I will start with some broad comments. After that I put some specific
responses to comments from multiple mails but they are less important
overall. I will try not to engage after this (smile).
A. *One's vision can focus either on having a public school system, or
on educating every child the best we can*.
It is only natural that changing existing system is hard. Yet our public
education system has grown to be rather ineffective and inflexible,
overlaid with monstrous layers of regulations, and changing it should be
in the interest of anyone who cares about education rather than about
the education system.
Vouchers and charters represent efforts to diversify educational
offerings and removing much of the stifling regulations. Examples of
countries that implemented educational choice broadly (Sweden, Holland,
Belgium, etc.) were brought to demonstrate the possibility of such
approaches, not to serve as precise templates for emulation. Discussants
generally did not discuss them, other that try and dismiss them on
specious grounds, perhaps because lack of information. No such lack of
information exists for the essentially identical system we have here in
our higher education, yet discussants refused to engage in it too. We do
have a healthy mix of private for-profit and non-profit, and of public
higher ed institutions. We do have "vouchers" in a form of student
loans, students grants, and educational tax deductions. And, as it
happens, it is the only part of American education that is broadly
considered the best in the world.
Quite naturally some will argue that one can have best education of
every child through having the best public education system. History and
experience with government monopolies does not offer strong support for
that. In any case, it runs counter to our traditional ethos. And that
brings me to my next point.
B. *Choice as the preferred American way of education*
Elementary education in the US started as localized service within local
communities but by 20th century mostly mutated into centralized
governmental enterprises largely controlled from state capitals and from
Washington, DC. In many states it was captured by rent-seekers and
other special interests. In most of its incarnations it offers limited
choices to its consumers, and is frequently hijacked by interest groups
to preach credos that many of its consumers find objectionable. The
stated reasons for this consolidation have three prongs: efficiency,
uniformity, and equity. The actual major reason is financial: The state
will tax you whether you like it or not, and it will pay only to support
its own education monopoly.
Regarding efficiency, it is hard to argue that controlling local schools
from state and national capitals is efficient. I don't think there is
much more to say on this.
Uniformity is the most divisive aspect of government regulation. It
turned out to focus more on the mechanics than on quality but, in any
case, large swath of American public finds elements of education pushed
in the name of that uniformity offensive. Those who want to retain
government control over indoctrination of young students often raise the
specter of hobgoblins (race discrimination, legislating creationism,
etc.) to claim their right to indoctrinate everybody in what they (or
the state) believe is "right." Yet out constitution, and our historical
ethos, have always been to allow choice in the individual sphere, and --
at least so far -- children still belong to the individual sphere.
Equity is these days more of a cudgel than a real reason to maintain
centralized education. Weighted funding (for public schools, or for
vouchers) takes care of the economic equity argument and a few basic
rules (that I referred to as "property rental regs") can take care of
the discrimination aspect.
--
Breaking the financial state monopoly as well as the uniformity aspect
of our education seems to me eminently in the American tradition of
ideological plurality, and respect for family and individual privacy.
All objections can eventually be traced and categorized as either coming
from ideological support for state control of ideology in teaching
(essentially claiming children as state property to a degree) or from
having vested interest (monetary or inertial) in maintaining the
existing system. Successful examples of education based on choice exists
in some nations, and in our own higher education.
So to repeat, for the last(?) time: Different visions. Different yardsticks.
Ze'ev
----------------
Comments on some specific points raised recently.
1. "A disproportionate percentage of private schools are elementary
grades only (which is relatively cheap)"
This is a red herring. When I quoted the average cost per student I used
the combined (k-12) school value ($9.2K), and not the average in private
industry, to avoid exactly this point. Still slightly cheaper than
public ($10.3K), but the key point is they are in the same ballpark.
2. "Many (most?) private schools have at least some support from
religious organizations"
True for some (although less than one would think in recent years) but
the same can be said of public schools that receive a lot of cash and
in-kind support through PTA, community organizations, and parental
volunteering.
3. "Public schools still have to transport private school students,
adding to costs."
NCES reports transportation costs at less than 4% of current
expenditures. Minor and trivial. Easy to add transportation costs to
rural and means-tested student vouchers.
4. "Assuming we settled at 50%, very few 'poor' parents will find that
sufficient to fund education for their kids."
Clearly. That's why 100% should be the equitable goal. Publicly funded
education should not be about subsidizing public education system or
about penalizing private one, but about spending equitably on similar
children. At the neighborhood of 100%, vouchers will easily cover the
costs. And Exeters tend to have endowments and grants, similar to
Stanfords and Harvards.
5. "ANY universal voucher plan negatively impacts funding of public
schools."
If your concern is the public school *system* that is, indeed, true. If
your concern is educating children, why is this relevant? Per students
funding can be easily maintained under variety of voucher plans.
6. "The 'cost per student' figure is pretty much useless in the context
in which it is being used. It doesn't cost ANYTHING to add a kid to a
class of 20 (well, maybe the cost of a book), and you don't SAVE
anything by removing 2 kids from a class of 24. For this reason, ANY
voucher program results in a net loss of funding at least 95% of the time."
I wonder how would most of you tolerate similar arguments from a student
in your Physics class. We all understand fringe effects but we also
presumably understand that fringe effects work both ways and are
statistically neutral or almost so. How far would it get your student to
argue the case of increase but ignore the case of decrease? What happens
when you remove 4-5 kids from a cohort of 28-30? Don't you suddenly gain
a whole class because you dropped just 4-5 students?
7. "Interesting that the private school and voucher supporters always
throw out Sweden, Belgium, etc as models. Yet the same conservatives
use them as well as failed systems of "socialism". They want it both
ways." and somewhat similar words on Singapore from someone else.
Red herring. Pretends one has to pick up everything when one mentions a
place or a country. What's wrong with simply showing this as an example
of a working education system based on choice? Do I have to speak
Swedish to be able to implement it? If one mentions Newton in your
class, does one have to either accept everything Newton wrote or accept
nothing? Somehow I doubt it.
8. "in the guise of first amendment do you actually want your and my tax
dollars in the form of vouchers going to schools that discriminate on
the basis of religion and/ or sectarian beliefs?"
On one hand this presumes that all (or most) religious schools
"discriminate." The data shows that overwhelmingly religious schools
accept students for all denominations and do not discriminate. Yes, many
to provide teaching of values based on their religious belief, but
that's an explicit part and parcel of their nature. You don't like it,
don't go there. It called *choice*. On the other hand, minimal
regulations similar to property rental regs should take care of much of
whatever real discrimination there still is.
9. "I as talking to a friend who taught for 42 years in Philadelphia
where they have 30 or 40 charter schools. I mentioned this discussion.
He laughed and said that all but 2 or 3 have scores that match or are
better than the publics. The rest lag behind in testing. A dirty
little secret the advocates of charters don't want to publicly acknowledge."
Charter schools have been studied quite extensively and overwhelmingly
the results of serious studies point to similar or better outcome. A
couple of serious studies show a minor disadvantage for outcomes. No
serious studies show that charters are a disaster for outcomes or that
they broadly and consistently engage in cherry picking. Studies also
show higher parental satisfaction. But, instead, we are fed with
third-hand anecdotes here. This a *physics* teacher forum, so why do we
throw anecdotes instead of data?
---------