Vouchers, Homeschooling, and markets, Oh My!

[Beavah]

Yah, scoutldr... I might agree, eh?

 

That libertarian approach, same as packsaddle''s, means no "welfare schooling". No "public" taxpayer-supported schools. Everybody pays to have their kids get an education, and they pay for the level of education they want.

 

Problem is whether you really want lots of uneducated kids in society because they come from families where parents can''t afford to pay. That''d at least be the short-term problem as you dismantled welfare schooling and parents got used to payin'' for education again.

 

But if you''re willing to support "public" welfare schooling with tax dollars, I don''t necessarily see the downside to offering that same dollar amount as a scholarship to go to any school. What''s the difference to the taxpayer - they''re paying $10K per year per kid for public school in Detroit, why not let the parents choose a school and give that same $10K to that school of choice? Taxpayer is paying the same, but the results might be better. Can''t get much worse than Detroit, from Lisabobs description.

 

That''s what we do for colleges, eh? You can take your Federal scholarship or student loan to University of Wisconsin or to Northwestern or Notre Dame or wherever you want. Government, private, and parochial all receivin'' tax dollars to educate kids. And all doing a good job, because if they don''t, the kids will go somewhere else.

 

Beavah

[packsaddle]

Scholarships and loans for college are not just handed out to everyone. First you have to be accepted to the college. Then there is either a means test or a merit test or both for the financial aid. Not at all like a voucher, although I''d consider supporting such financial aid for K-12 if passing those tests was necessary to qualify for the aid.

 

The difference between the voucher approach and just letting people keep their taxes is the existence of a large bureacracy. Do away with that as well. After all, isn''t the bureacracy a large part of the public school problem?

Sweep out the barn. Let people take personal responsibility for their own decisions.

[scoutldr]

For the record, my two sons went to college and I paid the whole thing...no scholarships, no grants, no nothing, in spite of spending hours filling out forms. Not even a "work-study" offer. We are in that "middle ground" where I make too much for "need" and their grades and athletic ability were not good enough for "merit". Being white males didn''t help any, either. So, the great middle class takes it in the shorts again. How did I do it? Planning and sacrifice. I still live in the same home after 23 years and drive used cars. I felt my kids'' education was more important. I got a small inheritance when my parents died and it all went to college tuition instead of a new boat or cruise to Jamaica...otherwise I''d be paying off loans the rest of my life. And they didn''t go to Ivy League schools, either...they went where I could afford to send them and one lived at home. I told them "you have 8 semesters paid for...use them wisely". Both got their degrees...on time.

[Beavah]

The difference between the voucher approach and just letting people keep their taxes is the existence of a large bureacracy.

 

Yah, OK. You''re goin'' to make even me sound like a liberal.

 

K12 education in the U.S. costs somewhere between $6K and $10K per student as currently delivered.

 

Are yeh ready to say that for anybody unwilling or unable to afford that, their kids don''t receive any formal education? ''cept maybe if they get a freewill donation scholarship for somewhere? Heck of a thing for the working poor, even though the quality of schooling they''re getting isn''t all that great. The real issue would be all the kids on the street during the day.

 

I remember an old History of Education professor who would sometimes make an argument that the Bill of Rights needed a provision that "Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of Education, nor prohibiting the free pursuit thereof". Sounds like what you''re advocatin''. It would keep the government out of the indoctrination business. It would definitely cut down on the whole cottage industry of school-related lawsuits .

 

Beavah

 

[Lisabob]

A few posts back Beavah asked whether I was saying that the population of Detroit had declined by half in the last ten years. That pesky day job got in the way of me responding sooner, but no Beavah, I''m not making quite that dramatic a claim.

 

Based on city data though, the population did decline by about 7.5% from 1990 to 2000, and for the period of 1980-2003 it declined by about 27% from about 1,203,00 to about 870,000. Some estimates suggest that the 2003 population level was lower than the 1920s population, but I haven''t had time to verify that (and playing with old census data, while fun, is time consuming).

 

So no, not a 50% decline, but a 27% decline is still pretty outrageous.

[packsaddle]

Beavah, heh, heh, as Gordon Gekko says, "Greed is good". I already explained a ways back that because of our enlightened self-interest, we need the entitlement program called public schools in order to prevent precisely the outcome you describe. I recognize this.

 

Since those families obviously will NOT take part in the private educational marketplace, the market can obviously operate fine in the presence of the entitlement program for them. If someone who does not qualify for the entitlement wants to attend public school anyway, then they can pay public school tuition, the full cost. This allows the market to operate and do its thing as well as the public school entitlement, thus providing educational opportunity for the poor as well as those who can pay.

I thought I made this clear in an earlier post. It IS the perfect world.

 

Beavah, there''s nothing wrong with being liberal. The thing that is undesirable is to expect products and services without paying for them.

 

BTW, regarding costs, we paid $10K/year each for our kids in private school 20 years ago. The power of the marketplace can be credited for holding costs down for the private sector, actually decreasing them in a relative sense. We paid more back then because there was not much competition at the time. When the kids were older, the public school was much more competitive in every way. So we switched. Again, the marketplace. Public schools CAN be very competitive...if the public demands it.

HOWEVER, if an unenlightened public demands a service without being willing to pay, they will get (and deserve) crap.

 

[Aquila]

Scoutldr, you bring up good points. There''s an article at http://members.aol.com/belfairhs/cost.html written about the cost of schooling in CA. The figures are from 2000, but they''re probably close.

 

"To pay one elementary-age child''s ADA, I would need to fit the following example:

 

* My home is valued at $766,500, and

* I spend $34,237 per year on items which are charged sales tax, and

* My taxable income is $45,650 per year."

 

Gern might qualify there *s*, but most of us won''t. So the government education cost is being borne by those without children - or by those home educating or putting their children in private schools.

 

Government-run schools didn''t actually happen until the late 1800s. Prior to that, "public schools" were privately funded by businesses and local residents -- voluntarily. When I look at the original McGuffey readers from 1836 and what was expected from students at that time, only the most competitive schools of today even approach that level. When the government takes control, whether it''s health care or education, quality in general does not go UP.

[packsaddle]

Aquila, I see your statement in completely different terms. You stated, "When the government takes control, whether it''s health care or education, quality in general does not go UP."

I would say differently, that government is never in control. Rather, when people lazily take a backseat approach and use government to rationalize their own lack of active support for education, then quality of education does not go UP. People are always in control if they live in this country. If a government function doesn''t live up to its duty, then the people have the power to change that. If they don''t exercise that power (and this takes time and resources) then they get precisely what they deserve.

[Hunt]

I''m a bit put off by this talk of "government schooling" or "welfare schooling" or "mass schooling." These are loaded terms--akin to refering to homeschooling as "amateur schooling" or "isolationist schooling."

I think that there are virtues to public education that go beyond the financial support mechanism. I think a good public school helps build civic unity and sense of common identity as Americans. I don''t think that can be achieved in an evironment in which children are taught that others are "tainted," just as it couldn''t be achieved in the "white flight" private schools like the one in my hometown.

 

[GernBlansten]

Exactly Hunt, and without public schools, Texas wouldn''t have its alternate religion, High School Football.

[Lisabob]

Gern said: "HOWEVER, if an unenlightened public demands a service without being willing to pay, they will get (and deserve) crap. "

 

Here''s my problem with this. On one hand, this is ALREADY the view that many people in our society take toward the public school system (rabble rabble! Why should I pay more school taxes, my kids are done and we got ours! rabble rabble!). So yeah, as a society we have - on the average - a mediocre system that churns out a lot of crap, because collectively we aren''t willing to invest in making it better. And that hurts all of us when we have large populations of under-educated and unemployable youth feeling disaffected, perhaps understandably turned off to the present b-s system of "edumacation" that they''ve experienced, and now hanging out on the street. Not to pick on poor Detroit and Cleveland too much, but in July 2007, they had the #1 and #2 highest unemployment rates among large cities (over 1 million for metro area) in the country, at 8.4% and 6.3%, respectively. (see here: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.nr0.htm)

 

This is a recipe for social problems that we''ll all pay the price for, one way or another.

 

On the other hand - if by "they" you mean "not us" well great, so you''re planning to live in an enclave then? This also assumes that "they" don''t WANT a decent education system and therefore deserve what "they" get. I really have a problem with that assumption. Yes it may be true for some people, but we are painting with far too broad a brush here.

 

Having spent the entire summer teaching young men and women who managed to graduate from some of our country''s worst and most nightmarish public schools but who weren''t strong enough candidates to get accepted by my university without doing a summer college-prep course first, I was profoundly impressed by their -and their families''- desire to gain access to a quality education! If my "typical" and wealthier college freshmen, most of whom are the product of much better suburban public schools, would be willing to work HALF as hard as these kids did this summer, I''d be overjoyed. Yet, many of those more privileged kids see education as simply an entitlement that they need not lift a finger to receive (not earn), and heaven forbid you ask them to rub a few brain cells together.

 

Just because someone is poor (for whatever reason and let''s be clear that it is almost never the kids'' fault so why blame them?) does not mean they''re necessarily lazy and uncaring! But how are you supposed to pay full market cost for a service when you can''t afford to feed or clothe your kids, can''t afford to move from a neighborhood that isn''t so nurturing (at the least), and maybe have other intractable issues to deal with? And let''s be clear that in the United States deep poverty in our cities is generational. If you got a crummy education and had no means to pursue a better one yourself, it will be so much harder for your kids to do better. To say, well the lousy public school down the street exists for just such people as that, denies the idea that every kid deserves a shot at a decent education. Poverty shouldn''t condemn a child to a holding tank of a federal facility for 13 years. That''s like saying that poor orphans in the 1800s could always go to the workhouses...such a lovely option...

 

I am NOT denying that personal responsibility is crucial and the young adults I taught this summer were quite vocal about that, themselves. But I am saying this "you get what you pay for and if you''re poor, too bad" mentality that I see in this thread is really disturbing to me because it is based on some stereotypes about who these people really are and it seems to ignore the larger social costs of such a division.

 

 

[Lisabob]

Darn system won''t let me edit my own post. Grrr...

 

I meant to start off my post with "Packsaddle says..." and not "Gern says..." I apologize to both of you for the mis-attribution.

[packsaddle]

Lisa, heh, heh, no apology needed...I knew immediately what happened and I suspect my friend Gern did too. I''ll respond after class, gotta run...

[Trevorum]

Gern said, "... without public schools, Texas would not have its alternate religion, High School Football."

 

(sigh) As always, I''m in the minority again. Our Texas family belongs to the offshoot sect, High School Band.

[packsaddle]

OK, back again. Lisa, I have to tell you I''m very sympathetic to your arguments. In my model, the poor would continue to have opportunities for education. Most of my rebuke is aimed at people who are not poor, but would hypocritically take a government handout in order to escape (in their minds) to private schools. In my view, people with that mindset are a burden to any organization to which they belong. I view vouchers as nothing more than a political deception to gain votes from stupid people and, as you say, the net effect will be negative for the poor and for society in general.

 

I don''t advocate a "you get what you pay for and if you''re poor, too bad" kind of approach. Although we really DO get what we pay for usually, that result has been pretty good in our area...mostly because the majority demanded a superior product for our money.

 

I do NOT wash my hands of the poor, however. I recognize that the opportunity needs to be there for anyone of any economic status for a good education. And my sympathy is even greater because I do realize that the real impact of the purely Darwinian approach will be on young people...and that the social impact will last for generations. Being from the South, I see the fallout from this every day.

 

Rather, the modified Darwinian approach I advocate tends to disarm those who promote vouchers because it accomplishes the same thing with even less government. It also forces those same people to either put their money where their mouths are...or else it exposes their hypocrisy. I suspect that many of those who see the real personal cost of going private will change their support back to a tax-based public system. Unfortunately, once back in the system, unless they''ve changed their mindset, they are unlikely to be positive assets to public schools. But, as scoutldr noted on 9/19 with really nice sarcastic humor, that has already been the situation for a while.