From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: School choice (Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:57:08 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug10.162132.22809@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
]>The cost decrease is due to the increased efficiencies. Catholic
]>schools cost 50% to 70% of public schools (ALL factors taken into account),
]>and have a far better success rate at educating students.
]>
]
]What increased efficiencies?  
Reduced administrative overhead, more focus on core subjects.

]Are you suggesting that we all have to
]go to Catholic schools?  
Of course not!

]Non-parochial private schools are, in
]general, no cheaper than public schools.  Many are, in fact, much more
]expensive. 

This should not be a surprise. Since most people are already
paying for public schools, they can't afford to send their kids
to for-profit public schools. Thus the for-profit schools focus
on those with enough income to both pay the taxes AND buy an
education for their kids. As a result, they are not competing
in a price sensitive market.

]In any case, I don't think your figures can be right.  Catholic
]schools (and religious schools in general) are cheaper in large part
]because of leverage provided by the tax exempt status of the church
err... right. I completely forgot that public schools pay taxes.
How stupid of me!
](not just on school property), the availability of cheaper teachers,
Yes, they often do have cheaper teachers, since they don't have
unions. A few of the teachers are nuns who are cheap.

]administrators, etc., and many other factors.  I would be interested

Fewer administrators.

]in seeing a breakdown, if you have one, of the cost allocation for a
]Catholic school and the dollar values for the 'adjustments' and why
]they were made.  Then we can compare that to the cost of having a
]student in the public schools.

I don't have one, although I did read an article a couple of weeks
ago about it and saw the adjustments (I just don't remember them).
I should also point out that Catholic schools have a much better
educational record, so not only are they cheaper, they are also
better.

]Now, one more time.  Start from the current situation.  You are going
]to increase the number of students being funded out of tax dollars by
]33%.  NO ONE HAS MOVED TO OTHER SCHOOLS YET.  How is this going to be
]cheaper for me?  Are you postulating not providing enough money in the
]voucher to allow students to attend public schools, or what?

Hmmm... good of you to think of that. Not a bad idea... set the voucher
price down a bit and watch how the public schools shrivel while private
schools pop up and do the job for left. Watch the public schools,
forced to compete for funds, improve their operations. Why, if I didn't
know any better, I would suspect that we might be seeing the effects
of a free market (not to mention, free-dom) in action!

]Perhaps IN THE LONG RUN you are correct, and taxes would drop.
]However, that isn't going to happen in one year, or probably even in
]five.  Markets simply don't adjust that fast.

That is true. It would take time. Does that mean we shouldn't do it?
After all, it takes many years for society to receive the benefit of
even having universal education. Why shouldn't we also plan ahead
on our funding policies?
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
- to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1956 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2591 alt.politics.clinton:2146 alt.politics.elections:10784