Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4385)	11/1/2000 7:37:32 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Good essay, Christopher. As always, I admire your 'global' view of the issue. But (and, you KNEW the "but" was coming <g>), it takes the "why we can't" position. Rather than concentrate only on the negatives, such as who might be harmed, how about the flip side, namely, who would be helped. Seems to me that a Bell Curve applies here. There are those who will not be helped, and those who will, just like our current education "system." The difference is that those who benefit under a voucher system are, for the lack of a better term, the upper half. IMO, the current education "system" holds that group back, with notable exceptions that prove the rule. The question is, will the lower half (again, pardon the term, I'm speaking statistically, not applying values) be significantly harmed? I'd contend that they would not be harmed. The logic is that vouchers do not take away the entire amount a public school receives, only 1/2 or 2/3 of that amount. So, if the upper half of the school migrates to private or charter schools, the remaining students will still have available to them the entire share that they had previously, PLUS a portion of the funds for the students that no longer attend that school. Thus, the "leftover" students will be educated (?) with more money per capita than before vouchers. This will allow more favorable student-teacher ratios, more consumables, etc. Now, though, we get to the crux of the problem. If the upper half leaves, even with improved student-teacher ratios, some teachers are going to lose their jobs. (All together now, "AAAWWWWWWW, poor teachers.") Same with some of the bureaucratic overhead. (AAAWWWWWW.) Seems pretty clear to me that this is the main problem with vouchers, and why the educational unions are frantically trying to defeat such voucher proposals. Now, if home schooling gets stirred into the mix, particularly if those costs should ever become tax deductable or even directly supported by public funds (as I think they should be), the teachers' unions may be in real trouble. Already home schooled youngsters are trouncing the "professionally educated" academically. Should it become financially reasonable for more parents to switch to home schooling, a lot of so-called educators might have to actually learn the rules of life in a capitalist society. Finally, I'll have you know my dog donated his entire allowance to my campaign.<g> jim

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4385)	11/2/2000 5:37:11 AM
From: Mama Bear	Respond to of 13056

"I worry about a system where the government in effect penalizes kids for having lousy parents" It is having lousy parents that penalizes the children of lousy parents. Besides, the world needs ditch diggers too. Regards, Barb

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4385)	11/2/2000 10:08:10 AM
From: dave rose	Respond to of 13056

<<<We were able to cherry pick -- and did. And we could kick out students we didn't like, students who challenged the system, students who were rude, anti social, etc. And we did that, too. The public schools can't. <<<<< I think this is the heart of the problems of public schools. Why must we be forced to educated people who do not want to be educated? It is a privilege to attend school and should be treated as such. It is not fair to those who want to learn to be saddled with the disruptive element that is forced to be in school.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4385)	12/4/2000 2:36:45 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 13056

Third is the problem of developmentally challenged students. (Gad, that ed-speak has rubbed off on me!) They take a LOT of money to educate. (Whether we should or not is another question; I'm assuming if we publicly fund private education we still retain the commitment to give every child an equal chance to get an appropriate education.) How do you deal with this? One obvious answer is to send enough money with these students that the private schools WANT them. But that would cost the taxpayers a huge bundle. This is all ready done in some places. It can actually save taxpayer's money. The students will be expensive to educate either in public or private schools. Private schools specializing in educating such students can sometimes do a good job for less money then it would cost the public schools. Tim