Yeah, like those who would sell all their good students just for the money.

Who cares about the education you're giving when you've a fat retainer?

something not quite right about a "market" for children.

Plus all the students get to feel like pieces of meat, bartered around like some kind of commodity.

Why is there such a drive to make everything into a market, whether it makes sense or not?

I know, I know, because a couple frigging idiot rich people left foundations to do exactly that.

Crissa: I haven't read the essay, but I think we have to assume that Betts isn't an idiot. As Harry says, he does address some of the more obvious pitfalls of this approach.

Brooklyn: I think that in practice it's more like a market for parents. But yeah, it would be nearly impossible in practice to get people to accept an idea like this.

Of course, the school with all of the "advantaged" children could just set up booster clubs among all of the "advantaged" parents to makeup for the money they lose selling off the less "advantaged" children, resulting in the same set up we have now. The low advantage schools would end up with not enough money ad the advataged schools will have access to the extra money out side of the system.

This is the problem when businessmen start thinking about the schools -- they assume everyone has the same outlook and interests as they do.

I know plenty of teachers, principals and administrators, and I can't think of a single one who'd have either the interest or ability to bid on and trade students like they were commodities or stocks.

One obvious flaw is that students/parents need to agree to a "trade", otherwise it'll never fly. And if they get to veto a proposed trade, then how would the system work?

Eventually, perhaps all of us - on the left and the right - will come to the realization that if you want to have a prosperous, advanced, globally competitive economy, you need a well-educated and healthy populace. And to get that, you've simply got to fund the living daylights out of it. We're talking about public goods that have positive externalities that go way beyond the direct costs of education and health care.

All the same, there are lots of places that have experimented with so-called "internal market mechanisms" in the public sector. Britain's efforts to "reform" the NHS come to mind. It might help if we reviewed those experiments to see what works and what doesn't.

At least in affluent suburban school districts, that shift from community integrated institution to market commodity has already happened. Putting kids on the block only formalizes it. And districts with "advantaged" kids already often have less state funding, but they have become hybrids of public/private school--parents in such districts raise a hell of a lot of money to support programs they want in the school. Voila, the floorboarding of public and the money/control/"ownership" of private.

I think Martin has nailed the problem. I sometimes wonder whether educational consultants have any clue how private schools work. The whole point of many private schools is to maintain their exclusivity. They DON'T WANT any child who "presents risks" and this isn't just a child who might be disruptive, it's a child who doesn't have a perceived chance of getting into a great college -- because that's how parents select private schools.

To understand just how risk averse these schools are, consider the story of a friend who home schools her children through 8th grade. Her oldest did very well on academic tests required to get into private schools for high school. The tonier ones nonetheless told her that they considered any home schooled child to be too risky for the school.

Parents with enough many will take the public dough and then just make up the difference with their own resources.

So, who is going to pay the transportation costs and compensate the losing students/families for the involved time when the right to educate them is traded away to a distant school?

"Market-like" school choice, isn't going to work without finding a way to reduce the size of schools and increase the number in a given land area and then providing some kind of guarantee of reasonable access in particular area.

Schools would have the right to accept the students they wanted, but good schools would end up with very strong financial incentives to accept poor students and bad schools would end up with plenty of money to use to attract better students (as well as to buy more books and hire better teachers).

I think the words you really need to use here are "special needs" and "middle-of-the-road". Gifted students, as I understand, despite not being "poor students" either in the most probable SES background or academic performance sense, are more expensive educate than middle-of-the-road students too (even if you just treat them as middle of the road students, since that produces other problems with costs.)

This really, overall, seems like a monumentally stupid and unworkable idea.

But, like Harry, I was intrigued by the fact that someone has proposed a seemingly new idea.

Poorly thought out, unworkable, novel ideas really aren't all that rare or surprising, even, perhaps especially, when it comes to education policy.

It would be sort of fascinating to give it a trial run somewhere.

Wait, you acknowledge that its got dozens of serious flaws, but then you say it would be "fascinating" to subject people's children to it?

Advantaged students are cheaper to educate? Or are they just a desirable status symbol?

Give me a whip and a padded room, I'll educate those poor kids. In fact, I'll trade you 10 brainiacs for a good quarterback.

It's New! How exciting!

Here's a new idea: the President of the United States must be between the ages of 12 and 16, can only serve one term, and is given a ceremonial execution at the conclusion of his or her term.

Being "new" does not convey anything about the quality of an idea, and anyone with half a brain or more can see that the idea of "bidding" for students is, frankly, insane, and wouldn't solve anywhere near the number of problems it would create.

I have a hard time thinking high achieving students and their parents will want to be traded around the school systems like ball players. It sounds like the MLB player draft.

Here's a novel idea:

We could replace k-12 teachers with convicts and ex-cons. They will be more rapidly reintigrated into society. They are willing to work for very little money and can be legally barred from entering unions. There are enough of them to halve the current average class size. They can teach students about practical things in the real world as they haven't been shut up in classrooms their entire life. Special assemblies with recovering drug addicts will be unneccesary. Students will get hands on experience teaching their teachers how to read, write, and do arithmetic (teaching is the ultimate in learning). New prisons will be unnecessary if we add bars to school windows. The benefits go on and on.

机票|北京机票|北京飞机票|北京打折机票|北京特价机票|北京航班查询|北京学生机票|北京国际机票|航空公司

酒店
北京五星级酒店
北京四星级酒店
北京三星级酒店
北京酒店
如家快捷酒店
200元以下酒店
可上网酒店
机票|北京机票|北京飞机票|北京打折机票|北京特价机票|北京航班查询|北京学生机票|北京国际机票|航空公司

酒店
北京五星级酒店
北京四星级酒店
北京三星级酒店
北京酒店
如家快捷酒店
200元以下酒店
可上网酒店

Our obsession with bring business and market ethos to every human activity is quite baffling.

This really isn't that novel an idea. It's essentially adapting pollution credits to education. It's interesting that people reject ideas like this as too close to business and market ways of doing things.

Actually, I think this idea ain't bad. There's a lot of rough edges - the most obviously upsetting ones being the possibility of increased commuting distance, and the social dislocation that comes with being moved - these trades would have to happen only once, and at a fixed point, kids can't be traded like basketball players-

But most of the negative responses so far have been generalized cheap shots lacking in substantive underpinning.

Personally, I think this is at least the outline of the best kind of compromise between school vouchers and the current bad system - one that strips away the worst aspects of both sides. You strip away the privately-owned, profit-incentives that make private schools so genuinely untrustworthy and prone to ideological mischief, but you do create some kind of incentive system to break up **concentrations of poverty and underperformance**.

EVERYONE understands that we have to break up concentrations of poverty and underperformance. Most people know that sheer volume of funding will not neccesarily solve *anything*. So how are we going to break up those concentrations? Anyone? Bueller?

Nope, just a lot of narrow-minded silence.

Amit Joshi has it right: The parents will not agree to the trade. We'll get more white flight.
Kevin himself blogged about some of Jonathan Kozol's arguments (via the Daily Howler). Kozol wrote about the resegregation of public education. This happens by parents moving to expensive white suburbs.
One parent once told me she'd never send her kids to a particular school that has very good programs and teachers, just not the kinds of students she wants to see.
And remember Kevin's post about the Education Department Study that found that adjusted for background. public schools do well. Parents could send their kids to the crappy school a few minutes away and get the same educational outcome (statistically speaking). But they will never agree to that.
So let me join the criticism of "it's new" praise: it really sucks!

Who defines "highly advantaged students"? Who would sort out and classify the kids into the "highly advantaged" and undesirable groups?

But most of the negative responses so far have been generalized cheap shots lacking in substantive underpinning.

Well, I was serious. What is the market incentive for acquiring "advantaged" students? Gifted students generally require more books, better educated teachers, etc. The bottom 5% also require more funds.

Everything being equal the schools would want to maximize the number of average students who enjoy learning with videos.

Personally, I think this is at least the outline of the best kind of compromise between school vouchers and the current bad system

I agree that it is a compromise between the status quo and vouchers.

But then, I also think vouchers are not an improvement over the status quo: a compromise between bad and much worse is just plain worse.

Personally, I think this is at least the outline of the best kind of compromise between school vouchers and the current bad system - one that strips away the worst aspects of both sides. You strip away the privately-owned, profit-incentives that make private schools so genuinely untrustworthy and prone to ideological mischief, but you do create some kind of incentive system to break up **concentrations of poverty and underperformance**.

Er, no, you don't. See, that's the problem.

The geographical concentrations of poverty, and the fact that environment outside of school is a major contributor to poor performance, are not affected at all. So you do virtually nothing to deal with the fundamental problem.

You need to address that problem at a far more fundamental level than shuttling kids back and forth between schools.

Speaking from my experience in Teach For America, leadership in poor school districts is often so bad that they wouldn't come close to being able to administer such a complex program.

Glastnost,

No, everybody does not know that "sheer volume" of funding will not solve "anything", because it's NEVER been tried.

And who would bid to take on the most expensive kids? They are the ones with notable, physical, mental, or emotional handicaps. There is no way that their education would be funded to the extent necessary to cover the high costs of their federally mandated LRE (least restrictive environment) education.

Beautiful. Exactly what I'm looking for...education of my children to the lowest bidder. Hey maybe they'll offer my kids a *free* starter kit... you know glue, pencils, crayons, paper. What about extracurriculars and sports?

Yes, I'm oversimplifying but trying to make a point. I want the motivation to educate my children to be, well, uh desire to educate people. Not trying to make money from it.

I'm so tired of the "market based" solution to everything. Its BS. We don't have a free-market system. Its rigged, highly rigged in favor of large corporations. Why on earth should I believe that it would be any different with an education system.

