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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (19240)	8/12/2002 3:48:12 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

How do you want your schools to offer a higher caliber of instruction? and are you willing to pay for it? There is much to respond to in your piece, but I've been driving half the night and the thing that jumped out was this pair of statements. I think that, for the most part, the supporters of vouchers fall into two very different camps. The first is the pro-religious trying to expand their sphere of influence. Maybe that isn't so good, though if religious instruction is what many parents want I hesitate to call them wrong even though it's not what I want. The second group supporting vouchers are what I will call the "free-marketeers". This group tends to believe that in human endeavors, those things in which competition is required tend to be produced in a higher caliber fashion that is more effective and pleasing to consumers, and those things that are monopolistic in structure tend to be produced in a low caliber fashion that is not effective and frustrates consumers. Whether education is a valid place for that theory is open to debate, of course. But I think that the free marketeers would offer to answer your question "How do you want your schools to offer a higher caliber of instruction?" by saying that there are many examples where introducing competition produced a higher caliber of service and preventing competition perpetuated a lower caliber of service. Airline tickets used to be too expensive to allow the masses to fly. People used to worry about the cost of making long distance calls. People used to buy unreliable American (and Canadian <g>) cars instead of Toyotas. People frustrated by operating system crashes had no real alternative. There are literally hundreds of examples. The point is, people in many places are frustrated by the level of service provided by the local public school. If those people lack enough funds to do anything about it, their kids are stuck with that education. Vouchers, implemented properly, might give them a way out. And, in so doing, might spur those schools that aren't performing to do better. Toyota doesn't make better cars because the government tells them to. They do it because if they don't, their customers will buy somebody else's cars. And maybe those who run substandard public schools will be spurred to do the same. Maybe. As for being willing to pay for it, I think that consumers are willing to pay for well run schools and not willing to pay for poorly run ones. And a common theme in industries where competition has been introduced is that costs go down, often way down. Competition has a way of forcing that to happen.

To: Solon who wrote (19240)	8/13/2002 5:44:28 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

The goal is both worthwhile and attainable, and it ensures the continued freedom of Americans to worship as they choose--without social or political ramifications. Is the goal attainable with the present system? The mass of evidence is against you. We've been trying for decades just to get back to the '50s and haven't been able to. This is like the War on Drugs- -or Vietnam. How much are you willing to pay before you run the white flag in these wars? I suppose that people whom have never been denied such a right would perhaps not appreciate how rare and precious it is to hold beliefs without losing social or political rights or privileges. Ah, somehow I doubt you have firsthand experience that allows you to make that statement. Canada isn't known as a savage dictatorship either. Transferring students from public to private schools will not reduce the many fixed operating costs of the public school which must still have a teacher, and must still pay for the lights, the lab supplies, and the janitor. And the bureaucracy. And the teacher's union members. Musn't forget those unions. Their effects are much broader than just pay. They fight to prevent anything that might hurt their members- -or their own power- -even if it would improve the overall situation. Something like merit pay- -universal in private industry except for unionized labor- -is anathema to them. In spite of all their protestations to the contrary, they clearly believe their members are simply interchangeable parts. then may we assume that you are concerned with the quality of equipment and teachers, and the readiness of modern student resources? Of course. What, you think I've developed a soft spot in my skull and am now pro-religion? Religion is an even bigger con game than the NEA. There is an old adage that we get what we pay for. Or less. If you've got a monopoly distributor who will get your money whether you use their product or not, the only way to bet it is "less". So, although I don't deny that it is possible for some to pay more...the question insinuates itself: "Who will?" Taxpayers will. They don't get a choice. Taxes aren't optional or voluntary. Vouchers cannot be expected to buy a higher level of quality. You pay the same...you get the same. Nuts. Clearly demonstrably false. Counter example? Remember the '70s and '80s and Americans cars and Japanese cars? You could pay more to get an American piece of junk... or less and get a quality Japanese car. The same scenario played out earlier via a vis American cars and the VW. It must also be considered that private industry is entitled to profit, which adds an aditional layer to the educational cake. If it can get, rather. "Entitled"? Not hardly. I'm not advocating replacing one monopoly with another. It seems to me that it might be better for communities to pursue a more creative approach to correcting deficiencies in the system. It might be beneficial to preserve a perspective of egalitarianism, and to leave the natural striving for elitism untill post secondary levels. What does that mean in English? And why? And if they are going to be competitive later in life, do expect that to turn on suddenly when they enter 9th grade with no preceding preparation or experience? Why? Government may neither support nor discriminate against religious schools. I have no problem with that. My problem is that we seem to be stuck with the same failing system and the only realistic alternative seems to be to violate that. There is always another way of doing something; always another way worth trying. OK. Give me a practical alternative that actually has a ghost of a chance of making it through the barrage of opposition the teacher's unions and the existing bureaucracy will throw up. This one seems to have little enough chance and it's the front runner with the most support from interests outside of those. Come on. Quit making excuses and pie-in-the-sky promises. What's your solution? And don't chime "more money". That;s the teacher's union/educational bureaucy chant. They've been feeding us that bull for 40 years. What they want is for us to pay more for less. Education does not have to be done the way it was often done before. I'm waiting. An educational lottery of some sort might be one idea for putting dream money to work in something of value--the chance for children to compete in usefulness, and thus reward. What does that mean in English? How do you want your schools to offer a higher caliber of instruction? and are you willing to pay for it? Ah ! The chant! Educational funding has increased steadily since the late '50s when Federal Aid To Education was passed. What you see is the result. Next. Vouchers are designed to cover ONLY the same costs which are already going to public schools...public schools which will accept and educate your child regardless of disability or special circumstance. OK. The state will have a small system just to educate them. Does that solve your objection? Finally, I think Americans underestimate the job being done by the public system. And maybe they don't. What I notice is that by far more of the new scientist and engineers we get are foreign educated. When we can no longer import other countries technical Ph.D.s, we're dead.