From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:45:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.192802.26427@m5.harvard.edu>
borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
 
>
>In article <16B5A7AE0.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan14.012412.29669@athena.mit.edu>
>> howie@athena.mit.edu (Howard D Lewis) writes:
>>
>> >
>> >The total funding a school recieves is not as important as the amount spent
>> >per pupil.  If a student is refunded the cost of his public education,
>> >the per pupil spending remains the same.  There would also be the added benefit
>> >of decrowding as students leave the system while keeping the per pupil
>> >expenditures about the same.   Unless by some feat of mismangement it
>> >becomes more expensive to educate fewer students at the same price, the
>> >school choice program does not do much to damage a school system.
>>
>> You ignore the problem of fixed costs.  If 5% of the students in a
>> school leave, that does not mean there is 5% less of the lawn to mow,
>> 5% less of the gymnasium to sweep, 5% less halls to paint.  If there is
>> only one physics teacher (like in my old high school), it does not mean
>> 5% less physics teachers to pay, unless you cut physics entirely.
>> Same with calculus, languages, music, and a host of other subjects.
>> Thus, per-pupil costs go up, without any great feat of mismanagement.
>>
>> There are also problems with "special-education" programs for students
>> with a disability.  These cost more per student to educate, and the
>> special-ed programs are mandated by the Federal government.  The
>> private schools generally won't touch these students, and would have no
>> incentive to do so unless they got bigger vouchers.  If only "normal"
>> students leave, the proportion of special-needs students goes up, which
>> again raises the cost per student.
>>
>> Jim McMaster
>
>But these are all easy questions to answer.  Make the vouchers a bit less than
>the total public-school cost per student, but still substantial, that is, some
>smaller amount that ideally would neither increase nor decrease a public school's
>real per-student funding.
>
I appreciate your acknowledging your original plan was unrealistic.
That is rare in this group.  Here is another question for you.
 
Colorado had vouchers on the ballot in the last election, and they
lost.  I voted against them.  There are currently about 20,000 private
school students in this state, in all income categories.  If nothing
else happened, the state would be obligated to write $40,000,000 in
vouchers this September.  Where would that money have come from?  You
can bet your house that it would have come out of the existing school
budgets.  This would not mean a change in per-pupil spending in public
schools?
 
>As far as special-needs students go, those students could receive larger
>vouchers, or supplemental vouchers, or schools could receive funding for special
>needs students.  I prefer the first two options, because the money would then be
>controlled somewhat by the parents.                                            't
 
What if every parent tries to get his/her child classified as
"special-needs" in order to get the larger voucher?  Hard problem to
define "special-needs", isn't it.
 
>                                     You say that private schools generally won't
>take special-needs students - that may be the case now, but if a full-scale
>voucher system is implemented, there will be many more private schools than there
>are now.  New schools will pop up to attract any new market which exists, which
>will include the special-needs market.
>
I love how all the voucher supporters have perfect foresight about how
things "will" happen.  How do you know?  Which crystal ball are you
consulting?
 
There are private schools for the handicapped.  My sister went to a
private school for the deaf.  The tuition was very high, but my father
managed to send her on a postal clerk's salary.  Then when busing
started, he sent her, along with my younger brother, to a private
church school to keep them from being bussed to a minority school.
Again, he was doing it on a postal clerk's pay.
 
Was he rich?  No way.  In what way was he denied the choice to send his
kids to private school?  Certainly vouchers would have made it easier
for him, but he was able to do it without them.
 
>Those who oppose school choice should ask themselves what their priorities really
>are, and what they should be.  Is the fundamental priority to save and improve
>the public schools?  Or is the priority to provide a quality education to all
>children, rich and poor?  I see nothing sacred about the public school system; if
>children can get a better education attending a reasonably priced private school,
>a private school whose cost per student is comparable to the public school
>system's cost per student, then we should send the children there and pay for it
>if necessary.
>
I have a son in second grade and a daughter going to Kindergarden in
September (assuming Kindergarten does not disappear for lack of
funding).  They will be in public schools.  My priority is to get the
best education for the maximum number of students.  Since the vast
majority of students will be in public schools with or without
vouchers, that means making the public schools better, not trashing
them in the name of choice.
 
Parents who do not want to send their children to public schools have
done so for years without vouchers.  They have done this with full
knowledge they also have to pay school taxes.  I see no reason to give
them a subsidy for a choice they have already decided to make.
 
>        - Dave Borden
>          borden@m5.harvard.edu
 
Jim McMaster