From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: School vouchers
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:58:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.180554.19291@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.003010.18500@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.015942.12061@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
>>>I agree with June's school voucher argument: it creates two classes 
>>>of people: parents and non-parents. Parents would get some tax credit 
>>>for taxes they paid, but non-parents would not.
>>
>>Note that June's voucher argument also applies to food stamps....
>>
>>I don't see you "publically run facilities are the only schools that
>>should get tax money" out there demanding that food stamps be
>>redeemable only at the govt store.  You seem perfectly happy to let
>>the private sector provide lots of things bought with public money.
>>Why are schools different?

>A big difference is everyone is taxed, but food stamps only
>go to those that are poor. One solution to the voucher issue
>would be to only give them to parents that are poor (or pro-rate
>the vouchers based on income, etc) I don't think this is what
>most pro-voucher people have in mind, though.

Try again.  Everyone is taxed, but only those with children get
vouchers/public school.  The "need" is defined differently, but that's
no "big difference".

>Another big difference/issue is that services are more difficult to 
>disperse than commodities. It's more difficult to ensure same quality
>learning environments than, say, tomatoes or a bag of corn chips.

Services are EASY to disperse; we've been doing it for decades.

Note that we don't ensure quality diets.  Food stamp recipients don't
have to buy balanced diets; we trust them to spend their vouchers
appropriately.  Why do we trust parents to choose food appropriately,
but not education?

BTW - "the experts" aren't assuring "quality learning environments" so
it isn't obvious that parents would make even worse decisions.

>Its possible that all the private schools that spring up in some areas
>would still not be very good. There are no easy answers to this.

Sure, some areas may have all bad private schools.  After all, many
areas do have all bad public schools.  With private, if some people
want a good private school, they get one.  The "minimum" number
required is absolute; it is merely the number necessary to support a
school.  With public, groups too small or unwilling to swing an election
don't count, and that size is a percentage of the population.

With public, your decisions explicitly limit my options.  With
private, they don't.  If we ran grocery stores publically, there'd be
Safeway if we were really lucky (and it would probably be more like
DMV or the USPS).  With private, we have both Safeway AND the fruit
stand down the road.  Your preference for Safeway doesn't bother me,
but I know that few people will vote to support the fruit stand (if
they would, it would have far more customers than it does), and I sure
like having the choice.

Since the public system isn't delivering an adequate education, it is
rather silly to discuss supposed differences between public and
private wrt ideal educations.

I'm not arguing for eliminating public schools.  I'm asking why they
should have a monopoly when it comes to getting public money to
educate kids.  I'm asking why we should give a tax-money monopoly to
monsters who argue "if `they' won't fix the schools, we'll ruin kids for
another 10 years".  The "fixers" have had plenty of time.  What makes
you think they'll get it right this time?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: ba.politics