Quote:
Originally Posted by Scucca  Do you have evidence to support that view? ...
How would you discount this evidence? |
Aside from the performance of every other service industry; I would point to Forster "Freedom from Racial Barriers: The Empirical Evidence on Vouchers and Segregation" (2006), which finds "The existing empirical research indicates that segregation levels in private schools are not substantially different from those in public schools when examined at the school level; that private schools are actually
less segregated than public schools when examined at the classroom level; and that private schools participating in voucher programs in Milwaukee, Cleveland and Washington D.C. are much
less segregated than public schools." [1] Emphasis mine.
I do not believe (nor mean to imply) that private schools are better across the board than public schools. I do believe (and mean to imply) that greater competition between schools is the best method for creating better education service.
Quote:
|
Given the evidence shows that vouchers encourage inequities, they will not fully capture the available social benefits (nor would more straight-forward subsidies). It is the visible hand of planning, rather than the invisible hand of the market, that will maximise the potential of the education system.
|
What makes the education service industry so different, that subsidies are not effective in rewarding the additional social value added? Why hasn't the "hand of planning" been able to maximize the education system yet? Why has the "hand of the market" been able to maximize the potential of every other service industry (including supplemental educational services, i.e. test preparation) it is applied to?
J
[1]
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/19825.pdf