FreeDuck wrote:Private schools have the ability to stop taking students when their classrooms are full. Public schools can't do that. Even if we allowed public schools to do it, then we have the problem of how to provide an education for the children who wouldn't fit.
1) I agree this is a problem -- but it's a problem made worse, not better, by terminating initiatives like the Washington DC voucher programs. If overfull public schools are a problem, sending some students to private schools is still part of the solution, not part of the problem. Even if the solution is imperfect because you're sending only some of them, not all of them or even all of the excess, that shouldn't stop policy makers from making a start.
Overall, the study found that students who used the vouchers received reading scores that placed them nearly four months ahead of peers who remained in public school. However, as a group, students who had been in the lowest-performing public schools did not show those gains. There was no difference in math performance between the groups.
2) Although I think regulations can help solve the cherry-picking part, I don't think they are necessary or sufficient for solving the problem of limited resources. From the schools' point of view, full classrooms will not be a problem as long as students come with voucher endowments that are generous enough to build or rent extra class rooms. So the solution to your problem isn't regulation, it's sufficient funding, no matter if the funding is for vouchers or public schools.
FreeDuck wrote:I see public education much the same as universal health care and think that the systemic challenges will be very much the same in a general sense.
The parallel with universal health care (like under the Roberts, H. Clinton, and Obama plans) implies public funding for education. I agree there's a compelling case for that, and so do many libertarians from Milton Friedman on down. But the parallel does not imply public production of schooling. If you like how food stamps work for the poor, and if you like how the Democratic candidates' plans would implement universal healthcare, you ought to like school vouchers too. The analogy is exact.
I guess it depends on whether private schools have enough excess capacity to alleviate overrowding
Remember that with public schooling comes public school buses -- something that private schools don't provide.
I think it's the universality which implies at least some public production of schooling and health care as there will always be some markets that cannot be profitable for private enterprise, regardless of who pays for it.
FreeDuck wrote:Remember that with public schooling comes public school buses -- something that private schools don't provide.
This may happen to be where things stand right now, but it's certainly not a law of nature. Why wouldn't cities and townships be able to have their school buses make stops at private schools?
FreeDuck wrote:I think it's the universality which implies at least some public production of schooling and health care as there will always be some markets that cannot be profitable for private enterprise, regardless of who pays for it.
Maybe, maybe not. The intriguing thing about Edwards's health care plan and its decendants is that they decide this question experimentally. If the government plan works better for everyone, you end up in a completely socialized system like France and England. If the private plans make everyone happy, things stay like they are now. If the outcome is somewhere in between, you end up somewhere in between, say in a system like Germany's and Switzerland's.
A properly implemented school voucher system, in which public and private schools compete on a level playing field, is intriguing in exactly the same way.
just because a teacher doesn't have a license, that's no reason to expect that he or she will not perform.
Hah! I think Littlek would have been an outstanding teacher without the training and license. That was just the price of admission.