From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Mostly Re: School vouchers
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:08:14 GMT
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Mike wrote two articles, which for mere convenience I've put into one
response.  I'm also sending e-mail, because yet again, you folks keep
reading ba.politics and cross-posting to ca.politics, then ignoring my
responses in ca.politics.

First article:

Written in article <26652@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
 by mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm):

: Back in the real world, a large number of children exist who need to
: get an education.  Some of them will be unable to get an education if
: we implement [Phil's] logic 

I have some stats for you.  1 out of 6 HS graduates are illiterate.

Out 535 senators and rep's, only 2 have their kids in public school.

Even 30% of public school teachers put their kids into private school.

Does that tell you something?

It tells me that, altho total elimination of the public school system
may indeed mean that some kids will not get an education, it's really no
big deal.  A hell of a lot of kids aren't getting an education now,
despite being chained to their seats.  That's more important.

: The folks in the real world

"Real world?"  Whazzat?

: want to know if the public school system
: can be improved somehow by competition, replaced with something else,
: & so forth, but it is not at all likely that they are going to junk
: public education  because Phil Ronzone is feeling coerced today.  Big deal.
: "Coercion" is part of life.

Competition improves everything.  Why shouldn't education also be
improved by the same feature that allows you buy unspoiled potatoe
chips?  (OK, ok, "potato chips")

Saying that "coercion is part of life" can be a self-fulfilling
prophecy.  If we work to reduce the amount of coercion in life, I
believe there's a good chance we can do it, and everyone's lives 
will be made so much the better by it.

: And, of course, for those who are unable to pay at all,
: you have absolutely nothing to offer those children.

There are three areas where educational funds can come, should we
eliminate public education.  A) grants, B) charity, C) loans.

Of course this isn't perfect.  We may actually still find ourselves 
stuck with as many 1 out of 6 illiterate kids of HS age.  But at least 
the illiterate kids won't be sporting HS diplomas.

: For some
: reason you are punishing them for the sins of their parents.
: Strange, & perverse.

This is a strange and perverse statement.  It is impossible to divorse
the fate of the children from the fate of the parents, short of holding
random-chance baby-swapping.  I think it's a crime to live in Alabama, 
but I'm not going pay money to bus all the kids to California.

Let's face it, if Mom 'n' Dad is poor, so is you.  You can't legislate
away reality.  ("Reality?"  Whazzat?)

What is needed is a system whereby there are no LEGAL OBSTACLES placed
in the path of people.  This is different that placing obstacles in
front of one set of people in order to help another set.  If a kid
happens to be born in Alabama, oh well.  (I suppose he wanted to be close
to his mother at the time.)  Don't force property from someone else in
order to place him into a different state.  But, ALSO, don't FORBID him
or REGULATE him away from getting on a bus if he wants to.

Most of the paternalistic statist laws fall into the latter category.
It is, for most intents and purposes, illegal to be poor.


Second article:

: Russ Vreeland writes:
:> Noone has to "show" anything. The inefficiencies of the public sector 
:> vis a vis the "perform or die" incentives of the marketplace are 
:> irrefutable. Take discussions of this point to "alt.dont.argue.with.fools".
:
: For shoes.  But I don't really buy the "shoes" == "school" equation [...].

It's not an equation, why should you buy it?

The equation is "competition improves shoes, as well as educational
service, as it does any other human activity."

: Do we really know this about
: schooling?  Is there some modern precedent somewhere in the world
: we can look at?

NY's Harlem.  Some state starting with "M" that I'm going to have to
look up.

Competition works.  When people have a free choice, they exercise it.
When a provider of any service or commodity must satisfy the customer or
fail, the tendency is to satisfy the customer.  Like the ad for the
yellow pages, "those that don't, don't."

Education burocrats (educrats) don't like the idea of educational
competition.  That should tell you something too.  I'd heard that people 
were intimidating the petitioners and signers when they were collecting
signatures for the voucher initiative.  What do they fear?  What are
they so afraid of that they must use bullying tactics?

: I think [vouchers are] an exciting idea, & I'd like to see it tried, 
: (with caveats above).  However, I've been around.  There are all sorts
: of schemers & scammers.  If there's money to be made, they'll
: find their way in, & we will have lousy babysitting schools, we'll
: have places that will kickback on vouchers & probably lots of
: other things I haven't thot of.  How will we determine whether
: the voucher money is being spent properly, the school gives good
: value &c?

We have the same problems with welfare and food stamps.  If that is the
objection you wish to use, then they too must be eliminated, even more
urgently than simply preventing vouchers.

: I'm not sure that all parents are fit to judge this
: either, some simply won't care.

Parents who honestly don't care, even when given a choice, are of no
concern.  Many people don't care about the quality of the food they buy,
but they benefit from the actions of those who do.

What happens is that enough people who DO care take their business
elsewhere.  The company begins losing money, until it decides to clean
up its act, thus attracting back the people who care.  People who don't
care simply benefit from this activity indirectly.

And what the hell, if the parents don't care, the kids won't be educated
in a public school either.

: Also, are we going to track enrollment
: & make sure children attend (a, some) school?  How are we going to
: keep track of this?  It seems like we will need a complex bureacracy
: to regulate this industry; perhaps the present bureaucrats will
: be adequate to the task, but what do you think?

Again, if this is your objection, I suggest you contact your legislature
and tell them to eliminate welfare and food stamps.

The point is that, for the most part, more kids will get a better educa-
tion than under the present system, which is NOT being eliminated (shame).
Yes, some kids may fall in the cracks.  Some may receive no education at all. 
But many are not receiving education today, despite decades of "improvement."

It's time to throw out the bath-water.  Grab the baby, and get rid of
that bath-water before the mosquitoes hatch.

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Unless the results are known in advance, funding agencies will
reject the proposal.