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:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 09:29:58 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

-andy et al.:
I said:
>>Now, it seems to me that giving vouchers for private school would be OK *if
>>* we changed the education system such that either (1) the funds were given
>>to individuals, and private providers were allowed to compete for those
>>dollars or (2) funds were provided via competitive bidding among private
>>providers.
>
>(1) is basically the voucher proposal.  Parents get a slip of paper
>that an education provider can turn in to get cash.  Said parents pick
>the provider.  The public schools don't want private providers to be
>able to turn in those vouchers.

Well, maybe.  It depends (it seems) on the specific voucher proposal.
Currently, we provide funding for public schools (mostly with state funds)
in three ways:  (1) we provide the physical facilities; (2) we pay the
teachers and other personnel; and (3) we provide some number of dollars per
pupil (usually a baseline amount with supplements for kids with special
needs -- gifted or LD or whatever).  I don't know the extent to which funds
in (3) are used for the purposes of (1) and (2).

Now, how do the vouchers work?  Bush would seem to be advocating an
additional category -- a $1K voucher that can be used anywhere.  If it used
for a private school, then we are essentially double-funding:  we are still
paying (1) and (2), and adding tax dollars to be spent, potentially,
outside the system.  Presumably, this plan would also result in a loss of
dollars from (3) -- or maybe he wants to transfer these dollars as well.
The closest analogy I can come up with is me getting federal money to buy a
private security guard.  I don't think I'm allowed to do that.

What about vouchers to be used in public schools only?  Is the voucher
equal to category (3) dollars?  If so, then we already have a similar
system in place, at least in parts of the country.  Here, for example, I
can take my child to any public school within my district, providing they
have room and I'll provide the transportation.  Her per-capita dollars
follow her.  It's not double-funding, in the sense that tax dollars are
still being spent entirely within the public school system.

In this system, the problem still remains of access.  Schools have to have
room for the kids that want to attend.

>>       And in both cases, those would be the only education dollars
>>spent.
>
>Why?  I've no objection to kid-specific voucher amounts, or giving
>rich parents smaller vouchers, but why shouldn't we let parents pay
>extra for steak?

What I meant was, if we want to fully privatize education, then we
shouldn't use tax dollars to pay for the buildings and personnel -- we
should either give lump sums to parents or bid the entire package out.  I
didn't mean parents couldn't supplement with their own funds.

>For example, the voucher amount could depend on end-of-previous-year
>test scores; lower scores get more money.  Bad schools wouldn't get
>repeat biz because their students would be sucked away.

MacPhil identified the problem here.  Bad schools would be favored, which
is not what we're trying to do, right?

>>The question, then, is would "privatizing" education in either of the ways
>>above really help.  Would increased competition lead to lots of good
>>schools, such that everyone had access to a good one?  Or would it lead to
>>a few good ones and lots of not-so-great ones?
>
>We're not going to get free bubble-up no matter what we do, so that's
>an absurd objection.  The relevant question is whether or not it would
>improve things, not whether or not it will achieve perfection.

Um, improvement was what I was aiming at.  We need to determine whether
privatizing would be better than what we have.  And, to the extent that we
require kids to go to school, I think we still have an obligation to be
sure they have access to a place that will at least cover the basics.

Note, btw, that I'm not arguing that privatization would be a bad thing.  I
don't know whether it would or not.  I'm just suggesting that the voucher
system appears (to me, at least) to be more of a bandaid than a real
solution.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU