From: reb@cssn06.ssc.gov (Bob Blair)
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX
	<ednschmi.714481009@kraken> <ovr9tlc@zola.esd.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:54:14 GMT

In article <ovr9tlc@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:

>   Xref: sunova talk.politics.misc:65166 talk.politics.theory:8690 alt.politics.elections:11411 alt.politics.marrou:1330 alt.politics.bush:4127
>   Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
>   Path: sunova!convex!darwin.sura.net!mips!odin!sgihub!zola!void!thant
>   From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
>   Sender: news@zola.esd.sgi.com (Net News)
>   Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
>   References: <l9050rINNm9m@spim.mips.com> <1992Aug17.192953.9526@uoft02.utoledo.edu> <ednschmi.714481009@kraken>
>   Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 16:53:15 GMT
>   Lines: 66
>
>
>   In article <ednschmi.714481009@kraken>, ednschmi@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au writes:
>
>   [...]
>
>   > The trouble with a voucher system is that it creates even more 
>   > opportunities for marketing than it does for education.  Consider 
>   > the proposition:
>   > Marketing is basically lying.  [...]
>
>   From Myron Lieberman's book Privatization_and_Educational_Choice:
>
>       The notion that parents will not choose schools wisely is also based on
>       the anticipated role of advertising under voucher plans.  Opponents
>       assert that vouchers will lead to false and exaggerated advertising
>       about what schools can do for students.  The harmful consequences would
>       be much greater than result from false advertising for toothpaste or
>       detergents or gasoline.
>
>       In assessing this criticism, it is essential to avoid a double standard
>       of judgement.  We must avoid the assumption that parents are adequately
>       informed about the educational performance of their children or the
>       public schools they attend.  For instance, public school leaders often
>       complain about comarisons that overlook the selective nature of private
>       schools.  They are largely silent, however, about the fact that public
>       schools often manipulate test data in order to present school
>       performance in a faorable way.  For example, school districts have
>       raised average test scores by deliberately failing to require low
>       achievers to take the tests.  In some cases where state funds are based
>       on average test scores, the practice has ben used to secure additional
>       funds.  Indeed, it can plausibly be argued that public school officials
>       have misled the public more on this issue than private schools have
>       ever done.  The latter are more the beneficiaries than the makers of
>       public attitudes on the issue.
>
>       [...]
>
>       Furthermore, public school districts and organizations sponsor an
>       endless stream of news releases and press conferences.  These efforts
>       to influence public opinion, usually in the contex of larger
>       appropriations for public education, are as biased as advertisements.
>       Whether or not we label these efforts "public relations,"
>       "advertising," or "lobbying" is not so important.  What is important is
>       the recognition that statements made to generate political and
>       financial support for public schools are not necessarily more accurate
>       than commercial advertising.  Indeed, since commercial advertising is
>       or can be regulated in ways that political statements cannot be, the
>       commercial approach might result in greater public sophistication about
>       educational issues.  I do not assert this would be the case, but I see
>       no reason to rule it out either.
>
>       We must also consider the probability that educational advisory
>       services would emerge if choice of school emerges as a widespread
>       practical issue.  Thousands of companies sell advice on investments,
>       plant location, travel, family relationships, legal problems, and so
>       on.  A large number of publications are also devoted to giving advice,
>       including advice on choosing a college.  Such firms and publications do
>       not flourish in education below the colledge level because there is a
>       very limited market for them.  With vouchers, a much larger market
>       would probably emerge.  As a matter fo fact, college counseling for
>       high school students is laready a small but growing private industry.
>       Some private sector counselors are former high school guidance
>       counselors seeking to capitalize on parent dissatisfaction wiht public
>       school counseling services.
>
>   thant

I can not fault most of the statements made above, but note that while we
may have upscale folks consulting private counselors (investing public money
since with vouchers some portion of that money would have gone to the school
system) on where to send their children and we may have private advertising
campaigns replacing distorted reporting by public officials, the educational
benefits are secondary at best.  The issue of vouchers like so many that George
Bush champions is really a bribe to his faithful followers.  It is a tax
decrease for people who currently have children in private and parochial
schools masquerading as an "educational improvement" program.  There is no
solid evidence that it would increase educational quality.

President Bush has pushed very hard to give the impression that the
problem with the U.S. educational system is 1) lack of
school-to-school competition (thus vouchers) 2) bad teachers (thus
merit pay) 3) bureaucracy (nobody likes bureaucracy) 4) not enough
volunteerism.  All of these supposed problems likely plaugue our global
competitors (Japan and Germany) but for some reason their test scores are
going up and ours are going down.  Why do you suppose that is?

The answer I believe is to be found in a book by Paul Therou, "Head to Head".
This book has a very well reasoned set of explanations for the changing
international economic panorama.  He points out that the average school year
in the U.S. is 180 days versus Japan and Germany which range from 220 to
240 days.  More days translates to more education, that is as simple as
smaller ratio of students to teachers translates to better education.
Dealing with this is likely to be politically very touchy, but
it does not help to misdirect public attention to all the wrong places.

                                                   Just a thought,
                                                      Bob Blair

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41761 ca.politics:7036 ba.politics:4757