It’s not that a service has to be publicly funded to exist. However, it seems that it has to be publicly funded to assure that all people will have access to it. A basic understanding of the way a free market works supports this.
Now, it really comes down to whether we care if poor people have universal, assured access to education. We don’t appear to care about them having universal, assured access to cell phones, electricity, or even food* - but we apparently do care about them having access to education, because as you may have noticed we currently have a governmentally instituted public education system set up.
Admittedly, that’s a historic artifact of us having a shred of interest in bettering society by bettering the poor. We may no longer care about that - but if so, the way to deal with that is to disband the public education system entirely, through overt, formal government action. Not this voucher business which may or may not be intended to achieve the same end, but which is sort of doing so through the back door where it may slide through without much scrutiny.
It seems that we feel that voluntary private organizations are providing enough access to food to make us feel no need to make government-sponsored soup kitchens and the like.
Nonsense - utter, blatant, nonsense! Vouchers will drain money from the public schools, which are the only option for the sufficiently poor, and funnel them into whichever private schools the sufficienctly wealthy move their kids to. The only “market competition” effect this will have will be to make the schools the poor have access to less competitive, by draining off the funds they have to work with and reducing the costs of using their competitors! Ths would be like making a government subsidy for all non-nokia phones, paid for by increased taxes on nokia. It takes a special kind of imagination to think that this will make nokia phones more competitive in any way.
Except for the poor who can’t afford cell phones. Or the schools that are having their budgets cut to pay for these vouchers. Whoops! It looks like only the good schools will get the shiny new computers. Those dingy old public schools? Well, only poor people go there nowadays, so who cares if they’re still using last decade’s textbooks?
I think that the brain-dead bureaucracy of a public school system is the best way to do the one thing we seriously expect of it - to make education available to all. Which is something the free market simply doesn’t do - it’s not something it’s designed to do. It deals with scarcity by concentrating resources where people are most willing, and able, to pay for them. The public school system deals with scarcity by making everybody pay for everybody, spreading the resources, if not equally, at least enough to cover everyone somewhat. Which is why we instituted it in the first place.
This issue has been addressed several times but you keep ignoring it. The government can offer assistance (via coupons or tuition scholarships) to the poor to attend primary and secondary schools.
You don’t have to have an entrenched publicly funded school INSTITUTION run by bureaucrats. The schools themselves do not need to be owned and managed by the government.
That’s probably the best suggestion you’ve had so far. The country would be better educated as a result.
That’s not why it was instituted. You need to read John Taylor Gatto on the history of public education.
Coupons or tuition vouchers would result in the current system, absent government oversight and with worse accessibility. There would be a set of low-cost private schools that would cater to poor people - having tuitions low enough that the government subsidies would be alone enough to get people in. And then rich people would have higher-cost schools they can send their kids to without having to expose them to the rabble, just like now. Of course, in that case the cheap schools would be occasionally going bankrupt and stuff, or have their administrators run of with their cash now and then, and certainly there wouldn’t be a cheap school in every neighborhood, but that’s not a problem, right?
Seriously, if you have a beef with the way public schools currently operate, there are probably better ways of fixing it than trying to burn the entire system down and rebuild it from scratch, with less regulation.
I believe that this suggestion, if carried out, would concentrate education at the top, and consign large swaths of the population to have educations so poor that being unable to read would become the norm below a certain income level. “Better educated”? Only the rich.
Got a link to a short summary? 'Cause I litterally can’t imagine any other reason for public education than to make it accessible to all.
The public school system is churning out idiots anyway. Most high-school graduates function at an 8th-grade level. Most high-school graduates can’t read and understand the Terms of Agreement on a typical credit-card! Considering that many of them will be bombarded with credit-card offers at college campuses, aren’t we lucky that our public schools are doing a WONDERFUL job [sarcasm] of preparing young adults for the REAL WORLD.
There are enough economic incentives for people to learn to read. You only think you need public schooling to do it because it’s a “historical artifact” like you said earlier.
Geeez, if we had instituted kissing lessons as part of the curriculum in public schools back in 1905, we’d all be brainwashed into thinking that public schools is the only way for poor people to learn how to kiss!
If you want to save some time, you can skip down to the 8th paragraph that begins with, “Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the United States between 1905 and 1915, …”
Currently, yes. It should be changed to support whatever kind of school best serves the needs of the students, as decided by their parents rather than the teachers’ unions.
I don’t see how this follows. It sounds a lot like arguing that, unless the government runs the grocery stores, people are going to starve to death.
Just the opposite seems to me to be true. Students with poor parents are currently not getting an education, because they cannot afford anything but the public schools, which fail in many instances. With vouchers, poor parents would have the same opportunities as rich ones, to send their kids to any school that is available. It works like food stamps, in that sense.
But I find it difficult to believe that, although there is a significant number of students who aren’t at the Rich Boy’s Academy, and who have exactly the same amount to spend on an education as students in a public school do today, will not be able to find anyone who will set up another school.
If there were no market apart from the luxury market, Wal-Mart would not be one of the most successful companies on earth.
This is the part making the rest of your post hard to take seriously.
Or, publicly funded private schools, which can provide a better level of education, which is even more of a benefit to all of society - and thus, something all of society can be asked to pay for.
Here is another part that is hard to take seriously.
Could you provide some kind of evidence that schools that parents can choose or reject for their children, are more likely to be dishonest or wasteful of money than public schools that hold a virtual monopoly?
Note necessarily, and probably not in this case. Part of the point of vouchers is to bring competition back to the marketplace of education. Thus, if public schools have to improve to attract students, rather than enjoying a near monopoly no matter how crappy a job they do, then even students who stay at the public school benefit.
So, your argument is that currently nobody learns anything at public schools? That it would be better (or at least just as good) if the poor didn’t get any education at all? 'Cause that sounds like what you’re trying to say.
Then we don’t need to give anybody vouchers to go to private school then, either, huh? Just toss em all out on the streets and they’ll be fine.
This was dumb and wrong when you first said it, and it’s still dumb and wrong.
Which is immidiately followed by:
The reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold:
To make good people.
To make good citizens.
To make each person his or her personal best.
Let’s just note that at least the second and third goals, if not the first, are undoubtedly expected to be the effects of education - and that rather explicitly this was going to be accomplished by expanding the range of education to include “each person”, as opposed to those relative few whose parents could afford to send them off to private educational institutions at the time. So yeah, I think you just proved my point for me, thanks!
Most likely you intended to really reference the paragraphs after that part, where a somewhat flimsy argument is made that schools are intended to function as normalization/socialization/brainwashing institutions. Of course, even if that’s true, it would be an additional function they serve, and wouldn’t in the slightest imply that schools no longer have their originally-stated purpose of improving the masses through mass education. Plus their earliest cite for this theory is 10-20 years after the institution of public education so it says nothing about original intent anyway. So yeah.
I don’t think I’ll leave it to rich parents to decide what’s best for poor parents’ kids, thanks. Not to say that the teachers’ unions as they currently are are necessarily the best thing, but I’m not inclined to throw out the baby with the bathwater just to give wealthy parents a tax break.
Actually it’s enough that charitable institutions bear the load that the free market doesn’t. (Well, them and the occasional food stamp.) What do you suppose would happen if there weren’t social and government handouts to the poor?
If the vouchers would be huge enough to get any kid into any school, this would be true. (Well, aside from the stinking load that the current public educational system is totally ineffective. It’s not probably optimal, of course, but that’s not the same thing at all.)
Plus of course, vouchers aren’t likely to be that big, are they.
I seem to recall it being pointed out (in defense of vouchers), that vouchers aren’t “exactly the same amount to spend on an education as students in a public school do today”. They’re considerably less. So yeah, you’re not offering them a walmart education; you’re offering them the opportunity to have a ‘picking through the garbage dump’ level education if they try to use vouchers on a shoestring budget, or a ‘walmart minus the rich-kid’s vouchers’-level education if they stay in the public schools.
Face facts - vouchers would in no way be good for persons who are poor. It would only be good for two classes of people - middle-class people are already this close to yanking their kids out of public school (a small group, I’m sure), and rich people who are already sending their kids to puclic school. Nobody else.
Which part? Being aware that the free market doesn’t guarantee everyone will have access to a given product? Or having opinions about people who want to rob from the poor and give to the rich?
Dude, you just described public schools. Probably public schools without teachers unions, or public schools with more funding (and higher taxes), or public schools with no government oversight or standards, or maybe public schools with magic education faries that can “provide a better level of education” by weilding the magical power of the free market over the students. But regardess, you are talking about public schools.
Give up on this voucher crap. Stick to arguing for educational reform within the current system.
Obviously, I was slipping in a somewhat ironic reference to the fact that there is certainly a small group of people who criminally use private schools to bilk their students/studends’ parents. It’s amazing how many people think that attacking this comment (which was very nearly a joke) constitutes a serious rebuttal of my position.
And you’re not satisfied with the current state of the public education system. Good for you. But the voucher approach is as likely to be helpful as burning down public schools and shooting public school teachers would be.
Oh come on, where do you think the money for these vouchers is going to come from, if not from the coffers of the existing public school system - the magic money faires? Of course every voucher that a current user of the private school system deposits in his bank account is going to come right out of the public pockets that others rely on to get their own kids some semblance of an education. How could it not?
Public schools do compete in the marketplace of education. They do it by being the low price leader.
The problem with the market pressure is it can’t actually kill the public schools, allowing only the strong to survive - the state won’t let them die. So the market pressure will just strip them bare. Which will encourage more people to leave, until just the people who can’t afford to pay the price difference to go to a private school will be attending, in the worst possible educational conditions.
But we don’t care about them, right? They’re poor people. And we all know that poor people should just hurry up and die, to clear out the surplus population.
You made it sound like public schools are shining examples of human excellence and achievement. They do no such thing – they specialize in mediocrity. That you want to perpetuate and protect this mediocrity is ridiculous.
Can you recognize mediocrity? Maybe that’s the problem… if you can’t recognize the problem… then I guess there is no problem – therefore, there’s no need to overhaul the public school system.
“Even if that’s true…” :smack:
Okaaay, you like public schools. Just keep on defending it. It’s certainly your right to do so.
Your whole schtick really isn’t about public schools or the re-examining the foundation and merits of schools – you’re just using it as a platform to blow off steam about “class warfare.”
Actually, I think that public schools have lots of problems. I just don’t think the answer is “Destroy all public schools!”, which is what the free-market education argument is, which is what the voucher argument tries to be when it’s pretending not to be a simple money grab for rich people at the expense of public school funding.
Seriously, there are better ways of addressing the problems of public school than “everyone should go to private schools except for poor people who should all just die”. I’m not kidding when I say you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Or when I say you’re fantasizing wildly to add imagined benefits and ignore actual consequences of a voucher or free market education system.
Yes, there are problems. That doesn’t make every proposed alternative idea a good alternative idea.
Not at all - my whole schtick is “not every problem is a nail just because you like your hammer.” Free markets are wonderful things that accomplish a lot of things very effectively, but they can’t do everything. And one of the things they simply do not do is guarantee quality service for everyone.
Oh, and missed the edit: there’s also a difference between “something is happening” and saying that schools are intending to achieve this effect. Unintended consequences, and all - so even if you can prove the first, that doesn’t really imply the second.
Does this kind of thing sound like it makes sense?
How about for their own? Poor parents, too - they can decide which schools are best for their own children. That is sort of the idea.
The money for the vouchers comes from the same place it always does - the taxpayer. It won’t go into the coffers of the public school system unless the public schools can convince the parents that they are the best deal.
You seem to be falling prey to an assumption described earlier - that the public school systems have some kind of right to a given level of funding, regardless of how good or lousy a job they are doing. They don’t. All educational spending should be spent wherever it will benefit students the most. If it means that some public (or private) school has to close its doors or fire members of the teachers’ unions, tough toenails. If, on average, the students do better, or the same for less money, then what happens to the schools that can’t hack it is a matter of indifference.
Hes falling behind the other kids his age at our church who go to private schools and hes not doing as good as his big sister did at that age, we lived in a different neighborhood then. I know its the spanish language teaching they are doing, its not just because hes the only white kid because his big sister was one of the only white kids in her kindergarden but we lived in a black neighborhood then and the other kids at least spoke English, although she also started saying ax instead of ask back then. The other 5 year olds we know who go to white schools are learning to read and count to 100 and that and my kids class is learning to speak English. At least hes learning some spanish.
No. But give or take a little hyperbole, it’s what this voucher plan says to me - espcially when somebody argues for it from free market principles. In a free market, if you can’t pay, you don’t play. Therefore, arguing for free market education is arguing that poor kids shouldn’t get to go to school at all.
Of course it isn’t - the vouchers in no way will on their own be enough to give a person without additional funds access to the school of their choice. So it’s absurd to claim that the voucher program will give poor people the option to decide what school they want - it’s simply, obviously, not true. If you can’t pay the cost difference to get into a private school, your kid is stuck where they are - which is in a school that is being de-funded to pay for a tax bonus to rich people who are already sending their kids to private school. And then more funds will be going to pay for middle-class families paying more than they can reasonably afford to get their kids out of the underfunded shithole the public schools are becoming - which will make the school even worse for those who remain trapped there by the inability to pay market price.
This is what will actually happen. There will be people trapped in the public school system - regardless of your fantasies otherwise.
You aren’t going to actually kill the public school system with vouchers, you know - so the schools that “can’t hack it” aren’t going to disappear. There might be a few less of them, and the rest will still be full of kids who either can’t afford to go to private schools even with the voucher or maybe whose parents don’t care. Congratulations - you are openly indifferent about the poor.
And my assumption is that as long as we have public schools, they should get adequate funding to decently educate the students who are attending there. Since I don’t disbeleive in fixed costs and economies of scale, I’m dubious that any voucher program that pays enough to make a difference in where people choose to attend will fail to gut public schools.
(Really, how large the voucher is does make a difference here. It certainly won’t be enough to get kids into private school all on its own, but the question is how badly will it whittle away at the school’s ability to educate the remaining students? If it was only a $1 voucher, I don’t think it would do much harm. We can hand those out, if you wish.)
If you want to spend incremental money then you can spend money on all sorts of after school activities but if you want to send your kids to Andover then your kids can either get a scholarship or you can pay for the whole thing.
Technically, I guess you are correct. Banks can buy government backed securities with your deposit and give you a slice of the interest they earn. But unless it is government securities, the bank runs a risk of default and is effectively engaging in fractional reserving, isn’t it?
You keep saying that I am making your argument for you. I don’t think that is the case at all.
FDIC
They are banks. They are specially chartered to do exactly that.
I don’t think that FNMA preferred stock was ever tier 1 capital. It just got better weighting than things like IBM and Google preferred stock.
And yet the free market has conspired to extract interest from savings accounts. There is no federal requirement that savings accounts pay anything.
Every government has police powers. Every government enforces its laws at the point of a gun but there is not law requiring you to participate in the banking system. If you want to keep all your wealth in gold bullion, you can do so. IF you want to open a bank, THEN you need a charter and follow the rules.
What’s your point?
The barriers to entry are low enough that there are literally THOUSANDS of banks in America. The “too big to fail” is a result of the repeal of glass-steagal and a laissez faire attitude on merger activity.
You can say those words as sarcastically as you want, it doesn’t make thm any less true.
If the tax money was never paid to the government to begin with, then I don’t see your problem (i am assuming you meant to say something else but I can’t figure out what).
When you pay your taxes, that money belongs to the nation (or the state or the locality), not to you personally. You get to vote in electing the people who will decide what to do with that money but that is not your money anymore no matter what Grover Norquist tries to tell you.