From: secsu@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ralph O. Clark)
Subject: Re: Public schooling
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  7 Oct 1992 19:41 EST  

In article <1ast3uINNj1@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes...
>In article <1992Oct5.041411.3497@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
>(Tim Starr) astounds us with his typical libertarian grasp of reality: not!
> 
>>USA's public school monopoly is a stagnant
>>monoculture, the biggest socialist atrocity left on the face of the earth.
> 
>Wow!  Bigger than all of mainland China!  What a grasp of the FACTS!  Not!

I don't think any *rational* person would think he was actually saying
that the US public schools are bigger than the whole of the Chinese system.
He *is* saying that it *is* a socialist atrocity of enormous proportions.
You're just looking for something to hit.

I wouldn't normally bother to explain something this obvious, but
there are other points in this article I want to answer.

>Libertarians love to claim that $2500 vouchers will make schooling better.
>I strongly doubt it.  Let's look at some of the "statistics" and claims they
>like to trot out.

Remember that the $2500 figure is nominal. Actual numbers will *of course*
be based on a district's actual expenses per pupil.

> 
>1) Private schools teach as well or better than public schools, based on
>   standardized test scores.
> 
>This might be a telling argument, if only the students in private schools
>were comparable to the students in public schools.  On the average, students
>in private schools come from higher-income, better-educated families, two
>factors which I'd bet were better indicators of success on tests than whether
>the schooling was public or private.

There are plenty of examples (posted in this and similar groups) of
low-income, uneducated families, whose children were doing poorly in
the public schools, but improved drastically as soon as choice/voucher
systems were adopted.

> 
>And which students get tested?  Not the ones that did so poorly that they
>left the schools.  And in some communities (mine home town for instance)
>public schools encouraged everyone to take the SAT's to determine whether
>they had college potential, while in the local private Catholic school,
>only those who wanted to go to college were tested.  Thus, artifically
>skewed results (and even that didn't bring the Catholic school up to the
>ranking of the public school.)
> 
>2) "The average private school tuition is less than $2500."
> 
>First, tuition doesn't measure expense.  For example, in my home town the
>Catholic schools were HEAVILY subsidized by the contributions of the
>congregation to keep the tuition down.  This is significant: if you are
>losing money with every sale, you can't make money by increasing sales.
>The same is true of schools which rely partly on endowments from alumni.
>Artificially low tuitions (which comprise a significant proportion) cannot
>be expanded to meet the demand.

Maybe. I won't take your word for it.

> 
>Second, I'd like a breakdown of EXPENSE of schooling versus test results
>versus class of the students.  Alot depends on which meaning of "average"
>is used above.  Median, mode, or mean?  Most private schools in this neck
>of the woods (Boston) charge well over $6000 (and some over $12,000) per year.
>Take a survery in your neighborhood: phone all the private schools in the
>yellow pages and ask them their number of students and their tuition.

Have you seen the breakdowns of expense vs results in large systems like
NY, Chicago, LA? You won't like it!

> 
>3) "Who's getting screwed the worst by the public schools?"
> 
>A classic divisive tactic: don't let people think about how to make public
>schools work better, appeal to their individual selfishness.  Everybody is
>screwed when public schools work poorly. 

Except that rich people can just send their kids to private schools and
avoid the problem. It IS the poor (OK, and the middle class) who get
screwed by the public schools just because there is no alternative for
them. Susceptability to being screwed by bad schools is inversely proprotional
to income.

> Yet there are lots of public schools
>that work VERY well.  The alternative libertarians don't want you to think
>about is making public schools work well.
> 

The alternative YOU don't like is to get the state's fingers out of the
pie. We have plenty of evidence that the public schools work badly, 
and that throwing money (or anything else) at them doesn't work.

>What makes public schools work badly?  Libertarians like to demonize unions
>and "bureaucracy", without any evidence but their accusation.  Yet numerous
>studies show that inequities in funding due to local control of the purse
>strings pitting property owners and businesses against parents and children
>are a major factor.

Inequities in funding? You mean like: 
 1) evil rich suburbanites won't give more money to the poor downtrodden
  big-city bureaucratic school system, so suburban schools are richer
  than city schools?

or
 2) businesses or rich homeowners won't pass higher property taxes (or
  get tax abatements) so that the school system they share with the
  poor doesn't have the money it needs?

If 1), do you want to remove even more local control over schools?

In either case, how do you explain the huge quantities of money that,
say, New York City spends per student, *without* getting results?

> 
>Is choice a factor that would improve schools?  The libertarians themselves
>proclaim experiments with choice within public schools: there is no need to
>provide vouchers.
> 
>4) Private schools will be more efficient.
> 
>Right.  Sure.  What costs will they cut?  I suppose they'll jam more
>students into a classroom.  But let's not forget the costs they'll add.
>Marketing, advertising, exorbitant salaries of executives (yup, private
>schools have bureaucracies too), profit for investors, etc.
> 

Can you name a single activity engaged in by the government which the
private sector does less efficiently?

Part of the "profit for investors" is the satisfaction of contributing
to the education of poor children who could not otherwise afford it.
Of course, a school that did a poor job of educating them would not
be very successful in recruiting this sort of investor...

If schools were suddenly privatized and property taxes were eliminated
(yes, I realize that we're supposed to be discussing vouchers), would
you not contribute to a private school that you believed was doing
a good job? If not, you have no right to talk. If so, what makes you
think that everyone else besides you is a selfish bastard?

>But wait: the vast majority of private schools are non-profit.  Are they more
>efficient?  Look at other non-profit institutions like charities, where it
>is not uncommon to spend more than half the funds raised towards raising
>further funds.  Libertarians are fond of claiming profit motives will make
>private schooling efficient: but we don't see it because it is primarily a
>non-profit industry.
> 
>5) Private schools will serve everybody.
> 
>Not for $2500.  Any student who requires extra resources will be discriminated
>against.  Those with physical or learning disabilities, those who require
>special treatment, those who are slower than the others, etc.  Private
>schools are not known for shouldering their portion of the burden of
>those who need special help (with the exception of specialty schools, which
>certainly do not do it for $2500.)

That depends on the school and on the area. There are private schools whose
sole purpose is to educate *inner-city* kids. These are invariably ignored
by the liberals, who just keep chanting the old government mantra:

	"No one cares for the poor and down-trodden but the Government."

Or maybe (with apologies to Muslims):

	"There is no love but the Government's, and the Democratic Party
	is its prophet."

> 
>A large fraction of public school students is well served: it's the other
>fraction whose lot needs improving.  There's no evidence that private schools
>will want to serve those students: they would be left with the shambles of
>the public schools after libertarians enact their self-fulfilling prophecy.

Those who are well served will probably use their vouchers right where
they are. What are you afraid of?

> 
>There's more: I don't have the time today.
> 
>Mike Huben
> 
>"Utopias now appear much more realizable than one used to think.  We are now
>faced with a different new worry: How to prevent their realization."
>						Nicolas Berdiaeff

Since most Utopias involve a Benevolent State overseeing the affairs
of its antlike citizens, the best way to prevent their realization is
to combat the spread of Statism wherever it arises. Looks like a great
libertarian .sig to me!

Ralph
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou