X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:41:18 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: school choice revisited

Carl:
>   There is a private school in the Midwest where urban children are
>   doing better than they were in the public school.  Exploring this
>   assertion further, why don't private schools fare any better.  I
>   thought they would since the teacher/student ratio is lower.  Also, the
>   quality of teachers might be better since the private school's existence
>   depends on delivering a good education.

I'm sure there are individual private schools that do better than
individual public schools.  Taken all together, though, with family
background removed, private schools don't turn out better-educated students
than public schools.  I don't know why this is.  And, for what it's worth,
I glanced through the last batch of national education statistics we got
and didn't see a difference in student:teacher ratios between public and
private schools (read: there may be a statistical difference, but it's
pretty small and there's a ton of variation).

>>(2) according
>> to Shanker, the most likely outcome of parents using vouchers to help
>> defray the cost of private education is simply an increase in the cost of
>> that education.
>
>  This is a guess and not a known fact, much like my gut feelings about the
>  effects of the laws that Hillary wants to implement.

Well, yes, it's his guess -- based on supply and demand.  If the demand
increases, private schools can charge more.  That makes sense, but I'm
interested in hearing alternative views.
>>
>> Shanker further presented a case against choice among public schools --
>> this obviously applies to both Bush and Clinton.  He pointed out that, for
>> the most part, choice among public schools will be exercised *within*
>> school districts (mostly because of problems of access, I think).  The
>> problem here is that all the schools within a district are "run" by a
>> single supervisory board (the school district).  He argued that this type
>> of management structure *decreases* opportunities for diversification among
>> schools within a district.
>
>   He also ignores a part of the proposal that would give more indepenence
>   to the teachers of each school.  Sure, the Board may oversee the
>   school's but it would not be involved in micromanaging them.  This
>   would allow the teachers to structure their curriculum, some public
>   schools have some gifted and intelligent teachers.

Ah.  I haven't seen many specifics on either proposal -- what kinds of
changes are being proposed?  That is, how does either proposal give more
independence to teachers and individual schools?

>   Number one, to lend your argument validity you must assume that your
>   daughter would not go to the neighborhood school.  This may not be the
>   case, but I will assume that to be true.  It is true that community
>   support is important and I thought that educators were complaining that
>   there isn't enough support.  Those that are involved and care would most
>   likely remain involved even if their child did not go to the neighborhood
>   school.

I meant to say the problem would arise if lots of parents started taking
their kids to other than the neighborhood school.  Yes, educators are
complaining about lack of support (except in the cases where schools get
lots of local support -- like the one my daughter attends).  I disagree
with the assumption (or assertion?) that people would remain equally
involved regardless of where their kids go to school.  See below for why.
But remember that I'm not saying I'm absolutely right -- which is why I
want to hear what others think.

It is sad that your commitment would depend on how much of an
>   inconvenience it would be for you.  Isn't that selfish?  Do expect me to
>   believe that you would not be involved if you had to drive 20 miles?
>   Hopefully you do not live in the country side and your child's school
>   isn't 25 miles away for her sake.  And why wouldn't you be involved in the
>   local school helping out and hoping that parents in the other town do the
>   same.  Maybe a sign up sheet could be established where someone where your
>   daughter goes would help your daughter's school if you help the local
>   school where the other person's son attends.  That might be a solution,
>   although I myself would travel.

Preface: the following explanation got way out of hand.  I'm trying to put
into words ideas that are still pretty visceral.  So be warned! :)

It may be sad, but it's true.  I would be less involved if I had to drive
20 miles (each way, if I were to take my daughter to the only other middle
school or high school in my area, for example).  I'd still do some things,
but not as many as I do now.  You may consider that selfish -- in a sense,
it is.  But I'm only one person, and I have finite amounts of time and
energy.  And I'm not unique in that respect.

Your sign-up sheet idea might help -- it kind of goes along with my reasons
for supposing community support would decrease.  I was thinking along these
lines:  first, most of us are at least a little bit selfish.  My primary
motivation for helping out at the local school is to help my child.  As far
as I can tell, that's the motivation for most of my neighbors.  But the
things we do as individuals *also* help each other (by helping each others'
kids).  So we wind up establishing a sort of reciprocity network -- the
same kind that gets built when we watch each others' houses, babysit for
each others' kids, and do all those other "neighborly" things.

Now, that kind of reciprocity becomes a secondary motive for being involved
in the local school.  I know that if I volunteer in a 5th grade class, my
effort will be matched, in a sense, by someone else volunteering in my
daughter's 4th grade class.  I help Gretta's kid, Gretta helps Theresa's
kid, and Theresa helps my kid.  My feeling is that systems like this are
founded on a kind of trust (I trust that my neighbors will help as much as
I do).  The stronger the trust, the better the reciprocity, the more people
help out.

The final bit of "logic" (it's really more visceral feeling!) is that
people will put the greatest level of trust in those people who have proven
they can be trusted.  It's a whole lot easier for me to trust the neighbor
I've actually *seen* helping out than to trust someone I barely know or
haven't met.  I'm less likely to help at the neighborhood school because
I'm less likely to trust that a neighbor is helping at my child's school in
return.  I will put less effort into my child's (distant) school because
I'll be less likely to actually *see* the efforts of the other parents.

I'm sorry this isn't clearer (or at least shorter:)).  What I'm trying get
at is that neighbors are "connected" with each other in ways that make it
easier for us to act together for a common cause -- like the local school.
If neighborhoods become "fragmented" -- in the sense that kids are going to
a bunch of different schools -- then we lose part of that connectedness.

That's why I suggested that community support could be eroded.  I'd really
like to hear what others think -- am I totally off base with this
"neighbor" thing?  (It wouldn't really surprise me -- I've only lived in
this kind of neighborhood for a few years, so that's all I have to go on)

Thanks for your patience :)
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU