From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: A reason to be VERY concerned about November 3rd.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:44:16 GMT

In article <BxFuwx.2Bz@csn.org> rcw@teal.csn.org (Robert C. White Jr.) writes:
>>Insufficient funding is *not* the problem.  Lack of competition is.

>This is so wrong I can't believe it.  If competition is the basis for
>the improvement of schools, then the ones with the best basket weaving
>electives are going to win. 

Huh? That might be the case if the students made the choice, but no 
one has suggested that. The parents, presumably, would care about 
(and choose based on) things like quality of education. (By the
way, marketing isn't a decisive issue: I like Ford's ads better,
but I drive a Toyota...)

>I will, next time I'm down to Lamar.  Speaking to him the other night,
>he will lay off the instrumental music teacher in the next phiscal
>year.  I hope you ammendment 1 people are happy with yourselves.

I don't suppose he considered laying off administrative staff or
cutting their pay? I understand smaller administrative overhead
is one of the main reasons private schools cost less per student.

>Kids must also purchase their own floppies as well - so you pay anyway
>through increased mickey-mouse fees like this.

Which is to say, the schools are punishing the students instead of
improving themselves.

>Specifically, what numbers would you like to know?

The ratio of teachers to non-teachers employed by his school district
might be a good start. Private schools usually have teachers making
up over 90% of thier payroll.

>Education is a basic right and the quality thereof ought to be guaranteed in 
>this country.

What exactly do you mean by a "right"? The word doesn't imply what you
seem to think. I have, for example, the right to travel freely
within the United States. Does this mean the government must pay for
my travel expenses? A "right" (specifically a protected right) means
that no one should _pervent_ you from doing that thing. It doesn't
mean everyone must fund your doing so. Public funds, to assure a
good quality of education to everyone is a good public policy, but
it isn't a right. Further, the issue is (or should be) how to best
assure a good quality of education; _not_ how to preserve the
status quo of the public school system. The current public 
schools have very serious problems, that money will not
solve: If money were the answer, why would Denver public schools
be spending over $7000/student and producing a lower quality
of education, than private schools spending (on average) under
$3000/student?

>There are a number of things that need to be done to reform
>the system, but just like in Russia, the entrenched bureaucracy will be 
>the last thing to leave the education system.  They hold the power, and they
>are pulling down huge salaries.  Therefore, the kids are
>going to suffer first.  That's the reality.

So your solution is to give the entrenched bureaucracy even more
money to waste?

                                        Frank Crary
                                        CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics