On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 04:09:00AM -0400, Vitaliy wrote:
> 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. :)

Cool.

> 
> ==> 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.

Agreed. That thread has wandered all over the place.

> 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.

I agree with that point. It's a "tide lifts all boats" argument.

> 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.

We agree on the above point. I think our digression is what constitutes
being a "free market".

> 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.

But OTOH private schools don't have to take on the headaches that public
schools do. Private schools can put out students at will. Private schools
do not have to accept all students. Private schools can use tuition as a
barrier to entry. Private schools can accept funding over and above the
funding they would theoretically accept from public funding.

Private schools have a ton of advantages precisely because they do not
accept public funding. That's the reason they produce better product than
the public schools.

I'm not happy with the monopolistic public school model either. However, to
publicly fund rpivate schools as is, with all of the advantages they
already have, isn't the solution in my mind.

> 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 agree with this so long as all schools are functioning on a level playing
field. That means they all have to accept the same students, function under
the same rules, and function under the same funding. That's the level free
market playing field that I keep discussing.

> 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.

I can agree with that. I believe there needs to be a new model. Nowhere in
this thread have I defended public schools as being the correct model for
educating the populus.

> 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.

We've seen that traditional voucher concept. You started this conversation
with the original voucher concept. I pointed out what I though it's flaws
were and suggested some changes. Specifically:

D. Any institution that accepts vouchers cannot require guardians to pay
any other from of renumeration for student education.

E. That some form of testing of student achievement continue to be used and
that results of testing be made public.

F. Students cannot be removed from institutions for poor academic
performance. As long as guardians have vouchers, and students are not a
criminal danger, they get to go to any school that accepts vouchers.

My only concession that I'm willing to give is to home schooled co-ops and
I would severely limit their populations. The reason being is that if you
don't limit student populations, then private schools will simply convert
to home school co-ops with 1,000 students, thereby defeating the purpose.
One simple way to do this is to require that home schoolers be actually
home schooled. If you get another building outside of the homes of the
participants, you're now a public institution and you have to start
accepting students just like everyone else.

See my three are the restrictions that public schools live with every day.
Private and home schools generally do not have to deal with students that
no one wants. If you want public money, then you too will have to deal with
the students that no one wants: the unmotivated, the lazy, the class clowns
that disrupt instruction, the students whose parents are satisfied with
baby sitting and are not interested in their education.

When you factor in those students, then the landscape changes. I can
virtually guarantee that the lower money private school funding model that
you believe is so superior to the inefficient public school education will
fail just as miserably as public schools when faced with students in the
lower third of the bell curve of academic acheivement and parental
involvement. You give me an all star team, and I can make them successful.
The question is when you have a group of random folks all the street, can
you do the same? That's the difference between public and private school
education in the US.

> 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).

Sorry. It's a complex topic with a lot of moving parts.

> 
> 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.

Vouchers will mot work because as stated above they will only serve to
segregate top performing students from the rest of the population and use
public funds to do so. While this is wonderful for those students, it's not
a model that lifts all boats.

My alternative as stated above is to have a truly free market educational
model where every institution that accepts public funding is subject to the
same rules. This includes public schools. In this manner, the best systems
will rise to the top. And these are systems that work in the face of mixed
academic populations and limited funding. That type of system will lift all
boats instead of just students who are motivated.

BTW that doesn't preclude having private schools. They'll in fact become
even more exclusive because they won't accept public funding. But if you
take the public's money, you have to play by the same rules as everyone
else.

> - Try not to attack straw men.

I try not to do that. If I do, simply point it out to me.

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