Byron Jeff wrote:
>> We often get angry about our government's misuse of tax dollars. It makes 
>> me
>> even angrier when the solution is simple and obvious. In the case of 
>> public
>> education, the solution is "vouchers". As long as public schools remain a
>> government-run monopoly, situation will continue to deteriorate.
>
> As an educator and a parent I don't think that vouchers are as simple as
> you think. Here in the US the concept comes across the boards every few
> years. The problem is that as presented as a supplemental resource instead
> of an inclusive one. So for better schools that have high tuitions, 
> vouchers
> become a subsidy for families who can fundamentally afford it.

Public schools get their money from taxes. They are also available to 
everyone (rich or poor). In my state, the government spends $9000 per 
student per year on public education[1]. If I decide to send my child to a 
private school, I would essentially pay twice: I have to forfeit my right to 
the $9000 that my taxes went toward, plus I have to pay the private school 
fees.

Does this not seem unfair to you?

> Also such
> schools will have entry requirements that many students will not meet.

This point is irrelevant to the discussion. Academic ability is not tied to 
a person's economic means, many a poor student entered MIT and Harvard on a 
scholarship.

> If I were doing vouchers, I'd make it a truly free market by adding the
> following:
>
> 1) If your school accepts vouchers then the voucher is the only
> renumeration that you can receive for a student.
>
> 2) If your school accepts vouchers then you must accept any student with a
> voucher regardless of their educational profile.
>
> 3) If your school accepts vouchers then there must be strict guidelines 
> for
> expulsion, none of which can be academically based. You can retain
> students, you can remediate them, but you can't put them out for 
> acadmeics.
>
> 4) If your school accepts vouchers then you must publish your school's 
> test
> results.

The restrictions you're proposing hardly help make it "free market".

> Yes it's brutal. But the above four requirements are the restrictions 
> under
> which public schools function. Then those who think they can do a better
> job will see that the solution isn't as easy as they think.

Of course they can do a better job. Nobody argues that the quality of 
education is better in private schools, and tuition cost is generally half 
or less of what the public system spends, per student[2].

The public schools are hugely inefficient. What's worse, they have little 
incentive to do better. On at least two prior occasions, I posted a link to 
a flow chart that shows how impossible it is to fire a teacher in the United 
States, even if they were charged with selling cocaine or committed a "crime 
involving physical or sexual abuse of a minor or student"[3].

In a true free market system, instead of giving the tax dollars to the 
public school system, the government would give them to the parents, in the 
form of vouchers. The public schools would compete for the vouchers, along 
with other schools. In that case,

1. Whether vouchers is "the only renumeration" would be largely irrelevant, 
since private schools generally spend far less than public schools.

2. If a school decides to turn down a student based on her IQ, there will 
always be other schools competing for the vouchers.

3. Expulsion on academic basis actually sounds like a great idea, as it 
provides an additional incentive for the students to perform. Schools would 
exercise this option as a last resort anyway, because expelling a student 
means losing their voucher money.

4. I don't see why publishing test data would be a problem for private 
schools, since they outpeform public schools.

> The bottom line is that the vast majority of students are not interested 
> in
> school. And at least in the US, the contingent of parents who are only
> interested in using public school as a sitting service is huge. It's a
> terrible combination which frankly education officials are having a tough
> time dealing with.

I strongly resent that. My five year old is _very_ interested in learning, 
and as a father I want the best for her. The vast majority of parents want 
the best for their children. Unfortunately, under the current system, they 
don't have a choice.

There are many reasons some students are not interested in school, you 
listed one in point 3 above -- they know the school will graduate them even 
if they can't read. The second major reason is the indifference and/or the 
incompetence of teachers.

> I'll follow up with some more later. I have to run and teach some students
> who almost want to be there.

I attended high school in the US, and I remember many of my teachers with 
gratitude. Unfortunately, I have also met teachers who were less than 
competent, and couldn't have cared less about their students.

Vitaliy

[1] http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002775.html
[2] http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/aboutus/ArticleView.aspx?id=506
[3] http://www.edspresso.com/generalfiles/firing_chart.pdf 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist