So an intellectual lightweight with no background in education policy riffs for a few superficial paragraphs and you declare it a "thorough and righteous demolition of the anti-voucher forces"?

You do know that education policymaking is best done with actual evidence?

For the record, I am pro-voucher, in certain cases. But, more importantly, I am pro-evidence.

This is a decent blog, but this is an incredibly shallow entry.

Though, in fairness, not nearly as shallow as McArdle saying, "Having a public school system seems like a dumb goal to me." Is she 14 years old?

I don't know that charter schools are any great panacea either, Kevin. I think they're a great idea, but up here in Northern California there's been a few instances where the organization behind this or that charter school runs into trouble with exactly the kind of oversight you cite with vouchers. The rules on how and where you have to spend money in the classroom are arcane to the point of nuttiness, and school boards can use these rules to make life miserable for the charter school administrators when they feel so inclined. Or maybe I should say that they can be rigorous in applying such oversight. And if/when school boards perceive the charter school as taking resources away from established schools, things can get ugly.

And yet, despite its thoroughness, it somehow fails to address the single biggest problem with school vouchers: oversight.

Actually they do address oversight with the best oversight of all: the free market. Through the oversight of the free market, parents will choose schools which work the best while rejecting those that fail. So vouchers, through the oversight of the free market, are able to ensure the most money goes to the best schools.

Cole: You do realize that my post was a criticism of Megan, right?

Pinson: Sure, I agree. But nothing is a panacea. We just have to muddle through as best we can, and do our best to keep the rules reasonable while still demanding that taxpayer dollars be subject to oversight.

I particularly like her claim that building more schools is a lot like building more ipods. What do we do with the kids who can't get into to existing private schools...which would be most of them?

And her reply to the big claim "that it doesn't work" is "Look behind you! Teachers' Unions!"

Yup, this is some awesome policy analysis.

Please stop drinking the Education-is-easy-if-we-just-tweak-it-the-right-way koolaid.

If that rant, stating among other things that public schools are a "dumb goal", impresses you, then you have some work to do.

We need more teachers in the classroom and fewer bureaucrats, consultants and pundits. And it ain't cheap.

Contrary to popular wisdom money does help.

The charter school-voucher movement is basically a scam. The argument is that American schools perform much worse that schools around the world. But most of those superior foreign education systems are composed of government, not private schools.

Why the scam? Conservatives hate the public school system in the US because they believe it is dominated by liberals, unions, and bolated bureaucracies. The right way for them to change this would be to persuade public to outlaw the unions, get rid of the liberals, and drastically slash the bureaucracies.

But conservatives have never been able to get the public to agree to this, so they came up with the voucher-charter school plan as a way of destroying the public system without the public realizing it. Fortunately the scam is failing.

And isn't proselytizing what disturbs us the most about Arab countries? 8 hours a day, 6 days a week in Pakistan according to the CBS Evening News the other night. They call it education.

Means-testing vouchers solves the "subsidy for rich people" problem. But I'm against it for the same reason I'm against means-testing Social Security or any similar entitlement: it makes it a welfare program. And then it will be prey to demagogues (although from the tone of her post the woman who wrote this would probably think that's a good idea). And indeed unless the cut-offs were balanced very carefully, it would be clear to middle-class people that they could do better by cutting the system to the bone -- the voucher after all is what they get back after they've subsidized the education of people who can't afford it.

So, no sale.

Conservatives hate the public school system in the US because they believe it is dominated by liberals, unions, and bolated bureaucracies.

No--those are the euphemisms they use. They hate it because it lets in minorities.

Odd reading, Kevin. For one example, "9) I don't want my tax dollars used to pay for religious education Waaaaaaah. The fundamentalist down the block doesn't want his tax dollars used to pay for teaching evolution."

Kevin, we have a constitution and it seems to prohibit using government money for teaching religion, and does not prohibit using it for teaching science.

But as near as I can tell, this is anathema to people who run private schools. They won't accept any oversight, let alone the level of oversight that's inevitable with any widespread voucher program.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And therein lies the rub. Why should they when the rules they have to follow is part of the reason some public schools fail? Subjecting them to just some of the NCLB rules would decrease their effectiveness.

I am no fan of vouchers either. We need to address the reasons for the failures. One big one is a shortage of qualified teachers & another is the unwillingness of taxpayers to pay for necessary improvements. Here in Florida, we passed a voter initiative to cap class size statewide, which is being ignored because there is no money to pay for it. Of course, our Republican state government has passed several tax reductions since that vote. Eventually the courts will rule on it, & the state will be ordered to either cough up the dough or the amendment will be struck down. Meanwhile we are counting off the years until it happens. In the meantime, there are not enough available teachers to fill the positions that are currently funded.

In other words, our voters voted overwhelmingly to improve our schools, but also voted not pay for it. Go Figure.

Seriously, Kevin, I can't tell if you are kidding. That was certainly self-righteous, but also remarkably ignorant of the arguments against vouchers. We're in the middle of discussion right now in Utah and could very well pass a plan here that's the most expansive in the country. But her arguments seem to be with a whole slew of straw men. (I fit none of her "most people who argue against vouchers" category and I know no one who does fit that demographic, so do we have a good argument?

If she offered any substantive points, it might be worth knocking something down, but, really, her argument amounts to: Hey, why NOT give them a try? That's not an argument FOR making any particular change, however.

"Vouchers destroy the public school system
So? Having a public school system seems like a dumb goal to me, "

What? Wow.

And what Herman said.

Kevin, you need to read what you link to.

Though, in fairness, not nearly as shallow as McArdle saying, "Having a public school system seems like a dumb goal to me." Is she 14 years old?
Posted by: Cole Sear on October 29, 2007 at 8:39 PM |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why should we need public schools? She didn't. Did you miss where she went to one of the two best private schools in the country?

Like she commented once about voucher detractors, the value is: I got mine, screw you, buddy.

I will happily endorse vouchers the day the fundies pushing for them agree to standardized testing of students. If a student doesn't pass the test, the student doesn't get a high-school diploma. Who makes up the test? The same level of government that runs the voucher program. If a Bible-thumper in Arkansas wants my federal tax dollars to pay for his kid's education, I get a say on what "education" means.

Please note: if a fundamentalist's kid can pass a properly constructed biology test, I don't care if he "believes in" evolution, any more than I care whether he "believes in" trigonometry.

-- TP

Kevin - how about we require the schools to prove kids can read, write and add at a certain level to get the vouchers? We could call it the No Child Left Behind testing program. Would that be too outrageous? I know there will be Farrakan schools that enfuriate me, and traditional values schools that enfuriate you, but if the kids have the tools to think for themselves after 12 years I think we'll be better off than what the educational industrial complex is giving us now.

Don't anyone think it's odd that vouchers are only offered to urban school districts while other school districts (read: white) make certain that a voucher system is never on the table no matter what kind of financial or institutional crisis they are in?

'Tain't the schools; it's the kids.

All these school schemes are sort of like holding the police exclusively responsible for crime with no punishment for criminals whatsoever. Will never work. Have to have some element individual responsibility.

Kevin,

How would (education) vouchers be any different than, say, Medicare?

Isn't Medicare just a form of medical vouchers? I mean, with Medicare, you choose your doctor, but the government pays.

Why not just have a system where, like Medicare, you choose the school and the government pays. If we can make it work with healthcare, I don't see why we can't make it work with education.

Can I get a voucher for all of my taxpayer dollars that have been wasted on this illegal war in Iraq and all the mercenaries that I wanted no part of???

Kevin, shame on you. This is easily demolished tripe. The first one is patently dishonest. There are plenty of rigorous studies out now, from independent researchers, big fat N's. There isn't a single rigorous study that goes in the other direction.

Then this uneducated hack clown fully tips her hand on No. 5 -("So what if it destroys public schools?") Since when is there such a thing as a strong country or community with a weak public school system? Did I miss that memo?

This is just for openers.

Yeah, and for the Disclosure: My kids go to a kick-ass public school system. They're doing stuff I could only dream of as a kid. Much more is expected of kids, teachers - and us parents. But it's just so much interesting. And while my state is top ranked, being a long-time public educator/ed researcher / test developer / evaluator (so you can't bullshit me), by all accounts this is going on in numerous pockets around the U.S.

Although evidently not in California, Kevin. Sorry for that. I had another story just the other day of a buddy that moved from NY to Ca. - couldn't believe how bad California is now. Sad - for generations one of the three or four best.

Education is difficult to fix because students learn from their peers as well as from their teachers. Peers can be a positive or negative influence on learning and the learning environment. Even within a school there are peer groups that enhance learning and there are peer groups that distract from learning. Vouchers don't fix the problem. Vouchers provide a ticket out of a bad situation for some students, but leave their school worse off for the loss of the most talented students.

One problem with the idea that competition will improve schools is that schools are very often judged desirable or undesirable not because of the quality of the teaching but the quality of the students. Parents choose schools where their kids are less likely to encounter kids with problems (drugs, violence, bullying, etc.) Massive "white flight" from urban schools was not to escape from poor quality teaching.

MGO -

"How would (education) vouchers be any different than, say, Medicare?"

Depends on your assumption are. For medicine, the problem is access. We have good health care in the US, but many people can't afford it. Medicare gets people from zero medical care to highly qualified medical care.

In education, OTOH, my assumption is that the problem is the teachers, not the schools. Vouchers allow you to move around, sure, but they don't create better teachers. So, kids go from one school with teachers who can't teach them to another school with teachers who can't teach them.

For your medicare analogy to work, they'd have to be going from no school to school, which isn't the case.

Exactly backward. McArdle's post is a piece of crap and lack of oversight of private schools is a long way down the list of reasons to oppose vouchers.

If you're going to receive taxpayer dollars, then you have to agree to taxpayer oversight. ... It means that teacher union rules apply to you. It means you have a lot less authority to pick and choose which kids you're willing to accept.

On the second two, I think you are wrong. If the taxpayers had oversight, they probably would relax union rules and permit public schools greater authority to expel troublesome and non-learning students.

The first thing the Labour government did when taking over after a generation of Tory-led governments was to abolish vouchers. Vouchers sound very nice, but all they do is take money from the school systems that need it the most and give it to schools which need it the least. On top of that, those most who use the vouchers are those already paying to send their kids to private schools; in other words, it's like an instant tax cut for the wealthy.

Most good private schools (we're talking the Andovers and the Choates, as well as good day schools) have a whole lot of scholarship money that goes unspent each year. I have worked both public and private schools in my time, and I was unprepared for how difficult it was for private schools to attract good, deserving minority and poor students. We're talking millions of dollars in scholarships that go un-awarded each year.

I think charter schools are getting a bad rap right now. Yes, their scores are often lower than public schools, but that's sometimes the price we pay to experiment and find better ways of educating the young. In addition, they provide an outlet for parents who want a specific type of education for their children, whether it's back-to-the-basics, progressive techniques, or technology-based education.

Don't understand exactly what's supposed to be impressive about McCardle's arguments. Perhaps you should explain. No one is buying here. I saw very little evidence presented over there.

Ah, Kevin.

Private schools don't receive taxpayer dollars. That's why their called PRIVATE, get it, Drum? Or can't you fathomb that money can change hands without the dumb, overbearing hand of government muscling in on the prosposition?

Vouchers allow parents to maximize their choice. If we allow the genious of the market to determine how children get educated, we will reap the rewards of diversity and efficiency. Some schools will specialize in science, some will specialise in special needs, some will specialize in car mechanics, some will specialise in modelling. But you know what? It's definite that the liberal stranglehold on our children's minds will be much weakened. That alone is reason alone to vote for it.

Um, egbert? Do you not understand that if private schools took vouchers, they'd be receiving taxpayer dollars?

Schools fail because parents of kids at bad schools don't value education. Sorry, that's un-PC but it's largely true. Sure, there are exceptions. And in those cases motivated parents in low-income neighborhoods should be encouraged and allowed to send their kids to charter and magnet schools. But many parents of poor kids had such humiliating experiences themselves in school that they have no interest in school-searching in detail. That's certainly the case in East Tennessee where I live. Tenth-generation Appalachian folk are not about to send their kids to posh private schools. They won't even pay for standard issue public schools. I suspect the same is true for inner city neighborhoods.

The answer is to break through the eduphobia among many poor people and encourage communities to take over their schools from heartless bureaucrats, ideologues and poor teachers. Community-based activism will create a demand for better neighborhood schools and, in turn, more funding to the right places. Top-down "reform" - whether in the form of vouchers or with traditional centralized government programs - will always fail, as long as poor parents are not interested in the value of education.

I'm not for or against vouchers, but there are some false assumptions here about private schools. First, private schools already receive tax dollars in the form of goods, such as textbooks and materials. They just don't get unallocated cash. Also, the private schools I know teach according to state standards and have standardized testing that is the same as or equivalent to area public schools. They just don't have NCLB, which is a good thing, since most educators outside the Bush administration recognize it as a bad program. Finally, it is true that private school teachers are not unionized, but that can also be good, because it is easier to fire a bad, non-union teacher than a unionized one.

Please don't trick me into opening McArdle's site again. I know all you members of the blogging elite like to drive traffic to one another, but I for one don't want to read her.

"Though, in fairness, not nearly as shallow as McArdle saying, "Having a public school system seems like a dumb goal to me." Is she 14 years old?"

She said that EDUCATION was a good goal, public school systems aren't a good goal. That is the difference between means and ends.

And 'public' schools in the sense you all are talking about are pretty much a myth anyway. The people who can just whisk their kids away from the generally available schools. They send them to private schools when they can or public schools in super-rich neighborhoods. One way or another, their kids aren't having the same public school experience that everyone else has.

Charter schools will only work if their is a systemic way to distribute new information and methods to other schools -- and frankly, it can be done without handing over the rains to private corporations. You need to have the type of teacher in service training that allows teachers to visit schools and watch and learn best practices from others. This is at the core of what makes strong schools in Europe and Asia -- information sharing. If charter schools operate in a bubble and nothing ever gets out, students, the schools and the teachers -- as well as the community -- will not benefit.

Orwell,

Your mistake is the same as McCardle's. You create a false dilemma: either we do vouchers or we do nothing. The problem is that, for various reasons discussed here and researched significantly elsewhere, vouchers are simply not a solution to the problems. The fantasy that we'll have all these wonderful market driven schools appearing out of the ether, as if education is best driven by markets, has no basis in reality.

The truth is that lots of people are working on solutions to solve these problems through public education. Unfortunately, a lot of resources are spent fighting off "solutions" that will only make problems worse overall.

I'm with MaxGowan and Bloix. Based on your comments, I thought that McCardle would contain at least one credible argument or speck of evidence in favor of vouchers.

Orwell - vouchers would imply that they're getting their own money, plus more (from the general public, i.e. taxes).

If it was only their own money, they could already afford to send their kids to whatever school they wanted, and wouldn't need vouchers in the first place.

Her argument in #8 is that it can't harm the unsuccessful kids to lose the successful ones.

She avoids addressing the real issue - loss of funds that support a basic level of education for everyone - by constructing/destroying her own strawman about peer effects.

MaxGowan,

Believe it or not, California used to have one of the best public education systems in the country. The decline of California's public school system can be traced to 1977 when Proposition 13 was passed. Basically, this was a property tax initiative that required a supermajority (66%) to approve all tax measures - including increases in local funding for education(before, if you wanted to raise taxes for school, you only needed a simple majority). Growing up, I remember several occasions where school bonds in my hometown did not pass because they ONLY had 63% of the voter approval. Not surprisingly, California's test scores decreased substantially.

I don't mean to sound tin-foil hat conspiratorial, but the school voucher movement really picked up steam in the early 1990's when the effects of Proposition 13 were first being felt. At least, that is how it was in California. It is a classic case of: the schools don't get funded, they have more needs, the quality (as measured by test scores, etc.) goes down, then less people want to raise taxes because they feel they are throwing "their" money away.

...Some schools will specialize in science, some will specialise in special needs, some will specialize in car mechanics, some will specialise in modelling."

I guess egbert's science and car mechanics voucher schools will be in America while his special needs and modelling schools will be in England.

Come on, you are all being too harsh on Kevin. He wasn't really saying that MM had a great argument, he was just saying that her argument was better than YOURS, but not as good as HIS.

But, let's get real here. When MM got to the point where she stated that public education was a "dumb goal", that should have clued Kevin in that linking to her was a waste of time.

Kevin, file this one in the same place where you stuck, and then conveniently forgot, your original support of the Iraq war. One of the greatest lynch pins of our democracy stems from a century of commitment to Horace Mann's idea of public support for universal education. As, now, even the P.R.C. recognizes (until now, K-12 education in China has not been free for three thousand years) a strong public education system is the key to preventing ossified class differences in any nation where there is a tremendous gap between rich and poor.

You want a wealth-stratified society? Support vouchers and charter schools with public funds.
Vouchers and so-called 'charter schools' that draw on the public fisc weaken public education because our politicians have made education funding a zero sum game.

Let those who want to opt out pay the full fare for the religious or 'charter' or quasi-private 'charter' school of their choice, as they always have been free to do. But don't subsidize them with too-scarce public education dollars. That's as reactionary as privatizing Social Security.

Charter schools here in Tejas are (no surprise, given the past and current governors who have pushed them) are generally a fount of mismanagement, Kevin.

As for the regulatory angle, I've talked with a couple of libertarian friends who simply cannot (maybe will not) wrap their heads around the idea of regulatory oversight under a school voucher system.

You mention NCLB; that's not even touching on special education, ESL, and ADA admissions. Let's put private schools on a level playing field.

School vouchers are profoundly immoral. Everyone, including the people who can afford to send their children to private schools, needs to support public schools. They are a public good. They're the basis for our democracy, at least as it has evolved. People would spend their time a lot better if they stopped trying to institute school vouchers and instead worked toward laws that required states to pool education funds and spread them around fairly, without this rich-public-school, poor-public-school divide.

I think people who want school vouchers are mostly just rich and privileged people who can already afford public-school tuitions but want someone else to foot the bill. Then they tell stories about poor unfortunate but terribly bright ghetto children who will be forced to get terrible educations surrounded by dangerous gang members unless we start handing out school vouchers.

(And why oh why should we be spending money supporting crackpot religious schools that teach that the world was created in 7 days and evolution is a myth?)

Unless I can save enough money on school tuitions to pay for a 1,200 square foot pool pavilion, the terrorists have won.

" ... If you're going to receive taxpayer dollars ..."

This of course is the central fallacy of Kevin's little posting, and when it is exposed, the rest of it falls in a heap.

Vouchers are not "taxpayer dollars". They are, effectively, a rebate for those taxpayers who choose to not use taxpayer-funded schools. It is a basic fairness issue.

I think you're wrong on a very important point: Many, if not most, Americans would be happy to give schools voucher money with absolutely no oversight. That's why they think private schools are better in the first place, because they don't have to follow gov't rules.

I think people who want school vouchers are mostly just rich and privileged people who can already afford public-school tuitions but want someone else to foot the bill. Then they tell stories about poor unfortunate but terribly bright ghetto children who will be forced to get terrible educations surrounded by dangerous gang members unless we start handing out school vouchers. [posted by anon]

I think you're wrong on this. From my experiences on this issue (limited though they be) the real beneficiaries of vouchers are indeed the "ghetto" children who are currently required to attend inner city public schools that are educational nightmares and dangerous environments. Getting a chance to attend a private school, regardless of whether it's religious-founded or not, is appealing to low-income parents who are looking to provide a better foundation for their kids.

Maybe at some point, inner city schools can be "cleaned up" and made effective, but I don't see the will and determination of politicians and school boards to achieve that fix. Vouchers seem like a solid near-term solution for PARENTS.

Let's just deal with three arguments in a row that have various problems (sorry for lumping):

From "am"—>"Vouchers are not "taxpayer dollars". They are, effectively, a rebate for those taxpayers who choose to not use taxpayer-funded schools. It is a basic fairness issue."

Not even kind-of. This is like saying that you should get money back from the fire department because your house didn't catch on fire this year. Public schools are not a personal fee for your education. Everyone pays into this. So, no, these aren't "rebates." This is targeted re-channeling of money that would have been in a public school system being withdrawn by some taxpayers to subsidize their choice.

From "KathyF"—"I think you're wrong on a very important point: Many, if not most, Americans would be happy to give schools voucher money with absolutely no oversight. That's why they think private schools are better in the first place, because they don't have to follow gov't rules."

I don't know anyone (except maybe you) who thinks that "absolutely no oversight" would somehow improve education...or anything, for that matter. Oversight is fundamentally about accountability. You make it sound like private schools are some utopia where all good things come from simply removing public openness, but that's mostly just a fantasy. I've been in private school. My mother has taught at another for 20 years. The reality I've seen is entirely different.

From "pencarrow"— "I think you're wrong on this. From my experiences on this issue (limited though they be) the real beneficiaries of vouchers are indeed the "ghetto" children who are currently required to attend inner city public schools that are educational nightmares and dangerous environments. Getting a chance to attend a private school, regardless of whether it's religious-founded or not, is appealing to low-income parents who are looking to provide a better foundation for their kids.

Maybe at some point, inner city schools can be "cleaned up" and made effective, but I don't see the will and determination of politicians and school boards to achieve that fix. Vouchers seem like a solid near-term solution for PARENTS."

This is true to the extent that it's poor parents who have been led to believe that vouchers are an answer to their troubles. But much like the ridiculous plan put forth to "save" Social Security from its financial crunch by carving out even more money, vouchers merely distract us and make the problems worse.

Leaving the aside the fact that many, many poor people will never be able to afford to go to these private schools and many others will be denied access, there simply isn't any way to accommodate all these students. To remove finances and individual capital, especially those students and parents who can help invest in bettering the system will merely create a further stratified education system.

Vouchers are simply a really bad idea. But you're right—something needs to be done. Of course, an honest assessment of the actual problems might be more helpful. Let's look at how money is currently divided up between good and poor schools. Let's look at how we get parents more involved in their children's education. Let's help students deal with their difficult learning situations around and within school grounds. Let's give schools more flexibility to deal with their individual problems.

There are serious problems that need to be addressed. Vouchers isn't a solution to the problem.

God knows I don't hold McArdle in high esteem, but that has to be the stupidest dribble I've seen oozing from her computer. It is beyond stupid. In point number one she even admits vouchers don't work and then makes up reasons why she should continue to spout another three screenfuls of gibberish, lies and strawmen.

For someone that claims to know something about economics, she demonstrates ignorance of Veblen goods, public goods, barriers to entry and... well I'm just going to have to stop reading her ignorant rant now.

And, as I've pointed out in the past, one of the problems with the public school doom and gloomers is their inability to tell me by exactly which measure public schools are doing poorly. I remember chasing Yancey Ward all over the landscape as he hid behind one false claim after another.

Even without following recent studies ("that math, science, and reading test scores at the primary and secondary level have increased over the past two decades, and U.S. students are now close to the top of international rankings") I think it ignorant to blanket-slime U.S. public schools.

mcdruid:

Most conservatives who criticize public education, haven't set foot in a public school building in years and often don't have kids of their own. If you do visit public schools, you would be impressed (as I am) at how hard-working and self-sacrificing public school teachers are - often working 12 and 14 hour days and buying basic supplies like paper and writing material out of their own pockets, because asshole conservatives have defunded them.

Vouchers are an elitist, unAmerican idea - let's not forget it was Benjamin Franklin who advocated public education as the great equalizer of American society and a step away from the feudal system of Victorian England, where only the wealthy got a decent education. And don't let these assholes tell you it is about "choice". Most school districts allow you to open-enroll your kid anywhere you choose. It is about getting taxpayer subsidies to fund a narrow, religious or socioeconomic preference and it is WRONG!!!

The author claims to have a first rate education but her writing is childish and simplistic. She claims that you can simply require religious schools to separate out religion and make religious teaching optional. In any religious school the education is going to be tainted by that religion's doctrine. Whether it's Catholic, Muslim, Black Muslim, Church of the Most High Pentecostal Nut or Islamic madrassa. There will be books that will not be read, viewpoints that will not be heard, ideas that won't be allowed. Religious education is by it's nature second rate. Since we seem to be fracturing as a country and separating, vouchers will only fuel the self segregation and separation and open up public education to extreme corruption.

I can't believe nobody has mentioned the biggest problem with the voucher scam, and yes, it is a scam, yet. The vouchers are never planned to cover the full cost of private school tuition!!!
This completely nullifies the argument that they will help poor ghetto children to go to good private schools, because even with vouchers they won't be able to afford them.
Vouchers are, as someone here mentioned before, simply meant as a way for rich people to participate even less in society and contribute even less to the public good.

I'm amazed that in these discussions it's always left out what has already been tried and failed (charter schools in TX, voucher programs in Cleveland, etc.).
And if we debate our schools lagging behind schools in other countries, why do we NEVER actually look at what these countries are doing in education???

Now, i have personal experience for example with German schools (Germany consistently does better in education surveys than the US) and in Germany you won't find many private schools at all, no standardized testing, no school uniforms, etc.
What you do find is a strong support for education amongst the public, accountability for STUDENTS (you can fail, be held back a grade, and *horrors* grading in red ink, etc - no police however dragging you to school if you don't go - it's your parents responsibility to make sure you go and your loss if you don't!). Have I mentioned that German universities are free of charge (aside from administrative fees)?

Bottom line, let's actually start talking about the issues without pretending this is a problem that is completely new and nobody anywhere has solutions to it.
We CAN learn from others and we should abandon ideas that have been PROVEN to fail.

I am a public school teacher. And there are problems with charter schools as well. While I am not against experimentation charter schools are also allowed to kick out kids that do not perform or misbehave. They do pick kids out of a lottery sometimes but other times they choose who comes to their schools. They also do not have to abide by teachers unions and are more likely to hire teachers without teaching degrees. They also get less funding from the state. Many charter schools are run by private companies for profit which goes against the purpose of public education. Therefore charter schools are far from the answer.

Anyone who writes, as does McArdle, "Having a public school system seems like a dumb goal to me", should be ignored -- FOREVER.

Rule #1 in political discourse and warfare: Never negotiate or compromise the features of a program with folks who wouldn't have put the program in place to begin with. They shouldn't be part of the discussion. NEVER.

Rule #2: Never negotiate with yourself. (Even someone as dumb as GWB understands this.)

Rule #3: Never cave in to the hypocritical ruses of "accountability" and "waste."

These rules cover ALL social, economic and education entitlement and would be-entitlement programs. Get the program in place, expand it, and destroy its critics -- period. Yield no ground.

In our society, "accountability" and "waste" are rhetorical weapons used only against the poor and powerless. If someone starts the discussion with either, ignore them. Better yet, marginalize and destroy them.

I live in an upper middle class area with wonderful public schools, which both of my kids attend. Not too far from us is a rundown inner city school system (run by Democrats for the past 60 years, natch) which is a guaranteed disaster for any kid who attends it. Lots of money is spent, but it's still a disaster. People who have some hope, but no money, would like to have some path of decent education to give their children. It doesn't exist now. The current political structure won't change anything.

In our neighborhood, we have no right whatsoever to vouchers. But these kids? I would gladly fund ANY method that might get them out of the educational miasma they're stuck in. The current system doesn't work.

Direct question to Kevin: Give me a solution to this. It has to be an actual solution. Show me that you actually care for these inner city kids. Vouchers may not work, I'll agree to that. But we have to try something. Oh, yeah - the inner city people themselves think vouchers are a great idea. Are you going to lecture them otherwise?

Let me quote from Megan McArdle:

"How many educated people who:
a) Oppose vouchers
b) Have children who do not attend inner city public schools
would still oppose vouchers if they were the only way to get their child out of an inner city public school? How many of them would accept that their child had to be left in that school because the systemic effects of allowing their child to exit that repulsive school would be dreadful?
Respectfully, I believe the answer is "null set".
Opposing school vouchers is, for basically every single person who does so, a completely costless belief. You get the pleasure of "supporting public education"; someone else's kid, whom you will thankfully never meet, loses their future.
Obviously, this is not exactly a unique phenomenon; most people are more sympathetic to policies whose costs they don't bear. But at least most of the libertarian policy wonks I know have endured extended periods without health insurance. Find me the parents who oppose vouchers when it's their own child who has no exit."

Well? Does anyone here (preferably with kids) have the stones to actually answer this question?

Yes, California used to be one of the best systems in the U.S. Proposition 13 helped kill it, but there were other factors too. The massive influx of immigrants could not have helped, right?

I have kids and am an educator. And these are phony arguments. Look at the rigorous evaluations.
And this just in: Most charter schools stink. When the kids return to their public school, they are behind grade level and undisciplined. Didn't figure that out in their initial design loop.

As for the general belief that inner city schools all suck, many of them do - but an awful lot are actually pretty good. But by confusing student performance and school performance (more like pretending they are one in the same), we have both state and fed accountability systems which reward schools coasting on their parents' incomes while punishing high-performaing schools serving kid and poverty and lifting them out of poverty. So you don't see the gains being made.

Six hours a day times 180 days, assuming 100% attendance - but expecting 100% of the accountability, even though that represents about 17% of a child's year. Where is the rest of this village I keep hearing about?

No of course not because we should continue to funnel money into a maze of waste, corruption, and social manipulators.

Can someone help me out here?
Why did Orwell drag the military contracting industry into a discussion about school vouchers?

Kevin,
Again, right out of the starting gate, McArdle lies. She cites not one single evaluation; she evidently has no knowledge of educational research, methodological rigor, data, evaluation, quantitative methodology, any of the tools necessary to tell good research from bad. She demonstrates zero knowledge here. Nada. Zip. Some "demolition," Kevin.

Anyone who writes, as does McArdle, "Having a public school system seems like a dumb goal to me", should be ignored -- FOREVER.

Since she goes on to say that fealty to public schools (a means) is less important than fealty to an end (ensuring all children get a good education), would you say that people (such as yourself) who quote-mine should also be "ignored forever"?

Your argument is false rhinoman. You're trying to argue that vouchers are the only possible way out of bad schools. Problems caused by lack of tax revenue, good teachers, books, computers, discipline, parental involvement and respect for education are problems that cannot be solved with vouchers. Addressing the issues of urban public schools by addressing those issues is the only solution. And yes, I would as a parent send a child to an urban public school that had the above elements. There are some good ones, even in DC where I went to school.

even though it was long and passionate, it mysteriously failed to address the one argument against vouchers that I think is the strongest. Funny how often that happens, isn't it?

Not for "Jane Galt," it isn't -- it's SOP. Why do you persist in linking to that twit?

rhino,you and MM set up the same problem and assume away, among many assumptions what to do with the "set" of kids left behind. I guess that's their problem, right? First start to identify, within the myriad problems in public education and especially inner city schools, what is wrong with the kids in those schools.

Some background first,I live in a school district that arose from a forced desegregation plan. What were suburban, majority white districts were combined with minority districts to yield a district that is now (25 years later) more than 50% minority. My kids went to the public schools which have 40% of the graduates go to college The district has many of the problems of inner city schools including special ed (13% of the students qualify for special ed; all paid for by the district; state average is less than 5%) drop outs, behavior issues (you have no idea) transportation funding(all school children, even charter, catholic and private get transportation paid for by the district), school lunches (very high %age).

Rhinoman, you actually touch on one solution when you say you have, wonderful public schools,... Not too far from us is a rundown inner city school system (gratuitous insult requirement met) which is a guaranteed disaster.... Why is that district so different? Because school districts tend to have fixed boundaries (city, municipal entities, boroughs, towns) instead of changing with changes in demographics. School districts don't live on federal $s, it's local funds with some state support. So, first, maybe we need to eliminate existing school district boundaries to keep the tax base (assessed value of real estate, usually) for districts equivalent.

Second, and this is happening here with private/public funding, poor families need special attention when it comes to school preparation. Middle-class and upper income kids arrive for their first day of school able to recognize letters (if not already reading) and numbers, poor kids don't. We need to help fix that (or we could teach the parents which wasn't done when they went to school).

Text books need to be matched to ability, not "grade" level. From The Education Trust via The Daily Howler (Bob Somerby):

WIENER: The scores of African American, Latino and low-income fourth-graders indicate that the average student in these groups demonstrates skills below the level required to classify numbers as even or odd. Eighth-grade students from all of these groups on average score far below the level that would indicate an ability to convert written numbers into decimals.

There's a lot this country has to do and try before we start using vouchers.

Eighteen years ago, I was kind of leaning in favor of vouchers, for the simple reason it seemed educators were afraid of it. Must have something going for it, I figured. (I was just entering the education profession as a second career.) Since then, a fairly remarkable and interesting thing has happened: educators are no longer afraid of vouchers. "Bring 'em on" seems to be the sentiment - although with the understanding (lacking in outside circles) that when they get the kids back, they'll be in worse shape. (And how come that never gets mentioned?)

America has opted for public education, by the way, by and large. Look at the opinion polls. Americans overwhelmingly support public education.

Chrissy,
What argument is false?
I never said vouchers were the only way. If you noticed, I never even stated that they'll work. I just want to hear something better. I'm open minded about it, but I've seen too much of how inner city politics works. And, like I said, inner city parents want vouchers. Who are you to tell them, "No"?

And you said, "And yes, I would as a parent send a child to an urban public school that had the above elements." Really? Do you have kids? Why do I think the answer to that is, "No"? The question was semi-rhetorical; anyone who gives a damn about their children wouldn't send them to some of the inner-city schools that I've seen, IF they had any options. Think about it.

TJM,
Okay, let look at it.
(btw, the "gratuitous insult" was also accurate. Sorry if that hurts, but I find Democrats won't face up to the reality that the worst school systems in the country are run by their party. You could, f'rinstance, try and clean up the horrible corruption and shoddy management in the DC school system. If the GOP was running them, we'd all scream like banshees. Just sayin'.)

Anyway.
Your first point:
"So, first, maybe we need to eliminate existing school district boundaries to keep the tax base (assessed value of real estate, usually) for districts equivalent."
I'm all for this. I think schools should be funded by a universal state tax, sort of like what Vermont was going to do (did they implement this?). I've talked to local politicos about this, unoffically, and they laughed at the idea. Never gonna happen. So, I agree with the sentiment, but it's not politically achievable. Even Vermont was only able to go that way because their Supreme Court ordered it.

"Second, and this is happening here with private/public funding, poor families need special attention when it comes to school preparation. Middle-class and upper income kids arrive for their first day of school able to recognize letters (if not already reading) and numbers, poor kids don't. We need to help fix that (or we could teach the parents which wasn't done when they went to school)."
I agree. And? Stating the problem doesn't solve it. So, what should we do? Again, I'm trying to get workable solutions here. "We need to find a way" stuff is good for bull sessions, but we're losing children here every day. I'd like to see something that actually has a chance of working.

As I said before, vouchers may not work. But, they may work, and the people in the inner city schools want them.

rhinoman, true it wasn't your words but your quote of McCardle about vouchers being the only way out.

Btw, I do have a child in public middle school and I think you're being a little disingenuous. I did not mention anything about sending a kid to an urban mess of a school but an urban public school that had the elements I mentioned? - definitely yes. I went to one and I think they have some advantages.

BTW rhinoman, who are you to determine inner city parents would choose vouchers for some second rate "private" school if they had the alternative choice of using the money for security and safety, better teachers, facilities, supplies?

Chrissy,
I'm not trying to be nasty, but I think you're sidestepping the argument. A good public school doesn't need vouchers, I'm with you on that. But what about the failing ones? What do parents with kids in those schools do, if they care about their kid's education? What if the kids want to learn, but this is their school?
As I said, I'm open to suggestion, but it has to be a realistic, workable solution. I prefer an imperfect solution to no solution. "We have to find a way" doesn't cut it anymore.

Kids don't need to arrive to Kindergarten recognizing letters. This is typical American nutso developmentally inappropriate. (For example, social intelligence counts for more. Just take a look at the countries that best us at these age levels: they are NOT about academics!) But the general thrust that quality early education, Pre-K - Grade 2, is essential for success. If Republicans ran the cities, the school systems would be no better. Don't kid yourself. But here, I, too, favor a robust two-party system.

Chrissy,

"BTW rhinoman, who are you to determine inner city parents would choose vouchers for some second rate "private" school if they had the alternative choice of using the money for security and safety, better teachers, facilities, supplies?"

If the money would help, that would be great. But, look at the DC school system, that spends a huge amount per student. The problem is the political system that runs the schools. Everyone I've met who is familiar with inner city politics admits this. Every reporter who studies the DC school system comes away disgusted at the rampant fraud, waste and abuse that takes place, at the expense of the students.
If parent had that choice, they'd probably take the better public schools. The question is, if the money that would go to a school voucher would buy this, why hasn't it?
Also, who are you, Chrissy, to deny them the power to make the choice?

You're right about the fraud, waste and abuse in DC public schools. But implement vouchers and you're gonna have rampant fraud, waste and abuse in hundreds of private "academies" versus rampant fraud, waste and abuse in the school system. The way to deal with the fraud, waste and abuse is not to simply transfer that abuse to another unnacountable institution.

Rhinoman,

Chrissy is right that you quoted McCardle for your own argument, and she says: "Have children who do not attend inner city public schools would still oppose vouchers if they were the only way to get their child out of an inner city public school? "

This is a question framed to produce only one answer. If vouchers were the ONLY way to solve this problem, then sure. Who wouldn't support it? The problem is 1) it isn't the only solution and 2) it actually isn't a real solution.

I live in an overwhelmingly Republican state that is trying to institute a large scale voucher program, and people are still largely against it. Worse, these dutiful Republicans have shown little to no interest in fixing these problems you seem to suggest merely occur under a Democratic watch. It's a nice fantasy to believe that, but education is much more complicated and challenging to fix (though the fact that school districts that have much more wealthy occupants do much better, so the notion that money isn't the solution for these poor schools is likely at least partially false.

But your last point is again the most problematic. Vouchers are NOT a solution to this problem. This isn't a "let's try this and no one gets hurt." There's a great deal of damage that vouchers can do to public education. Once instituted, they will be difficult to get rid of, as most entitlements are, regardless of whether they work or not. That's a dangerous policy and one that won't take long to seriously hurt education overall, even if abandoned relatively quickly.

You are reducing the arguments for "fixing" education to "let's do stuff," but the reality is that parents and teachers who are interested in the public education system have been working for a long while to improve the system and have even seen results. Vouchers is a scam because it ignores all possible solutions within the system and instead institutes a system that will makes current problems worse.

And asking people to "Give me one solution" is silly. Regardless of people's policy knowledge of other solutions, offering a non-solution puts the onus on you to make the case FOR the change. Change for change sake, especially with a program likely to cause greater harm to the system isn't an argument.

As for those who get to make an argument without "harm" to themselves, I think those who have little investment is public schools in the first place are the ones who have the least to lose with vouchers.

". . . they'd probably take the better public schools" Would that it were. That's assuming the better public schools would take 'em. Those inner city kids would benefit. But the middle class kids would not - and everyone knows that. It's not fair, but that's the deal, sad to say.

Washington, DC is not representative of the rest of our country's urban schools; it may be the worst. If these problems were easy to solve, we would have solved them; the folks on this thread seem to understand this. Interestingly, the level of discourse here is generally superior to McArdle's tripe.

Chrissy,
Maybe. But, maybe not.
What's in place now isn't working.
You're giving me lots of reasons why change won't help. But no way of solving the problem, beyond "We have to find a way" stuff, which is no help at all.
Look, this may work and it may not.
Got a better idea? That's actually possible to implement? I'm all ears. Seriously. I'm not ideologically wedded to vouchers, and I'm well aware that some of the money will get abused. But the current system sucks. And kid's lives are getting ruined.

A few reasons why vouchers will act as a taxpayer-subsidized discount for those who can already afford to send their kids to good private schools:

1. Good private schools can raise their tuition enough to keep costs too high for new, lower-income students even with the vouchers.

2. Good private schools can also limit enrollment to keep out new, lower-income students even if those students could afford the tuition with the vouchers.

3. Vouchers would at best allow lower-income students to attend new, lower-quality private schools. Good, established private schools will retain exclusivity.

Paulk,
OK:
-Vouchers aren't the only solution. Never said that, never will. They come with their own set of problems. The question is one of tradeoffs. If you kid was stuck in a failing school, and you had no money, what would you do?
- Sure, vouchers won't instantly solve all educational problem. I would never believe that. But they give people an option. Let's face it, in NYC and DC weathly people have school choice, but the poor don't. Doesn't that bother you, even a little? I just want people who are at the bottom rung of our society to have some path out. It's not perfect, but like I said, I'm open to better ideas.
- The idea that vouchers will destroy the wonderful boon of public education is a hard sell so someone with kids in a failing school in the South Bronx. Besides, I don't buy it. How do you know it'll be a disaster? Would it be any worse than what's going on right now?
- Sure, some teachers and parents are working hard and making a difference. God bless them. Is it enough? And, what if you're in a school where this isn't happening? Do you just tell the kids and parents, "Tough shit, guys. Deal with it."
-"You are reducing the arguments for "fixing" education to "let's do stuff," but the reality is that parents and teachers who are interested in the public education system have been working for a long while to improve the system and have even seen results. Vouchers is a scam because it ignores all possible solutions within the system and instead institutes a system that will makes current problems worse." Maybe. Maybe not. Why don't we let the parents decide?
"And asking people to "Give me one solution" is silly. Regardless of people's policy knowledge of other solutions, offering a non-solution puts the onus on you to make the case FOR the change. Change for change sake, especially with a program likely to cause greater harm to the system isn't an argument." Well, yes, it is an argument. Vouchers will help people find another solution to a failing school. Absent any other workable idea, I'm all for giving people the power over their tax dollars. It may not work, but it's worth a try. You say it will make the problem worse, why don't we ask the people it will affect, and let them make the decision?

I have a lot invested in public schools, all my kids are enrolled in them. But I'd pull them in an instant if they were awful. I have the ability to do so. I just think the poor should have the same option, however imperfect.

rhinoman, Like most intractable problems, the problems of urban education are not going to be solved with a simple solution. The issue is complex and the simplistic "give 'em a voucher" answer is ridiculous. I've already posted that there has to be accountability (adminstrators need to be prosecuted for fraud), money for security and safety, better teachers (John Edwards ideas about attracting the best teachers to poor schools is excellent), better facilities, supplies and most importantly school funding has got to be changed. Certainly the inequities of school funding has to be changed even if it takes the courts.

Of course the problem remains of people who just don't care about education for themselves or their children. You just cannot make people care.

I think Kevin starts with a reasonable premise - "If you're going to receive taxpayer dollars, then you have to agree to taxpayer oversight" - but then goes on to assert an unreasonable standard for what that means. There is nothing locked in stone that would demand that schools receiving vouchers would HAVE to follow NCLB, minimum state curriculum requirements, teacher union rules, acceptance rules, or even rules governing religion. Those requirements would be built into (or left out of) the structure of how a voucher program was designed.

Mind you I am not suggesting none of these things should apply. I certainly believe that if a parent wishes to use a voucher for their child's education, the institution to which they send their child must be accredited and meet state standards on education. But why a voucher system MUST impose teachers unions on a school or MUST not be used to send a child to an accredited but religiously-linked school is not, in my opinion, a given fact. People can certainly argue that it SHOULD be that way, but Kevin seems to be saying that on these issues there is no room for discussion.

Chrissy,
I agree with everything you said in your last post.
"Give 'em a voucher" won't, in itself, solve anything. The only thing vouchers may accomplish is to give parents and students who do care a possible path out of a failing school.
That's enough for me. Given that the alternatives are long-term solutions that may or may not work - frankly, I've heard everything you mention several times, with politicians swearing that "THIS TIME IT'LL BE DIFFERENT", with no changes in the schools at all - I think we have to give people a path out.

My frustration is that, in my experience, the solutions you mention amount to nothing. I first heard the same kind of stuff in the late sixties, through the seventies, the eighties, the nineties, and so forth. Net result? Nothing much.

I feel that the kids are more important than the system. If the school is failing, I have no problem putting it at risk.

Since when are kids well served by weakened institutions?

Do you have kids, Rhinoman? As a parent, I've seen quite a revolution in our schools - and all the data shows at least the "floor" has come up a lot. It's the definition of dishonest to lump every decade. Standards had to be raised in the 90s and 00s, and they were indeed, as they fell and fell a great deal in the 70s and early 80s. That is the fault of both the schools and their parents.

The only social cohesion agents left in our country now are the Black churches (arguably white evangelical churches, some vestiges of the Catholic church), public education, television, and in New England the Red Sox.

rhinoman, you're wrong. Changing the revenue structure has not been done. Accountability has not been implemented. I went into a public school library in DC - there were about 5 books in that library. I am not being facetious. Tough schools present challenges that require teachers with special skills and tough security. Some schools could probably use the police, the National Guard and the Marines.

If you conservatives are so concerned about the poor urban mother, give her a voucher to send her child to a top notch suburban public school of her choice and vouchers for books and computers and transportation. Leave the private schools out of it.

I thought those libertarian types were against entitlements. What is a school voucher system if not a massive new entitlement program?

MaxGowan,
Sure, I have kids. They're in some wonderful public schools, I'm very happy with the education they're receiving. The point of this whole discussion is that there are public schools that were, are, and will continue to be an absolute disaster, mostly in the inner cities. Kids are being lost. We need to do something. And, please, spare me the "social cohesion" routine. Kids lives are being destroyed because the govenment and the system are letting them down, and you're bringing up some reference to a psuedo-mystical social glue? Do you think it's OK to sacrifice the education of thousands of poor kids over this?

Chrissy,
You're right, the reforms you discuss haven't been done. That's kind of my point. I've been hearing this rhertoric for ages, and nothing has changed. I don't see any realistic argument that anything will change. I would love, LOVE it if the city governments became less corrupt, less wasteful, and actually funneled the money where it should go. I've been waiting for forty years for this to happen. Nothing yet. How many generations of inner city kids should we lose waiting for this?

No, Rhinoman, I'm not into abstractions. But it's a real issue. (You dodge my question on since when are kids well served by weakened institutions.) And the problem is not just in the inner cities; it's more easily seen there. But when I look at the rural districts and their situaion, I'm increasingly convinced it's worse. As I've noted earlier, I used to be more open to vouchers and charter schools. But as the data rolls in, not so good.

MaxGowan,
When the institutions aren't serving the children, I don't defend the institutions. How do vouchers weaken bad schools? The primary metric for school funding is money per student, which wouldn't change if you pull vouchered students out. Why is that a problem?

You dodged a few questions yourself (from previous posts):

How many of them (voucher critics) would accept that their child had to be left in that (failing) school because the systemic effects of allowing their child to exit that repulsive school would be dreadful?

Inner city people themselves think vouchers are a great idea. Are you going to lecture them otherwise?

Absent any other workable idea, I'm all for giving people the power over their tax dollars. It may not work, but it's worth a try. You say it will make the problem worse, why don't we ask the people it will affect, and let them make the decision?

Or, how about this one: You're talking to a single working mother whose kids attend an atrocious, failing school. She wants a chance at a decent education for her children, and doesn't think that things in the school will change. She wants a vouchers for her children. What do you say to her?

I'm not closed to saying yes on that one. Within the public school I work, most of my colleagues are in agreement, actually.

Too bad most of this is an abstraction. Vouchers and charter schools have hit their high water mark. Interestingly enough (and not mentioned here), it's the parents who are pulling the plug. The worry is not about adversely impacting poor schools - it's the good ones I've worried about. But, again, mostly moot points, for good or bad.

We have one bad-ass accountability system in my state, one that actually closes poorly performing schools. The bar keeps being raised, which is a good thing, of course.

My apologies for not responding fully here, as I don't have the time right now. But I do want to note that I see a fairly large proportion of our inner city schools here (but in the minority), where you see results as stunning as 96% poverty but over 80% of the pupils meeting a standard that is above the national 60th percentile, across all subject areas, over a period of years. The principal is the metric. A great principal can take a lousy school and make it a great school in three years. (The reverse is also true.) When I asked our most successful principal his secret, he never mentioned things like Pre-K, curriculum (in this case, America's Choice), academic inervention services, etc. He said it was all about building relationships. Then those components fall into place.

The voucher advocates have achieved their goal, at least for the South:

For the first time in more than 40 years, the majority of children in public schools in the South are poor, according to a report released today.

MaxGowan,
I'm glad to hear this. I would love it if the public schools were run the way you're talking about. I worked for a brief time in the New Jersey school system when there was a state law that mandated state takeover of repeatedly poorly performing schools - with the mandatory firing of all administration personell in those school. It worked, but the law only lasted a couple of years before it was overturned. Depressing.
Great principals, with power to make changes, can work wonders on a school. I hope it happens more.

People think I hate public schools when I make these arguments, but I don't. I would love it if a "bad-ass" accountability system were implemented nation wide.

Trying to build an entire education system based on vouchers is a bad idea; it isn't the way the Dutch or even the Danish do it.

The Netherlands has state schools but a majority of students attend schools founded by groups of parents. These schools can be of any denominational orientation or based in any educational philosophy. They receive foundational, developmental, and per-student funding.

But they're not private or parochial schools in the traditional sense. They're overseen by independent school boards and I gather that all the regulations which apply to state schools (including labor regulations) also apply to these schools.

My understanding is that Denmark has a similar system with another layer of choice - partial tuition remission (vouchers) for established independent schools (which I believe are not eligible for foundational or developmental funding).

If the U.S. is going to go in this kind of direction I think a four-tiered system would be most appropriate. You'd have public schools which would continue to receive foundational, developmental, and per-student funding and continue to be overseen by local school boards (and subject to state and federal regulations). You'd have "foundational schools" which could be founded by groups of parents in any community and along any denominational or philosophical lines, receive foundational, developmental, and per-student funding, and be overseen by separate local school boards (and subject to state and federal regulation; there would be still be teacher's unions, standardized testing, that sort of thing).

Like in Denmark there would also be progressive vouchers (based on family income) for *accredited* independent schools. These schools would not be eligible for foundational or developmental funding from the state but they would also not be subject to the same kind of oversight as public and foundational school (the concern is that that kind of oversight would damage the culture of independent schools; their unique culture is what makes them so successful in this country). Denmark law (as I understand it) allows specific independent schools which accept vouchers to be put on probation if serious problems at those schools arise; this is a much better idea than blanket regulation.

Last, you'd have some kind of tax credit (maybe a thousand dollars a year per student) for home school parents (for education expenses: textbooks, seminars...).

Obviously, all the concerns about the separation of church and state and the loss of a pathway to (what remains of) social cohesion in this country apply. But it's also the case that this is probably the only way you're going to get a richly funded k-12 school system in a conservative, multicultural country.

rhinoman,

"-Vouchers aren't the only solution. Never said that, never will. They come with their own set of problems. The question is one of tradeoffs. If you kid was stuck in a failing school, and you had no money, what would you do?"

and

"I have a lot invested in public schools, all my kids are enrolled in them. But I'd pull them in an instant if they were awful."

You seem to be looking for a short term solution, and by your own admission you have no interest in fixing the problem, just getting your kids out. Fine. But it's certainly fair for other people to point out that this "solution" will have far greater negative consequences for all students in the long (and maybe not so long) run.

"- Sure, vouchers won't instantly solve all educational problem. I would never believe that. But they give people an option. Let's face it, in NYC and DC weathly people have school choice, but the poor don't. Doesn't that bother you, even a little?"

Wow. So I'm more than a little insulted that anything in my argument suggests I have less interest in helping poor people than you. You've offered a solution. That solution won't help most poor students and will make the problem worse for poor students who have no other options. I don't assume that you don't care about poor people. I just think you are terribly wrong that this is any type of solution.

"I just want people who are at the bottom rung of our society to have some path out. It's not perfect, but like I said, I'm open to better ideas."

Well, one "better" idea is to not take more money away from those school systems. As for other ideas, you should spend a little more time looking at solutions being put forward by the educational community and less time advocating plans that will only undermine the system most poor students will continue to rely on.

"- The idea that vouchers will destroy the wonderful boon of public education is a hard sell so someone with kids in a failing school in the South Bronx."

Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not suggesting that the system is working wonderfully for all students. I'm merely saying that "anything" isn't better than nothing, specifically when that "anything" will work directly against bettering the education of these same students.

"Besides, I don't buy it. How do you know it'll be a disaster? Would it be any worse than what's going on right now?"

Let me answer with another question: what makes you think spending LESS money on education will make it better? That's what's at stake. Because the people who will mostly be accepted to private schools will not be the problem students, the one with special needs. It will be the cheap students. Thus, when you take "less than the average per pupil cost" away from the schools, you are generally removing the less expensive student, leaving the most expensive student, and reducing the money to educate that more expensive student.

Here in Utah, the only way we've come up with making this work is to subsidize the voucher plan, which might be fine if our Republican legislature could be counted on to maintain that funding. But since they go out of their way to "cut" government spending and will certainly argue that we're "double paying" in a couple of years, you can understand why many of us regard this as nothing but a scam. Have they offered to spend this same cost on improving public education and retaining quality teachers? Of course not.

"- Sure, some teachers and parents are working hard and making a difference. God bless them. Is it enough? And, what if you're in a school where this isn't happening? Do you just tell the kids and parents, "Tough shit, guys. Deal with it.""

What are you going to tell those students left in the school system that is still broken? "Tough shit, guys. Deal with it."
Vouchers is a small solution for a small number of students that does nothing for the rest.

""Vouchers is a scam because it ignores all possible solutions within the system and instead institutes a system that will makes current problems worse." Maybe. Maybe not. Why don't we let the parents decide?

Well, in our state, we are letting parents decide, and they are hopefully not going to be taken in by unrealistic and false claims that this will solve their problems.

"And asking people to "Give me one solution" is silly. Regardless of people's policy knowledge of other solutions, offering a non-solution puts the onus on you to make the case FOR the change. Change for change sake, especially with a program likely to cause greater harm to the system isn't an argument." Well, yes, it is an argument. Vouchers will help people find another solution to a failing school. Absent any other workable idea, I'm all for giving people the power over their tax dollars. It may not work, but it's worth a try. You say it will make the problem worse, why don't we ask the people it will affect, and let them make the decision?"

"Absent any other workable solution..." sure sounds like you are saying that vouchers are the only solution. But there are lots of other "workable solutions," which you should go do a little bit of research on rather than jumping onto this scam.

"How do vouchers weaken bad schools? The primary metric for school funding is money per student, which wouldn't change if you pull vouchered students out. Why is that a problem?"

Because - and this is going to be badly simplified, not a funding guy - the $x per kid isn't solely for the expense of educating that specific child, if I understand correctly. There are quite a few operational costs that aren't per/child.

Re: the McMegan quote - look at it this way: parents have a responsibility to make sure their kids get the best education possible (given their standards, values, and resources); citizens - who may or may not also be parents - have a responsibility to make sure that our kids get the best education possible.

Thanks Dan S. Citizens must ensure all children receive a good education. There are many bad parents, for whatever reasons, who are not able to accept their responsibility of making sure their children receive a good education. Our society cannot rely upon them to do the correct thing, which is why universal public education was instituted in the first place.

Madster:

What you'll also find in German schools is a longer school year, by a few weeks.

I do, strongly, think the 180-day school year is an anticompetitive relic that we have to scrap in today's global economy.

It's horrendous that we don't have a 200-day school year.

rhinoman, Since you agree with me that the reforms I mentioned have not been done, why not try to implement them before you even consider
1. monkeying with the Constitution with vouchers 2. risking corruption and fraud and theft on a grand scale.
3. risking the loss of the good public schools already exist.
4. if you're more concerned about the interests of the poor children and you're not just concerned about a scheme to enrich private interests, then support vouchers to the good public schools and vouchers for books and computers - not vouchers to wacky second rate religious schools.

Paulk,
You and I have a disagreement on vouchers; you see them as a path to a worse school system than we have now. I don't, provided they're used on failing schools that refuse to reform (lots of them, btw). We're kind of done at that point. If I believed what you do, I'd agree with your approach. But I don't. Fair enough.

Dan S. and Brojo,
What you're saying is that as long as the average is OK, then we're doing it right. I hope you can figure out the problem with this on your own. Hint: A bell curve has two ends....

Chrissy,
I'd love to reform the school system. But, as they say, who will bell the cat? People have been trying to do that for a VERY long time, and in many school districts have made very little progress. As you mentioned, people often don't care. When you have a political block that's mostly indifferent, instituting these reforms on an established power structure is virtually impossible. It may be possible at the state level, I've observed it myself, but I've also seen it fizzle. If it's not going to happen, then we have to try something else.
To counter your points:
1. I don't think this is a critical Constitutional issue. Gov't money goes to religious schools all the time (Boston College, Holy Cross, etc.).
2. Corruption and fraud, on a grand scale, are already there.
3. If the school is good, don't offer vouchers. "Failing schools". OK?
4. If kids can graduate from high school actually knowing how to read, write and do basic math, I don't give a damn who gets rich. Doesn't seem to be too much to ask.

Since I wrote all children deserve a good education regardless of their parents inputs, saying I accept the average makes no sense as a rebuttal.

In order for our society to survive, all children must be expected, and provided the resources, to achieve a level of education that reflects the core knowledge needed to perform in the Twenty-first Century. Thinking that only a small percentage of Americans need this amount of education will turn the US into an underdeveloping nation, which I suspect some conservatives think is in their best interests because it means they can dominate the balance of society. That is really what the wealthy and religious dogmatists want: an ignorant populace that can be easliy dominated by the few with a good education and the ability to earn competitive wages. Ensuring all children receive a good education prevents this type of knowledge stratification desired by racists and elitists.

The principle of freeing vouchers from oversight is that freedom from the "cookie-cutter" approach of public education compelled by the state and federal rules that apply to public schools empowers them to experiment, compete, and succeed. This is, at least on the surface, a plausible argument.

Strangely, though, the same people that propose it push to tie public schools up with tight curriculum controls at the state level, push NCLB and "accountability" measures hard (for public schools) at the federal level, etc.

Their are only two possibilities:

1. The people pushing these policies believe what they say about empowering private schools to succeed, and want public schools to fail, or


2. The people pushing these policies don't believe what they say about empowering private schools to succeed, and instead want to free them of oversight to relieve them of accountability with no performance benefit anticipated; its just a boondoggle.

Note that, whatever you believe about the validity of the argument for vouchers, the combination of policies in the use of public education pushed by the Right is untenable and self-contradictory, and can only be explained by at least one aspect of the policy the Right pushes being deeply dishonest.

Hmm, why is it that the commentators here -by and large- seem to be much better educated and knowledgeable than those on McArdle's blog?

rhinoman,

Okay, then. So you are willing to accept a particular form of narrowly focused voucher program to enable certain students at this time to escape their bad school. I'd be willing to accept that such a very limited program would not seriously affect public schooling in an overall area, though it would certainly put that "failing" school in a difficult position. (By what definition, “failing,� BTW? NCLB's is especially silly. And to merely label a school "failing" is to avoid discussing the nature of its problems.)

Similarly, I have no idea how you design a program to be targeted to schools that are failing where those responsible "refuse to reform." How would you even quantify that? (BTW, I am understandable skeptical that there are "lots" of "failing" schools that "refuse to reform." They may not wish to follow someone else's perscription for reform, but the pessimism and sheer dishonestly projected upon those leaders dealing with these problems sounds more like a disgrunted fantasy than actual reality. Do people like this exist? I'm sure. Are there "lots" of them, in "lots" of communities. Very, very doubtful.)

So you are in favor of a system that no one is proposing and that would be nearly impossible to implement. The programs that are proposed, however, don’t look like this and don’t do these things.

Mcdruid,

I think you were very confused that day, and was chasing someone else.

However, I am quite amused at your implied assertion that none of public schools in this country are failing.

My own opinion, stated many times on this site, is that the main problem with schools are the parents and the students themselves. I have advocated vouchers as a way to at least save the children of concerned parents from inner city schools by allowing their parents to place them in schools that select out those students whose parents don't give a damn. Otherwise, they are condemned to a desperate future. You can't save every child in inner city schools today- save those that you can.

Also, I agree with Kevin that Megan forgot to address the subject of oversight, but, as a commenter on her site pointed out to me, she was demolishing the Left's aguments against vouchers. Worrying about oversight (in the sense that taking voucher money will bring the private schools under government control) is actually a theme of those of a libertarian bent who oppose vouchers. I will admit that it certainly gives me pause in outright support of vouchers.

mcdruid on October 30, 2007 at 2:11 PM:

Hmm, why is it that the commentators here -by and large- seem to be much better educated and knowledgeable than those on McArdle's blog?

Hey now, I've been posting over there!

But then again, I did feel my IQ dropping after wading through the free marketeer cheerleading in McArdle's comments section.

Yancey Ward on October 30, 2007 at 2:31 PM:

as a commenter on her site pointed out to me, she was demolishing the Left's aguments against vouchers.

Oversight is one of the Left's arguments against vouchers, Yancy. As in, 'we worry about the lack thereof', not that there will be too much oversight of private schools.

Do try to keep up.

Megan forgot to address the subject of oversight, but, as a commenter on her site pointed out to me, she was demolishing the Left's aguments against vouchers.

No, she wasn't, whatever she may have intended to do. From an argumentation standpoint, Jane Galt couldn't demolish a watermelon with a....well, with a two-by-four.

save the children of concerned parents from inner city schools

Only very selfish people would say their children deserve a better education because they understand the importance of it and that other children without such concerned parents do not.

Educating as many children as possible is the responsibility of society. The government must be the responsible party to make sure all children reach a quality level of education.

demolishing the Left's arguments

Hmm, if that is your standard for "demolishing" then you'd better go back to logic 101. As many commenters have pointed out, there are numerous factual errors in the first few sentences of her diatribe.

And Yancey, it was September 18 of 2004. You started with a blanket condemnation of all public schools, dodged away into claiming that it was most, then some, inner city schools. Then you claimed that your original comment was that "all I said was that they [teachers] are not smarter or more educated than the average parent." This last is, as I said at the time, flat-out wrong, factually incorrect, and untrue. You failed to respond to this.

Furthermore, the question that I repeatedly asked you at the time was: By which metric do you claim schools are failing? You repeatedly refused to answer this question.

The above is mine, obvously.

By the way, I am increasingly suspicious when people start talking about some vague "inner-city school" where everybody is failing. Can some one here name a specific school and by what metrics it is failing?

I think it would be fair to classify the three largest school districts in the country, where half or more of the kids drop out before graduation, as total failures, McDruid:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_48_t3.htm

Cheers,

Megan

There are lots of bad schools, which people in my city are calling drop out factories. The conservative response is to say let the parents who care about educating their children have access to better education than the parents who have not reached that level of concern. Drop out factory schools are a product of bad governments that favor some citizens over others. Instead of having a government that treats children's education equitably, these corrupted institutions have been turned into special interest factories, funneling resources to their favorite groups' children, which are usually based on race and wealth, at the expense of the children of the entire community.

So, leaving aside the methodoligical flaws in the data, is graduation rate your metric for measuring the success of a school?

Furthermore, I asked for a specific school, not a school district. It is obvious even from that data that certain subgroups are doing fairly well. I would expect that this might correlate to particular schools.

Can we provide inner city adults vouchers so that they can "opt out" of failing cities? Or should we fix the cities? Should the answer to that question be different when we talk about public schools rather than cities, and if so, why?

IMO, if a public service is broken, it needs fixed, not the best off and most able to bear the costs of switching (and, yeah, switching schools, even with a voucher, often has costs; especially if the vouchers are limited in value and not restricted to schools to which the voucher would provide the full direct cost of attendance) given a way out, while those least well off are abandoned.

SocraticGadfly,

you are correct, the German school year is long, however, often the children have shorter days (up until 10th grade school ends at 1 pm). Also, Germans don't start with Kindergarten (it exists, but isn't part of school, more like daycare), but the highest tier of education goes to 13th grade instead of 12th.

Nor is it surprising that McArdle passes up comprehensive professional statistics in favor of partisian think tank talking points.

Lack of oversight? To conservatives, that's not a bug, but a feature. This is exactly WHY they love vouchers so much. They get paid to send little Myrtle to their Christian madrassa, and no one gets to tell her the world is more than 6,000 years old.

Please. The Cheney administration is all about doing away with all oversight, and giving money to their rich friends. Why should education policy be any different.

if a public service is broken, it needs fixed, not the best off and most able to bear the costs of switching given a way out, while those least well off are abandoned.

Well said.

A couple of years ago a local water district in a suburb near where I live had contaminated water that killed two five year olds in two different neighborhoods at the same time. A meningitis pathogen was in the water. I am surprised conservatives did not try to solve the problem with a voucher system. Parents who recognized they should provide safe water for their children could have had better drinking water provided for them from some other water district through a voucher system and parents who were unconcerned about safe water for their children could have kept using the contaminated water without incurring all that expense to fix the water quality of the water district.

Voucher education advocates are a lot like meningitis pathogens; they kill children's futures.

And yet, despite its thoroughness, it somehow fails to address the single biggest problem with school vouchers: oversight. If you're going to receive taxpayer dollars, then you have to agree to taxpayer oversight. That means that NCLB applies to you. It means that minimum state curriculum requirements apply to you. It means that teacher union rules apply to you. It means you have a lot less authority to pick and choose which kids you're willing to accept. And, yes, it means you can't use taxpayer money to proselytize for whichever religion your board of directors happens to favor. Like it or not, that's a no-no for public funds, especially when kids are involved.
=================================================

Just went through this thread and I find it fascinating that everyone misses the fact that the US has had extensive experience with and educational voucher system for over 60 years. It has been a widely praised (both Rep and Dem) program, credited by most with being highly successful and it has been credited by many for helping cause the economic boom from the late 1940s to the 1970s.

It's the GI Bill.

IIRC in the original program the only requirement was that the school attended be accredited. You could attend Notre Dame, Southern Methodist, or Baylor and nobody cared if the Catholics, Methodists, or Baptists prosletyzed. No one cared if the professors were unionized and no one cared if the tuition money was spent on religion courses.

The GI Bill education benefits is a successful program that went on for decades and I'm surprised that it's almost always ignored in voucher discussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill

Madster and SocraticGadfly,

Regarding the German school system - at least the Gymnasium, you forgot a few more things:

1. German students typically have shorter school days, but they have far more homework than U.S. students. The Germans I spoke to typically had 3 hours of homework a night, as compared to about 3 hours a week in the U.S. (Many Germans spend a year studying abroad in the U.S.).

2. However, as much as I like the German school system, it is not really comparable to that of the U.S. I mean, the German Gymnasium is much better and a student who passes the Abitur is probably the equivalent to a 2nd year college student in the U.S. But a majority of students in Germany go to the Realschule or Gesamtschule, and the quality of those are probably not as good. You also need to remember that Germany has a much stricter tracking system than here in the U.S., and you have to make a decision that affects the child's entire life when they are 10 years old.

Also, Madster, I believe that Germany is now standardizing the entire Gymnasium school system, so that all Lander will have 12 years. I think that this is sad because I believe in the 13th year.

I'm surprised that it's almost always ignored in voucher discussions.

Most voucher discussions are about elementary and secondary education, which are also compulsory. Adult education is important, though. One thing that made America such a productive nation was the land grant public university system. What makes the GI Bill so distasteful, is that one has to serve and kill for assholes like W. Bush or LBJ to utilize it.

adlsad,

regarding homework, yes sometimes it was more than seems to be the case here, but there were also rules that, for example, it couldn't be for a class you had again the next day, so it wouldn't become overwhelming.

You're right that it's not a perfect comparison between the German 3-tier system and the US system, however, by now actually most Germans graduate with the Abitur, because more and more jobs that used to accept a Realschul-Abschluss (banks, etc), now require Abitur.

And you don't really have to make a life-long decision for 5th grade. Even if you start at the lowest tier, if you excel there, you can always switch to a higher tier.
What I like about the system is that bright kids don't get held up by slower learning kids and slower learning kids can still be educated well enough within the borders of their abilities.

The biggest hoax perpetrated on the American public is to make them believe that all kids are the same, that every kid can and should go to College, etc.
Sorry, it might not be PC, but some kids just aren't that smart. That might hurt to hear, but not everyone is born to be a genius.
Doesn't mean you throw them under the bus, but it isn't doing them any favors either to graduate them when they can't read or write.

Regarding your last point, yes, conservatives in Germany have tried for decades to get the 13th year dropped because supposedly it brings German kids disadvantages in the world market. Some industry lobbies support the idea, but it's kinda strange that German graduates then get hired away to other countries, if they're so disadvantaged!?

And if it was true, dropping the current form of forced conscription (ca. 1 year forced national service for men over 18), which is pretty useless,
would help just as much.

Madster,

Yes, I agree with your points. You know, I have had German students in some of my college and law courses and, for the most part, they speak better English than many Americans.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

--------
Children have a right to education at public expense. The conditions you all want to place on receiving the funding are irrelevant.

"Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar of money shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian school. Resolve that neither the state nor nation, or both combined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford every child growing up in the land the opportunity of a good common school education. . . Keep the church and state forever separated."
--Ulysses S. Grant

The education industry is not a natural monopoly, and beyond a very low level there are no economies of scale at the delivery end of the education business as it currently operates. Natural monopoly and economies of scale are two usual welfare-economic arguments for State operation of an industry. Even when an industry is a natural monopoly or exhibits significant economies of scale, the case for State operation is not decisive (and the education industry is not a natural monopoly and, beyond a very low level, does not exhibit significant economies of scale as it currently operates).

Education only marginally qualifies as a "public good" as economists use the term and the "public goods" argument implies subsidy and regulation, at most, not State operation of an industry.

"Education" and "school" are not synonyms. "Public education" and "State (government, generally)-operated schools" are not co-extensive. "The public" is not in school. Students in The Academy of the Sacred Heart are just as much "the public" as are students in Roosevelt High School. Teachers do not become more capable, intelligent, or altruistic when they enter the State's employ. We are all public citizens and private individuals. Unions, even "public sector" unions, are private 501-c(5) corporations.

Lack of money is not the problem with US K-12 education. The US spends more per pupil than any other country (usually. Some years Sweden or Switzerland spends more) and gets a wretched result. The world's top-spending countries are not the world's top-performing countries (as measured by TIMSS or PISA). The top-spending US States are not the top-performing States( as measured by NAEP Reading and Math scores). As Eric Hanushek observed, beyond a very low level, money doesn't matter much.

The world's top-performing countries, as measured by TIMSS 8th grade Math scores, subsidize a parent's choice of school. In Singapore, 40% of schools are independent, and the State subsidizes attendance. 90% of Hong Kong students take taxpayer subsidies to independent schools. In Ireland, 90%. In the Netherlands, 68%, in Belgium, 65%.

Across the US, the coefficient of correlation (%20K+dist, score) is negative, where "%20K+dist" is the fraction of total enrollment assigned to districts over 20,000 enrollment and "score" is NAEP 4th or 8th grade Reading or Math score. Large districts degrade student performance.
Across the US, the coefficient of correlation (age-start, score) is positive, where "age-start" is the age at which State compel attendance at school and "score" is NAEP 4th or 8th grade Reading or Math score. Early compulsory attendance is counter-indicated.

Across the US, the coefficient of correlation(%20K+dist, delta) is positive, where "%20K+ dist" is as before and "delta" is the difference between the white mean score and the black mean score (NAEP 8th grade Math). Large districts yield more unequal results.

In Hawaii, juvenile arrests for violent crime, drug possession, and drug promotion fall when school is not in session. Juvenile hospitalizations for human-induced trauma fall when school is not in session.

From these and other lines of evidence, I derive the following generalizations:

1) As institutions take from individual parents the power to determine for their own children the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction, overall system performance falls.
2) Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents.

The US "public" school system originated in anti-Catholic bigotry and survives on dedicated lobbying by current recipients of the taxpayers' $500 billion+ per year K-12 education subsidy.

Malcolm

Citations would be appropriate for the many data bits you throw out.

In any event, the citation that I referenced above notes that, except for the top Asian countries, we are still strongly included in the top tier (although TIMMS did not test a number of important countries, such as China).

"it would be more accurate to conclude that the test results show the United
States is not the highest performing nation in any single science or math test, but it is one of a
very few nations that consistently rank above the international average in tests of academic
performance. And the United States is one of the few that show consistent improvement over
time and across grades and subjects. What is more, although science and math are the primary
focus of policy discussion, in other areas, such as literacy, U.S. scores are consistently above the
international averages."

I would also rather guess that even the public schools in Hong Kong perform very well, indicating that there is some other cause at work besides who administers them.

