Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 12:27:29 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

>>>               My primary question about private school vouchers is
>>>really one of principle:  we don't (as far as I know) provide federal funds
>>>for private roads, private security forces, private parks . . . so why
>>>should we provide them for private schools?
>>
>>But, we do provide federal funds for people to buy food from private
>>food producers, shoes from private shoe producers, and so on.  (BTW -
>>We do use public funds to pay private security forces.  On a different
>>note, we usually use public forces when we provide security for
>>individuals, but not always.)  We pay private firms to build public
>>roads, parks and so on.  So much for the principle.
>
>Um, kind of.  Let me try to clarify.  For some types of goods and services,
>the feds provide (all of? most of?) the funding using taxpayer dollars.  I
>guess the idea is that everyone should have access to the goods and
>services, and this is the best way to provide them.  In the case of schools
>, the feds and states provide the funds to build the buildings (using
>private contractors? I don't know), provide the materials, and pay the
>teachers.  And everyone has access to those schools.  This is *not* the
>same as providing assistance for folks to buy food and housing (as I
>pointed out once before).

Right.  If we did govt-supplied food the way we do education, AFDC
folks would be issued food at the govt food "store"; they wouldn't go
to a private provider.  Everyone has access to those private
providers, but they are private.

>In the case of roads, I guess the feds/states provide the funds and let
>private companies build them.  But, having provided the funds to build an
>interstate, they're not going to give a group of citizens *extra* funds to
>build a private interstate, right?

It depends on what you mean by a private interstate.  For some defns,
the ones that might make sense for this disussion, we do.
Consider cars.  We pay for poor people's cars; we don't give them
a choice between a free govt car and paying for their own car.

>Now, it seems to me that giving vouchers for private school would be OK *if
>* we changed the education system such that either (1) the funds were given
>to individuals, and private providers were allowed to compete for those
>dollars or (2) funds were provided via competitive bidding among private
>providers.

(1) is basically the voucher proposal.  Parents get a slip of paper
that an education provider can turn in to get cash.  Said parents pick
the provider.  The public schools don't want private providers to be
able to turn in those vouchers.

>       And in both cases, those would be the only education dollars
>spent.

Why?  I've no objection to kid-specific voucher amounts, or giving
rich parents smaller vouchers, but why shouldn't we let parents pay
extra for steak?

For example, the voucher amount could depend on end-of-previous-year
test scores; lower scores get more money.  Bad schools wouldn't get
repeat biz because their students would be sucked away.

>This would provide for the kinds of competition folks talk about,
>and would get around the problem of double-funding.

What problem of double funding?

>The question, then, is would "privatizing" education in either of the ways
>above really help.  Would increased competition lead to lots of good
>schools, such that everyone had access to a good one?  Or would it lead to
>a few good ones and lots of not-so-great ones?

We're not going to get free bubble-up no matter what we do, so that's
an absurd objection.  The relevant question is whether or not it would
improve things, not whether or not it will achieve perfection.

>Also, to what extent would "private" schools (still being funded
>primarily through tax dollars) be required to guarantee constitutional
>protections?

I frankly don't care whether or not the voucher accepting schools
provide constitutional protections, just as I don't care whether or
not the local food market or car dealer does.  If the parents want a
school that does, they can pick one, but if they don't care, I sure
don't.

All I care about is whether or not the school teaches the kids
to read, write, do simple calculations, and a bit more.  Sure,
those are modest goals, but they're a huge improvement over
the current system.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU