Vouchers: Hooray!

[Jason McCullough]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.gorman.html

I can get on board with education requirements and requiring schools to accept anyone who applies. The only hard part will be making sure they don't underfund 'em.....

[Ben Sones]

I think vouchers are a great idea. There are going to be a lot of kinks to work out, though, and it's going to take time to get a system that works. But I strongly support the fundamental idea.

[bmulligan]

shouldn't we just keep our money in the first place instead of filtering it through a bureaucracy ? All this voucher talk along with every other handout program gives the impression that it's 'free' since the government pays for it. How about increasing the tax deduction for children to $7500 per dependant. Or maybe even a tax credit.

[Ben Sones]

How about increasing the tax deduction for children to $7500 per dependant. Or maybe even a tax credit.

Because families that don't pay that much in annual federal taxes wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to school. If you are already in a low tax bracket, a large deduction is pretty much worthless.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, even tax credits get into issues with non-filers.

The interesting thing about that article is the framing; when the idea is separated from fire-breathing hatred of government, it's pretty cool once you've got some tweaks in. It's the first article I've read about vouchers where I didn't think I was being conned.

[bago]

Imagine that.. Teachers actually having to perform well for their pay...

Perhaps then I won't get the health teacher that was adamant about the "fact" that DNA was a protein...

(didn't the word acid mean anything to her?)

[XPav]

I had a science teacher who said that our hands don't go through each other because of magnetism.

[hermyhermit]

I had a science teacher who said that our hands don't go through each other because of magnetism.

...

I'm speechless. Has it really gotten that bad? I'm praying this was at least an early elementary school teacher and perhaps not a high school teacher. Or perhaps if you had said it was an English teacher theorizing outside of her chosen discipline, but a science teacher? Damn...

[Gav]

I had a science teacher who said that our hands don't go through each other because of magnetism.

That's actually pretty close to the correct answer,; it's because of negative charges repelling each other.

Gav

[quatoria]

I had a science teacher who said that our hands don't go through each other because of magnetism.

That's actually pretty close to the correct answer,; it's because of negative charges repelling each other.

Gav

It actually leads to some interesting contemplation on the way we perceive the universe - the fact that, in terms of the physical atoms that make up our bodies, we never actually physically "touch" any other living thing. It's all in the interaction of our fields. Not too far removed from naval gazing, I suppose, but I always found it an interesting idea.

[XPav]

I had a science teacher who said that our hands don't go through each other because of magnetism.
I'm speechless. Has it really gotten that bad? I'm praying this was at least an early elementary school teacher and perhaps not a high school teacher. Or perhaps if you had said it was an English teacher theorizing outside of her chosen discipline, but a science teacher? Damn...

7th Grade. Middle school.

For those that are saying "well, its sorta close, cuz you know..." have to realize that this guy was on the whole, rather clueless. He was so lazy once, he just set the Scantron machine up in the back of the classroom and had us scan our own tests.

That's the major egregious example of lousy teaching. I went to a Jesuit high school, and can't think of anyone there that didn't know their stuff. There was the english teacher that could only explain margins in terms of "how many carriage returns on the typewriter from the top of the page", but hey, that's to be expected.

[bmulligan]

Strong force, weak force, power of the force, dark side of the force........what's the difference. I've got to be in this class teaching a bunch of retards for 8 hours a day, so who really cares!! This was the attitude of many of the 'soon to retire' teachers I've encountered in private moments.

I was a teacher for a short stint. Taught high school CAD drafting and programming. You wouldn't believe the amount of new teachers who were only a 1/2 step ahead of the students regarding basic knowledge and curriculum content. It's really no wonder that so many kids end up dumber coming out of school than going in.

Since public education will never be dismantled, I guess I'd favor a voucher program, as long as schools weren't 'required' to enroll students who were behavior problems. If certain discipline rules could be enforced, kicking your child out of a school if he/she didn't comply would be an immediate godsend for public education There's nothing more frustrating than being forced to enroll a child who will not follow basic rules of behavior and courtesy simply because you are a 'public' institution and are mandated to educate unconditionally.

[XPav]

Alright, but then what happens to the students with discipline problems? Where do they go?

I'm not going "your entire idea is stupid" here, (like usual), but I'm actually curious as to what your alternative is.

[Linoleum]

Alright, but then what happens to the students with discipline problems? Where do they go?

How about boot camp with math and literacy tutors?

[Anders Hallin]

Go Tranquility Bay!
?

[bmulligan]

I'm not going "your entire idea is stupid" here, (like usual), but I'm actually curious as to what your alternative is.

I don't know if that's an insult or a free pass, but here goes:

How about a nice millitary school in Jamaica......................

Actually, most major school districts have a last chance bastion of hope for all evildoers. One school reserved for the special needs children that specializes in stricter rules and punnishment. If they can't make it there, then the juvi hall usually gets them for one reason or another, usually by their own doing.

[Peter Frazier]

I swore I wouldn't get into this one- it's much easier to leave it to the experts.... :wink:
However, I think you'll find that the special needs kiddies end up in places with softer regimes. The problem with much of these kids is that their homelife is absolutely appalling- applying punitive measures upon them at school then tends to reinforce their worldview that abuse and intimidation are the way the world operates. This creates a bit of a vicious circle which eventually spirals down to prison and someone innocent being grievously hurt.

The hope is that more flexible regimes will allow the students to learn appropriate socialisation skills that will prevent them from being the hard core thug who will beat people up for the fun of it.

Of course, this philosophy goes against the grain of how people really want to treat errant teens. God knows I've visualised some of my students at a boot camp. I guess the idea is though that if you kick their arses when they're young, they'll just kick your arse when they're older.

It would be nice to think that a boot camp would be able to get through to kids by gradually developing their sense of discipline and belonging. Somehow though, I don't think the places are developed with compassion and redemption in mind.

Sorry for sounding like a bleeding heart here- normally I'm not.

Oh- and if vouchers were introduced, I'd expect that every private school would have to take every student who applied. It'd be nice to see some of the private schools mixing up their social stratas.

And another 'Oh' for those people who remember crappy teachers. Get over it- Jesus, as if you guys aren't perfect. It amazes me how some people can grow up yet still carry juvenile grudges.

[XPav]

So basically, bmulligan, you're dooming everyone that doesn't respond well to increasing discipline to a life of crime and prison. "They talked out of turn, so send them to the school with the rest of the people that talk out of turn. Then they can all reinforce each other! Oh, and then when they all act the same way for a while, we'll throw them into juvie. Then, when they get out of school, we'll pick them up and throw them into jail."

As Peter says, its a vicious circle.

Right, well, now I think your idea is stupid. I can't tell whether or not your idea to send them to the Jamaican School Of QT3 Flamewar fame is serious or nor. If so, then you've really got issues relating to kids that don't fit your ideals, don't ya.

[bmulligan]

Jesus Pav, you need to take a vicodin.

If you've never been a public school teacher, then you should know that errant behavior is a lot more than 'talking out of turn'. There are kids with serious behavior problems that stem from a lack of discipline in the home and perhaps chemical imbalances. The former being much more prevalent than the latter.

Kids with too much freedom from absent parents don't submit themselves to being desk ridden for 7 hours a day and being 'taught' by anyone. They have a problem with accepting that anyone has authority over them. Many of these kids end up in the lockup by their own hand. It has nothing to do with me condemning thenm to a life of crime--they choose it themselves. Perhaps to get the attention they've always craved but never received from their parents.

Granted, high school is much more hands on teaching than college or AP courses, but some kids will not conform to any standards and have to be dealt with differently. Consequently, many large school districts have 1 facility reserved for such a purpose. Get a grip fella! This isn't Naziism.

There was a time when I was young that the nutjobs got sent to millitary school. Perhaps some of you can remember this time-- before we were all pollitically correct and were too afraid of hurting johnny's feelings and self-esteem. Never letting him play dodgeball or loose a baseball game or fail a test because it might hurt his fragile ego and turn him to the dark side. I say coddling kids teaches them to be soft and never work hard for success and achievement. It's the reason so many of them expect to get out of school and have high paying jobs that they can buy a lexus and a 4000 square foot house with.

[Jason McCullough]

B, I doubt there was ever a time when the poor of america would ship their out-of-control kids to military school, for the simple reason they couldn't afford it.

[bmulligan]

Yeah, sure, not every kids parents could afford millitary school, but c'mon, you can't guarantee an education for anyone can you? All I'm saying is that the expectations and demands put on public schooling are unreasonable and a result of the trend towards lack of personal responsibility. Parents who arent responsible for their own lives and behavior, make kids who are not responsible, then shove them in a public school where the public is expected to educate them. Does 'it takes a village' lend itself to this observation? A village of 1k, 100k, or 1000k may not be able to educate your progidy if you didn't set the bricks right in the foundation. And you can't fault the public schools nor expect them to build a house on quicksand.

When a kid gets expelled from the school district for bringing a gun to class, do you feel they still have a right to demand entrance to a public school? Could they then sue for being denied their right to use their government guaranteed voucher?

[XPav]

When a kid gets expelled from the school district for bringing a gun to class, do you feel they still have a right to demand entrance to a public school? Could they then sue for being denied their right to use their government guaranteed voucher?

So basically, if a kid brings a gun to school, for whatever reason, he should be denied schooling... period?

Come on, you know how schools are. Recently, a young child from the elementary school I attended (in Colorado -- a few miles down the street from Columbine High) got suspended for pointing his finger at another child and going "bang bang." Based on these tough standards that you're proposing, this kid is already a discipline problem.

I know an elementary school teacher that teaches a low-income school attended by low income black kids. When she said "whats the problem with you kids, this stuff is easy, my brother is younger than you and can do this", their response was (and I'm just repeating what they said here), "Yeah, but your brother goes to a real school -- we go to a n***er school."

You're proposing to basically say "We can't help these kids, they aren't learning so cut em off and let them end up in jail" and because what.... its not cost-effective?

At least you don't call yourself a compassionate conservative, cuz then I could add "hypocrite" to your description.

[quatoria]

"whats the problem with you kids, this stuff is easy, my brother is younger than you and can do this",

Wow. Great fucking teacher. (Here comes the ghost of Frazier, to explain to me that it was surely justified, and any criticism of teachers is verboten! oh no! RUN!)

[XPav]

She was frustrated, and I didn't get that word for word, but you get the idea.

Here are some other quotes I found.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1370.htm

(hey, can we please fix the broken URLs?)


"Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation."


"I think by far the most important bill in our whole code, is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness... The tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance."

Thomas Jefferson.

[Jason McCullough]

The ghost of Frazier?

[Anders Hallin]

There are kids with serious behavior problems that stem from a lack of discipline in the home and perhaps chemical imbalances.

Kids with too much freedom from absent parents...

Parents who arent responsible for their own lives and behavior, make kids who are not responsible
Which leads to the obvious conclusion:

Many of these kids end up in the lockup by their own hand. It has nothing to do with me condemning thenm to a life of crime--they choose it themselves.

[Peter Frazier]

"whats the problem with you kids, this stuff is easy, my brother is younger than you and can do this",

Wow. Great fucking teacher. (Here comes the ghost of Frazier, to explain to me that it was surely justified, and any criticism of teachers is verboten! oh no! RUN!)

Man, you're mixing up the ghost of Frazier with The Spirit of Education. Which I wish was actually the Fist of Education. I could worship something like that.

You can criticize teachers as much as you want. Just expect me to defend them as much as I can. :wink:
My profession gets kicked in the guts all the time, it's like an international sport. I'm sorry if you're pissed that I feel an obligation to my colleagues to step in and argue for them. I'm sure it takes the fun out of the game.

[Peter Frazier]

BTW- excellent cut and paste job, Anders. Very droll.

[bmulligan]

You're proposing to basically say "We can't help these kids, they aren't learning so cut em off and let them end up in jail" and because what.... its not cost-effective?
Yeah, there are some kids that can't be helped, no matter how liberal we are or how much 'compassion' (which you have already equated with money) we have.

Maybe your coveted poor black parents should be the ones to have more 'compassion' for their own freaking children. instead of laying the responsibility and blame on everyone else like teachers, schools, and society at large.


Come on, you know how schools are. Recently, a young child from the elementary school I attended (in Colorado -- a few miles down the street from Columbine High) got suspended for pointing his finger at another child and going "bang bang." Based on these tough standards that you're proposing, this kid is already a discipline problem.



get real, you and I both know and probably agree that the reactionary policies of todays educational systems are a farce and merely instituted to absolve districts from liability. Why are you blaming me for some idiot in Colorado who doesn't want to have to think about disciplining kids on an individual basis and prefers to have a blanket, zero-tolerence policy to cover his own ass? It's your liberal ilk and the gun control nuts who're responsible for these no tolerence rules as reaction to all the guns out there that kill people.

[Anti-Bunny]

Obama is going back on his word and killing this program (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEhD5i5CwAs).

[Tim James]

Ahh, 2003: back when discussion on the Internet didn't involve YouTube links.

[quatoria]

Wow. Great fucking teacher. (Here comes the ghost of Frazier, to explain to me that it was surely justified, and any criticism of teachers is verboten! oh no! RUN!)

Man, that was such a douchey thing to say. Have a belated apology, Peter, I have no idea why I jumped on you like that five years ago.

[BennyProfane]

Obama is going back on his word and killing this program (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEhD5i5CwAs).

That's not really what the interview says. It says that Obama is kicking the program down the road to the Congress to decide about. Now whether that is him killing it, or him really thinking it should be up to the Congress to determine funding issues involving the District of Columbia (which I believe is in fact their responsibility) I guess is up to the viewer to decide. And in fact, from what the fellow being interviewed says, Obama never promised to support the program, he said we should wait for more results from it (which admittedly look good. But again, Congress funds DC, not the White House).

Now granted, as a general rule the Democrats don't support voucher systems. But the fellow they interview here comes off sounding quite right-wing also, so you have to take him with a grain of salt. I don't know DC television--is that a Fox affiliate he's appearing on?

[Anti-Bunny]

Now granted, as a general rule the Democrats don't support voucher systems. But the fellow they interview here comes off sounding quite right-wing also, so you have to take him with a grain of salt. I don't know DC television--is that a Fox affiliate he's appearing on?

No idea on the channel, but Matt Welch the editor in chief for Reason Magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_(magazine)). Obviously, he is for vouchers and has covered the DC Voucher program since it began. (http://www.reason.com/news/show/27564.html)

[BennyProfane]

No idea on the channel, but Matt Welch the editor in chief for Reason Magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_%28magazine%29). Obviously, he is for vouchers and has covered the DC Voucher program since it began. (http://www.reason.com/news/show/27564.html)

Okay, that makes sense then. I would assume he believes public education in general is wrong, and it should be "pay as you go" with anyone able to pay into any school they choose.

[Dan Lawrence]

Anyone want to explain to me why I shouldn't think public schooling good and vouchers bad?

Frankly I suspect most of the social problems in the world can be traced to the fact that we generally pay (and therefore value) investment bankers ten times as much as we pay teachers.

[Aeon221]

Anyone want to explain to me why I shouldn't think public schooling good and vouchers bad?


The goal of vouchers, as I see it, is to make it more likely that the best schools -- and by association, the best teachers -- get more funding and have many more students to take care of.

And also to ensure that the worst schools -- and, by association, the worst teachers -- get less funding but have far fewer students to deal with.

Think of it as a sorting mechanism, if it helps make the system more palatable.

[Phil_Stein]

Dan, to the extent that public schooling means free education for all kids between some reasonable age ranges, I suspect that the vast vast majority of folks think that is a good thing.

The question is how it should work.

When public school districts work well, they can be very good. I'm quite happy with the public school my kids are in, and from what I can recall of my own experiences (primarily public schools), was happy with them, too.

But, there are plenty of folks who live in a bad school district or within the bounds of a bad school (even within, perhaps a decent district), and many of them may lack the means to readily move to a better district.

Imagine if the nearest grocery store to you sold a poor mix of stale and/or rotting food. There is a much better grocery store a mile further down the road, but you are only allowed to shop at the bad grocery store unless you physically move to a new location within the good store's "shopping boundaries".

Anyways, that's sort of the theory/justification behind vouchers. As for the reality on the ground? I don't know - I haven't read the literature. Obviously, there are some areas where vouchers are unlikely to be practical - such as in some rural areas where the population density is unlikely to be high enough to support multiple competing schools.

Also, there can potentially be problems with cherry picking - if vouchers are a fixed amount, schools could avoid taking kids that will be expensive to deal with (with handicaps, serious learning disabilities, etc.).

Again, much would depend on the implementation...

[Dan Lawrence]

Ok, so do you have a lot of good schools with spare capacity in the US that kids in poor schools are currently being prevented from using by geographical catchment areas?

How do you measure the performance of the schools, how is that commuincated to parents?

What about the children who not only can't readily move but can't readily commute to a far away school? Its no good if I get a voucher entitling me to school access to a school 50 miles away.

How is investing money in bringing market economics in via vouchers better than investing the money to improve both of the hypothetical competing schools? Is schools spending their time competing for kids a good idea? Couldn't this easily lead to situations where kids are taught not what is in their best interests but what is in the interests of increasing the school brand and attracting more children? If funding isn't linked to the amount of children they attract then what kind of market is this?

[Mordrak]

But... the free market! Dan, you just don't get it. I think the idea is that it will draw people to create competing schools within an area. How likely and how long will it take for that, I dunno. Personally, I see vouchers mostly as just a tax credit for the wealthy to middle/upper class. I think voucher proponents overestimate the mobility of most families.

[Phil_Stein]

Dan - a lot of your questions are implementation questions. They're good questions to ask, and there's no guarantee that a voucher system would get the details right.

Also, I am hardly an unabashed voucher supporter. I think vouchers are an interesting idea that I haven't read too much about myself. If they seem promising, I think the right way to start down the path is by large scale multi-year pilot programs, rather than some kind of wide rollout.

And I'm hoping you're interested in a genuine discussion, not right/left polemics. Anyways, here are some thoughts addressing your points:

1) Capacity. Yes, I do think there is likely a lot of excess capacity in at least some areas where schools are underperforming. IIUC, in St. Louis City, school enrollments have dropped sharply over the years/decades, and there are a lot of vacant/underutilized school buildings. Some have been converted to other purposes over the years, but I suspect there's a lot of excess capacity that would be relatively easy to convert into new schools.

2) Measurement/communication to parents. I'm not sure you need to rely too much on absolute school metrics (test scores, graduation rates and the like) in measuring school outcomes. While those types of measurements may be useful in some cases, too often they are influenced by inputs (i.e. children of highly educated/motivated parents will tend to score well even at poor schools). Rather, I think parents would likely evaluate schools in somewhat more direct fashion - by their own interactions with the schools, their children's interactions with the schools, and by word of mouth. Parents/students make similar choices now - choosing among day care providers, colleges, and even private schools.

3) As I said previously, vouchers aren't applicable in every situation. But there are a lot of densely populated areas that can/do support many schools within an area of a few miles. I see this as an issue, but not an insurmountable one.

4) I would certainly think funding should be linked to the amount of children at the school (and I think this is the basic idea behind vouchers). So really, the relevant part of your last paragraph is your questioning of whether competing schools will teach what's REALLY important or what only SEEMS import (in attracting more children). It's a good question, but I refer back to my point 2 (above, in this post). I think parents (and older children) are pretty good at detecting and distinguishing between good schools/teaching and mediocrity. Not every parent necessarily, but the vast majority. That doesn't necessarily mean that parents evaluate schools according to whatever criteria the district/state/nation has set forth as the flavor of the month. But in general, I would side with parent's ability to reasonably evaluate whether a school is up to snuff for their kids, and a hope that most competing schools would respond to that.

[Dan Lawrence]

Interesting points Phil, I got a bit more curious and googled up some links on the proposed voucher system in the US:

Some person's essay that I felt was easy to read on why the US school voucher proposal might violate the constitution's seperation of church and state, seemed a bit extreme but an interesting perspective. I didn't know that 85% of private schools in the US were religious:

http://candst.tripod.com/nkanode.htm

I didn't realise how strongly Friedman was backing voucher proposals before he died, he even has a fully fledged foundation to promote them. His involvement is setting off my pinko left-wing alarm bells after reading 'The Shock Doctorine'; he is just such an incredibly ideological figure. This is the foundations FAQ claiming that school choice is more efficient & even improves public schools because the private sector is just so good at education:

http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/schoolchoice/ShowFaq.do

Interestingly no serious consideration given to private schools possible biases and a moderate dodge on the constituionality question (there was a 5v4 supreme cout decision in favour of one case of vouchers during Bush's reign, no idea what the ideological composition of the bench was then but the ruling was far from unanimous).

The Anti-Defamation League are against because they believe it will lead to the balkanization of America:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/rel_chstsep_90/3841_90.asp

A fellow from the libertarian Cato was against because he thought it would inevitably hand control of private schooling over to the government:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6342

Those guys hate the public sector more than Friedman.


My conclusion is that the American proposal was principally designed to allow middle class parents the chance to get their kids into private school with a government sponsored discount. For the working classes the vouchers on their own wouldn't be enough to afford the fees and mostly the educational options are between one public school (that they use already) and a couple of private religious schools. I can see why Friedman & Bush would have been out to back something like this it will inevitably lead to the decline of public schools and the growth of private (& religious schools).

My principle worry other than further class based segregation of the population is what handing over the education to the private sector means for the education that is delivered. The great thing about public education is that its for the public good not for private interest, if a private school wants to start teaching creationism then it only has to answer to its parents and maybe they think "Well, the test scores are good so I guess a little bit of creationism won't hurt". I expect we'd also inevitably see private educational corporations dispensing branded education exerting more subtle thought control.

If there is another voucher proposal that doesn't involve private schools it might have a better chance.

Apologies if that was too much of a left wing polemic Phil :)

[Anti-Bunny]

Personally, I see vouchers mostly as just a tax credit for the wealthy to middle/upper class.

What does this even mean? The whole point of vouchers is so the poor can attend the same schools as the rich, such as the school that Obama's kids are attending.

[Dan Lawrence]

What does this even mean? The whole point of vouchers is so the poor can attend the same schools as the rich, such as the school that Obama's kids are attending.

Like I posted above I think it comes from the idea that the proposed voucher's dollar value was less than the fees of any good private schools so if you couldn't afford to top up your voucher you were stuck with the worst private schools or the same old public school. Meanwhile the middle classes who could afford some school fees got the same voucher and could now afford to put their kids in the most expensive private schools.

[Linoleum]

The great thing about public education is that its for the public good not for private interest

With "the public good" being defined as "the education establishment". Administration bureaucracies and teachers unions are private interests. And they look out for themselves first, the students in the system second. The future is even less local control and accountability, the results will be predictable.

[Dan Lawrence]

With "the public good" being defined as "the education establishment". Administration bureaucracies and teachers unions are private interests. And they look out for themselves first, the students in the system second.

No, I was defending the principle that public schools are for the public good, I think someone already quoted Jefferson. The purpose of them is to increase the education of the whole of society to everyone's benefit not to enrich teachers or maintain a bureaucracy. I doubt very much that teachers are heading into public schools for the loot but even if they were it wouldn't change the principle of public schooling if you catch my meaning. At least they are looking out for the students and not looking towards profit.

[Mordrak]

What does this even mean? The whole point of vouchers is so the poor can attend the same schools as the rich, such as the school that Obama's kids are attending.

There's big difference of the cost of such institutions and the value of the vouchers.

[Mordrak]

With "the public good" being defined as "the education establishment". Administration bureaucracies and teachers unions are private interests. And they look out for themselves first, the students in the system second. The future is even less local control and accountability, the results will be predictable.

The same is true of a private establishment, except that's also likely to mean looking after the shareholders as first with students and employees second. I'm not saying there aren't problems, even systemic problems, but needing better teachers isn't the only reason our public schools are falling behind. I'd also not rather have government money going to schools that teach creationism. That's very likely to happen with a demand driven but publicly funded school system.

[Linoleum]

No, I was defending the principle that public schools are for the public good, I think someone already quoted Jefferson. The purpose of them is to increase the education of the whole of society to everyone's benefit not to enrich teachers or maintain a bureaucracy. I doubt very much that teachers are heading into public schools for the loot but even if they were it wouldn't change the principle of public schooling if you catch my meaning. At least they are looking out for the students and not looking towards profit.

Ah, but I wasn't talking about individual teachers. At the risk of sounding facetious, if we're all in this for the public good, and there's no private corporate interests grubbing for money, what's the point of the union? It's about the aggregate and the institutions, not the individuals. Looking out for the students? There are lots of teachers that do. There are lots of teachers that don't. And institutionally, the ones that don't have a paycheck, even if not glorious, that's just as safe as the ones that do. A good union puts the interests of its members first (a bad union puts the interets of the union leadership first). The problem in this case is the taxpayer isn't some corporate boss, but let them make a fuss about educational performance and all of a sudden you're taking it out on the hapless teacher with a heart of gold who is only in it for the children...

[Mordrak]

Ah, but I wasn't talking about individual teachers. At the risk of sounding facetious, if we're all in this for the public good, and there's no private corporate interests grubbing for money, what's the point of the union? It's about the aggregate and the institutions, not the individuals. Looking out for the students? There are lots of teachers that do. There are lots of teachers that don't. And institutionally, the ones that don't have a paycheck, even if not glorious, that's just as safe as the ones that do. A good union puts the interests of its members first (a bad union puts the interets of the union leadership first). The problem in this case is the taxpayer isn't some corporate boss, but let them make a fuss about educational performance and all of a sudden you're taking it out on the hapless teacher with a heart of gold who is only in it for the children...

Just like going into any job, there's a variety of reasons. Administrator's do need to have flexibility to move or fire under performing teachers, but teaching is as much about curriculum and methodology as it is about the teacher's ability to inspire students. I find it very odd that we aren't willing to look at the systems out performing us, at least as a starting point. But they have scary things like national curriculum standards. Ooohhhhh. We also have to realize is that just statistically, we are going to be at a disadvantage because of our relatively small population compared to emerging superpowers like China and India.

[Jason McCullough]

Ah, but I wasn't talking about individual teachers. At the risk of sounding facetious, if we're all in this for the public good, and there's no private corporate interests grubbing for money, what's the point of the union? It's about the aggregate and the institutions, not the individuals. Looking out for the students? There are lots of teachers that do. There are lots of teachers that don't. And institutionally, the ones that don't have a paycheck, even if not glorious, that's just as safe as the ones that do. A good union puts the interests of its members first (a bad union puts the interets of the union leadership first). The problem in this case is the taxpayer isn't some corporate boss, but let them make a fuss about educational performance and all of a sudden you're taking it out on the hapless teacher with a heart of gold who is only in it for the children...

The taxpayer isn't a corporate boss, but the local school district administrators that run things sure act like it. A lot of the teachers I've had in my extended family and friends over the years have comical stories about abusive administrator behavior. After all, where else are they going to teach in this town?

Charter schools could reduce the need for teacher's unions, amusingly, because there'd actually be multiple places to work.

[Anti-Bunny]

There's big difference of the cost of such institutions and the value of the vouchers.

