From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,misc.education
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:50:12 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <1jklqnINNgiv@gap.caltech.edu>, kloomis@cco.caltech.edu (Kate E. Loomis) writes:

> This is always the part that I didn't understand about "vouchers". I 
> thought that conservatives were fiercely against federal spending for 
> schools and the whole "redistribute the wealth" scheme. But isn't 
> that what federal vouchers do? Or do they just want to get out of 
> paying property taxes to send other kids to school? Why _can't_ we
> abolish the ridiculous system of local funding for public schools, 
> in which one school has an olympic-size pool, and it's neighbor 
> can't afford to have less than 30 kids per class? At least, I 
> think we ought to try that, instead of or concurrent to offering 
> school "choice".\

Conservatives like vouchers relative to the current public school system, in
which a great deal of wealth is already redistributed, and the result is
generally not great.  I like vouchers because I see them as a way to improve
opportunities for the poor and middle class.  A voucher with a realistic dollar
amount, say four of five thousand, would enable the holder of the voucher to
attend a good school; if the public school is bad, then he or she will be freed
from it and enabled to go somewhere else.  The fact that parents who already send
their children to private schools would get a substantial tax cut in effect,
doesn't bother me.  In fact, now, such people are paying for schooling twice,
once on their private school, and once for the public schools that they don't
use.  And these people are not all filthy rich, by any means.  If we can greatly
improve the opportunities available to the poor, and give the upscale a tax break
at the same time, then that's good all around.  Conservatives don't like the
redistribution of wealth, but since wealth is already being redistributed, a
voucher system would be a big improvement, from their point of view.  I think it
would be a big improvement because it would greatly improve the quality of
education available to everyone, and liberals ought to like the idea for that
reason.  It's a win-win proposition - everybody ought to like it, but a lot of
people don't.  I think that the public-school establishment, meaning the
administrative bureaucracies and the teachers unions, don't like it.  This is
understandable - administrators would be the first to go, and teachers would
finally have to prove their ability to teach well through performance and
results.  It's extremely difficult to bring about these two desirable objectives
in a government-operated institution.  The New York City public school system is
an excellent example of all the wrong priorities:  they spend a mere 32 cents on
the dollar on instruction.  Where does the rest go?  Some of it goes to security
and transportation, but most of it goes to administration.  It would be nice if
we could fix it, but that may or may not be possible.  In the meantime, children
are suffering now, forced by law to spend many years of their young lives
imprisoned in poorly maintained buildings and subjected to an establishment that
often makes their lives much worse, not better as it ought to.  Incidentally, New
York City spends over $7000 per student - there's no excuse for their poor
performance.

What is the right priority?  The right priority is the good of the children,the
quality of their education and lives.  Is the good of the public schools the
appropriate priority?  Only insofar as it coincides with the good of the
children.  As far as it interferes with the good of the children, it should be
jettisoned.  There's nothing sacred about a public school over a private school. 
If we can better serve the children of New York City by sending them all to
private schools which they will choose, then we should do that, and then the
teachers in the public schools will all have to look for jobs in the private
schools, which they will presumably get or not get based on their ability, and
the administrators will have to go back to teaching, because no good business
will maintain such a large bureaucracy that it neither gains from nor can afford
to pay.  The educational establishment has done a good job brainwashing a
generation into thinking that what is really in it's own interest is in the
interest of the children.  New York City is an excellent counterexample.  We
can't afford to let the teachers union and the bureaucracy have their own way
anymore.  It's time to get our priorities straight - the good of the children.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton