Re: [Phys-L] Private schools

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>]

Ze'ev Wurman wrote:

> Imagine you applied the same logic to restaurants. You would end up with 
> a pre 1989 Eastern-Europe type of establishments where there was 
> essentially no difference between government restaurants and "private" 
> restaurants. Except for those that operated under black market rules.

If so, then I would submit that the private sector would have demonstrated its inability to provide added value.

> First, let's remember that current voucher discussions in this country 
> peg vouchers at 20-50% of the public school per-student cost. In places 
> like Sweden or Belgium they are equal to a full per-student cost. Only 
> then you can argue that they must be acceptable as payment in full.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.  The vouchers I envision would be "worth what we decide as a people we are willing to pay for one year of education at each level" and could be used at public or private schools.  In either case they would constitute payment in full.  Public schools would receive no additional funds from the government and private schools could not charge tuition over and above the value of the vouchers.

> Second, if they *must* take students on first come first serve basis, it 
> defeats any idea of specialized schools. Why not declare the few things 
> that are not permitted (if any!) and let schools define themselves as 
> they want? Why force dance schools to accept people without any 
> selection? Or technology schools? As long as the vouchers are on the 
> order of public school cost, private schools will fight to get as many 
> reasonably qualified students as they can.

I suppose you have a theoretical point here, but I don't see why a non-dancer would apply to a school that emphasizes dance.

> Third, why should the abide by all school regs? We already have such 
> schools -- the public ones. The whole idea is to relieve them of such 
> regulations. Except narrowly defined restrictions, similar to those 
> applicable to housing rental in the private market, I see no reason to 
> do more.

As I predicted, this is an argument against providing a level playing field for competition.  You're free to attend a school that doesn't have to live by the rules that everyone else does, but don't expect me to pay for it.  And if you don't like the rules, then work toward getting them changed via the democratic process.

> But what about the special ed kids or the ELL kids, one might ask. Well, 
> those should get a higher value vouchers based on the
> "problem" -- essentially like today's discussion about "weighted 
> funding." There will be plenty of interest to provide these services at 
> a fair price, and still probably cheaper than today's public cost. 
> Further, public schools should be full participants in the new game of 
> attracting students. Berkeley, after all, is not less significantly 
> attractive than Stanford.

This seems like a fair point.  No reason kids who require special services couldn't come with vouchers that reflect the additional cost.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

I wrote:

> > Give EVERY parent a voucher worth what we decide as a people we are willing to pay for one year of education at each level.  Those vouchers could be accepted ONLY by schools that agree to live by a number of rules including
> >
> > 1) The voucher must be accepted as payment in full.
> >
> > 2) The school must take students on a first come, first served basis and the school must accept a set of strict rules governing expulsion.
> >
> > 3) The school must comply with all federal and state guidelines applicable to public schools (e.g., regarding handicapped students, Title IX, testing, etc.)
> >
> > In this model, there would be no real distinction between "public" and "voucher-accepting private" schools.  All such schools would be in competition, but the intent is to insure that that competition would be carried out on a level playing field.
> >
> > There are clearly flaws in this model and I would be interested in hearing criticisms and/or suggestions for improvement.  (I'm equally sure that there will be criticism based on the whole idea of creating a level playing field, but I'm unlikely to be moved by them!)