This is actually a pretty good argument, as I didn't realize the vouchers were only for $7,500.

Calling it a 'tax break' is ridiculous, though. They are only giving these out to families that need it (average income of $22,736)

[gameoverman]

To me it's a case of aiming at the wrong targets when talking about fixing public education here in the US.

The idea is laughable, that there is any kind of 'incentive' that will boost teacher performance without taking into consideration the quality of students that teacher gets to teach.

Some kid, living in a hotel with his siblings and grandma(cause dad's in jail and mom's strung out), a kid who has to wade through hookers and crackheads and gangbangers(oh my!) to get to and from school, a kid whose best meal of the day is subsidized lunch- that kid isn't going to respond to threats of detention. Nor to threats of suspension or expulsion. How is giving an incentive to his teacher going to impact his behavior, willingness to learn, or basic discipline?

All that's going to happen is some teachers will do whatever it takes for the chance to teach at the 'good' schools, where even lousy teachers will see good results due to the higher quality students.

Other teachers will stay at the 'bad schools', but learn to game the system so that any tests or other methods used to determine performance will magically improve, thereby earning the desired bonus.

The unfortunate ones will be stuck at schools so far down the foodchain that even gaming the system won't help. They will be therefore not only demoralized, but forced to admit there is no point to even caring about performance anymore. So those schools will be the Detroit Lions of education.

Sorting students out, so the best ones get the best education and bad ones get removed from the presence of the best, sounds good at first. Until you realize this will result in a larger and larger pool of un/undereducated people, which is not good for the country in the long run.

The only real solution, in my opinion, is a massive upgrading in the parenting in this country. That's a tough sell though, because anything involving discussion of reproductive issues in the US...well good luck with that.

[Anti-Bunny]

A lot of the teachers I've had in my extended family and friends over the years have comical stories about abusive administrator behavior. After all, where else are they going to teach in this town?

And the opposite is true where Unions have power over the department, such as UTLA in California, where firing an incompetent teacher is literally impossible.

[Jason McCullough]

Maybe! The only teachers I know are in right to work states, come to think of it.

[Aeon221]

The only real solution, in my opinion, is a massive upgrading in the parenting in this country. That's a tough sell though, because anything involving discussion of reproductive issues in the US...well good luck with that.

If your only solution is a rewrite of society, you've utterly failed.

[Phil_Stein]

There was a very interesting piece (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers3-2009may03,0,5765040,full.story) in the LA Times about the difficulty of firing teachers in that area.

[Tortilla]

If your only solution is a rewrite of society, you've utterly failed.

I like to phrase that one as "If your plans depend on people being different than they really are, your plans are doomed." But yeah, same sentiment :)

[Greatatlantic]

This is actually a pretty good argument, as I didn't realize the vouchers were only for $7,500.

Calling it a 'tax break' is ridiculous, though. They are only giving these out to families that need it (average income of $22,736)

Actually, $7,500 probably covers 90% of parochial school tuition. Admittedly, there are going to be "elite" schools with tuition in the five digits, but they're in exception. Most Catholic schools were designed to provide the Catholic population, largely working class, an alternative to protestant controlled public schools. As such, tuition remains very affordable at many Catholic schools.

Which is why I'm for vouchers. Being a liberal, I certainly don't have any delusions of free market principles fixing "underperforming" schools. However, the chance to get government money and help more people afford Catholic school? I'm so there!

[Anti-Bunny]

Which is why I'm for vouchers. Being a liberal, I certainly don't have any delusions of free market principles fixing "underperforming" schools.
I had no illusions of that. The point is that the DC schools cannot be fixed before the kids in them graduate (or drop out), and I have my doubts on them being fixed afterwards.


Also, Reason did another video.. Hosted by Mr. Mxyzptlk! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7FS5B-CynM

[XPav]

I apologize for quoting Thomas Jefferson in 2003. I like my one-liner-pithy-comment self of 2009 much more than the ridiculous P&R posting self of 2003, he's a dick.