Byron Jeff wrote:
>> The DINKs do not care whether the money is spent at a private or a public
>> school.
>
> Missed the point. DINKs have no kids. Why should they have to pay taxes 
> for
> education at all?

Because we established that THE WHOLE SOCIETY benefits from educated 
population, including the DINKs.

>> > The public school funds are for the benefit of the entire society, not
>> > just
>> > specifically for you. So paying them are orthogonal to paying for 
>> > tuition.
>>
>> Sorry, but the argument is absurd. You are saying that if I decide to
>> transfer my child to a private school, I deprive the society of the 
>> benefit.
>
> No. If you transfer your funds to a private school that does not have 
> equal
> access then you deprive society of that benefit.

OK, I see. I was talking about the benefit of my child's education to 
society. You were talking about the benefit of the money (the $9000/yr per 
child) that is currently being used in the public school system.

I believe that by trying to get a better education for my child, I am doing 
the society a favor. I am trying to spend the society's money in the most 
efficient manner.

> You're arguing this issue from the specific stance of your single child 
> and
> the public funds that are allocated for your single child.

I believe in the power of John Smith's Invisible Hand: if everyone does 
what's best for him, everyone will be better off. That's the reason 
capitalism works. I am arguing this issue from the stance of ALL parents who 
wish to get a better education for their kids.

> That system
> doesn't work because everyone does not value their children's education
> equally. That's why vouchers don't work.

Regardless of how much a parent values their children's education, if they 
are given the vouchers, they would pick the best school that the vouchers 
can buy. Which means every child will be better off.

Let me demonstrate this with a hypothetical example. Say the government took 
$30,000 of your tax money and gave you a choice: you can get the vouchers, 
and spend them on a car of your choice, or let the government buy you a 
motorbike.

Private companies and individuals spend money more efficiently than 
government entities.

> Public education is inefficient. We agree on that. However the best
> solution is the one that works for all (or virtually all) children, not
> just for the specific few.

Vouchers *will* work for *all* children. It's the same money that the 
government spends on education, but now the end customers decide how it will 
be spent.

[snip]
>> I don't know where you get the idea that private schools "cherry pick" 
>> their
>> students.
>
> Because they do. The process starts with the fact that if you don't have
> sufficient funds to send you student, they can't get in.

Let me remind you that the private schools currently spend roughly $4000 per 
child per year. The amount of vouchers given to the parents would be equal 
to the amount of money currently given to the public schools, about $9000 
per child.

I'm sure there will always be elite schools that charge more than the amount 
of vouchers, but most children would not be turned away because of their 
inability to pay.

> Or for even more
> exclusive institutions even if you have sufficient funds, you still cannot
> get your child in unless you offer something special over and above the
> money. Or they offer "scholarships" to students who cannot afford to pay.
> But by definition, to get a scholarship you have to show superior talent 
> in
> some way. That my friend is the definition of cherry picking.

Byron, you keep talking about these hypothetical "exclusive private schools" 
that "cherry pick" their students. Can you give me some names and facts? How 
much does it cost per child for tuition, how much the "something special" 
amounts to, and maybe some examples of the academic requirements.

The private schools I'm familiar with, are nothing like what you are 
describing.

> Public schools only entrance exam is that you live in the school district.
> So even having an entrance exam, which of course helps selects students,
> again by definition means that students are cherry picked.

And yet after they're accepted in a public school, some students are weeded 
out anyway -- based on similar criteria. But instead of doing it upfront, 
they waste a lot of time and resources in the process.

> You really believe that private schools would be inherently better if
> anyone could attend for no cost?

Errr... wouldn't the "no cost" part would by definition make them not 
private? Or maybe I don't understand what you're asking?

>> There are actually two ways to achive a level playing field:
>>
>> 1. Put the same burdens that are born by public schools, on private 
>> schools.
>> 2. Remove the burdens.
>
> #2 isn't achievable. The reason is that the law of the land is that
> everyone under a certain age must be in school. For those who are not 
> lucky
> enough to get into a private school, that means public school. So if you
> remove the burden that public schools must educate everyone, then where
> exactly do you put those students who the public school puts out for poor
> academic performance? Home school? Jail?

What good does it do, to keep passing these students from one grade to the 
next? Why waste their and everybody else's time?

I believe that in a majority of cases, the student's poor performance is the 
school system's fault. In a voucher system, parents can do more for their 
child (different school, private tutoring).

In the end, it is better to put the student out of the school system, than 
to keep them in it. Just think about it from the student's point of view: 
how frustrating would it be for you, if you were always the dumbest kid in 
the class, and were forced to attend the same boring classes year after 
year, after you've already hopelessly fallen behind.

There are many other places besides jail where the student can end up.

>> I am saying, get rid of the restrictions.
>
> You can't do it. Everyone must be educated. Everyone must be in school. So
> therefore there must be a school of last resort. Right now that's the
> public school system. If you remove the restriction, then you'll have
> a percentage of students that will have nowhere to go to be educated.

The reason I disagree with you on this, is because each student, no matter 
how bad, would represent $9000/year. For that kind of money, there will 
always be "schools of last resort", as you call them -- and they will do a 
better job for the students than the public schools can.

 > Let me go ask my wife what percentage of students she would put out of 
the
> system if she had the opportunity... She says 5%. So what would you do 
> with
> those students?

Special schools. Trade schools. Private counseling/tutoring.

> Without the restrictions, schools will put out any student that doesn't
> help their bottom line, i.e. test scores. If you're an institution that's
> accepting public money, then you can't cherry pick anymore. You have to
> educate anyone that shows up to your door with a voucher in hand, just 
> like
> the public schools have to do now. Then the best schools will rise to the
> top.

The bottom line for a private school (like for any private enterprise) is 
first money, then academics. You are operating on the flawed assumption 
(currently true) that schools with the best scores will get more money.

In fact, the most successful schools would be the ones that cater to the 
"average" student, the majority of the student population.

> Let me explain my wife's 5% putout rate. That 5% of kids are the ones that
> discourage and disrupt the educational process for everyone else. A smart
> school will do everything in their power to get these kids gone. But if
> like the public schools you have to keep them, then the school that finds
> the best way to manage them is the one that rises. But with the easy
> solution of expulsion, you'll never find out which system manages them the
> best.

There are already schools for "troubled" kids. I think they and "everyone 
else" would benefit if they are put in an environment that better fits their 
needs (stricter discipline, special counseling, etc).

>> I am proposing that ALL schools, irregardless of whether they're public 
>> or
>> private, should switch to the voucher system. If you think I'm advocating
>> privatizing the public school system, you won't be too wrong. ;)
>
> I understand that. However, any school that accepts vouchers and has other
> monetary requirements, i.e. tuition, will have a built in advantage over
> schools who have no other monetary requirements, i.e. public schools.

I guess we have a further misunderstanding then. :) Why should the public 
schools be precluded from accepting additional funding?

>> Just like in any other normal industry, there will be a continuum: from
>> "Cadillac" schools to "Volkswagen" schools. My theory postulates that the
>> "Volkswagen" schools will make far better use of the money than the 
>> public
>> schools.
>
> But to pound my issue again, that any school what can put out (or not
> accept) students they don't like will have an advantage over schools that
> can't. And since education is a requirement for all students, then you'll
> have an underclass of the population that no school will want to educate.

That will never happen, because each student is a $9000/year piggybank.

> So be it by self selection, lottery, or equal division, there must be an
> equitable way for each school to get a slice of these problem students and
> have to figure out how to educate them.

I think it's a better idea to let the schools focus on educating the 95%, 
and deal separately with the 5%.

> There's a rule of thumb in the landlord business: "It's better to have a
> property vacant than to have a bad tenant." Simply put it's better to lose
> money in the short term than to have long term headaches.

Are you saying that's a bad idea? I hope you are not suggesting that the 
government should prohibit the landlords from pre-screening the tenants.

> That's the whole point of cherry picking. And it's a practice you'll have
> to disallow if you ever truely want to figure out what's the best
> educational system for a broad range of students.

I guess we have established that that is the root of our disagreement. :)

>> How many businesses do you know of that are picky about
>> their customers?
>
> Most. Most business books tout a strategy of attracting the best customers
> and enticing them to come back.

How many times have you been denied service at a restaraunt, or a retail 
store, or a gas station?

> If you ran a restaurant and you had a customer come in every night and
> complain about how bad the food is loud and all night long, how long would
> it be before you'd start turning the guy away?

Not long. But if I'm the guy, there are a million other restaraunts I can go 
to. And maybe eventually I will understand that is is my fault I'm being 
turned away.

>> I can only think of a couple off the top of my head (e.g.,
>> some insurance companies, maybe some clubs). If an insurance company 
>> turns
>> me down, I know there are plenty of others who are eager to take my 
>> money.
>
> At a higher premium I'd bet.

You'd think so, but no, not necessarily. :)

An insurance company our company was with, decided that they could no longer 
insure us because the underwriter could not understand what business we were 
in, and hence could not assess the risk. Our agent quickly found another 
company that gave us a lower quote.

>> > Schools will ditch poor students so fast it'll make your head spin.
>>
>> Nine. Thousand. Dollars. :)
>
> Not a lot of money in the long run. If you can dump one student and 
> attract
> 5 or 10 because of it, they'll be gone in a heartbeat. And that's exactly
> why expulsion on academics is so dangerous in a market economy.

It's a LOT of money, twice as much as what private schools operate on. I 
think we have pinpointed one source of the disagreement, "what to do with 
the disruptive or underachieving students".

Your solution is to keep them in the system, in the same schools with the 
normal kids. My solution is to give these kids other options, as that would 
make everyone better off.

>> Even today there exist companies that specialize in helping kids do 
>> better
>> in school. Under the voucher system, there would be plenty more such
>> companies to make sure that no child is ever left behind.
>
> Now that may be true. But will Kaplan and Sylvan be willing to do the job
> for just the voucher?

Many will. But even if we find that the voucher is not enough, isn't it 
better to pay these companies extra to give the kids a better chance in 
life, than to keep them in mediocre public schools? Remember we're talking 
about a tiny minority here.

>> What I said was, "it provides an additional incentive".
>
> There is no additional incentive for the primary stakeholder, the student.

Sorry, I know this to not be true. :) There's stigma attached to being 
expelled, and the reason some kids drop out is because they don't see any 
reason to stay in a school that doesn't give them anything.

>> >> 4. I don't see why publishing test data would be a problem for private
>> >> schools, since they outpeform public schools.
>> >
>> > Not if you level the playing field. You'll watch those scores drop like
>> > dead ducks.
>>
>> Since none of us has the hard data, we'll have to agree to disagree on 
>> this
>> one.
>
> I believe I can get my hands on the data of schools in my area's test
> scores before and after accepting second choice students. If I can I'll
> post them.

That data would be interesting to see, but would not help disprove my point, 
since I'm advocating a level playing field *without artificial 
restrictions*.

>> - Why does it take twice as much money to educate a "dumb" public school
>> pupil, than a brilliant private school one?
>
> Because the dumb public school has to deal the the dumb public school
> student. Public schools have the entire bell curve, not just the highly
> motivated, well moneyed students at the upper end of the bell curve.

And how, exactly, does that make them spend twice as much money per student?

>> - Do private schools employ incompetent, lazy, or indifferent teachers?
>
> Actually a lot of them employ uncertified teachers. They are in private
> school because they don't have the education to work in a public school.

Oh, I see. So the parents are wasting their money on inferior, uncertified 
teachers. :)

>> - How long do you think it would take a private school to fire a 
>> pedophile?
>
> Now that's a straw man. So I'll leave it alone.

