Byron wrote:
> I have no idea how this thread got jump started again after a month or so.

T'was me. From time to time, I take forced breaks (work, family) from the 
PICList. The pull is too great however, and if after a month of absence I 
feel that I may have something worthwhile to say on the subject, I jump 
start the thread. :)

==> I changed the subject to improve the focus of the conversation. 
Corruption, relativism, and maybe even "public vs private schools" deserve 
their own topics. Should you decide to digress, please remember start a new 
topic.

Rather than respond to every post, let me (re)state the relevant points 
which I think are important:


1. Education is a "positive externality" in economics. Everybody benefits 
from it, but not everybody wants to pay for it (the "Free Rider" problem).

Therefore, while I have great respect for Cedric Chang's Libertarian views, 
I believe the government *should* subsidize education.


2. Competition in a free market benefits consumers. It is the force that 
drives companies to operate more efficiently, and make their product or 
service better and cheaper.

Conversely, lack of competition hurts consumers. Whenever a company is a 
monopoly or has an unfair advantage, it tends to be wasteful and 
inefficient. As applied to education, the government gives the public school 
system an unfair advantage, by subsidizing its entire cost of operation (for 
all practical purposes, bake sales notwithstanding), and excluding private 
schools from receiving the same funding.


3. The quality of education is the only criteria by which a school's 
performance should be measured. It should not matter how the end result 
(well-educated students) is achieved.

I realize this one is difficult, but it is by no means impossible. The point 
here is, measuring anything else tends to produce undesired results. Lee 
Jones had an excellent example of what happens when funding is directly tied 
to attendance.


4. Public schools are not making efficient use of the money they are given.


5. The voucher system seems to be the best way to get the most "bang for the 
buck". In an ideal world, it would work like this:

    A. The government collects money from taxpayers.
    B. The money is converted into vouchers, which are issued to the pupils' 
guardians.
    C. Guardians are allowed to spend the vouchers at their discretion 
(public, private, home)

This of course assumes that public schools cease to receive any additional 
funding from the government.


Many people will disagree. Rather than trying to address hypothetical 
concerns, I would prefer to respond to specific criticisms (this post is 
already too long).

I kindly ask that when you respond, please:

- Stick to the topic. Tell me why you think vouchers are not the best way to 
improve school quality, and what alternatives there are.
- Try not to attack straw men.

:)

Vitaliy 

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