Voucher Schools

[5010]

Is your opinion based on principle or observation? From the Milwaukee experiment, it seems like a bunch of kids are getting crappy educations because of ignorant parents keeping them in crappy schools.

True, some parents make bad choices for their kids. Some choose very unhealthy diets for their children, resulting in obesity and diabetes etc. Is the real problem lack of oversight in the schools or lack of oversight in parenting?

[Captain Chaos]

True, some parents make bad choices for their kids. Some choose very unhealthy diets for their children, resulting in obesity and diabetes etc. Is the real problem lack of oversight in the schools or lack of oversight in parenting?

I have no stake in how a parent feeds it kids, unless we are talking a truly abusive situation. However, I do have a stake in how my tax money is spent. I don't want it wasted on crappy schools that are going to raise ignorant kids who become thugs because they do not know enough to pursue other avenues in life.

[tman_ndsu08]

But you're fine with healthcare vouchers going for crappy insurance?

And how do you define crappy or not?


It doesn't matter how much you spend, if kids don't want to learn and don't want to go to school, there is nothing you can do.

They're going to be thugs.



Perhaps another part of the answer is to not make school mandatory at a lower age.


It gets the kids who don't want to be there out so the teachers and resources can be concentrated on those who do.

[5010]

However, I do have a stake in how my tax money is spent.

OK. So should parents feeding their kids on food stamps have more oversight?

[Captain Chaos]

OK. So should parents feeding their kids on food stamps have more oversight?

Food stamps should be abolished. All welfare programs should be replaced with a largely self-supporting U.S. infrastructure corp.

But, I have no idea if a need for oversight of such a thing is needed, or practical.

Requiring schools to not suck in order to qualify for vouchers is quite practical. Otherwise, any bonehead who wants to read to kids in a basement somewhere can call it a school, and get the money.

[Captain Chaos]

But you're fine with healthcare vouchers going for crappy insurance?

And how do you define crappy or not?


It doesn't matter how much you spend, if kids don't want to learn and don't want to go to school, there is nothing you can do.

They're going to be thugs.



Perhaps another part of the answer is to not make school mandatory at a lower age.


It gets the kids who don't want to be there out so the teachers and resources can be concentrated on those who do.

We have laws regulating the insurance industry, to prevent fraud. I am quite OK with fraud and other forms of theft being illegal.

As for defining crappy, that is the school board's job. They are supposed to be the experts, and I am paying their salaries for that expertise. I am sure it would take a bit of work, but would still be quite practical.

It doesn't matter how much you spend, if kids don't want to learn and don't want to go to school, there is nothing you can do.

They're going to be thugs.

Right. But kids who can be seduced into the joy of learning, or persuaded some other way, need a good school to meet that need. Good schools really do make a difference.

Even if there are natural-born thugs, that does not mean there are not others who could go either way, depending on the options they see in their life.

[tman_ndsu08]

We have laws regulating the insurance industry, to prevent fraud. I am quite OK with fraud and other forms of theft being illegal.

As am I.

But fraud must first be committed before you can sue someone.


You have to let stupid people do their stupid things. It's their own fault.

And if it really is fraud, then the law will come down on them with great vigor.

I am paying their salaries for that expertise.

No.


I want to spend my voucher money only on a school that I see fit to educate my child.


Let me make that determination!

If I feel that the school doesn't fit my criteria, then my child won't go there anymore.

Simple as that.

Good schools really do make a difference.

Of course.

And leaving it to the market means that the good schools rise to the top just the same way that good businesses rise to the top.

[Captain Chaos]

You have to let stupid people do their stupid things. It's their own fault.

I do not have to let stupid people do stupid things with my money. And, if their own fault leads to the creation of an increased rate of uneducated thugs who are going to kill me for my socks, then I most certainly do not have to do that either.

Good education is an obvious method of protecting my property rights.


It also means overall increased productivity, meaning a thriving economy, and thus greater wealth for me. Thus, my tax money then becomes an investment that pays me back!

That is even better.

No.


I want to spend my voucher money only on a school that I see fit to educate my child.


Let me make that determination!

If I feel that the school doesn't fit my criteria, then my child won't go there anymore.

Simple as that.

You can spend your private money for that purpose. Voucher money comes from the taxpayer, and as such carries with it an obligation to spend wisely.

Of course.

And leaving it to the market means that the good schools rise to the top just the same way that good businesses rise to the top.

This is idealistic. However, the experience in Milwaukee has shown that this ideal does not always hold true.

Besides, the best schools will still rise to the top, and the crappy ones will just be dropped when they should be dropped, rather than continuing to waste my tax money providing crappy education.

[tman_ndsu08]

the best schools will still rise to the top, and the crappy ones will just be dropped when they should be dropped, rather than continuing to waste my tax money providing crappy education.

Yet you would allow someone to spend your precious tax dollars on an insurance company that may not pay out when they should?


To me, that's just as bad if not worse than allowing someone to spend your money on a school that doesn't meet your gold standard.



I know you already said there are laws against fraud.

So what?


How are you going to sue a school for fraud?

Are you going to claim that your child didn't learn X amount of new concepts to justify the payment?




It goes right to fundamental question of judging schools: how do you quantitatively measure learning?


It can't be done. And any attempt to do so is laughable and a waste of money.



The only true way to judge a school's performance is the market.


If enough students leave the school for poor performance, the school will fail financially.

[Captain Chaos]

Yet you would allow someone to spend your precious tax dollars on an insurance company that may not pay out when they should?

No, oversight of the Insurance Industry is massive. I do not know enough about it, to know if it is handled well or not.

How are you going to sue a school for fraud?

I am sure you could, but it would be more efficient to head it off at the pass.

It goes right to fundamental question of judging schools: how do you quantitatively measure learning?

There are plenty of ways to do this. But, simple basic requirements for schools (such as requiring they actually have a certain percentage of certified teachers) are not hard to come up with.

If your only objection is the details of judging schools - well, everything can be quantitatively measured in some way. If it is not practical, then someone just has to make a judgement call. That is what we would pay the school board for.

[5010]

Requiring schools to not suck in order to qualify for vouchers is quite practical. Otherwise, any bonehead who wants to read to kids in a basement somewhere can call it a school, and get the money.

That makes perfect sense. But I don't want a magority that supports one ideology to throw out a school that supports an alternate ideology. Who decides?

[CoffeeSaint]

That makes perfect sense. But I don't want a magority that supports one ideology to throw out a school that supports an alternate ideology. Who decides?

It isn't hard to make a distinction between education and ideology, when you know what you're looking for. There are a thousand ways for a school to teach what a kid needs to learn, and whatever way the school wants to do it, one could still judge whether or not the kid has learned what he or she needs to learn. The decision concerning what exactly a kid needs to learn, if that's what you're referring to, is one that should come from a collaboration. Catholic schools work because they teach the three R's, etc., and then add religious classes. How well a school teaches the basic elements of education should be judged by experts, whether they are government experts or not; parents are generally not qualified to recognize a quality education. They are more than capable of recognizing the right environment for their kids, which I think is the strength of the voucher system -- but parents don't know what their kids need to learn, not in detail.

And no, tman, stupid parents should not be allowed to screw up their kids. If their mistakes only affect themselves, so be it, but if it affects someone else, we should step in. I don't think we can always tell when someone's stupidity hurts another, but we certainly can when a parent is sending his kids to Alex's Academy of Excellence, run by Alex the rapist. :eek: