> 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.
> 
> :)



I'll add that in Australia, all schools receive some degree of Government
funding, be they public, private or whatever, including religious schools.
They public/private divide isn't so neat & tidy.  There is much grumbling
that private schools (funded by student fees) shouldn't receive this, since
you are disadvantaging public schools (less cash) and anyway, that's against
the point of private - you don't rely on Government handouts.

Vouchers won't work because this sort of scheme never does.  I simply sell
my vouchers for half price to my neighbours, and then go buy some booze with
the cash.

My boss was telling me that at a school near him, they have started
providing the children with breakfast since the parents obviously can't.
The kids pay more attention when they're not starving.  Solve that.

What a pointless thread.  Society says all of its citizens should have a
basic education, so we let the government sort it out.  For those not happy
with that, start your own school.  Then you can be sued when you simply
accept bodies for cash and don't educate them, as per Jinx's post.

Tony

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