Following a theme here lately I wanna get this article off of my stack:
Raleigh, N.C. — Although they won’t be issued until next March, vouchers that will allow hundreds of students from low-income families to attend private schools across North Carolina already have officials at many schools eagerly anticipating an influx of students.
State lawmakers set aside $10 million in the budget for so-called “Opportunity Scholarships” to help pay private school tuition for about 2,500 students, starting in the 2014-15 school year. Legislative leaders said they plan to ratchet the fund up to $50 million a year after that.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how this is not a win/win for both the liberal and the conservative.
On the one had, you have a continued commitment by the state to fund education. On the other hand you let market forces shape the flow of that education.
I firmly believe that the public has a role, a critical role, in funding the education of our youth. However, I see no characteristic of the government that would make it the go-to provider of that education. There is simply nothing that would make government agencies more adept at delivering education than a private sector.
Market forces tend to destroy education because so many resources are shifted from providing output to making profit. For profit systems have been problems in many states (for education, prisons) because the incentive is NOT to provide the best education, but to make profit. I don’t trust markets, and if the public school system is watered down with vouchers, I believe our children will suffer. So, out of a desire not to have dumber children, I’ll fight such voucher programs. I do not believe markets are always good, I find that faith in markets to be a bit naive.
Market forces tend to destroy education because so many resources are shifted from providing output to making profit.
Why does this not hold true for basic human needs more fundamental than education? Things like food, clothing and shelter?
For profit systems have been problems in many states (for education, prisons) because the incentive is NOT to provide the best education, but to make profit.
Many would say that by providing the best education you would make the best profit.
I don’t trust markets
This is clear, and puzzling. In the history of man, there has been no better vehicle in achieving advancement than through the free market.
So, out of a desire not to have dumber children, I’ll fight such voucher programs.
You do this while acknowledging the public system has failed us and that pouring in money hasn’t made a dent in the problem?
Tell me, where will you find these angels to run your government school? What is it about greedy ambitious politicians that is better than greedy ambitious CEOs?
Here’s an interesting story: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/vouchers-dont-do-much-for-students-97909.html?hp=f1
“School vouchers” is just Bussing with market trappings. What’s funny is that those market trappings are sufficient to make it unpopular with the Left. But like Bussing, it doesn’t bring the kids up, it just brings the school down.
Naturally, I’m opposed to vouchers since they corrupt the existing free market for education. If you want your child to get a good education, pony-up. That the market keeps out children whose parents aren’t willing to pay is a feature, not a bug, that creates the kind of environment worth paying for.
But like Bussing, it doesn’t bring the kids up, it just brings the school down.
I’m mixed.
There is that study conducted in Chicago where it was shown that the simple act of enrolling in the lottery for school choice predicted student achievement. See, Chicago opened up attendance in its schools and parents could send their kid where ever they wanted. If a school was over enrolled, a lottery took place.
Parents were devastated when they lost.
However, it turns out that it didn’t matter. If you were a parent that cared enough to enter the lottery, you were a parent that cared enough to make sure your kid did well in school.
If you want your child to get a good education, pony-up.
We already DO pony up, and we’re gettin’ screwed. The public schools are a freakin’ mess.
Education, actually most things having to do with kids, is an area where society/government has a role.
After all,millions of children are born to democrats every year. Something MUST be done!
😉
“Education, actually most things having to do with kids, is an area where society/government has a role.
After all,millions of children are born to democrats every year. Something MUST be done!”
Surely, you jest. Having the State assume responsibility for children has created the mess we’re in today.
Surely, you jest. Having the State assume responsibility for children has created the mess we’re in today.
It’s a fine line and one I’m still unsure about. But yes, educating and keeping our young ones fed and healthy sometimes has to be done.
If you’re happy with Progressives feeding and educating your children, then complaining about Progressive society is tantamount to insanity, borderlining narcissism.
It’s like complaining that “your” dog loves the one who feeds and cares for her instead of you, the guy that mostly ignores her — dogs aren’t stupid, neither are people.
If you’re happy with Progressives feeding and educating your children, then complaining about Progressive society is tantamount to insanity, borderlining narcissism.
You misunderstand. I don’t think that the state should be doing the educating. Rather, I think the state should be taxing the populace to provide for the private educating.
Well, I cannot deny that contract education (I live in a contract city, and it’s orders of magnitude more sane than cities which own their own unionized services) would be better than what we have, there is still the issue of the piper playing the tune of the one who pays him.
Still, if you could abolish the DoE as well, it would be strides in the right direction.
there is still the issue of the piper playing the tune of the one who pays him.
The concept of the free market assumes free actors – and kids aren’t. They are subject to the whims of their parents. And we simply have too many deadbeats that are destroying their kid’s future.
Still, if you could abolish the DoE as well, it would be strides in the right direction.
Indeed.
I have a real hard time with this study that shows that kids in private schools paid with vouchers do worse than kids in public schools. How can it be true? Here is the logic. If I put my kid in a private school and he does worse than in public school I would move him back to the public school where he did better. Apparently that never happens.
If the public school puts out the better product in an area, that is where the kids will go and that is where the money will go. Having coached kids in youth sports a little, I know the lengths a parent will go to get their daughter or son on a good team with a good coach. They certainly do not put up with a program they dislike. Why wouldn’t that apply to a school or a teacher?
All of us who went through the public school system know the drill. Some teachers and schools are great and some are not worth the space they take up. You get what you get and your only alternative is to move. Now you have a choice. It makes no sense that parents would choose worse than what they have. So what am I missing?
Now you have a choice. It makes no sense that parents would choose worse than what they have. So what am I missing?
Not a thing.
People should be able to send their child to any school they desire.
Of course you’re correct to question the interpretation thereof. If a study shows that school choice (in any form – vouchers, private school, home-schooling – it doesn’t matter since their argument is always the same…) made no difference, Progs say that proves every kid should just be dumped in whatever public school they’re assigned to based on where they live. If a study shows that kids do better, then they say it’s cherry-picking, and that only the motivated children took advantage of the choice, etc.
The answer, as usual, is to reject the Prog’s technocratic premise. It doesn’t matter what the Progs say – any study can and will be gamed to advance public policy in the Prog direction. The answer is to not abdicate personal responsibility to the Prog system in the first place.