Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Ze'ev Wurman wrote:
Imagine you applied the same logic to restaurants. You would end up withIf so, then I would submit that the private sector would have demonstrated its inability to provide added value.
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.
No issue then.First, let's remember that current voucher discussions in this countryPerhaps 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.
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.
Second, if they *must* take students on first come first serve basis, itI suppose you have a theoretical point here, but I don't see why a non-dancer would apply to a school that emphasizes dance.
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.
Third, why should the abide by all school regs? We already have suchAs 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.
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.
But what about the special ed kids or the ELL kids, one might ask. Well,This seems like a fair point. No reason kids who require special services couldn't come with vouchers that reflect the additional cost.
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.