, merit-based pay could well penalise her for 'not' teaching him well enough. really lousy teacher, right?

Of course, you could base it on improvements over the year - taking tests at the start and at the end, but I can easily see that being abused.
If your pay depended on massive improvements, why wouldn't you make damn sure the students did as badly as possible on the first test?
Like, for example, setting it on a hot Thursday afternoon* just after a gym lesson. Think the students are going to be in optimal frame of mind to sit a maths test?
Would your teaching really be the reason why they improved so markedly by year's end?

*believe me, Thursday afternoons are the worst time to teach. Fridays are easy, cause the students are relaxed and know the end is near. Thursdays - bleah. They know they've still got a day to go and hate it, and you, for that.



Then there's the politics of teaching.

Enough backstabbing goes on normally in a school. I shudder to think how bad it'd be if extra pay was up for grabs.
My first teaching job, I was fortunate enough to be in with an awesome, supportive dept. They gave me the top year 9 class 3 yrs running, which was a joy to teach.
If pay was based on results, I really couldn't see some Heads giving out easy, high-performing classes like that to anyone but themselves.
And I could well see the allocation lousy classes (I had the worst year 10 class one year, which was painful beyond belief - we're talking about actual gang fights, pushing heads through the windows and arson in class here) being used as threats or punishments towards teachers by petulant Heads or Principals.


Don't get me wrong: I think it's a good idea to reward good teachers, but I just can't see merit pay actually being useful the way it's meant.

In NZ (and HK, and I suspect pretty much everywhere), you go up a salary point every year, until you get to the top of the scale (takes 6-7 years in NZ, depending on whether you have a Masters or not). This means, though, that you have lousy and plain incompetent teachers going up at the same rate as exceptional, or even just decent, teachers. Which is wrong.
And then of course, you hit the top of the scale and are stuck there for the reat of your teaching career, regardless of how much or how little effort you put into your teaching. Which is also wrong.
Unless you move into management and administration, in which case you stop teaching altogether and quickly lose touch with what it's like at the chalk-face. And, no surprises here, I think that's wrong too.


I'm not sure what exactly can be done to remedy this situation, but I do feel that performance-based pay just isn't going to be the panacea you think it could be.
It would make things worse.

From the studies I've seen inside public schools, class size has been shown to have no significant impact on student performance.

I never understood the class size debate. My grade 4 class had 60 kids in it.
Without trying to sound rude or patronising, have you ever done any teaching?

In the lower grades, you can - barely - get away with large class-sizes.
Though for full, proper development, 1-on-1 teaching at those levels still is incredibly beneficial.

Once you get into higher grades, though, you need to have more teacher-student contact time. As I mentioned in a previous post in a large class a teacher would be lucky to have 3-4 minutes a week actual contact time with a student. How much higher level maths do you think you could learn in 4 minutes, and retain that a week later?

Here (http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ClassSize/academic.html) is the most balanced overview of the research I can find, and even this is overwhelmingly positive. Most of them are much more unequivocal in their praise of small class sizes. This one points out that the benefits are clearest for reading and math in elementary schools, and that they vary with teaching styles and other factors. Still, it is a nice summary of decades of research showing that class size matters.
That doesn't surprise me that maths and reading benefit the most. I've taught both now, and know exactly how difficult they can be to teach to a large class.
You have to sit with a student to teach them to read properly. As far as I've seen so far, it's the best way by far.

I'm not sure what exactly can be done to remedy this situation, but I do feel that performance-based pay just isn't going to be the panacea you think it could be.
It would make things worse.What do you think of something similar to the post-secondary promotions process?

In most academic departments, you start out as an assistant professor--making, say, $30,000/year. You may get yearly raises based on that (here they are union-negotiated)... but what you're really looking forward to is the promotion to associate professor.

That promotion is merit-based, and it is determined by the department. The professors know you, know your work, and vote on whether you merit promotion. Yes, there are personal politics that play into it... but "backstabbing" as such is at a minimum, since the people voting on your promotion already have theirs. They really don't have anything to lose.

Your first promotion might jump you up by, say, $20,000/year (obviously this varies by school). Next, you need to put in the work to become a full professor, which may bump you up another $20-30,000/year. Some simply never make it.

These promotions are based on your teaching, your service to the school (meetings, committees, etc.) and research/publications. Obviously for elementary and secondary school teachers it would not be necessary to include a publications requirement.

Of course, the feasibility of this would depend on school's having the funds to make promotions attractive.

Here (http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ClassSize/academic.html) is the most balanced overview of the research I can find, and even this is overwhelmingly positive. Most of them are much more unequivocal in their praise of small class sizes. This one points out that the benefits are clearest for reading and math in elementary schools, and that they vary with teaching styles and other factors. Still, it is a nice summary of decades of research showing that class size matters.
Maybe I'm biased. As a student, I prefered larger classes. Smaller classes increased the chances that a lesson would be interactive, and I found those far less educational. They took more time, and there was no benefit beyond the stress of having to interact with people.

Elementary school doesn't teach you much. I recall learning the rules of grammar. That's about it. The math was all corollaries to the ability to count, so that's not learning. And once you can read, you can read.

Maybe I'm biased. As a student, I prefered larger classes. Smaller classes increased the chances that a lesson would be interactive, and I found those far less educational.That depends on what you mean by "interactive." If you're talking about some sort of "group work," then I have to admit I'm dubious about it as well. I never enjoyed it as a student, mostly because it amounted to my babysitting the idiots with whom I was grouped. It may have been educational for them, but it did nothing for me. (Well, at least as far as the subject matter was concerned. If pressed, I might admit that I gained, in the process, some leadership and teaching ability.)

If by "interactive," however, you mean that the instructor posed questions to the class and asked for responses, then I would have to disagree. These lessons definitely held more interest for me as a student, and it's all too obvious that my own students learn more when I can keep them engaged. Sometimes the lesson unavoidably calls for a longer lecture, but even so I try to throw in some interactive elements. (I recently taught Rousseau's "forced to be free" doctrine by having a class figure out what to do with a lazy thirty-year-old who refused to get a job, living in his parents' basement. THAT they understand!)

What do you think of something similar to the post-secondary promotions process?

In most academic departments, you start out as an assistant professor--making, say, $30,000/year. You may get yearly raises based on that (here they are union-negotiated)... but what you're really looking forward to is the promotion to associate professor.

That promotion is merit-based, and it is determined by the department. The professors know you, know your work, and vote on whether you merit promotion. Yes, there are personal politics that play into it... but "backstabbing" as such is at a minimum, since the people voting on your promotion already have theirs. They really don't have anything to lose.

Your first promotion might jump you up by, say, $20,000/year (obviously this varies by school). Next, you need to put in the work to become a full professor, which may bump you up another $20-30,000/year. Some simply never make it.

These promotions are based on your teaching, your service to the school (meetings, committees, etc.) and research/publications. Obviously for elementary and secondary school teachers it would not be necessary to include a publications requirement.

Of course, the feasibility of this would depend on school's having the funds to make promotions attractive.
From what I understand of University tenures and such like, teaching ability is way down the list of things to hire ppl for.
It's all about how much research they've done, can do and how much money and prestige said research/publications will bring to the university. That's where unis get most of their money from. Actual lecturing is secondary.

I had some excellent lecturers and I remember one of them spent years fighting to get a person's teaching skill included in the checklist of assessing candidates for upgrading their position, but was ignored and rebuffed each time he brought the issue up.

I also had some dreadful ones. One law paper I did had a pass rate in the low 20's - solely due to the lecturer who was, literally, borderline autistic. He would walk into the lecture hall (which he had booked for the course duration - it held 200, yet 300 were taking the paper. If you were late you weren't allowed in. So 1/3 failed right there) and stare at his notes, mumbling incoherrently. If anyone asked him a question, he stop, look up, stare at the class blankly for a few seconds, then look down and continue with his mumblings.
I once saw him walking towards class. He was taking tiny steps and mumbling to himself. He came across a puddle and stopped dead, stared at it for several seconds, then slowly inched his way around it always facing the puddle until he got right around the other side. Continued to stare at it for several more seconds, then turned 180 and continued on his way to class.
Obvious OCD and autistic behaviours.
Yet he was an associate professor, and so obviously must have done some excellent research in some law field.
And yes, I did fail the paper. I got 38%. Put me in the top 1/3 of the class that did.


As for little back-stabbing going on, I highly doubt that. Even with tenure, some professors are extremely jealous of their positions. Someone comes along with better ideas and better research, think they'd want him/her up alongside, making them look bad?

That doesn't surprise me that maths and reading benefit the most. I've taught both now, and know exactly how difficult they can be to teach to a large class.
You have to sit with a student to teach them to read properly. As far as I've seen so far, it's the best way by far.
If a kid doesn't know how to read by the time he starts school, he's pretty much a lost cause anyway.

If by "interactive," however, you mean that the instructor posed questions to the class and asked for responses, then I would have to disagree. These lessons definitely held more interest for me as a student, and it's all too obvious that my own students learn more when I can keep them engaged.
I didn't like those. The teacher asks questions to which he obviously knows the answers. He could save us all time by telling us what they are. If some of the kids don't care enough to pay attention, not my problem.

From what I understand of University tenures and such like, teaching ability is way down the list of things to hire ppl for.
It's all about how much research they've done, can do and how much money and prestige said research/publications will bring to the university. That's where unis get most of their money from. Actual lecturing is secondary.Depends on the school.

The school at which I received my undergraduate degree was a small liberal arts college--really a teaching school. Few professors publish more than one or two books in their entire career--usually their dissertation, and then a sort of "life work" as they retire. Promotions were heavily based on teaching--and as a result they were among the best teachers I've ever had.

For my Masters degree, I attended a private research university that was the exact opposite: the emphasis was on publications, and professors were pressured to publish at least a few articles a year, and a book at least every five years or so. That's quite a heavy research burden... so teaching suffered. I still had a great mentor there, and one of the best teachers I've ever known (his actual title was "National Endowment for the Humanities Distinguished Professor"), but on the whole professors were too wrapped up in research to deal with undergrads.

Currently I teach at a public research university, which is somewhere in between. So, it all depends... but the point is that it is certainly possible to base promotions on teaching, and I imagine this is what should happen in secondary schools.

As for little back-stabbing going on, I highly doubt that. Even with tenure, some professors are extremely jealous of their positions. Someone comes along with better ideas and better research, think they'd want him/her up alongside, making them look bad?In my experience? Yes.

Right now my department has one of the top minds in American politics--bar none. And they love him, for a variety of reasons: 1) His being here increases the prestige of the department, and attracts great grad students--which benefits everyone; 2) Just talking with the man gives everyone else great ideas; 3) plenty of other reasons.

Moreover, we're desperate to do ANYTHING we can for the guy--including expediting promotions and giving him out-of-cycle raises--to keep him. Right now we're actually trying to bring in one of his "friends" to give him another reason to stay... because if we don't, he's bound to take another offer. We know he's been getting them.

I suppose some departments have different personalities... but effective team management should be able to work toward a collegial mentality rather than a petty one.

I didn't like those. The teacher asks questions to which he obviously knows the answers. He could save us all time by telling us what they are. If some of the kids don't care enough to pay attention, not my problem.The point isn't just attention.

The point is that students learn better when they have to think through the answers themselves. This goes even for the best students.

If I just tell you the answer, you are less likely to remember... or to remember why it's important, or how it relates to other ideas.

That "aha!" moment is a form of internal positive reinforcement. You remember those moments. You even go around telling other people about them.

Now, that moment may happen during a lecture, when something I say makes a lot of sense. But in my experience it is much easier to "manufacture" by asking students to think about a problem, then using probing questions to guide them in the direction of the right answer.

Must be parochials.

Let's just look at secondary schools.

Overall average: $6,053.
Catholic: $4,845.
Other religious: $6,536.
Non-sectarian: $14,638.

Ah, what the hell? Why are parochial schools so much cheaper?

The principal reason is that most of them are run as non-profit organizations and they get funding from their church (at the local and/or broader levels). Hence, they charge tuition that effectively covers costs (they don't make any money on it)... so they are, economically speaking, non-competitive.

Surely these cannot be the schools that capitalists expect to save us through competition! Moreover, most parents don't seem to relish the thought of their children being taught by priests and nuns every day.

So, for the purposes of this argument, the schools that are supposed to "save" education are the ones that cost, on average, $14,638/year.

Source: Source: Table 61, Digest of Education Statistics 2002, National Center for Education Statistics.

There is also another issue here. With the possible exception of the parochial schools, chances are that the tuition alone doesn't even begin to tell you what it actually costs to go to the school.

I looked at some of the private schools in and around Atlanta yesterday. Not a single one I could find had a tuition under $4000 - and the only one under $5000 was parochial (with a huge Catholic Church endowment). Non-parochial schools never had tuition below $10,000. Meanwhile, those tuition costs did not cover books, uniforms, activity fees, registration fees, lunch, etc., etc. My fiance went to a private high school - and even sports teams were either required or strongly encouraged to buy their own equipment. The estimated cost we came to of actually going to a top-tier private high school in this area is actually about $30,000 a year per student.

I've never seen a public school that required students to buy books, pay actual activity fees (although traveling with some extracurricular activities could get expensive), pay for registration, or even - in the case of low-income families - even pay for lunch. All of these costs are covered by the school, rather than the state.

It might also be interesting to note that none of these schools had a minority percentage over about 5%, while the public schools were generally at about 15%. These schools also did not take special needs students (private schools for them are generally even more expensive, and often require boarding) - which public schools will take - students that need much more attention and most likely end up being more expensive to the schools.

There is also another issue here. With the possible exception of the parochial schools, chances are that the tuition alone doesn't even begin to tell you what it actually costs to go to the school.Right.

Moreover, private schools can conveniently leave these costs out when comparing their prized "efficiency" to that of the public schools.

I would not be at all surprised if, dollar-for-dollar expense-for-expense, the public schools actually turn out to be much more efficient than the average private school... once you factor in everything the public schools actually have to pay for.

If a kid doesn't know how to read by the time he starts school, he's pretty much a lost cause anyway.
most children can't read prior to starting school. And this actually has more to do with not being developmentally ready to do so than being a "lost cause"

most children can't read prior to starting school. And this actually has more to do with not being developmentally ready to do so than being a "lost cause"
Once again, perhaps I'm biased. I was a hyperlexic child. I have no recollection of learning to read.

That combination I take as evidence that kids learn languages better when they're younger - including written languages.

As such, kids you can't read when they start school are already behind, and will likely never read as well as those who learned earlier in life.

Once again, perhaps I'm biased. I was a hyperlexic child. I have no recollection of learning to read.

That combination I take as evidence that kids learn languages better when they're younger - including written languages.

As such, kids you can't read when they start school are already behind, and will likely never read as well as those who learned earlier in life.Funny.

I'd think an amazing genius such as yourself would know that hyperlexia is a reading disorder characterized by early reading and an inability to communicate verbally combined with difficulty learning the rules of grammar.

:rolleyes:

I am a conservative and I am against school vouchers. I believe that people should either go to public schools or private and the federal government should not be giving out money to people to do it.

Once again, perhaps I'm biased. I was a hyperlexic child. I have no recollection of learning to read.

That combination I take as evidence that kids learn languages better when they're younger - including written languages.

As such, kids you can't read when they start school are already behind, and will likely never read as well as those who learned earlier in life.
Yep, that would be biased.
Kids do learn languages better at a young age...however, the ability to associate symbols with sounds doesn't appear untill around the time a child enters kindergarten. Children with severe autism may never develop the skill.
A child who learns to read before school is ahead. A child who learns in Kindergarten/1st grade is on par. You cannot be behind if the curriculum is designed to teach something at the time you are learning it. That is a contradiction.
Additionally, there is no evidence that shows learning to read earlier increases reading comprehension. Most students learn to read in K or 1st grade, yet the full spectrum of reading levels is displayed.

Funny.

I'd think an amazing genius such as yourself would know that hyperlexia is a reading disorder characterized by early reading and an inability to communicate verbally combined with difficulty learning the rules of grammar.

:rolleyes:petty details.;)

Education should be free for all.

As such, kids you can't read when they start school are already behind, and will likely never read as well as those who learned earlier in life.

From what I recall of the early readers, this "learned to read after starting school kid" had left pretty much all of them in the dust by third grade.

Then again, that happened in a private school with small classes, so....

Depends on the school.

The school at which I received my undergraduate degree was a small liberal arts college--really a teaching school. Few professors publish more than one or two books in their entire career--usually their dissertation, and then a sort of "life work" as they retire. Promotions were heavily based on teaching--and as a result they were among the best teachers I've ever had.

For my Masters degree, I attended a private research university that was the exact opposite: the emphasis was on publications, and professors were pressured to publish at least a few articles a year, and a book at least every five years or so. That's quite a heavy research burden... so teaching suffered. I still had a great mentor there, and one of the best teachers I've ever known (his actual title was "National Endowment for the Humanities Distinguished Professor"), but on the whole professors were too wrapped up in research to deal with undergrads.

Currently I teach at a public research university, which is somewhere in between. So, it all depends... but the point is that it is certainly possible to base promotions on teaching, and I imagine this is what should happen in secondary schools.
Have to say, sounds like you went to an awesome college.

If a kid doesn't know how to read by the time he starts school, he's pretty much a lost cause anyway.
And your point is, what, exactly?
That we should ignore them if they can't read?

the ability to associate symbols with sounds doesn't appear untill around the time a child enters kindergarten.
Reading doesn't involve associating symbols with sounds. It's the association of symbols with meaning, just like speaking a language associates the sounds with meaning.

You're hamstringing these kids by forcing them to read phonetically.

Funny.

I'd think an amazing genius such as yourself would know that hyperlexia is a reading disorder characterized by early reading and an inability to communicate verbally combined with difficulty learning the rules of grammar.

:rolleyes:
And I've always been a better reader than a speaker.

And that rules of grammar aspect only applies to learning by example or by trial and error. Rules-based teaching works quite well.

Learning by example should always be problematic. Examples are specific cases, and applying those lessons universally requires an irrational induction.

Reading doesn't involve associating symbols with sounds. It's the association of symbols with meaning, just like speaking a language associates the sounds with meaning.

You're hamstringing these kids by forcing them to read phonetically.
OMG, no! When you teach a kid to read phonetically, he or she can sound out a new word and then associate that sound with meaning. Without phonetics as a tool, you're forcing children to memorize a huge number of individual symbols and their meanings.

And I've always been a better reader than a speaker.

And that rules of grammar aspect only applies to learning by example or by trial and error. Rules-based teaching works quite well.

Learning by example should always be problematic. Examples are specific cases, and applying those lessons universally requires an irrational induction.You really don't know much about hyperlexia, do you? Ever tried to teach a hyperlexic?

The more you squirm on this one, the more I'm convinced that everything you say is bullshit. You have a real credibility problem.

If a kid doesn't know how to read by the time he starts school, he's pretty much a lost cause anyway.

As such, kids you can't read when they start school are already behind, and will likely never read as well as those who learned earlier in life.

Couldn't read when I started school was significantly behind in class 1 and 2. Then they catogorized me as stupid and I stopped trying because I don't respond well to being singled out as stupid. They gave the boring books to read that I hated and I had no motivation to get better. When I got to grade 4 I started finding books I liked and now I'm a book worm. In my class I'm one of the fastest readers and I usually have one of the best reading comprehensions in the class. On the comprehension part of the English exam this year I got 93%. Seriously, I don't think you can judge a lost cause until... well ever. I know a friend who brough her average up by 15% and she's in the second year of highschool.

OMG, no! When you teach a kid to read phonetically, he or she can sound out a new word and then associate that sound with meaning. Without phonetics as a tool, you're forcing children to memorize a huge number of individual symbols and their meanings.
How is that different from forcing them to learn a huge number of sound combinations and their meanings?

You really don't know much about hyperlexia, do you? Ever tried to teach a hyperlexic?

The more you squirm on this one, the more I'm convinced that everything you say is bullshit. You have a real credibility problem.
Hyperlexics are highly logical little kids. As long as you treat them as highly logical, they're not that bad. Aspies are often hyperlexic.

The problems arise because most teachers aren't logical people. The profession doesn't attract the sorts of people who can think like hyperlexics.