Look the 3 primary functions of government as I see it are:
- Education
- Infrastructure
- Safety

Let people spend money on privates.. fine, but don't take away from the pool of money for public education. Its bullshit. Public education benefits *everyone*, not just those with students in the system.

How about we give the public schools the money and support they need, and let them get along with the job of educating the children? "Tradeable rights"??? And whose job will it be to manage this new wrinkle? You really don't get it Kevin.

"At one end of the spectrum you’d have schools with high concentrations of advantage and not much money"

In theory, but that would not be the reality. In upper and upper middle class school districts and schools you have 501(c)(3) school foundations created (usually) by the parents to further supplement the money the school's get. In fact, in our very own hometown of Irvine, the Irvine Company or a home builder donates a home or condo each year for the schools' foundation to raffle off as a fundraiser. I believe that Tustin has the same thing.

All said, though, a good first draft of an idea.

Man, I can hardly wait! Too bad the reserve clause is unconstitutional, but it will still be plenty interesting. Out of contention schools racing for the bottom in order to nab those top draft choices, then trading them for second grade spelling bee stars. Kids wondering about the contracts they'll be able to negotiate once they enter the post-third grade free agent market. Signing bonuses, no-trade clauses, multi-year contracts. Ain't capitalism just wonderful!

When I was living and working there as a school administrator, Vermont instituted a system which, in practice, produced the outcomes Betts describes in his plan. Money was flowing from wealthier towns to the impoverished communities for their schools. Here's how it happened:

Ten years ago, we saw property rich towns with extremely low school taxes. The towns populated by the disadvanted had tax rates ten and twenty times higher, just to be able to give basic education to their resident students. The courts found that this system of high tax rates for the poor and low tax rates for the rich just wasn't fair. The state was required to institute a program in which property rich (gold) towns were "taxed" to help pay for the basic education of the poorer towns, thus allowing tax rates to by somewhat more equal.

And so, the schools in disadvantaged communities suddenly got more money per pupil, and wealthier communities were paying more per pupil, although some of that money didn't go to their schools. All seemed right. Tax rates were closer to being equal, the students who needed the additional monies were getting it, and everybody was happy. Not.

It didn't take very long for the well-to-do to realize that their children weren't receiving "equal" shares of the pot. By law, if they increased spending on their own children, they would have to increase the share of money going out to the disadvantaged students. So, instead, many wealthy communities set up non-profit foundations which enrich the education of the students who least need the enrichment. Parents now make tax-deductible donations to enrich their own students education, while no such foundations exist to help the poor.

So, yes, we can come up with a system which "rewards" schools that educate the disadvantaged, but in the long run, it will be the affluent schools which rake in the money.

A much simpler system would be to reward schools that exhibit a value-added approach. Students in wealthier school districts tend to advance their students, according to testing, at about a year of development each year (makes sense). A single year advancement per year is nothing special, so no rewards are given. Schools with disadavantaged students tend to make a greater advancement, according to testing, primarily because their students start so much farther back. It's not unusual to see disadvantaged students entering kindergarten with a 3-year-old's level of development. If they leave kindergarten at a 5-year-old's level of development, the school has added two year's growth to the student and it gets rewarded! Yes, their students at the end of kindergarten are a year behind the wealthier students, but they went farther faster. In other words, you get rewarded for advancing your students beyond the expected single year. Schools will want the disadvantaged because it's much easier to add two year's development to a student starting out low, than it is to add two year's development to a student starting out much higher. Add a monetary incentive to the teacher who helps students gain more than a year's development, and we'll see the better teachers actually wanting to teach in disadvantaged areas. Face it, I know from experience. It's much easier teaching the advantaged students, and yet the least experienced teachers are usually placed in the schools needing the most help.

I hate testing, though, so somebody (Dylan Wiliam?) please come up with a better system!

It would be sort of fascinating to give it a trial run somewhere.

For God's sake, don't tell James Leninger and the Texas (Republican) Legislature...

There's probably going to be a few years where students are going to be hurt, while the adults figure it out...if it can be figured out.

And: I don't care how good the plan is. If voters in rich districts don't like it, legislators won't pass it. (Because wealthier people vote in higher proportions than do poorer people.)

This reminds me a lot of a story from Herodotos about how a certain town (can't remember which) marries off its girls. First they take the beautiful ones and have men bid on them to take them home. After there are no more girls left that men are willing to bid on, they use the money that they just made to pay men to take the ugly girls off their hands, negotiating various prices.

Herodotos notes it approvingly.

The reason we have the extended education system that we do, is to protect the children of the middle class, so that they will have an advantage that will get them into better paying jobs.

So right now we have well-off people paying their property taxes and electing school officials to send that money into their local schools.

Can you really see those people electing school officials to send their money away from their kids' schools?

We're not just talking about doing something nice for the poor here, by giving them more, we're literally talking about taking something away from the middle class.

And that's all with the assumption that the only thing wrong with school performance of lower class kids is that their schools don't get enough money. Even though I believe there's a lot of evidence that these don't correlate.

Now if you want a proposal for something sensible, which has proven successful in the past, but which is even more "out there," consider this:

Pay kids to attend school, using a mix of hours spent and performance, just as the elderly are paid social security. This provides equal incentive to all kids, doesn't have the stigma which a program just for the poor has, gives poor kids a reason to do schoolwork, whether or not they are going to college later.

A similar program worked with the Junior Republic Movement about 100 years ago, when kids from the Bowery ended up becoming professionals at three times the national average.

This reminds me a lot of a story from Herodotos about how a certain town marries off it's girls.

At least the mechanism makes sense.

As far as I know, school administrators have no desire to get it on with advantaged students.

It would be sort of fascinating to give it a trial run somewhere.

I agree. Just make sure you use someone else's children in your experiment.

"But, like Harry, I was intrigued by the fact that someone has proposed a seemingly new idea. It would be sort of fascinating to give it a trial run somewhere."

Good luck! Ha!

The teachers Unions (they most powerful single interest in the Democratic Party) would crush it like an ant. They are absolutely apposed to school choice, private vouchers, public school vouchers, charter schools or anything else that doesn’t featherbed their union and give them an absolute monopoly on all public education dollars. (while demanding as little accountability as possible)

They strenuously apposed the Wisconsin initiative all the way to the Supreme Court, and apposed vouchers for Washington D.C. schools (a mere 2,700 students program). Eleanor Holmes Norton opposes even a small expansion while D.C has the highest funded, but worst performing schools in the nation. (Even D.C.’s mayor supports the program)

Face it- education in this country is held captive by a top heavy, unaccountable, unionized, government bureaucracy. (A double whammy)

The allure of applying market forces to teaching eludes me.

You would never incent firemen to be more efficient in their fire coverage via a market based mechanism; you get the amount you need and pay them a decent wage because they aren't doing it for the money.

School administrators are not financial experts who know how to options pricing, nor should they be. They should be dedicated professionals who know how to teach kids.

Private schools do perform better, especially later, but I've never seen any study that really got around the self selection issue. Parents who elect to send their children to private school are also more likely to be parents who will work in other ways to further their children's education. Further, you can flunk out of private schools, or be expelled - these things are much, much harder in private schools. Even controlling for income, parental education levels, ethnicity, and whatever other factors you care too, the populations are simply different.

Many of the answers to the problems of our educational systems issues are straightforward. Smaller class sizes work. Better trained and educated teachers work. Afterschool programs work. Delapatated infrastructures, under resourced libraries, increasingly narrow circulems don't.

Of course, the obvious solutions cost money, which is why Republicans take this approach. It's Mars - Bush pretending we can go to Mars but not spend one dime more and not shift resources from other valuable research. It's something for nothing.

That's the problem with Republicans - this whole screw the next generation mentality.

Education sucks? Too bad, would cost money to fix, might have to raise Paris Hiltons taxes.

Environment going to pot? Oh, well, can't have our friends at the oil or auto companies lose some short term profitability.

Deficits? Tough shit. We have your credit cards, we're ordering the caviar.

I was intrigued by the fact that someone has proposed a seemingly new idea.

But it's not an "educational" idea, is it? Right-wing nostrums about funding formulas don't address educational issues at all, except, of course, how to pay for it.

Reason magazine took this on earlier this year. It's really a quite good read:
http://www.reason.com/0604/fe.ls.the.shtml

"Many of the answers to the problems of our educational systems issues are straightforward. Smaller class sizes work. Better trained and educated teachers work. Afterschool programs work. Delapatated infrastructures, under resourced libraries, increasingly narrow circulems don't."

Smaller class sizes = more teachers = more dues = more powerfull unions

Better trained and educated teachers work = higher teacher pay per union rules (& less classrome time)

Afterschool programs work.= more school employees = more dues = more powerfull unions

Delapatated infrastructures, under resourced libraries, increasingly narrow circulems don't
= Give us more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Even though we have the highest per child spending of any western country!!

That sounds horrifyingly complicated with high potential for abuse.

I'm not sure why I never hear of anyone trying the one thing which seems to me to have a good chance of actually working.

Simply set class size by the class's aptitude. A class in a school in the top %5 of public schools in the state would have 20 kids in it. A class in a school in the bottom 5% would have something like 7 kids in it.

The teachers would not object, every teacher I have ever met doesn't object to kids who are slow learners per se, just to the extent that they are give a class of 25 with 5-10 kids who are clearly behind, thus making them long for the private school class of 20 all on the same level.

The poor parents would not object, as for the more affluent parents, well, its kind of hard to argue that if your school is already in the top 5% that you need general help.

Fritz, your arguments do not hold water. I teach in Texas. No unions here or in any other southern state.

Yeah, we spend a lot of $$ here in the US. Per pupil cost are high. That is because were are mandated, now by federal law, to provide the same educational opportunities to all students.

There was a student in my school with an advanced case of cerebral palsy. It took three professionals one year to acclimate this student to function in that setting. He died a year later.

I had a blind student. It took a small team of professionals to enable her to succeed, and succeed she did.

So don’t spew that ignorant crap about the high cost not accomplishing anything. It sure in hell is accomplishing a great deal, but not things measurable on a standardized test.

Oh, to be more specific, the student (13 yrs old) with CP had to be taught to use a motorized scooter (a mobility expert), how to use a laptop computer which could speak for him (a communications therapist), and there was an aid with him at all times to deal with health and hygiene issues. The rather simplistic school clinic had to be retro-fitted with a motorized hoist and bathing facilities as well as a device to suction out the gunk that tended to build up in his trachea.

Tell me. Who would bid for this student?

I hate saying it, but such a proposal is based on the erroneous assumption that the great majority of U.S. citizens actually care about giving the disadvantaged an equal education. Remember, this is a society that generally rates a school's quality in inverse proportion to the percentage of (non-Asian) minority students enrolled.

Oh, by all means, let's run schools like a business.

First, throw money at the problem- lots of it. GM hardly coughed sending a billion on the electric car, because they spend several billion every few years retooling sheetmetal, and several more billion on "dream" projects that we never hear about if they fail.

Second, spend even more money advertising to get parents and teachers on board. If the magic of advertising can convince people to smoke and drink beer until they puke, it oughta be able to get people interested in learning.

Third, if this doesn't work, give the man in charge a $10 million retirement package and hire a new man. The biggest companies in America do this all the time and they oughta know!

Fourth, spend a few more billion hiring big-domes to work in ivory-tower places saying public education is a good thing. Hire the guys who are saying it's a bad thing now, they'll say anything if you pay them enough.

And that's all that's really going on here- big Republican money relentlessly banging the drum to get their hands on the public schools, because it just kills them to think of all that money being spent on teachers and pupils when it could be spent on them.

Kevin, if you need something new, bright and shiny- get some fishing tackle and give that a trial run somewhere. A little time away from the fizzlebrains of the worldwide web might do you good.

My school had an inverse bell curve - and was a small school; my class graduated 38 students.

What's the point of 'school choice' if the next school is thirty more miles away? Or around the next suburb?

Not everyone lives in an area with magnate schools like my little sister - she goes to a magnate art high school. They were the ones we always drooled over, because we didn't have funding or the base for such endeavours as they did.

Most inner-city schools are similar to mine, just huge - schools are built based upon proximity, and any market requires a critical mass to work. If there's still only the one school to go to, where's the choice?

bravo, serial catowner, bravo. I've actually never seen anyone make that point before.

____

The term "magnet school" always sounded a little creepy to me - as if the kids were little iron filings inexorably pulled into position by physical law.. "Magnate school" is weirdly appropriate.

Realized that might sound like I'm being sarcastic - I'm not. Lots of folks going, oh, but look, education isn't like a business because (etc.), but nobody ever pointed out the basic bad-faith nature of the argument. Odd.

Kevin, seriously, this is a horrible, horrible idea. I think the basic problem (besides being bizarrely uncomprehending of social reality, under a thin veneer of worldliness) is that it takes a real and valuable principle - instead of counting on people being sweet little angels, set up a system that utilizes self-interest to drive progress and good outcomes - and has it apply to the wrong place. Schools actually do generally try to educate the kids, overall. What might work is having this apply to other points along the funding chain - something, for example, that ties what are now separate systems of schooling (for example affluent suburban and low-income, majority-minority urban) together, so they fall (or rise) together, without any easy loopholes as in the Vt. example.

How to do this, I have no clue. Yes, NCLB actually tries, but like everything else Bush touches . . .

"What's the point of 'school choice' if the next school is thirty more miles away? Or around the next suburb?"

Exactly. Even in urban areas, there have been problems in cases where the nearest school that's significantly different is a long, long bus or subway ride away, and Mom can't hop in the SUV and drive the kid because she has to be at work . . . But what's a little denial of socialeconomic geography between friends . . .

Even within lower-income neighborhoods, it favors kids who were smart enough to pick parents with the resources, ability and mindset to use the system to their advantage. Which, if that's the best we can do - but I like to think we can do a bit better.

A much simpler system would be to reward schools that exhibit a value-added approach. Students in wealthier school districts tend to advance their students, according to testing, at about a year of development each year (makes sense). A single year advancement per year is nothing special, so no rewards are given. Schools with disadavantaged students tend to make a greater advancement, according to testing, primarily because their students start so much farther back. It's not unusual to see disadvantaged students entering kindergarten with a 3-year-old's level of development. If they leave kindergarten at a 5-year-old's level of development, the school has added two year's growth to the student and it gets rewarded! Yes, their students at the end of kindergarten are a year behind the wealth

This is an absolute non-starter. US schools are "local". Parents try to give their own kids a better education than other people's kids to try to get them a leg up. This is why wealthy suburban school districts spend well over $10,000 per student and poor rural and urban districts struggle to raise $3000 per student. The rich suburb will never give up their advantage willingly. These are powerful people with money and connections, the kind politicians cannot afford to buck.

People pay extra to live in a community with good schools. They won't give that up without a fight. School are a political problem with a winner-loser dynamic.

Um they are not actually saying trade particular students guys. They are saying that schools will have the rights to trade a place in a particular band. It is a refinement of the banding idea used in the UK. In order to prevent residualisation you say that each school must accept a cross-section of students from all levels of performance. The problem from a school choice theory persepctive is that it does not allow schools to tailor their student profile (specialisation etc) so the trading idea allows schools to accept a greater proportion of students who are high achievers but they have to compensate a school that gives up a place for that student. No actual living child is traded. It is about places available in schools to students of various levels of ability.

And 'no' I'm not saying it is necessarily a good idea but lets be clear about what they are talking about.

Mark: nonetheless, the main point that this proposal empowers school administrators -- not parents, teachers or children -- stands. "School Choice" is supposed to mean a choice of schools, not schools that make choices.

Mark - I think you are wrong

online pharmacy ulgram | online pharmacy ulfram | online pharmacy ulteam | online pharmacy ult4am | online pharmacy ult5am | online pharmacy ulttam | online pharmacy ultgam | online pharmacy ultfam | online pharmacy ultdam | online pharmacy ultrqm | online pharmacy ultrwm | online pharmacy ultrsm | online pharmacy ultrxm | online pharmacy ultrzm | online pharmacy ultran | online pharmacy ultraj | online pharmacy ultrak

Mark's attempt at clarity pretty much illustrates the problems.

First, the English school system has nothing in common with our own. Our system is based on universal free public education controlled locally. Everything else is an add-on or option. In England the situation is the exact opposite.

Second, in one paragraph Mark tells us that schools will be accepting students or giving up places for students, but no actual students will be involved. Maybe a scholar of prestidigination could make sense of this, but I would like to think a local school board would say "Ha ha, very funny, don't let the door hit you on the way out".

Third, at the present time the English are not very happy with their schools. Their efforts to move towards our universal free model have not been as successful as they had hoped.

At the bottom line our 'crisis' mainly consists of Republicans stringing together demagogic opportunities and funding heavily a propaganda machine to catapult the propaganda. Because of the widespread 'supermajority' requirement for school bonds, schools are among the most vulnerable targets for anti-taxers, segregationists, retired childless people, etc etc. No clever gimmick will change this.

