> Tony Smith wrote:
> > 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)
> 
> You're kind of missing the point, Tony. The public schools 
> are a means to an end, and the end is -- educated population. 
> If parents choose to take the money away from the public 
> schools, because they feel their kids can get a better 
> education at a private school, that is perfectly alright. 
> They are actually doing the society a favor by spending the 
> money more efficiently.
> 
> > and anyway, that's against
> > the point of private - you don't rely on Government handouts.
> 
> Did you not read my point #1, about education being a 
> positive externality? 
> And even if it wasn't, private schools would not need the 
> "handouts" if the public school system wasn't a fully 
> subsidized government monopoly.
> 
> > Vouchers won't work because this sort of scheme never does.
> 
> During our first year in the US, our family was receiving 
> food stamps (can also be called "food vouchers"). I assure 
> you they were spent as intended (to buy food).
> 
> There was a guy I know who had a very big family. The formula 
> is flawed (you don't need ten times as many food stamps to 
> feed ten kids), so he had a suplus of food stampls, and did 
> in fact illegally convert them to cash. None of the kids 
> suffered from malnutrition. So "this sort of scheme" 
> definitely achieves the intended result, flawed as it may be.
> 
> > I simply sell
> > my vouchers for half price to my neighbours, and then go buy some 
> > booze with the cash.
> 
> It sounds like a valid concern, but:
> 
> 1. In the US, all children are required by law to attend 
> school. Vouchers won't change that.
> 
> 2. You wouldn't sell your kid's vouchers to buy booze, and 
> neither would I. 
> I stand by my assertion that most parents want the best for 
> their children.
> 
> 3. Stealing your kid's vouchers is just another form of child 
> abuse/neglect. 
> In those rare cases when a parent is found to be not acting 
> in the child's best interest, the same recourses would exist 
> (e.g., assign a guardian).
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Vouchers. Mine was in the form of a PIN code I entered at the 
> register in the school's cafeteria.
> 
> > What a pointless thread.  Society says all of its citizens 
> should have 
> > a basic education, so we let the government sort it out.
> 
> Spoken like a true socialist. :)  What other choices would 
> you let your government make for you?
> 
> > For those not happy
> > with that, start your own school.
> 
> That's exactly what we want to do. The problem is, the 
> government takes the money we need to start our own school, 
> and gives it to our competitor -- a wasteful, inefficient monopoly.
> 
> > Then you can be sued when you simply
> > accept bodies for cash and don't educate them, as per Jinx's post.
> 
> I don't see what your point is.
> 
> Vitaliy
> 
> PS Byron had some interesting points in his post (under the 
> old thread) which I was almost done replying to, when OE 
> crashed. I will try to recreate the reply, eventually. :) 


Politically, I consider myself libertarian.  Unlike most, I realise it
wouldn't work outside a RAH novel.  People just aren't like that.  Anyway...

Different countries, states, areas etc have different setups for education.
Where I live (New South Wales in Australia) is different to California, USA.
Public schools are funded based on population.  Private schools shouldn't be
funded, but are anyway.  I've no idea what the actual formulas are, but
everyone claims it isn't enough, so maybe it's right.

A two-tiered system, where the Government provides a 'free' education for
all and private enterprise supplies a 'higher class' one for those who can
afford it seems to be the standard model in most areas, and seems to work.
That's a generalisation, of course, the 'free' model may be worth every
cent, and the 'higher class' one may be in name only.  None of them teach
Latin, of course, which means they all teach to low standards.  That's a
joke of course, but underlines the point - what's considered education?

I didn't miss your point, as I said most countries try to ensure their kids
receive an education.  You just don't seem to like public schools.  You are
always going to have a segment of the population that is educated to a lower
standard.  What that means is open to definition (can they read? Recite 18th
century poetry? etc).

The people you are trying to help with vouchers would be the ones who would
abuse that system anyway.  There's no way to run it effectively; say you
could only use the vouchers at the school.  You either buy stuff you can
resell (laptops) or the school inflates the prices ($3000 laptops).  Doesn't
work.  You or I may not abuse the vouchers, but we're interesting in
learning stuff, voucher or not.

So truancy is illegal, like it'll make a difference.  I used to find school
boring so I'd often go to the Uni library instead, much more interesting (I
still passed).  That's just human nature.  Like the breakfast bit, the
school should not have been providing the children with breakfast - that's
what parents are for.  That fact it's happening points to other problems,
that's what I meant by 'solve that'.  For a school to provide breakfast
means it's not just one or two kids showing up hungry, it's a reasonable
percentage.  And this is in Sydney Australia, not exactly what you called a
population of dirt-poor subsidence folk.

Go back 30-odd years in Australia and even university level education was
free - unheard of almost everywhere.  The typical US scenario of parents
have a 'college fund' for their kids is completely foreign in Australia.  A
friend once pointed out that he was working night & day to pay his fees, the
switch to free happened just as he was about to drop out.  It's now changed,
the current model is the Government gives you a loan that you repay after
graduating (a getting a decent job).  Not too bad.

As a kid, when I was to move to high (secondary etc) school, I was given the
choice of public / private.  The private was the local Catholic school.  I
could have probably lived with the bible thumping, but it was the
rugger-bugger culture that really put me off.  God was a distance second to
the football, it was mandatory to watch the game, no matter what.  Why learn
physics when you should be learning the school song to cheer the team on.  A
better education indeed.

Tony


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