Solidus

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.

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

Scucca

Given I've shown that "the existing empirical research" does support segregation effects, you're going to have to do better than your chosen quote. For example, does the paper provide any critical analysis that provides empirical rebuke for the sources I've presented? Also is it published or merely an opinion piece? (I'd check myself, but I'm just about to watch the crap sequel to 28 days later)

Social benefits are reliant on education achieving its 'human capital' role (i.e. maximisation of skills). However, the education system is effectively cheapened by a secondary role: certification. This role is primarily used to maintain intergenerational divides. It is through direct regulation that human capital can be ensured.

Its certainly done better than the invisible hand. Moving back to the failure of the market is not a good idea.

__________________

Solidus

How do you describe the difference between maximization of skills, and certification? How would you track the education systems ability to maximize skills? How would you track the education system's "waste" on certification?

What is an example of regulation that ensures maximization of skills without certification?

How is this regulation incompatible with providing education services via the private sector? By contrast automobiles are provided via the private sector while adhering to (and often surpassing) the minimum safety regulations.

J

Scucca

You sentences are almost all questions, but you didn't answer mine:

For example, does the paper provide any critical analysis that provides empirical rebuke for the sources I've presented? Also is it published or merely an opinion piece?

With regards your questions:

I've already referred to the difference. We have a dual role of education. First, its economic role. This is about productivity (be it pecuniary or non-pecuniary). Second, the use of education to discriminate. This can theoretically also refer to economic efficiency. For example, look up the “screening hypothesis” where education is used to signal one's innate ability. However, once we have wealth inequality, it is increasingly dominated by means to maintain family wealth. Certification becomes about justifying hierarchy and promoting artificial wage divides.

I'd refer to value added measures.

In the current regime, I'd refer to a proxy such as social immobility.

This isn't a meaningful question. Certification is vocab to distinguish from human capital investment.

The private sector feeds off wealth inequality. It minimises the human capital role.

Education is a classic example of how equity and efficiency are the same beast. We can't say the same about mundane consumer goods.

UtahBill

If you can't fix education in this country, at least fix education in your own home. It's a start....
Problem is, too many parents don't want to be that actively involved in their children's lives.
Little things can motivate the kids. We paid ours to get A's, they got nothing for B's, they paid us for C's. We also told them that we would pay for their college education, and that doing so was their only sure chance of getting some kind of inheritance.
Now that they are educated and employed, we tell the kids and grandkids that how our estate is divvied up depends on how they handle their finances. If they are wasteful and use credit card debt for frivilous purchases, they will get nothing.
Carrot and stick motivation is scalable. The kids today just need to be more aware that carrots and sticks exist. Too many are oblivious of that.

__________________
The Age of Reason doesn't have to be a thing of the past.
Being judgemental is the prime directive of some evangelicals.
No success can compensate for failure in the home.

nkgupta80

part of it also is just fostering a want to learn from an early age. Thats what my parents did. Just simply reading us books, taking trips to the libraries and museums, and trying to ask interesting questions helped me and my sister gain that desire to learn. So when it came to performing in school, no reward incentive was really necessary (although it woulda been quite nice).

UtahBill

We paid out quite a bit, by the time they were seniors in High School, in the late 80's, an A was worth $20. An all A report card earned a bonus. Honors classes, a B was as good as an A. but an A in an honors class got a bonus.
So our 2 kids had lots of money. One thing they never figured out, tho, and I kept my mouth shut about it, was that the money was theirs to spend as they liked, and that I would have given them more for some of the things they spent their own money on....
But we also used the multi-carrot approach, like your parents. They both had library cards at age 5, even tho we had to prove to the librarian that they could read, and sign their names....

Layla_Z

Most standardized tests are not accurate assessments. These tests assess rote learning, memorization. A standardized test is not the same as a test a teacher writes. Ultimately, you want to teach a child information but also what that information means. You could get a child to memorize a list of important dates in American history, but what have they learned if they don't know what any of those dates mean?

It is not impossible to design a test the assesses critical thinking. The problem is that the people designing the test are not the ones doing the teaching. A standardized test is meant to be given to many different students from many different schools. Here, every student in the state takes the test. Out of necessity it needs to be graded quickly which is why much of the test in multiple choice. The way the testing is done in this state now, the test is given in April and the school gets the scores the following October. For a student to benefit from a test he or she needs to see the results while they still remember the test.

How would vouchers get parents involved? Parents that want to be involved are already involved. Parents that don't care are not going to suddenly care because they get a voucher. Why would the suddenly want to go to the trouble to find and apply to a private school? Why would they want to arrange transportation? Why would they want to spend part of their money to send a child to private school when they can continue to send their child somewhere free?

I don't know how to get parents involved. It seems that anymore there are extremes. You have great parents who are very involved in a positive way and you have parents that seem to hate the school and insult and undermine teachers any chance they get.

I know of no private schools that focus on poor/troubled children. There are schools for special needs children and I don't doubt that they do better in an environment that is specially suited to them as opposed to being mainstreamed into a regular classroom. This would also be true of poor/troubled children. It is much easier to teach a group of similar students than it is to teach everyone all together. These private schools are usually only found in cities. For example, where I live in a large town, the only private schools are religious and in the case of a couple of them, when the kids come to public school they are very behind. I don't mean to imply that is the case in all private schools, that is just my experience with these schools.

__________________
~Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
~I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.
~If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
George Carlin