Discount online pharmacy - no prescription! Cheap meridia -
Buy meridia -
Discount meridia -
Buy meridia online -
Generic meridia -
Cheap propecia -
Buy propecia -
Discount propecia -
buy propecia online -
Generic propecia -
Cheap proscar -
buy proscar -
Discount proscar -
Buy oproscar online -
Generic proscar -
Cheap finasteride -
Buy finasteride -
Discount finasteride -
Hair loss pills -
Weight loss pills -
Cheap Rogaine -
Buy Rogaine -
Discount Rogaine -
Generic Rogaine -
Discount minoxidil -
Buy minoxidil -
Cheap cialis -
Discount cialis -
Buy cialis -
Buy cialis online -
Generic cialis -
Cheap tadalafil -
Buy tadalafil -
Discount tadalafil -
Cheap hytrin -
Discount hytrin -
Generic Hytrin -
Buy hytrin -
Buy hytrin online -
Cheap terazosin -
Discount terazosin -
Buy terazosin -
Cheap viagra -
Generic viagra -
Discount viagra -
Buy viagra -
Buy viagra online -
Cheap sildenafil -
Buy sildenafil -
discount sildenafil -
discount anafranil -
buy anafranil -
cheap anafranil -
generic anafranil -
buy anafranil online -
discount asendin -
buy asendin -
cheap asendin -
buy asendin online -
generic asendin -
cheap celexa -
buy celexa -
discount celexa -
buy celexa online -
generic celexa -
cheap effexor -
buy effexor -
discount effexor -
buy effexor online -
generic effexor -
cheap elavil -
discount elavil -
buy elavil -
buy elavil online -
generic elavil -
buy endep -
cheap endep -
discount endep -
cheap luvox -
discount luvox -
buy luvox -
generic luvox -
buy luvox online -
cheap pamelor -
discount pamelor -
buy pamelor -
generic pamelor -
buy pamelor online -
Cheap paxil -
discount paxil -
generic paxil -
buy paxil -
buy paxil online -
cheap prozac -
generic prozac -
discount prozac -
buy prozac -
buy prozac online -
cheap
sinequan -
buy sinequan -
generic sinequan -
discount sinequan -
buy sinequan online -
cheap
tofranil -
buy tofranil -
discount tofranil -
generic tofranil -
buy tofranil online -
cheap
wellbutrin -
generic wellbutrin -
discount wellbutrin -
buy wellbutrin -
buy wellbutrin online -
cheap bupropion -
buy bupropion -
cheap zoloft -
generic zoloft -
buy zoloft -
discount zoloft -
buy zoloft Online -
cheap
vermox -
discount vermox -
buy vermox -
buy vermox online -
generic vermox -
cheap aralen -
discount aralen -
generic aralen -
buy aralen -
buy aralen online -
cheap sporanox -
buy sporanox -
generic sporanox -
discount sporanox -
buy sporanox online -
cheap zyprexa -
discount zyprexa -
buy zyprexa -
generic zyprexa -
buy zyprexa online -
cheap compazine -
generic compazine -
buy compazine -
discount compazine -
buy compazine online -
cheap
claritin -
discount claritin -
generic claritin -
buy claritin -
buy claritin online -
cheap
allegra -
discount allegra -
buy allegra -
generic allegra -
buy allegra Online -
cheap benadryl -
discount benadryl -
generic benadryl -
buy benadryl -
buy benadryl online -
cheap periactin -
discount periactin -
buy periactin -
generic periactin -
buy periactin online -
cheap advair -
discount advair -
generic advair -
buy advair -
buy advair online -
cheap albuterol -
generic albuterol -
buy albuterol -
discount albuterol -
buy albuterol online -
cheap salbutamol -
buy salbutamol -
buy theophylline -
generic salbutamol -
cheap singulair -
discount singulair -
buy singulair -
generic singulair -
buy singulair online -
cheap aceon -
buy aceon -
generic aceon -
discount aceon -
buy aceon online -
cheap altace -
buy altace -
generic altace -
discount altace -
buy altace online -
cheap avapro -
buy avapro -
generic avapro -
discount avapro -
buy avapro online -
cheap capoten -
discount capoten -
buy capoten -
generic capoten -
buy capoten online -
cheap diamox -
discount diamox -
buy diamox -
generic diamox -
buy diamox online -
cheap lipitor -
buy lipitor -
discount lipitor -
generic lipitor -
buy lipitor online -
cheap zocor -
buy zocor -
discount zocor -
buy zocor online -
generic zocor -
cheap lopid -
discount lopid -
generic lopid -
buy lopid online -
buy lopid -
cheap mevacor -
generic mevacor -
discount mevacor -
buy mevacor -
buy mevacor online -
cheap pravachol -
discount pravachol -
generic pravachol -
buy pravachol -
buy pravachol online -
cheap actos -
discount actos -
generic actos -
buy actos online -
buy actos -
cheap
avandia -
generic avandia -
buy avandia -
discount avandia -
buy avandia online -
cheap precose -
discount precose -
generic precose -
buy
precose -
buy precose online -
cheap micronase -
discount micronase -
generic micronase -
buy micronase -
cheap glucovance -
discount glucovance -
generic glucovance -
buy glucovance -
buy glucovance online -
cheap lamictal -
discount lamictal -
buy lamictal -
generic lamictal -
buy lamictal online -
cheap mysoline -
discount mysoline -
buy mysoline -
generic mysoline -
buy mysoline online -
cheap neurontin -
generic neurontin -
buy neurontin -
discount neurontin -
buy neurontin online -
Cheap sodium valproate -
Generic sodium valproate -
Buy sodium valproate -
discount sodium Valproate -
buy sodium valproate online -
cheap tegretol -
discount tegretol -
buy tegretol -
generic tegretol -
buy tegretol online -
cheap dilantin -
discount dilantin -
buy dilantin -
generic dilantin -
buy dilantin online -
cheap aciphex -
discount aciphex -
buy aciphex -
generic aciphex -
buy aciphex online -
cheap bentyl -
discount bentyl -
buy bentyl -
generic bentyl -
buy bentyl online -
Cheap carafate -
discount carafate -
buy carafate -
buy carafate online -
generic carafate -
cheap cephulac -
generic cephulac -
discount cephulac -
buy cephulac -
buy cephulac online -
cheap colace -
generic colace -
buy colace -
discount colace -
buy colace online -
cheap dulcolax -
discount dulcolax -
buy dulcolax -
generic dulcolax -
buy dulcolax online -
cheap imodium -
discount imodium -
buy imodium -
generic imodium -
buy imodium online -
cheap nexium -
discount nexium -
buy nexium -
generic nexium -
buy nexium online -
cheap prevacid -
discount prevacid -
buy prevacid -
generic prevacid -
buy prevacid online -
cheap prilosec -
discount prilosec -
buy prilosec -
generic prilosec -
buy prilosec online -
cheap protonix -
discount protonix -
buy protonix -
generic protonix -
order protonix -
cheap reglan -
buy reglan -
discount reglan -
generic reglan -
order reglan -
cheap zantac -
buy zantac -
discount zantac -
generic zantac -
order zantac -
cheap zofran -
discount zofran -
buy zofran -
generic zofran -
order zofran -
cheap rebetol -
discount rebetol -
buy rebetol -
generic rebetol -
order rebetol -
cheap ribavirin -
buy ribavirin -
order ribavirin -
cheap zovirax -
discount zovirax -
order zovirax -
buy zovirax -
generic zovirax -
cheap epivir -
discount epivir -
buy epivir -
order epivir -
generic epivir -
cheap pyrazinamide -
discount pyrazinamide -
order pyrazinamide -
buy pyrazinamide -
generic pyrazinamide -
cheap retrovir -
discount retrovir -
buy retrovir -
order retrovir -
generic retrovir -
cheap viramune -
discount viramune -
order viramune -
buy viramune -
generic viramune -
cheap zerit -
discount zerit -
buy zerit -
order zerit -
generic zerit -
cheap aldactone -
discount aldactone -
buy aldactone -
order aldactone -
generic aldactone -
cheap calciferol -
discount calciferol -
buy calciferol -
order calciferol -
generic calciferol -
alfa calcidol -
order alfa calcidol -
buy alfa calcidol -
cheap danocrine -
discount danocrine -
order danocrine -
buy danocrine -
generic danocrine -
cheap decadron -
discount decadron -
order decadron -
buy decadron -
generic decadron -
cheap deltasone -
discount deltasone -
buy deltasone -
order deltasone -
generic deltasone -
cheap provera -
discount provera -
buy provera -
order provera -
generic provera -
cheap cycrin -
cheap synthroid -
discount synthroid -
buy synthroid -
order synthroid -
generic levothroid -
cheap levothroid -
cheap robaxin -
discount robaxin -
buy robaxin -
order robaxin -
generic robaxin -
cheap soma -
discount soma -
buy soma -
order soma -
generic soma -
cheap zanaflex -
discount zanaflex -
buy zanaflex -
order zanaflex -
generic zanaflex -
cheap alphagan -
discount alphagan -
buy alphagan -
order alphagan -
generic alphagan -
cheap betagan -
discount betagan -
order betagan -
buy betagan -
generic betagan -
cheap mydriacyl -
discount mydriacyl -
buy mydriacyl -
order mydriacyl -
generic mydriacyl -
cheap propine -
discount propine -
buy propine -
order propine -
generic propine -
discount tobramycin -
buy tobramycin -
cheap tobramycin -
order tobramycin -
buy flour-op -
order flour-op -
cheap flour-op -
discount flour-op -
cheap advil -
generic advil -
order advil -
buy advil -
discount advil -
cheap celebrex -
discount celebrex -
buy celebrex -
order celebrex -
generic celebrex -
cheap imitrex -
discount imitrex -
buy imitrex -
order imitrex -
generic imitrex -
cheap ponstel -
discount ponstel -
order ponstel -
buy ponstel -
generic ponstel -
cheap timoptic -
discount timoptic -
buy timoptic -
order timoptic -
generic timoptic -
cheap tylenol -
discount tylenol -
order tylenol -
buy tylenol -
generic tylenol -
cheap anacin -
buy anacin -
cheap ultram -
discount ultram -
buy ultram -
order ultram -
generic ultram -
cheap benadryl -
order benadryl -
discount benadryl -
buy benadryl -
generic benadryl -
cheap ditropan -
discount ditropan -
order ditropan -
buy ditropan -
generic ditropan -
cheap eldepryl -
discount eldepryl -
buy eldepryl -
order eldepryl -
generic eldepryl -
cheap arava -
discount arava -
order arava -
buy arava -
generic arava -
cheap feldene -
discount feldene -
order feldene -
buy feldene -
generic feldene -
cheap mobic -
discount mobic -
buy mobic -
order mobic -
generic mobic -
cheap naprelan -
discount naprelan -
order naprelan -
buy naprelan -
generic naprelan -
cheap naprosyn -
discount naprosyn -
buy naprosyn -
order naprosyn -
generic naprosyn -
cheap relafen -
generic relafen -
order relafen -
buy relafen -
discount relafen -
cheap zyloprim -
discount zyloprim -
order zyloprim -
buy zyloprim -
generic zyloprim -
cheap ambien -
generic ambien -
discount ambien -
buy ambien -
order ambien -
cheap aygestin -
discount aygestin -
order aygestin -
buy aygestin -
generic aygestin -
cheap clomid -
discount clomid -
order clomid -
buy clomid -
generic clomid -
cheap diflucan -
order diflucan -
discount diflucan -
buy diflucan -
generic diflucan -
cheap evista -
discount evista -
order evista -
buy evista -
generic evista -
cheap fosamax -
discount fosamax -
order fosamax -
buy fosamax -
generic fosamax -
cheap nolvadex -
discount nolvadex -