Palgrave, Dictionary of Economics.
OECD, Education at a Glance.
TIMSS, Mathematics Achievement in the Middle School Years.
NCES, Digest of Education Statistics.
Christine Teelkin, "Market Mechanisms in Education", Comparative Education.
E-mail communication with Michael Lee, Assistant to the Hong Kong Minister of Education.
Sol Cohen, Documentary History of American Education.
Joel Spring, The American School.
David Tyack, The One Best System.

I suspect that the 10% enrollment in State-operated schools in Hong Kong and Ireland is perponderantly sp-ed, but that's a guess.

This part:...

Across the US, the coefficient of correlation (%20K+dist, score) is negative, where "%20K+dist" is the fraction of total enrollment assigned to districts over 20,000 enrollment and "score" is NAEP 4th or 8th grade Reading or Math score. Large districts degrade student performance.
Across the US, the coefficient of correlation (age-start, score) is positive, where "age-start" is the age at which State compel attendance at school and "score" is NAEP 4th or 8th grade Reading or Math score. Early compulsory attendance is counter-indicated.
Across the US, the coefficient of correlation(%20K+dist, delta) is positive, where "%20K+ dist" is as before and "delta" is the difference between the white mean score and the black mean score (NAEP 8th grade Math). Large districts yield more unequal results.

Arrest statistics courtesy James Richmond, Office of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii. Beth Clarkson (Math Dept., Wichita State University) found a similar seasonal variation in Wichita, Kansas.

Hospitalization statistics from Hawaii Health Information Corporation.

Money and schools, US generalization from tables in the NCES Digest of Education Statistics. Also see Eric Hanushek, Making Schools Work.
Definition of "school": see Becker, Human Capital.
Performance of voucher systems: Lassibile and Gomez
Steuerle, et. al. Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services (Brookings).

Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez
"Organization and Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical findings", pg. 16,
Comparative Education , Vol. 36 #1, 2000, Feb.

Furthermore, the regression results indicate that countries where private education is more widespread perform significantly better than countries where it is more limited. The result showing the private sector to be more efficient is similar to those found in other contexts with individual data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987; Jiminez, et. al, 1991).
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education.

I took the trouble to look up one of your statistics. Both the OECD and the World Bank deny your assertion that most HK and Irish students are educated in private institutions. In fact, only about 11% of HK students are in private. (http://devdata.worldbank.org/edstats/SummaryEducationProfiles/CountryData/GetShowData.asp?sCtry=HKG,Hong%20Kong,%20China)
You might also note that the US has a higher percentage of students enrolled in secondary ed.

And, as I noted above, the 2003 TIMMS study actually shows the US holds its own in Math and Science. It might not rank up there with the test-obsessed, school frantic East Asians, but it is solidly in the middle of the next cohort. On literacy, our scores rank near the top.

That's all the time I will spend on your statements. Next time try them with someone who doesn't bother researching them.

OECD, "Education at a Glance" [1996, p.
287]:

The structure of the education system in Ireland owes much to history. Irish schools are owned, not by the State, but by community groups, traditionally religious groups. It is in general an aided system: The State does not itself operate the schools (with a few minor exceptions) but assists other bodies, usually religious, to do so. Almost 92 percent of the population of Ireland are Roman Catholics
and religious authorities play a pre-eminent role in the realm of education.

The issue with Hong Kong is a difference in the use of the term "private", akin to the different interpretations of "public school" in the US and Britain, where the terms mean nearly the opposite from that across the Atlantic. In Hong Kong, "private" schools are unaided schools. Fewer than one in ten Hong Kong students attends a school operated by government employees.

Here's what madruid's source gives for Ireland's "private" school enrollment.

Private sector enrollment share Primary level (%) .. 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 11.6 Secondary level (%) .. 0.4 .. 0.6 0.6 17.7

That's all the time I will spend on your statements. Next time try them with someone who doesn't bother researching them.

Try again. Look at the statistical tables in the I am not sure what your point is here. Ireland has basically the same literacy and math scores as the US.

According to the OECD database for the difference between private and public in Ireland; the majority of schools are public. That might be a definitional difference as you claim, but here is the associated definition:

"The classification between public and private institution is made according to whether a public agency or a private entity has the ultimate control over the institution. For private institutions, the distinction between government-dependent and independent refers only to the degree of a private institution's dependence on funding from government sources: a government-dependent private institution receives 50% or more of its core funding from government agencies or one whose teaching personnel are paid by government agency. An independent private institution is one that receives less than 50% of its core funding from government agencies and whose teaching personnel are not paid by a government agency."

It appears that, although funding is provided by the government, hiring and firing is done by the school. However, there is extensive and intensive oversight by the governing board. In any event, this is not a good model for the US since most schools are rural and many primary schools average less than one teacher per grade level.

As far as Hong Kong, the World Bank definition is:
Private enrollment share (%), primary

"Private enrollment share (%), primary is the number of pupils in primary education enrolled in institutions that are not operated by a public authority but controlled and managed, whether for profit or not, by a private body such as a nongovernmental organization, religious body, special interest group, foundation or business enterprise, expressed as a percentage of the total number of pupils enrolled in primary education. (Data Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics) "

In general, I am distrustful of cross-country comparisions since they often do not use comparable bases. But Mr. Kirkpatrick is being exceptional disingenuous if he thinks that either the mostly rural Ireland or the closely controlled Hong Kong school systems are some sort of model for the US.

(Madruid): "Try again."
Okay. The topic is the control of education.

Postlethwaite, "The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and National Systems of Education" p. 333, Hong Kong:

While the reliance upon private education as a profit-making venture has become less acceptible, the pattern of dependence on management by voluntary agencies as increased and, of the 537,000 children in primary schools in 1985, just over 37,000 were in government schools. All kindergarten schools are still operated privately. At the secondary level, the picture is similar in that, of the enrollment of 401,200 up to form 5 (grade 11), only 31,400 are in government schools.

The administration and management of schools in Ireland involves a complex balance of private and public interests, local and central control. Each primary school is managed by a local board, made up of representatves of a church, parents, and teachers. At second level, secondary schools are private institutions. Most are owned and managed by religious bodies.

Well, "disingenuois" implies that one thinks one thing and says another. Our immediate topic was the control of schools in Ireland and Hong Kong.

I make less of the public/private distinction than most, and less of the non-profit/for-profit distinction than most. We are all public citizens and private individuals. People do not become more intelligent, compassionate, or better-informed when they enter the State's employ. Unions, even "public sector" unions are --private-- 501-c(5) corporations. "Control" is a continuous, multi-dimensional variable.

Policies which give to individual parents the power to determine for their own children which institution shall receive the taxpayers' pre-college education subsidy give the power to match individual children's abilities and interests, on the one hand, with a school's curriculum and methods of instruction, on the other, to the people who know individual children best and are most reliably concerned for their welfare.

Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez
"Organization and Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical findings", pg. 16,
Comparative Education , Vol. 36 #1, 2000, Feb.

Furthermore, the regression results indicate that countries where private education is more widespread perform significantly better than countries where it is more limited. The result showing the private sector to be more efficient is similar to those found in other contexts with individual data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987; Jiminez, et. al, 1991).
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education.

1) As institutions take from individual parents the power to determine for their own children the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction, overall system performance falls.
2) Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents.

Please read this one page Marvin Minsky comment on school.
Please read this article on artificially extended adolescence by Ted Kolderie.

While vouchers would be a big step up from the current policy, which restricts parents' options for the use of the taxpayers K-12 education subsidy to schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, I prefer a policy I call Parent Performance Contracting.

(Madruid): "Try again."
Okay. The topic is the control of education.

Postlethwaite, "The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and National Systems of Education" p. 333, Hong Kong:

While the reliance upon private education as a profit-making venture has become less acceptible, the pattern of dependence on management by voluntary agencies as increased and, of the 537,000 children in primary schools in 1985, just over 37,000 were in government schools. All kindergarten schools are still operated privately. At the secondary level, the picture is similar in that, of the enrollment of 401,200 up to form 5 (grade 11), only 31,400 are in government schools.

The administration and management of schools in Ireland involves a complex balance of private and public interests, local and central control. Each primary school is managed by a local board, made up of representatves of a church, parents, and teachers. At second level, secondary schools are private institutions. Most are owned and managed by religious bodies.

Well, "disingenuois" implies that one thinks one thing and says another. Our immediate topic was the control of schools in Ireland and Hong Kong.

I make less of the public/private distinction than most, and less of the non-profit/for-profit distinction than most. We are all public citizens and private individuals. People do not become more intelligent, compassionate, or better-informed when they enter the State's employ. Unions, even "public sector" unions are --private-- 501-c(5) corporations. "Control" is a continuous, multi-dimensional variable.

Policies which give to individual parents the power to determine for their own children which institution shall receive the taxpayers' pre-college education subsidy give the power to match individual children's abilities and interests, on the one hand, with a school's curriculum and methods of instruction, on the other, to the people who know individual children best and are most reliably concerned for their welfare.

Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez
"Organization and Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical findings", pg. 16,
Comparative Education , Vol. 36 #1, 2000, Feb.

Furthermore, the regression results indicate that countries where private education is more widespread perform significantly better than countries where it is more limited. The result showing the private sector to be more efficient is similar to those found in other contexts with individual data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987; Jiminez, et. al, 1991).
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education.

1) As institutions take from individual parents the power to determine for their own children the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction, overall system performance falls.
2) Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents.

Hmmm, dueling references. It is hardly believable that the World Bank researchers did not understand the public/private misnomer that the British use, so perhaps the differences is in the amount of control. Obviously, the private schools in Ireland are under much stricter government oversight and monetary control than the US private schools, so they probably drew a line based on their expertise.

But I believe your main point is that the US system is "wretched" and that government control causes the system to "fall." You are basing your argument, however, on a single grade of a single test. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the US does rather well when you consider other tests. Furthermore, as a generalization, your generalization is just that, it fails to consider the differences between cultures and forces outside the system.

Yes, the public/private distinction comes down to a matter of definition. The degree of control which policy makers give to parents is, although multidimensional, a matter of degree and it's usually pretty obvious what changes in policy will enance individual parents' control over their individual childrens's education.
(madruid): "But I believe your main point is that the US system is 'wretched' and that government control causes the system to 'fall'."

Close. The top-performing US State, by some measures, is North Dakota, which has a relatively small fraction of enrollment in independent or parochial schools. Two factors which I find significant are the smallest mean district size (under 500 students in a district) and an age-start of (up to recently) seven years old. Small districts are better. Later is better.

(madruid): "You are basing your argument, however, on a single grade of a single test..."
(malcolm):...

Across the US, the coefficient of correlation (%20K+dist, score) is negative, where "%20K+dist" is the fraction of total enrollment assigned to districts over 20,000 enrollment and "score" is NAEP 4th or 8th grade Reading or Math score. Large districts degrade student performance.
Across the US, the coefficient of correlation (age-start, score) is positive, where "age-start" is the age at which State compel attendance at school and "score" is NAEP 4th or 8th grade Reading or Math score. Early compulsory attendance is counter-indicated.
Across the US, the coefficient of correlation(%20K+dist, delta) is positive, where "%20K+ dist" is as before and "delta" is the difference between the white mean score and the black mean score (NAEP 8th grade Math). Large districts yield more unequal results.

In Hawaii, juvenile arrests for violent crime, drug possession, and drug promotion fall when school is not in session. Juvenile hospitalizations for human-induced trauma fall when school is not in session.

The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. School days, I believe, are the unhappiest in the whole span of human existence. They are full of dull, unintelligible tasks, new and unpleasant ordinances, and brutal violations of common sense and common decency.

Several studies of maltreatment by teachers suggest that school children report traumatic symptoms that are similar whether the traumatic event was physical or verbal abuse...Extrapolation from these studies suggests that psychological maltreatment of school children, especially those who are poor, is fairly widespread in the United States.....schools do not encourage research regarding possible emotional maltreatment of students by staff or investigatiion into how this behavior might affect student misbehavior......Since these studies focused on teacher-induced PTSD and explored all types of teacher maltreatment, some of the aggressive feelings were also caused by physical or sexual abuse. There was no attempt to separate actual aggression from feelings of aggression. The results indicated that at least 1% to 2% of the respondents' symptoms were sufficient for a diagnosis of PTSD. It is known that when this disorder develops as a result of interpersonal violence, externalizing symptoms are often the result...While 1% to 2% might not seem to be a large percentage of a school-aged population, in a system like New York City, this would be about 10,000 children so traumatized by educators that they may suffer serious, and sometimes lifelong emotional problems...A good percentage of these students develop angry and aggressive responses as a result. Yet, emotional abuse and its relation to misbehavior in schools receives little pedagogical, psychological, or legal attention and is rarely mentioned in textbooks on school discipline...As with corporal punishment, the frequency of emotional maltreatment in schools is too often a function of the socioeconomic status (SES) of the student population.

Furthermore, according to a report for UNESCO, cited in Esteve (2000), the increasing level of pupil-teacher and pupil-pupil violence in classrooms is directly connected with compulsory schooling. The report argues that institutional violence against pupils who are obliged to attend daily at an educational centre until 16 or 18 years of age increases the frustration of these students to a level where they externalise it.

It is almost certainly more damaging for children to be in school than to out of it. Children whose days are spent herding animals rather than sitting in a clasroom at least develop skills of problem solving and independence while the supposedly luckier ones in school are stunted in their mental, physical, and emotional development by being rendered pasive, and by having to spend hours each day in a crowded classroom under the control of an adult who punishes them for any normal level of activity such as moving or speaking.

"...(M)any well-known adolescent difficulties are not intrinsic to the teenage years but are related to the mismatch between adolescents' developmental needs and the kinds of experiences most junior high and high schools provide. When students need close affiliation, they experience large depersonalized schools; when they need to develop autonomy, they experience few opportunities for choice and punitive approaches to discipline..."(Linda Darling-Hammond, professor of education, Stanford University)

Violence at school is a prevalent problem. According to a national survey of school proncipals (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1998), over 200,000 serious fights or physical attacks occurred in public schools during the 1996-1997 school year. Serious violent crimes occurred in approximately 12% of middle schools and 13% of high schools. Student surveys...indicate even higher rates of aggressive behavior. Approximately 16.2% of high school students nationwide reported involvement in a physical fight at school during a 30-day period, and 11.8% reported carrying a weapon on school property...Research on victims of violence at school suggests that repeated victimization has detrimental effects on a child's emotional and social development...Victims exhibit higher levels of anxiety and depression, and lower self-esteem than non-victims...

Results showed that the over-representation of Black males that has been cited consistently in the literature begins at the elementary school level and continues through high school. Black females also were suspended at a much higher rate than White or Hispanic females at all three school levels.

The failure to provide education to poor urban children perpetuates a vicious cycle of poverty, dependence, criminality, and alienation that continues for the remainder of their lives. If society cannot end racial discrimination, at least it can arm minorities with the education to defend themselves from some of discrimination�s effects.

Criminal violence emerges from social experience, most commonly brutal social experience visited upon vulnerable children, who suffer for our neglect of their welfare and return in vengeful wrath to plague us. If violence is a choice they make, and therefor their personal responsibility, as Athens demonstrates it is, our failure to protect them from having to confront such a choice is a choice we make, just as a disease epidemic would be implicitly our choice if we failed to provide vaccines and antibiotics. Such a choice-to tolerate the brutalization of children as we continue to do-is equally violent and equally evil, and we reap what we sow

...The issue of social skills. One edition of Home School Researcher, Volume 8, Number 3, contains two research reports on the issue of social skills. The first finding of the study by Larry Shyers (1992) was that home-schooled students received significantly lower problem behavior scores than schooled children. His next finding was that home-schooled children are socially well adjusted, but schooled children are not so well adjusted. Shyers concludes that we are asking the wrong question when we ask about the social adjustment of home-schooled children. The real question is why is the social; adjustment of schooled children of such poor quality?
The second study, by Thomas Smedley (1992), used different test instruments but comes to the same conclusion, that home-educated children are more mature and better socialized than those attending school....So-called "school phobia" is actually more likely to be a sign of mental health, whereas school dependancy is a largely unrecognized mental health problem

Wow, I'm impressed. You somewhere learned to cut and paste. Next time try for quality rather than quantity, please. Relevance would also be nice.

In your original posting, you had a mish-mash of various points. Among the various attempts to pull causations from correlations, dubious economic pronouncements and the like, your main evidence centered around cross-national comparisions. From the multitude of possible and available comparisions, you focussed on the one that is arguably the least valid. (OK, TIMSS 12th grade is probably worse, but no one talks about that one.)

Now, if you are going to hang your argument on a single data point, don't be surprised if other data comes back to hang you. Indeed, this is the weakness of your argument, PISA, PIRLS, TIMMSS Math, years of schooling, attendence rate all indicate the US is doing a pretty good job over-all. This despite the fact that the US is pretty much the odd one out in the group you cited - it is larger, more ethnically diverse, etc. - one wonders if you deliberately chose noncomparable countries.

As a result, I don't find your conclusions very strong, and I think your generalizations are not even weakly valid. For the last, however, it is hard to say because you seem to get there by intuition rather than logical rigor.

(malcolm): "The world's top-performing countries, as measured by TIMSS 8th grade Math scores, subsidize a parent's choice of school. In Singapore, 40% of schools are independent, and the State subsidizes attendance. 90% of Hong Kong students take taxpayer subsidies to independent schools. In Ireland, 90%. In the Netherlands, 68%, in Belgium, 65%."
(madruid): "Both the OECD and the World Bank deny your assertion that most HK and Irish students are educated in private institutions. In fact, only about 11% of HK students are in private."
(malcolm): "OECD, "Education at a Glance" [1996, p. 287]:

The structure of the education system in Ireland owes much to history. Irish schools are owned, not by the State, but by community groups, traditionally religious groups. It is in general an aided system: The State does not itself operate the schools (with a few minor exceptions) but assists other bodies, usually religious, to do so. Almost 92 percent of the population of Ireland are Roman Catholics and religious authorities play a pre-eminent role in the realm of education.

Link? Cite? Where does OECD "deny" "90% of Hong Kong students take taxpayer subsidies to independent schools. In Ireland, 90%"?

Only those aren't the top scoring countries on the TIMMSS 8th Math, are they? You skip over several to pick those out. And, with the exception, perhaps, of the Russian Federation, (which is statistically indistinguishable from the US) none is comparable in terms of size and diversity.

And you are still ignoring the other multitude of cross-national comparisions, aren't you? Well, I guess you don't have any choice.

Here's the link to the OECD database:
http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/default.aspx?DatasetCode=ROVERAGE

compare type of institution.

I already gave you the World Bank:

http://devdata.worldbank.org/edstats/SummaryEducationProfiles/CountryData/GetShowData.asp?sCtry=HKG,Hong%20Kong,%20China

World Bank
Private sector enrollment share
Primary level (%).. 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 11.6 Secondary level (%).. 0.4 .. 0.6 0.6 17.7

OECD
Private sector enrollment share
Primary level (%).. 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 11.6
Secondary level(%).. 0.4 .. 0.6 0.6 17.7

Exactly the same numbers. What are the odds?
This is an echo chamber.

"Education and Manpower Branch and Education Department, The School Management Initiative - Setting the Framework for Quality in Hong Kong Schools", Hong Kong.

An aided school in Hong Kong is a publicly funded school with all the recurrent expenditures paid by the Hong Kong Government. An aided school is operated by a school management committee registered and approved by the Education Department, according to the Code of Aid. The management committee is responsible for the daily operation of the school. More than 70 per cent of secondary schools in Hong Kong are aided schools.

If "public education" is not an employment program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, a source of padded contracts for politically-connected contraictors, and a venue fr State-worshipful indoctrinaton, why cannot any student take, at ny age, an xit exam (the GED wil do) and apply the taxpayers' age-6-a8 education subsidy toward oist-secondary tuition or toward a wage subsidy at any qualified employer?

(malcolm): "The world's top-performing countries, as measured by TIMSS 8th grade Math scores, subsidize a parent's choice of school. In Singapore, 40% of schools are independent, and the State subsidizes attendance. 90% of Hong Kong students take taxpayer subsidies to independent schools. In Ireland, 90%. In the Netherlands, 68%, in Belgium, 65%."
(madruid): "Only those aren't the top scoring countries on the TIMMSS 8th Math, are they? You skip over several to pick those out."

Singapore is tops. Hong Kong, Belgium, and the Netherlands are among the top ten. Hungary also, and all of these subsidize a parent's choice of school. Ireland didn't participate.

Go here

It is too nice of a day to waste on this, but...

Five out of ten? What about the others? The only one on that list comparable to the U.S. in terms of size is Japan. Japan does not subsidize private schools and, in fact, the public schools are tightly controlled by the government.

Not that we should or could emulate the Japanese system.

Of the top nine (in red, significantly better than the US), six subsidize independent schools. Estonia, South Korea, and Japan do not.

Wow, you're right. Also, the majority of the top nine lack an epicanthal fold. And a majority require school uniforms. Perhaps conformity causes good grades.

I'd also note that 44% of them have a smaller population than a single US city metro area. I would also hazard a guess that the Greater San Francisco Metro area has a larger population and would score at the top in that test.

We've addressed the madruid's objection to the assertion regarding enrollment in independent schools in Hong Kong and Ireland. Moving on...

(malcolm):...

The education industry is not a natural monopoly, and beyond a very low level there are no economies of scale at the delivery end of the education business as it currently operates. Natural monopoly and economies of scale are two usual welfare-economic arguments for State operation of an industry. Even when an industry is a natural monopoly or exhibits significant economies of scale, the case for State operation is not decisive (and the education industry is not a natural monopoly and, beyond a very low level, does not exhibit significant economies of scale as it currently operates)...Education only marginally qualifies as a "public good" as economists use the term and the "public goods" argument implies subsidy and regulation, at most, not State operation of an industry.

In your original posting, you had..dubious economic...

(malcolm): "The world's top-performing countries, as measured by TIMSS 8th grade Math scores, subsidize a parent's choice of school. In Singapore, 40% of schools are independent, and the State subsidizes attendance. 90% of Hong Kong students take taxpayer subsidies to independent schools. In Ireland, 90%. In the Netherlands, 68%, in Belgium, 65%."
(madruid): "Only those aren't the top scoring countries on the TIMMSS 8th Math, are they? You skip over several to pick those out."
(malcolm): "Of the top nine (in red, significantly better than the US), six subsidize independent schools. Estonia, South Korea, and Japan do not."
(madruid): "Wow, you're right. Also, the majority of the top nine lack an epicanthal fold. And a majority require school uniforms. Perhaps conformity causes good grades."

Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez
("Organization and Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical findings", pg. 16,
Comparative Education , Vol. 36 #1, 2000, Feb.) find superior country-level performance in systems with significant private-sector involvement. Either standardized test performance counts as evidence or it does not. Which is it?

Beginning of the week and I don't really have the time to continue bantering with you. My point is, if you haven't realized it by now, that there are more parsimonious ways of understanding the success of certain school systems, and that there are substantial differences between the countries you harp on and the US - for one, note that the three largest countries: Japan, Korea and Taiwan - do not have substantial (alternative) private schooling.

You seem to want to say that there is a casual relationship where more private schools leads to better educational outcomes. The only actual data seems to be a single, somewhat obscure study by Lassibile and Gomez. But that study, from what I can tell, only claims a correlation.

(madruid): "...there are more parsimonious ways of understanding the success of certain school systems..."

So you say. They will have to be more parsimonious than this...

Policies which give to individual parents the power to determine for their own children which institution shall receive the taxpayers' pre-college education subsidy give the power to match individual children's abilities and interests, on the one hand, with a school's curriculum and methods of instruction, on the other, to the people who know individual children best and are most reliably concerned for their welfare...1)As institutions take from individual parents the power to determine for their own children the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction, overall system performance falls.
2) Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents.

I --have-- said this:...

I make less of the public/private distinction than most, and less of the non-profit/for-profit distinction than most. We are all public citizens and private individuals. People do not become more intelligent, compassionate, or better-informed when they enter the State's employ. Unions, even "public sector" unions are --private-- 501-c(5) corporations. "Control" is a continuous, multi-dimensional variable.

There's abundant evidence but we spend our time dealing with madruid's ad hominem inuendos.

If there's some magic in provision of services by people under contract to the State (government, generally), how 'bout Parent Performance Contracting?