Why is it a straw man? It's a fact that because of the teacher's unions, 
many schools prefer to keep the teachers on paid leave, because it's cheaper 
than paying the court costs.

>> Low test scores and high dropout rates indicate a problem with the 
>> system,
>> they don't mean that parents don't want the best for their children.
>
> Yes it does. Because any parent that wants the best for their children 
> will
> do whatever it takes to make sure that they have high test scores and 
> don't
> drop out.

But the parents currently DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. They can't transfer their 
child to a better school, even if they really wanted to.

>> > Here in the Atlanta area we have pockets where the average generation 
>> > gap
>> > is 13 years apart. You have 26 year old grandparents and 40 year old 
>> > great
>> > grandparents. None finish school. Many don't work or have marketable
>> > skills. Most are simply trying to survive. [snip]
>>
>> And that proves that parents don't want the best for their children?
>
> It shows that parents don't always know what's best for their children.
> Many parents simply don't have the skillset to make the best decisions.

My grandmother was forced to drop out of the third grade so she could work 
as a house servant to help earn money for her family (this took place in the 
USSR in the 1920's). She is barely literate herself, but she always talked 
about the importance of education to her children and grandchildren. "Even 
shepherds need education", she used to say.

>> The vouchers will give the poor, uneducated folks a choice, an 
>> opportunity
>> to provide a better future for their kids.
>
> But not if there are additional barriers to entry for their use. The whole
> point is that the public school system has no barrier to entry. It's free
> to its users, requires no additional funds to attend, and you can't be
> rejected. Private school is 0 for 3 in those categories.

We're talking about different private schools then. For the ones I'm talking 
about,

1. Vouchers would most private schools free to the users.
2. Most private schools will not require additional funds -- they already 
operate on half as much as public schools.
3. Rejecting a student costs the school $9000. But we've already discussed 
that.

Under the voucher system, schools will be actively seeking new students. 
"Free laptop and an iPod if you join today!"

> So makes you think that priave schools are going to all of a sudden thrust
> open their doors?

Money.

> And I've already been on the $9,000/yr-student merry-go-round. No need to
> spin it again.

You leave me no choice. :) Yes, it all comes down to the $9000/yr-student. 
Explain to me why you think it doesn't work.

It is the public school system that is increasing the class divide, because 
today only the rich can afford to send their kids to a private school. The 
voucher system would eliminate the barrier, and make better education 
accessible to many more kids.

[snip]
>> Both types of children (distruptive, learning disability) would benefit 
>> from
>> a more flexible system that the vouchers will create.
>
> That's what my wife says.

I have the greatest respect for your wife. :)

>> Byron, do you know this for sure, or are you repeating the myth that the
>> teacher's union is continuing to perpetuate?
>
> I know for sure. I'm a public educator that's making a lot less money than
> if I were in a private school or in industry. It's my personal decision to
> balance money with other aspects of my life. However, with most folks it's
> all about the almighty dollar. And education doesn't pay as well as
> competing industries.

Well how much would you say an average teacher makes?

==>When I read the above, I remembered Robert Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad, Poor 
Dad". The poor dad was en educator who always felt a sense of injustice and 
contempt for the rich, demanded more money from the government, lost his 
job, and left a large debt when he died. I mean, there's nothing wrong with 
altruism and doing what you believe in, but you have to be prepared to 
accept the consequences and not complain that the others "have it easy". In 
fact, I would say that most small business owners work harder than most 
teachers, and have a greater positive impact on society.

>> I personally know a teacher who told me he is making $50k a year, plus 
>> full
>> benefits. And let me remind you that teachers work only nine months out 
>> of
>> the year.
>
> I know some that are making a lot more. However the question is both the
> education level of the teacher and the tenure of service.

Doesn't this contradict your original statement?

You wrote:
> Part of that problem is that the pay isn't sufficient to attract
> highly competent and motivated teachers.

$50k/year (9 working months) plus full benefits is more than what most 
professionals with a similar background (education, experience) make.

Vitaliy 

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