Byron Jeff wrote:
> I'm going to continue to pound on this argument. Private schools are not
> better because they are more efficient. Private schools are better because
> they are fueled by parents who are motivated to give their children the
> best education, even if that means paying for it with their own funds.
>
> Private schools start with a better self selected stock of students and
> parents. It's a natural progression that produces a better product at the
> end of the process.

Byron, I GET IT. :-D

No, seriously. Let me say it back to you: I understand that you believe that 
private schools are better because they attract better students and better 
parents.

I disagree: in my opinion, private schools are more efficient than public 
schools because they have a stronger incentive.

OK? :-)

> We agree that public education isn't good for everyone. What we disagree 
> on
> is whether or not private education is better for everyone. That is a yet
> to be proven point.

Do you agree with my assertion that "competition in a free market benefits 
consumers"?

If so, explain what makes the business of educating individuals so different 
from other businesses.

>> > 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).
>
> Because there are restrictions keeping them from being used for other
> purposes.

The point is, "vouchers do work".

>> 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.
>
> Why not train the guy to get a job so he can feed his own kids?
> I'll say no more because now we're getting off topic.

He had a job. :) According to the government's calculations, he wasn't 
making enough to support ten kids. I agree, off-topic.

>> 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.
>
> Disagree. There are millions of children whose parents could care less. If
> your assertion were true, there wouldn't be a foster system, or situations
> where child are not even with their parents. But we both know that lots of
> kids end up fending for themselves.

Do you have the data to back this up (esp. the "millions" part)?

>> 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).
>
> Agree with everything but rare. And even more so children who's parents 
> may
> provide the basics, but frankly have no interest in improving their 
> child's
> education.

Shouldn't it say "whose parents"? ;-) I know, it's late.

Vitaliy 

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