From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 08:29:56 PST

In <1993Jan8.131506.24928@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Jeffrey Bolden writes:

>In article <1iijjkINN1jt@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Pol
>>Jim Howe) writes:
>>|> Steve Nelson) writes:
>>|> |> Michael Doel) writes:
>>|> |> >
>>|> |> >
>>> |> >Wrong on two counts.  First, the rich aren't the ones being hurt by the
>>|> |> >of school vouchers, it's the poor.
>>|> |>
>>|> |>
>>|> |> Please explain how a child living in poverty in an inner city is going
>>|> |> to get a better education than he or she is currently getting because hi
>>|> |> or her parent(s) receive(s) a school voucher worth $1000.00 or even $250
>>|> |> considering the cost of a good private (or public for that matter)
>>|> |> education.
>>|> |>
>>|>
>>|> It helps by creating a competitive market for education in the inner city.
>>|> Instead of money automatically going to the local government school,
>>|> parents will have the option of spending it elsewhere.  Some enterprising
>>|> soul(s) will create alternative schools in the hopes of attracting
>>|> the voucher money.  If a school gets a good reputation, it will attract
>>|> more students, if it doesn't, students will go elsewhere.  Clearly the
>>|> size of the voucher will make a big difference.  Most voucher plans that
>|> I am aware of have voucher amounts which are enough to pay for a reasonable
>>|> education.  Additional money from parents, relatives, friends and
>>|> scholarships can all be used to supplement the voucher amount.
>>|>
>>The school Chelsea will be going to is $10,000/year.  How much of a voucher
>>would it take to give 80% of the residents of DC (or any other inner city)
>>the opportunity to attend such a school?  Probably $9.900.  Doesn't sound
>>like a solution we can live with, since we spend ~$3500 per student today --
>>and that is total funding; federal, state, and local.
>>--
>>These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
>>occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.

>That $3500 figure sounds fishy, are you sure about it.  I know for
>example that Trenton NJ (a poor place) spends about $5000 per student.
>Anyway, many Catholic schools operate (including endowmant and donations)
>for about $4000 so your not far off, from a reasonable voucher.
>Personally I favor a $5000-8000 voucher, but I think most of the people
>who favor the $1000 voucher, just want to give the private schools time to
>react to a probably 5+ fold increase in their customer base.

$3500 is bogus.  I don't have it with me, but recently I did battle with the
"more money for education" crowd (read:  NEA members) about their claims that
"Reagan cut schoold budgets."

According to the U.S. Department of Education's "Digest of Education Statis-
tics" for 1991, the *inflation adjusted* spending on education at all levels
(federal, state, and local) are as follows (figures are in 1990 dollars and
are approximations since I don't have the actual numbers with me):

1960 -- $1,500
1970 -- $2,600
1980 -- $3,500
1989 -- $4,600

Those are *inflation adjusted* dollars.  We are spending three times more per
student in *real* dollars as compared to 1960.  Yet weren't the public schools
far superior in 1960 with ONE THIRD OF THE MONEY???

Hmmm...1980:  $3,500.   1989:  $4,600.  Sounds like those evil Reaganites
dismantled education...


Tim Irvin
****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism