SFLRN

I'll summarize my post for those of you who wish to debate first before reading a lengthy post.
Statement: Empirical evidence shows that vouchers provide a level of competition that is necessary for improvement in our primary and secondary education systems.
Conclusion: States should adopt universal voucher policies to foster competition in educational markets.
As we all know America's primary and secondary schools are in a poor state. They seriously lag behind their European counterparts. (It is reassuring to know that America's universities are as superior to European universities as European primary and secondary education is to American secondary education. Source: The Economist). That being said, what policy changes will be needed? More money is clearly not the best option because it has been tried before with almost no real results. In fact real (inflation-adjusted) per-pupil expenditures have doubled and student performance has stagnated since 1960. The answer is clearly not money being given directly to schools.

The second option is vouchers . The general argument for vouchers is that they would create more of a competitive market in education that would foster creativity and experimentation. Just as regular markets diversify education markets could provide a variety of services tailored to specific student groups. From this it is asserted that vouchers would increase performance by allowing parents the power to hold schools accountable as consumers do in the marketplace.
Then there are the objections to vouchers.
Here are some of the common myths brought up by choice-opponents
Myth: Vouchers would hurt the children in public schools.
There is very little if any empirical evidence to suggest that choice-oriented educational systems have a negative impact upon the students in public schools.
From a long-term standpoint competition provides an incentive for schools to innovate to better provide services.

Myth: Educational choice provides no benefits for the students themselves.
Fact: When given a voucher system (not simply an open enrollment system) voucher students see an increase (although modest) in their overall scores. This is proven by the research of economist Dr. Caroline Hoxby of Harvard. It should be noted that a similar study by Levitt does not have the same implications for vouchers because the study focused on Chicago's open enrollment system which is different than a voucher system.

Final Note: Evidence from Hoxby and many other studies (that I can post) confirm the benefits of vouchers. The gains in these studies are modest, but as is noted, the Hoxby's model tests to see if a limited amount of competition (current voucher programs are somewhat small and can only provide a limited market and limited competition to public school) can provide limited change. The answer is yes. From this we can say with a degree of certainty that schools could and would respond if voucher programs were made universal.

Summerwind

I see some real promise with vouchers. Anything to keep the lazy, whining, unproductive teachers of the USA public system on their toes.

SFLRN

On a similar note it appears that vouchers would limit the power of teacher's unions. Part of any good business is the ability to have some flexibility in who you and can't fire (it creates an incentive to work harder). I can recall too many teachers who did not put in much effort but would have been paid considerably more than some of my excellent younger teachers.

galenrox

Now I'm all about vouches and I'm as opposed to teachers unions (hell, all civil servant unions, hell, all unions!) as people get, but it's a lie to refer to refer to public school teachers as lazy, whining, and unproductive. Some are, but they are the vast minority. My mom's a 3rd grade teacher in Chicago, and she literally works from 5 AM till 10 PM (at least) 6 days a week, and that's not aypical, after breaks for lunch and dinner I'd say she works about 90 hours a week on school ****, and considering she's a Ph.D., she's VASTLY underpaid and does it for the sole purpose of helping the kids.

Bureaucracy is the problem, and thus why vouchers are the solution. The problem is systemic, blaming the teachers is a cop out.

__________________

SFLRN

Blaming teachers as a collective group is a cop out. There are individual teachers that are lazy, however. A voucher system, if widespread enough, seems like it would be able to better compensate excellent teachers and force the individuals who are somewhat lazy to increase their efforts. It would be more likely to open the market (especially with the abolition of licensure requirements completely or replaced them with optional certification).

galenrox

I agree, it will hopefully weaken the union enough so that teachers who deserve to get paid will get paid and teachers who don't don't (****ing unions, only they would have a problem with that), market forces are key.

jfuh

All the money in the world, all the best teachers in the world none of which would do **** if the mentality of parents don't change.
Secondly the teacher unions are a pathetic nonsense. Strangling the education system milking it for more money by the claim of "higher pay provides better teachers". This simply isn't true, if the individual really wanted to make more money, they wouldn't be a teacher in the first place. Teachers are people that want to teach in the first place.
The whole voucher thing is simply lip service and turning the attention away from actually needing to deal with the accountability of the problem by turning it over to the private sector - aka outsourcing.

In an ideal world this would be the solution. Civic service - in our advancement toward a career we've all taken a lot from society yet how many of us actually give something back to society?
Here's what I'm getting at. Upon completion of your terminal degree you would need to serve social service either as a nurse, fireman, police, teacher, something that our tax money provides to us "free" of charge.
Have everyone involved in the very core issues as well as to enhance basic responsibilities to our communities.
That's in an ideal world; for the time being, obliterate with the current teacher unions. Unions are great for setting floor plans in establishing minimum standards, however these unions today are establishing ceilings and walls to keep others out. That's not what we need.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

SFLRN

The way to achieve accountability to every parent and not just a majority is to put the power into the hands of parents rather than bureaucrats. Vouchers offer the best possible way by allowing parents to change schools if one school does not satisfy their needs.

Contributions to charity aside, Bill Gates gave back more to society than most people in "altruistic careers," because of his products. This wasn't because Bill wanted to help society, it’s because he saw the potential to make a substantial profit or some other personal reward for doing his work. His drive for individual satisfaction is what helped society. You need the businesswoman to pay for those teachers and to provide job opportunities for graduates. We all contribute to society by pursuing our own interests (unless our interests directly harm another). On a more philosophical note, if we all worry about everyone else and everyone else is worrying about everyone else the potential for manipulation is extremely present. Society is moved forward by individuals innovating out of their own personal interest in making profit or finding out how to work more efficiently. (To essentially summarize Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead). Collectivism is a failed perspective in both theory and in practice. Forcing
How would having a Princeton grad perform work as a teacher be more beneficial to society than having them work to make a business more efficient? If she could have worked at that business she might have been able to give many people jobs. If you have her work as a teacher then it’s unlikely she would be able to make the same impact if she is naturally inclined to be good at business and not teaching. Individuals need to be given the freedom to pursue their own ends. In that way they can maximize their resources, creating more utility for themselves (happiness). To say that government should force them to spend their time doing things for others violates the individualism that this nation is founded upon.

jfuh

Ok, so one parent feels their kid isn't being taught well at this school because of whatever, move on, second school, still not good enough for whatever - move on. you see where I'm going with this? So where then does the kid actually qualify in a good setting? I'm sure you will agree not all parents are quite up to par in the grey matter area. Ok that's taking it extreme. So second scenario. Feeling that public schools aren't good enough so they take them to a private school. Here's the problem, you already have this option, the difference is through payment. Public schools were built so as to provide education for everyone you don't like the service you don't have to use it. But that money is already where it should be - in the public. You take the money out of the public education system what ends up happening is then the public education system crashes from - yep - lack of funds and a few ceo's of private school's get really really wealthy. Nothing wrong with wealth no, but education to the public is not about who makes more money.
Inarguably the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean systems provide top notch education to students with particular to math and sciences. Guess what? Their top schools are all public. Why is it that their public system is so much stronger in these areas than ours? They don't use vouchers.

There's only one Bill Gates.

I'm not saying that they must make a career out of it. I'm talking about fixed length of civic service say 2 years. As I also stated, this is in an ideal world.

It doesn't work both ways. Like it or not, this nation is a collective. The betterment of future generations is what the topic is about. This society has become an everyman for himself with 0 concern for the other thinking that money solves every problem.
Education? Toss more money at it. War with terrorists? Toss more money at it. Health care? Too bad you're poor you loose. It is because we've taken ourselves out of civic responsibilities. This city going down the drain frack it I'm moving to suburbia. Unfortunately there is a limit to what money can and can't do. Using money to pay it off resolves a speeding ticket or two but it does not change the feeling of responsibilities.

My two classic examples, Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg - are they in the job of gov and mayor because of the power or money? No, these two have loads of both already - they're already the elite celebrities. They took the positions because of genuine dissatisfaction with the status quo and want to make changes and have made monumental bi partisan success that were both highly unpopular at first but turned out to be the right choices.
NYC now sees the highest education gains anywhere in the US; vouchers? Not even close; he did what I have advocated and argued for here; he gave the teacher unions the finger told them to go frack themselves making the principles the CEO's of each school. It all worked. The mentality of the parents part? Well they elected Bloomberg in the first place and re-elected them again, I can only assume they as a majority agree and are in the right mentality.
So here's my example of how what I advocate works how about them vouchers now?

SFLRN

That is up for the parents decide. It’s the same as the parents switching the kind of apples they buy because the ones they get know don't satisfy them. We expect choice everywhere else in life, why not in education?


That’s a myth as I highlighted earlier. Actual empirical studies show that public schools are not hurt by the introduction of vouchers and in many cases they make improvements to stay competitive. Simply because we believe every child deserves an education does not mean that government needs to be the one that builds the school-house. Schools aren't accountable under a system that entrenches the teacher unions and school boards. Teachers are responsible to bureaucrats first and parents second. The same exact thing happened with the phone companies. A government monopoly can only be changed through cumbersome political mechanisms. A system of choice allows for each parent to decide rather than letting a majority decide for them. It is the parents who should have the power because they are the ones who know their children best. With this information they are better able to decide what schooling is proper for their children. At the same time markets would encourage a number of materials to help parents choose the proper schooling (much like U.S. News provides information on what the best colleges are).


Using international examples is suspect at best. The first reason being that there are European countries that have vouchers or some form of choice and they are quite successful (Belgium). The countries you mention also have a very different culture and they don't attempt to educate every single student. Hong Kong has much more economic freedom than the United States and they are seeing rapid growth, should we switch to Hong Kong's economic policy (judging from your previous posts you would be inclined to say no)?
That is not an ideal world. Individuals absolutely must be given the freedom to pursue their own living. It is one of the most essential freedoms in a modern democracy. The arguments for a draft are extremely similar to the ones for mandatory service. Why should we force young people to go into something that would not best satisfy their needs and would likely be less beneficial to our economy?

This nation is not a collective in the sense that we are one giant body politic. Government was given very specific functions to carry out and running the lives of its citizens is not one of the functions of government. We don't live in the world you suggest. What measure do we have that we are an everyman for himself society? Volunteer hours across our nation are up and more parents are taking "flex" time at work to spend time with their children. We have lower crime rates in the 21st century than the past. Individuals are serving their own interests and helping others. It’s the father who now is more likely to take time off work to have the joy of being with their kids. Its mothers who are spending more time with their children. The poor are better than they were in the past. We are a society of individuals and we do look out for our own interest. But has can anyone really say that our individualism has hurt us (I think many would agree it has helped us).

Thats not the flaw in thinking. The flaw is thinking that using government coercion (like forcing people to do things for others) will truly solve problems. If everyman is out for himself why would you trust politicians who are out for themselves to decide how you should live?

Here's the thing, they did it because they wanted to make a change. Because they were disssatisfied They didn't do it because someone else forced them to do it. People don't spend time with their children or donate to charity because someone forces them to do it. They do it because they choose to. They do it because it will make them feel good. Also, it’s silly to suggest that the Terminator is some kind of collectivist. He is (by and large) against most of what you have just advocated in the previous post. He has been quoted for saying that he loves Milton Friedman's Free to Choose because it advocates a system without government breathing down your back. Yet this is the state you believe would make us all better off.

One piece of anecdotal evidence doesn't disprove all of the empirical studies that show vouchers to have positive benefits. That is skewing the debate. Do you have any hard evidence to suggest that vouchers are a failure?
One more philosophical note. Society as a whole is better off when freedom is placed as a number one priority. The reason is simple, when individuals are free to pursue their own ends they are better able to satisfy their own needs because they know themselves better. Conversely, government is unlikely to have such information and cannot possibly create the same amount of utility as individuals can for themselves. This is the rule-based utilitarianism justification for limited government (in short.) How would a government making decisions for us make us better off?