From: drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:17:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.021438.6040@unet.net.com> steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.215832.21885@infonode.ingr.com> drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude) writes:
>>Now I'd like to ask YOU a question:
>>
>>If you're so sure it's impossible for a poor kid to get a better education
>>with a "measily" $1000 a year voucher,  would you be in favor of trying
>>it on a wide scale for four years in a major city?   What would be the
>>harm in such an experiment?  By everyone's admission, most urban kid's aren't
>>getting a very good education anyway,  so why not let the parents have some
>>choice and give it a shot? Of course that will never happen, or at least
>>not any time soon. 
>>
>
>Possibly.  
>
>But why not have a voucher program that can provide the
>opportunity of a good education for all needy children? 

Because Utopia is not an option.  Some parents will choose to help their
kids and some parents won't.  That's life and no government on earth can
change human nature.  So the goal of government should be to enable those
who want to do better for their kids the opportunity. At the very least,
they should not force people to send their kids to public schools when
they don't want to.  

By collecting taxes for education and then NOT allowing parents to make
free choices about how that money is spent gives the ultimate control to
the state.  Forced funding for public schools in the US is a defacto 
monopoly over educating the poor and lower middle class.  And like any
monopoly, the public education establishment has no real incentive to
improve its product.

Since you didn't give me a simple yes or no answer to my urban voucher
proposal, I'll restate it, and even gussy it up a bit:

- Let very parent in the urban school system have the choice of
continuing to send their kid to public school.

OR

- Let them have the freedom to take their kid out and send him to any
school, with a $1000 voucher that they can use however they wish
(private, paraochial, or even home school).  Keep this proposal in
place for at least four years.

Since we don't want to waste tax money,  we'll need to add some accountabilty
for how that money is spent.  So here's an additional proposal:

- At the end of the four years, test all the participants in the voucher
plan, using standard achievment tests appropriate for their grade
level.  If, on average, the voucher students are doing better than the
non-voucher students,  by say,  at least 10%,  I'd consider that a
success,  wouldn't you?

- If the system shows even this minimal level of success,  then why not
make it a permanent option?

What would be your objections to this system?

> I am not 
>inherently opposed to vouchers.  I want the vouchers to be useful for 
>all children who need them.  In other words, the voucher has to have 
>the ability to cover the entire cost of the education for those children 
>who need it.  

In other words, in your mind it's "all or nothing".   Either we send
every kid the most elite private academy available or everyone has to
stay in the sewer together.

>The point I was trying to make was that in several of the 
>voucher proposals that I've seen, the amount of the voucher is too small 
>to allow many children to purchase a better education.

That's merely you're personal opinon.  I say put it to the test and you'll
find some people,  when given the choice,  will find the $1000 voucher
more than adequte to get their kids a better education.

- Ted D.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton