Let's discuss vouchers!

http://www.iui.se/wp/Wp578/IUIwp578.pdf

I found the above article on the reforms introducing the vouchers in Sweden and impact it has on public schoos. The title: School Vouchers in Practice: Competition won't hurt you! gives away the main argument.
I confess, I only browsed through it for it is 49 pages long, but a good source (and a veritable one) for someone who is perhaps professionally interested.

0 Replies

Amazing!

New Haven, au, and me all taking substantially the same position on an issue.

A first, I think.

And while each of us has probably looked at that fact and had it cause us to question whether we may have come to a hasty and ill-considered opinion, we are each sticking with it.

Like I said, amazing!

No matter how many supposed real-life situations have been shown (not that there have been many) -- unless the real-life situation has the private schools taking in every child that requests enrollment, as do the public schools, the comparison is faulty.

There is nothing magic about private schools. If a private school can teach a child -- that child can be taught in public schools; if a parent is involved enough in a private school to ensure a child doing well -- that parent can be involved enough in public schools to get the job done.

As for "real-life" situations:

Matter of curiosity: How many people posting here were educated in public schools here in the United States? How many are the product of private and/or parochial schools?

For those educated in public schools -- do you feel you were adequately educated?

I am a product of public schools. I think my education was fine.

0 Replies

I, too, was educated at public school in a large city, and found that I had been given a fine education. My children were educated in a public school system in a smallish town and were given a fine education. At one point, the local Catholic school held a public forum on vouchers, and several parents asked what the vouchers would cover. Would uniforms be covered, cost of tuition, what? Since the voucher money would not go far enough to cover the needs. As the discussion went on, it became obvious that most parents and teachers did not have an extensive knowledge of how this would work, but many opinions.

Given the real world costs involved, I don't see how a voucher program would successfully work in most situations. There is a social factor, such as the naturally occurring reaction of children in private school sectors to the others coming in on vouchers. How does a voucher kid react to established social cliques with dress codes, to which he/she may not be admitted? What is the real world quality of the education, when many private schools are not required to have certified teachers, or abide by public school lesson requirements? Is there an underlying snob appeal, many times unconscious, on the part of many parents?

One of the really great things about this country has been the right to a public school education, and we have let that slide in so many cases. Parents stopped participation in the schools, and in so many cases were not encouraged to do so. How many times has a parent gone for an after-school conference, only to find nobody there? When did teaching stop being an honored profession and instead become just another business? There's plenty of blame to spread around, but all the talk about vouchers and satellite schools and all the rest won't make up for the lack of public and political attention to our system of public education for all.

I do not believe vouchers are the answer. I think it's just another quick-fix. We need to care about getting our children educated, and why; to motivate our teachers to teach.

0 Replies

I, too, was educated at public school in a large city, and found that I had been given a fine education. My children were educated in a public school system in a smallish town and were given a fine education. At one point, the local Catholic school held a public forum on vouchers, and several parents asked what the vouchers would cover. Would uniforms be covered, cost of tuition, what? Since the voucher money would not go far enough to cover the needs. As the discussion went on, it became obvious that most parents and teachers did not have an extensive knowledge of how this would work, but many opinions.

Given the real world costs involved, I don't see how a voucher program would successfully work in most situations. There is a social factor, such as the naturally occurring reaction of children in private school sectors to the others coming in on vouchers. How does a voucher kid react to established social cliques with dress codes, to which he/she may not be admitted? What is the real world quality of the education, when many private schools are not required to have certified teachers, or abide by public school lesson requirements? Is there an underlying snob appeal, many times unconscious, on the part of many parents?

One of the really great things about this country has been the right to a public school education, and we have let that slide in so many cases. Parents stopped participation in the schools, and in so many cases were not encouraged to do so. How many times has a parent gone for an after-school conference, only to find nobody there? When did teaching stop being an honored profession and instead become just another business? There's plenty of blame to spread around, but all the talk about vouchers and satellite schools and all the rest won't make up for the lack of public and political attention to our system of public education for all.

I do not believe vouchers are the answer. I think it's just another quick-fix. We need to care about getting our children educated, and why; to motivate our teachers to teach.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

As long as the state maintains a public school system supported by tax dollars. We should not pay for a second system for those to opt out of it.

But the taxpayer wouldn't pay anything extra for those who opt out of it! For every child that leaves the public school system to attend a private school, the taxpayer would pay less to public schools and more to private schools. The net effect is a loss to the taxpayer only if vouchers pay for more than the actual cost of educating a student. Nobody has ever proposed such a system, and neither do I.

au1929 wrote:

Tuition for private schools has traditionally been paid for by those who attend.

You appear to be arguing that tradition makes things right. I strongly disagree. For an extreme counterexample to refute the general logic of your argument, consider that Jews have traditionally been discriminated against in Europe. The tradition goes all the way back to when the Romans drove them out of Israel in the first century. Yet we all agree it's a good thing Europe recently terminated this tradition.

au1929 wrote:

For many this is an attempt to get the government to pay for their choice.

I don't think so. It's an attempt to make the government stop punishing them for their choice. That's a big difference as a matter of justice, even though it's the same from an accounting point of view.

au1929 wrote:

I am puzzled, what would you do have these childern and schools written off.

I don't intend to do anything to have these children written off. I only disagree with your notion that my bad kid is somehow entitled the company of your good kid. Because you're a nice person, you probably wouldn't deprive my kid of your kid's company arbitrarily. But if you wish to do so nevertheless, I have no right to stop you. Neither do I have the right to make the government stop you on my behalf. You appear to disagree. Why?

-- Thomas

0 Replies

Thomas

Quote:

au1929 wrote:
As long as the state maintains a public school system supported by tax dollars. We should not pay for a second system for those to opt out of it.

But the taxpayer wouldn't pay anything extra for those who opt out of it! For every child that leaves the public school system to attend a private school, the taxpayer would pay less to public schools and more to private schools. The net effect is a loss to the taxpayer only if vouchers pay for more than the actual cost of educating a student. Nobody has ever proposed such a system, and neither do I.

That would be true if it were a one to one exchange. However much of that money that is lost would go to overhead, teachers pay, building maintenance and the like. Those costs are fairly constant.

Quote:

au1929 wrote:
Tuition for private schools has traditionally been paid for by those who attend.

You appear to be arguing that tradition makes things right. I strongly disagree. For an extreme counterexample to refute the general logic of your argument, consider that Jews have traditionally been discriminated against in Europe. The tradition goes all the way back to when the Romans drove them out of Israel in the first century. Yet we all agree it's a good thing Europe recently terminated this tradition.

I wont even comment about what I think of your analogy.
I will say if you want special privileges in this society you must pay for them. I would like a Mercedes unfortunately all I could afford was a Buick. In addition as for vouchers for Parochial schools. Taxpayers should never be forced to support religious institutions. The USSC again makes a lousy decision. That is two strikes in two years.

Quote:

au1929 wrote:
For many this is an attempt to get the government to pay for their choice.

I don't think so. It's an attempt to make the government stop punishing them for their choice. That's a big difference as a matter of justice, even though it's the same from an accounting point of view.

The government should not pay for their choice. If you want the extras in life it behooves you to pay for them. Again it is not the same from an accounting point of view.

Quote:

au1929 wrote:
I am puzzled, what would you do have these children and schools written off.

I don't intend to do anything to have these children written off. I only disagree with your notion that my bad kid is somehow entitled the company of your good kid. Because you're a nice person, you probably wouldn't deprive my kid of your kid's company arbitrarily. But if you wish to do so nevertheless, I have no right to stop you. Neither do I have the right to make the government stop you on my behalf. You appear to disagree. Why

?

You must have noticed that I mentioned discipline. Most children would respond to discipline. The problem in our permissive society there is very little exercised. There are the disrupters and the followers. I would get rid of the disrupters. I can remember in my era we had special schools for those kids. And when they were 16 they could be cut loose. In addition to the extent possible the parents must be held responsible for the behavior of their spawn.
The answer IMO is to attack the problem not run away from it.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Thomas, I'm not saying I do understand the complexity of the problem, but that statement was referring to proponents of vouchers underestimating the complexity.

Sure. You don't understand the complexity, neither do I. You don't know what it takes to make American schools work again, neither do I. But I do know that trial and error is an efficient way to find out, and that school board politics aren't. I believe vouchers are superior to the status quo because they replace a system of school board politics by a system of trial and error.

sozobe wrote:

I don't remember the proof that was offered, but I think the finding Winerip is referring to is significant because that study was explicitly and repeatedly cited as a basis for why vouchers are a good idea. I very much agree with Dagmaraka as to "proof" at this point, either way.

The fallacious information you offered was in the Rothstein article -- maybe I should have posted the link in first place so people can make up their own mind. As for the Winerip article, I think the mere fact that people cite a flawed study that supports them is simply not interesting by itself. The interesting question is whether after the debunking, the evidence from the remaining non-flawed studies now points in a significantly different direction. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't, and even Winerip doesn't attempt to make that case.

A propos posted: your link to "Frontline: Case against vouchers" is broken for me. Would you mind checking it for misspellings and post it again? I'd be interested in reading it. And about your manipulation charge you made against Peterson: The fact that he agreed to publish his raw data strongly signals the absence of manipulative intent. In contrast to how Winerip spins it, Mathematica wouldn't have done that without Peterson's consent. Don't take my word for it, ask your physicist husband about this.

sozobe wrote:

The disability thing, just for example: Simple, eh? What if the private schools don't WANT to deal with children with disabilities?

Then the same logic will apply that already applies when your local pub doesn't want to serve blacks: Other private schools will get their business and earn their money. Arbitrary discrimination exists in some pubs, and it will exist in some public schools under a voucher system. But it will also be unprofitable, and therefore profit-maximizing schools will have a strong disincentive to discriminate against handicapped children. The overwhelming majority of private schools will be discrimination-free, just like the overwhelming majority of today's restaurants is today.

sozobe wrote:

I found this list of questions which goes into the complexity further:

Without answering to every single item, I think all of them are either not a real problem, or a problem that's easily fixed by adjusting the endowment that comes with a voucher to the "special learning" requirements of the student. See my above answer about procedures.

-- Thomas

0 Replies

For whatever reason, the people I personally know who strongly advocate vouchers -- are the same people who seem to have so much trouble with a school teacher earnng a decent wage. I'm not sure if the correlation that I have noticed is a more universal happening -- or if the circumstances of my personal particulars are skewed in some way not easily evident to me.

I also get the impression that the same people who argue that school vouchers will help "cure" the problems -- are the same people who want the cost of education to be much lower -- to be something that can be gotten "on the cheap."

I reiterate my questions of people arguing for vouchers: Did you get a public school education -- and do you consider it to have been reasonable, adequate, whatever? Do you feel you were cheated?

I add the following questions: Do you think that school teachers earn too much money? Do you think quality education can be gotten at an appreciably lowr price? Are these considerations as important; less important; or more important to your professed desire to see America better educated?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

That would be true if it were a one to one exchange. However much of that money that is lost would go to overhead, teachers pay, building maintenance and the like. Those costs are fairly constant.

That's not true. Schools with fewer pupils need smaller buildings and pay fewer teachers. To a first approximation, this overhead cost is proportional to the number of children being schooled. Therefore we're talking about a one-to-one exchange at most. Usually even less, because most current voucher programs don't pay for the full cost of schooling.

au1929 wrote:

I wont even comment about what I think of your analogy.

The whole point of it was to convince you that tradition doesn't make things right. Do you still think it does?

au1929 wrote:

I will say if you want special privileges in this society you must pay for them.

I agree! But under the current system, if public schools provide $10,000 worth of education a year and I want my child to get an $11,000 education, I pay $11,000 for $1,000 worth of privilege. My point is that this is not fair, and that a voucher for $10,000 per kid would improve fairness by making me pay $1,000 for a $1,000 privilege. What is your objection to this argument?

au1929 wrote:

I would get rid of the disrupters. I can remember in my era we had special schools for those kids

So how is that different from having all the "nice" pupils leave for private schools, and having a downsized public school system deal with the troublemakers that are left? I don't see any!

-- Thomas

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

For whatever reason, the people I personally know who strongly advocate vouchers -- are the same people who seem to have so much trouble with a school teacher earnng a decent wage.

If you are making a "guilt by association" argument against me-- not sure if you are -- I'm not going to respond to it. But to get the record straight, I am in favor of vouchers, and I do want teachers to earn a better wage. I believe the main reason teachers don't make more money is because the schooling market is over-regulated, and because electorates prefer tax cuts and baseball stadiums over better schooling, as revealed by the choices they make at local elections.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I reiterate my questions of people arguing for vouchers: Did you get a public school education -- and do you consider it to have been reasonable, adequate, whatever? Do you feel you were cheated?

I did get a public shool education. It wasn't terrible, but I definitely feel my parents didn't get their money's worth on their taxes. I wouldn't call it "cheating" because there's no malicious intent in all this. Just poor judgements affecting the efficiency of the system.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I add the following questions: Do you think that school teachers earn too much money? Do you think quality education can be gotten at an appreciably lowr price?

No and yes. See above.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Are these considerations as important; less important; or more important to your professed desire to see America better educated?

None of the above. I don't see these goals as conflicting.

-- Thomas

0 Replies

Thomas

Quote:

That's not true. Schools with fewer pupils need smaller buildings and pay fewer teachers. To a first approximation, this overhead cost is proportional to the number of children being schooled.

False. Overheads stay fairly constant. I know that from my experience in business. As for smaller buildings, would you have them shrink or discarded and new one built. As for teachers whether there is 30 or 20 in a class you still need a teacher. All grades will have to be staffed.
You also talk about it being cheaper since the voucher will not cover the full cost of tuition. I would than suppose that the difference will have to be made up by the parent. I imagine that will leave all those children whose parents will not or cannot pay the extra cost relegated to the "failing schools." That will really be a boon to the poor and underprivileged.

The whole point of it was to convince you that tradition doesn't make things right. Do you still think it does?

Again I think your analogy is specious. Tradition has nothing to do with it other than it is traditional to pay for the extras in life.

Quote:

So how is that different from having all the "nice" pupils leave for private schools, and having a downsized public school system deal with the troublemakers that are left? I don't see any!

You don't see any problem in having 95% or so students getting vouchers and maintaining the public system for the remaining 5%. I guess that could be adjusted by those children whose parents are unable to pay the extras tithe.

And last but certainly not least where are all these private schools supposed to come from? Will they just suddenly materialize? Essentially what you are suggesting that except for the schools for the troublemakers we close down public education and go to a private school system.

0 Replies

I'm a product of private schooling, the whole way through, and know very little about the voucher system, but (though I continue to be in favor of vouchers) I found Mamajuana's post particularly interesting and persuasive. My own strongest belief is that each child born in the US should AUTOMATICALLY receive at birth a set-aside, a trust fund, from which all educational expenses -- lifetime expenses, including job training, senior citizen's going for additional degrees -- can be paid. It would be a significant chunk of money but probably overall much less than debating and trying to fix and experimenting with the system is costing us how. So when it comes to vouchers, as they are proposed now, I see them as a) a next step towards that trust fund, and b) as the equivalent of scholarship money which so many private institutions now give out to a large percentage of their students.

Mamajuana argues:

Quote:

Since the voucher money would not go far enough to cover the needs.

I don't think a voucher program is worth talking about unless it fully covers all educational expenses.

Quote:

There is a social factor, such as the naturally occurring reaction of children in private school sectors to the others coming in on vouchers. How does a voucher kid react to established social cliques with dress codes, to which he/she may not be admitted?

Not my experience in the private high school I went to -- not at all. In that school, a high proportion of each class was there on scholarship. They tended, of course, to be better students, harder working. That had the effect of pushing us privileged slackers harder, gave us competition. I don't -- seriously -- remember their being isolated or excluded socially because they didn't come from privileged backgrounds. The clothing competition is much more prevalent at public high schools. (Not an authority on this: went to a private boarding school, no uniforms, but you wore what you'd brought from home and it was pretty much what your mother had bought for you.) There are many more teachers per student in most private schools than in public schools, and that may have something to do with a greater focus on academics. Now, it must be said that high school age girls can be notorious bitches -- books have been written about this -- aggressive, competitive, nasty. Not all of that can be eliminated, whether in a public or private school as currently constituted or within a voucher system. That's something we need to examine in our families and communities and ask ourselves why we let our kids get away with it.

Quote:

Is there an underlying snob appeal, many times unconscious, on the part of many parents?

Yes, but a lot of it has to do with the recognition that networks are consciously created within these schools -- someone's uncle helps you get that terrific job you wanted after college. And there are some really snobby parents, but aren't there in public schools, too? It certainly seemed that way in my one association with the PTA in a "snob" neighborhood's public elementary school. Oy veh, was there ever...

Quote:

One of the really great things about this country has been the right to a public school education, and we have let that slide in so many cases. Parents stopped participation in the schools, and in so many cases were not encouraged to do so. How many times has a parent gone for an after-school conference, only to find nobody there? When did teaching stop being an honored profession and instead become just another business? There's plenty of blame to spread around, but all the talk about vouchers and satellite schools and all the rest won't make up for the lack of public and political attention to our system of public education for all.

That's true, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that if you, the parent, are given carte blanche in choosing the best possible school for your kid you will become more engaged and interested than otherwise. As for teachers, in another discussion I mentioned that up through the '50's, many teachers were women who didn't have that many career choices nor, as it was then perceived, much "real need" for economic reward (what is some ol' maid gonna do with all those bucks?!) I think teachers in this country have always been underpaid and underappreciated. We might want to pick another country to compare ourselves with in that respect.

Just one more comment. I have a friend who teaches and researches in a major university department of education. My impression of the education and training of teachers is not good, not good at all. Hope there may be someone here with experience in that area who can elucidate.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

As for smaller buildings, would you have them shrink or discarded and new one built.

I'd have schools move into new buildings (my own public school did that twice), rent part of their building out to other companies, possibly private schools, etc ... All over the economy, businesses solve this kind of problem routinely as they grow and shrink. I see no reason why schools couldn't do the same.

au1929 wrote:

As for teachers whether there is 30 or 20 in a class you still need a teacher. All grades will have to be staffed.

Your last statement is false. I know several people who attended very small schools, where multiple grades were taught in one class. Their education was no worse than those who attended larger schools with just one grade per class.

As to your first statement, almost all schools have more than one class. They have a policy, often decreed by the school district, that class sizes must not exceed the number n. Typical values for n range from 20 to 30. Let's suppose n=25, and some pupil leaves a public school. With a probability of 24/25, it won't affect the number of classes in that school. With a probability of 1/25, the number of pupils falls below the number at which the school can reduce the number of classes by one and still keep class sizes below 25. Therefore, on average, one departing student will lead to the firing of 1/25 teacher. The same logic applies to the amount of space needed for the school. In both cases the overhead cost is proportional to the number of pupils.

au1929 wrote:

You also talk about it being cheaper since the voucher will not cover the full cost of tuition. I would than suppose that the difference will have to be made up by the parent. I imagine that will leave all those children whose parents will not or cannot pay the extra cost relegated to the "failing schools."

... who then have more money per pupil to fight back against failure, because they lose only this student's voucher money, but save the whole cost of educating him. I'm glad you agree that's a boon.

au1929 wrote:

You don't see any problem in having 95% or so students getting vouchers and maintaining the public system for the remaining 5%.

No I don't see any problem with this. After all, the public school system would be 95% smaller and therefore cost about 95% less.

au1929 wrote:

And last but certainly not least where are all these private schools supposed to come from? Will they just suddenly materialize?

Why not? When the demand for Web surfing exploded in the mid-nineties, private companies just suddenly materialized to provide all of the Web's huge infrastructure and saturate the demand. Why should schooling be different?

au1929 wrote:

Essentially what you are suggesting that except for the schools for the troublemakers we close down public education and go to a private school system.

Only if the conservatives are right and public schools aren't adequate at providing education. If the liberals turn out to be right and public schools are doing just fine, vouchers will have no effect at all to the real world.

The beauty of the system is that it gives us the chance to find out!

0 Replies

Thomas
All I can say at this point that I totally disagree with you and your analysis. However, I also recognize that further discourse would be of no value. So we will have to agree to disagree and let it go at that.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I did get a public shool education. It wasn't terrible, but I definitely feel my parents didn't get their money's worth on their taxes. I wouldn't call it "cheating" because there's no malicious intent in all this. Just poor judgements affecting the efficiency of the system.

If your abilities here in this forum are any indication of the efficacy of your initial public education, Thomas, I suggest that your parents more than got their money's worth. I suspect (only a guess) that your present attachment to Libertarian values is the only reason you evaluate it as you do.

In any case, I am of the opinion that my public school education was excellent -- and that it allowed me contacts that a less "public" environment might have made less available. In my time, Catholic schools were the alternative to public -- and I can assure you that the kids who went to those schools, while they got a reasonably corresponding education, did miss out of a degree of diversity that I think was valuable to me.

All the other things you mentioned, Thomas, I understand and acknowledge.

BTW, I agree with au that to suppose vouchers willl have a marked effect on fixed costs is suspect -- and the long term effects of downsizing could be horrendous if this experiment, as I suspect such an experiment will, fails.

Here in New Jersey we went to the privatization of Motor Vehicle Inspections -- absolutely guaranteed to make the inspection ordeal less grating -- and bring down costs.

Costs are up -- aggravation is too. Except for the costs of taking it back under the state's wing, I suspect that is what we would do.

0 Replies

There's no question but that there are excellent public schools and there's no point condemning the entire system. The problem likes with the non-excellent ones right on down to the truly cruddy ones. I also don't see why a voucher system necessarily imperils the system of public education??

0 Replies

Tartarin - I have to amend something I wrote. I did attend, for four years, a school that was not exactly private - not exactly public. It was strictly academic, all girls, and you had to have grades. Another thing that took it more into the private realm is that it was not local; kids came from all over. But the dress thing was there - what you wore or did not wear was noticed. As was where you came from, what you did. Not all the time. not overtly. And I was not conscious of this most of the time because I had a good time and got an excellent education.

But my reservations about that part of it do not come from my experience as a student, but from that of friends who taught and from a sister who was an administrator in several cities. She was the one who first brought up the social aspects of it to me. I myself taught for a while in one of the high schools.

What this has to do with a voucher system, for me, is my experience as a parent. My kids went to the public schools, but my son was a ringer for the Catholic school basketball team, so I went to all meetings. Kids need, most of all, a stable environment. Hopefully in both the home and the school, but they spend a lot of time in school during formative years. Over the years I've heard a lot about the good offered by vouchers, about how it represents "choice." The ony way they could offfer choice, it seems to me, would be if your suggestions would be adopted. otherwise, we skip over the difficult part - such as the training and supervision of teachers, who are there to teach, which is a special thing, and not like going into a large law firm. I think a lot of people have been sold on the idea of vouchers, without taking into account what that means in the totality of the school experience.

Also, it seems that in several places, like Philadelphia and Cleveland, that school choice thing is breaking down. For heaven's sake, why can't we concentrate on fixing something that isn't really broken but suffering from a lot of lack of attention?

0 Replies

Right, Mamajuana! Couple of thoughts: The first is that it would be really difficult, from the getgo, to agree nationally on what "getting a good education" means. The second is that here, as earlier in Abuzz, I'm always wanting to break the problem down into components -- I think that's the only way we get at the facts and begin to understand each other.

Do we start with the money -- the "trust fund," the voucher? Do we start with a close examination of how teachers are produced? Do we look at the structure of education (I was shocked, when I came back to the US, to find that kids 6-12 get out of school at 3 p.m. No explanation of that has yet convinced me that it's a good thing.)

As for the clothing etc. snobbism, I'm afraid my response is probably simplistic -- Put A Stop To That Nonsense!! But since my day the whole nation has become so much more commercialized -- how can these kids escape product competition?? You can't stop snobbism and cruelty, but you can devalue it. And since I'm being a tartar here, there's something else I'd like to see: No one gets out of high school without some pretty serious orals -- an examination of how they articulate what they've learned in front of a team of teachers who do not teach at the school they aim to graduate from.

0 Replies

Private School Vouchers
Myth vs. Fact

Promoters of "educational choice" make many assertions about the positive effects of private school vouchers on America's educational system. Are these claims true? What would vouchers really do? Let's examine some of the common myths about vouchers and review the facts.

http://www.au.org/vouch-bk.htm

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

sozobe wrote:
The disability thing, just for example: Simple, eh? What if the private schools don't WANT to deal with children with disabilities?

Then the same logic will apply that already applies when your local pub doesn't want to serve blacks: Other private schools will get their business and earn their money. Arbitrary discrimination exists in some pubs, and it will exist in some public schools under a voucher system. But it will also be unprofitable, and therefore profit-maximizing schools will have a strong disincentive to discriminate against handicapped children. The overwhelming majority of private schools will be discrimination-free, just like the overwhelming majority of today's restaurants is today.

<spit-take>

Right, schools were integrated because people WANTED to!! Oh, wait, that required legislation. Oh, I know, students with disabilities were welcomed into mainstream classrooms with open arms!! Oh wait, that required legislation too.

Was it cavfancier who said you assume people are smarter than they really are ? I'll add "...and more tolerant" to that.

No, it won't be unprofitable. If the schools can legally get away with it, if they can couch it in terms of "Here at Piney Ridge Prep, we ensure that your child has focused, individualized attention, and is allowed to achieve his or her full potential without distractions," they will see their numbers SOAR. That would be a huge selling point. Nobody would admit to it -- nobody would say that they are uncomfortable seeing Tommy's classmate David drooling during the Christmas Pageant, or that it is such a bummer to try to arrange transportation for Sally's classmate Dawn who is in a wheelchair (they couldn't even go on the camping trip last year, just because of her!), but they will say "Gosh, it really would be nice if everyone was learning at Tommy's level", or "Gosh, look at the field trips available at Piney Ridge!"

Thomas wrote:

Without answering to every single item, I think all of them are either not a real problem, or a problem that's easily fixed by adjusting the endowment that comes with a voucher to the "special learning" requirements of the student. See my above answer about procedures.

-- Thomas

Again, this is not just about money. If it were, it would be much simpler.

0 Replies

Let's discuss vouchers!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know