Now wait just one consarned minute here! How in the name of Gaia Earth Mother do you expect to gain funding for yet another massive governmental bureaucracy if you dont create a class of victims???

Letting parents decide what is best for their kids? Are you people insane? Why, next thing you know all those dolts from flyover country will demand that their kids NOT be issued condoms in kindergarten!

You can choose to send your kids to whatever school you want. Just don't ask me to fund your religious institute. Don't take public money and give it to institutions that will not accept some students (particularly disabled students).

I don't want to pay for private pools because you don't like the beach or public swimming pools. I don't think you should get a tax credit to buy books because you don't like the library. Children have the right to attend the public school, but if you choose not to, stop looking for handouts from the government.

I'd actually like to hear a reasoned argument against school choice. Anyone on the left up to the challenge? Please explain why the public funds earmarked for a childs education shoud not follow the child?

Please explain why the public funds earmarked for a childs education shoud not follow the child?

Because this money is needed to pay the fatcat NEA bosses who help the socialists get elected in this country. The DemoCRAP party is beholden to all sorts of special interests, with the NEA being one of their biggest.

Hypocrites...

Well someguy I don't want to keep paying for public schools that don't teach. Schools that just move kids from grade to grade because they got older. Schools that produce "graduates" that can't count change let alone do higher math!

I think we can all agree that our public school systems are FUBAR. The question is what to do about it? We've thrown more and more money at the problem and our schools are still doing poorly. What next?

As a firsthand participant in the NCLB system, I hope you all know that federal-level mandates simply do not work. NCLB is too bulky and full of arbitrary goals to actually get any real education accomplished. As a Texan, I live under the very model Bush has used to form this agenda, and I think that we need to use more local-level decision making.

As far as school choice goes, the best argument against the voucher program is that every federal dollar that goes towards vouchers takes one away from public schools. Do I think that kids who meet the qualifications to attend private schools deserve to? Absolutely. But it should not come at the cost of the rest of the children.

True we've spent money in the public school system, but when we have teachers buying their own paper, paying out of their own pocket for trips, and kids sharing text books with their classmates it is apparent we could spend a lot more.

We could pay teachers a lot more than a messily 30-40k. We could provide much better lunches. We could renovate dilapidated schools and build new institutions that make kids actually want to be seen there. We could fund better after-school programs and sports instead of taking money away from them.

Plain and simple: FY2006 - $419 billion on defense (not including $87 billion for Iraq/Afghanistan) vs. $56 billion for education. 4.8% increase vs. 1% decrease.

You can choose to send your kids to whatever school you want. Just don't ask me to fund your religious institute.

By this logic, we should also restrict the G.I. Bill, which gives veterans a subsidy for college education, to allow the vets to spend that money only on secular schools. The money used to fund the G.I. Bill and the money used to fund public schools ultimately has the very same source - you and me, the taxpayers.

You are buying a service from an accredited school that may happen to be sponsored by a religious institution.

Under the lefts logic, a government employee could not spend his per diem travel money on a hot dog from a church fundraiser.

And the argument is false anyways - they fight vouchers for ANY non-public school.

Under the lefts logic,

Kahn, don't you think it's somewhat of a stretch to call it logic?

And the argument is false anyways

Well, again, "Left" - "False" - Duh!

You are buying a service from an accredited school that may happen to be sponsored by a religious institution.

Under the lefts logic, a government employee could not spend his per diem travel money on a hot dog from a church fundraiser.

And the argument is false anyways - they fight vouchers for ANY non-public school.

I have no idea what happened with those two posts. Same post a half hour apart?

Khan: "I'd actually like to hear a reasoned argument against school choice."

Ignoring the dichotomy you assume between left and right, I guess the best one I've heard is that private schools are not held accountable to the same requirements and performance standards as public schools. I don't know how ubiquitously true that is. But to the extent that it is, it would pretty much defeat the whole purpose, it seems to me. And that, to me, is a very big deal.

Another argument that I think has some merit is the fact that the vast majority of private schools are subsidized by one or another group with an agenda besides fundamental academics (at least as defined by the NCLB act). But even excluding all other agendas, the vast majority of private schools include an additional agenda that is sectarian in nature. On that point I challenge you to prove me wrong. Now, if the agenda of the private alternative available to a given person is amenable to that person, then fine. If it's not, then they're stuck. And that, to me, is again a very big deal.

And I say that as a person who spent about as much time as a student in private, sectarian educational institutions in my lifetime as I did secular ones (about 10 years each).

Further, if the private school in question is allowed to be selective in their choice of students (and as I understand it, that's almost invariably the case), then they will siphon off the best students (however evaluated), forcing the rest to attend a public school which will necessarily be even crummier.

It might surprise you that, to me, is less of a big deal. It might not be fair in the short run, but it might actually turn out to be a good thing in the long run. IMO, it would help to focus negative attention on that school and help them solve their problems. And that argues in favor of the best case I've heard in favor of school choice -- it provides... well, choice. The more choice the more competition, right? Certainly the public school systems in some areas are pretty FUBAR (to borrow Gozer's term), and could stand some competition. The problem as I see it is that the areas with the biggest problems also tend to be the areas with the least amount of choices. But I guess you have to start somewhere.

That leads me to my other point: the teacher's unions are right up there among the most powerful unions going. I have nothing against unions in general, but there are unions and there are unions -- just like there are Enrons and there are Enrons. In other words, the beauty is in the balance. In this particular case, I really think that one could be taken down a few pegs. It's ridiculous what some of those people get away with. My sweetie works for the local school district in the payroll dept, so she gets a cat-bird seat for watching any "employee" dirt surface. And some of it is just ridiculous, lol! And mind you, our school district is better than most. In fact, in a 2005 survey of the best high schools in the US (about 25,000 of them nationwide), 7 of the 13 public high schools we have at least some choice in sending our kids to (the choice lattitude depends on propinquity and other issues) were rated in the top 95%.

But that also speaks to two additional issues. First, school systems are primarily dependent upon funding on the local and state levels (the precise admixture upon the state in question). But second, accountability is now primarily on the federal level, thanks to the NCLB act. Don't get me wrong -- I think the NCLB act can be counted among Bush's top successes. At the very, very least you could say about it, it served to start to objectify what was expected of our national educational system and prescribe ways to deal with minimal performers in that system. That's a very good thing, IMO. But that brings up two further issues: (1) the bill made little attempt to disentangle the discrepancies between funding issues and accountability issues, and; (2) perhaps worse, the funding proposed in the bill to address minimal performers (about 30 billion) was about 30 times less than what was actually allocated. That presents a huge disconnect between viable expectations and viable remedies. As I see it, the controversy that is presently active has very much to do with that disconnect. And it is a disconnect that school vouchers alone (especially given the questions I raised at the top of this comment) isn't likely to correct.

In short, like all complicated issues, the devil is in the details. And simple reliance on talking points -- on either side -- just doesn't amount to much more than a snowplow, piling rhetoric into big drifts with little in between. If we want to become an informed electorate we have to at least try to become informed before we spout off on things. Or, more importantly, to vote.

At least that's my hope. It doesn't strike me as if the mantel of responsibility incumbent upon us as the electorate rises anywhere near those of brain surgery. But then again, the closer all of us get to brain surgeons the better off we'll all be, lol!

One more word... I mentioned that I spent approximately equal time as a student in both private (specifically Catholic) and public institutions. Maybe it's just me, but I have great things to say about both, and not so great things to say about both. Ultimately, I think, I wonder how big a problem it is that parents, in general and for myriad reasons, don't seem to be as much engaged in their kids' education as they once were. And the "myriad reasons" part should be, IMO, the primary target. IMO, too often the target has been the association between the student and the school system without reference to the association between the parent of the child and between the parent and the school system. And that, to me, makes no sense on any level. In every child's life there are at least two primary influences -- their experience in school and their experience at home.

To address one without reference to the other strikes me as self-defeating. More specifically, any program that, willfully or neglectively, takes a child's primary care-givers out of the equation is functioning on shaky ground right from the start. But recognition of that has been woefully missing from any legislative approach from either side since Bill Clinton and the Gingrich controlled Republican congress finally came to grips with the issue back in, what, 1997? And IMO, they didn't go far enough. On the NCLB issue, the New Way Forward seems pretty obvious to me, at least in general terms.

Ricorun I am not at all sure of what you said after the first paragraph. But to go back to that first paragraph, most private schools that I have been around do not just meet they far exceed that requirements of public schools. That includes a very special school here in Omaha, called the Madonna School. It is for children with severe physical or learning problems, and very few parents pay full price. Not because of government subsidy, but because of private donations and fund raising.

As for the religious aspect of many schools, what is wrong with that? The parents have chosen a school that meets the criteria of what they consider a good school. Especially when the child would otherwise be attending a failing school, I think the money should follow the child. And yes, the funding should be controlled at the local level, not the federal level.

As for the teachers union. Have you ever wondered if maybe the reason the private schools do so well is how few of them are under union control? I have rarely seen a situation that a union could not make worse, or destroy a process that is working. Unions do not encourage compettition or excellence, they encourage longevity.

Well I for one read all of Ricorun's post (not just because you mentioned me though that's a bonus. :) ) and I have to say you've basically spelled out the entire problem pretty well.

From unions to the lack of parental involvement and everything in between I think you covered the bases very well. I to would like to go back to your only real complaint about private schools.

I believe that if we were able to give the amount of money per kid, that we are giving to public schools anyway, and have them follow the kids around that there'd be more schools to choose from. One of the biggest problem in running a school, just like any buisness, is income. For public schools it's a regular income, but they too worry about having the "butts in the seats" as it were. :)

To help promote choice we should enable more ways for new schools to come about. Be it grants/subsidies for charter schools (Which I think are a cool way to have a public school do better) or with a way of giving private schools a taste of the action when it comes to the kids.

Again, I always seem to use the Japanese school system as an example. From strict class disipline and student involvement and control (there aren't many janitors in the Japanese school systems, the kids have to clean their own schools. SHOCK!) to high standards and testing to move to the next school type. Can you imagine today's kids trying to pass enterance exams to get into Junior High?!

Challenging our kids at every level is important. Getting the parents invovled is extremely important. Holding teacher's accountable for class content is important. Offering as many ways and choices as possible for our kids to learn is extremely important.

The entire problem has more sides than an Echer painting. No one solution will fix them all. *Sighs*

Which is of course why it's so important we start fixing them all!

To my fellow conservatives or voted dem or sat on their hands last November, this is what you voted for. Enjoy.

Gozer, I appreciate your comment. And I especially appreciate the fact that you recognized that I was trying to get away from the typical talking points in my attempt to frame the debate in a different way (in saying that I hope you appreciate that I do not intend to put words in your mouth -- that's just my impression of my reading of your response: I apologize to the extent that my impression is inaccurate).

But with that caveat in mind (and in fact, independent of it) I am prepared to say that I agree in principle with your comment:

"I believe that if we were able to give the amount of money per kid, that we are giving to public schools anyway, and have them follow the kids around that there'd be more schools to choose from. One of the biggest problem in running a school, just like any buisness, is income. For public schools it's a regular income, but they too worry about having the "butts in the seats" as it were."

But I hope you appreciate that the ramifications of your statement are HUGE in so very many ways. It's not just you, of course. It implies a fundamental change in peoples' thinking in many, many ways. It's like trying to privatize the Post Office, but WAY more complicated. This is not a trivial issue in any sense of the word. Apart from the funding issues, which are themselves gigantic, the decisions made here can dramatically affect the next generation -- and every succeeding generation. In that regard, and at the very least, it seems to me that the guidelines regarding what is expected of any school should apply to all others -- at least insofar as any public funding is involved. Furthermore, the same considerations should apply to the opportunities of every (legal) student regardless of race, sex, creed, color, or origin in any other way. If you don't agree with that, why not? But if you do, boy, doesn't THAT make things complicated in terms of execution? As I said in my previous post, the devil is in the details.

A suggestion... if you really want vouchers to allow a student to attend the school of his/her choice.. or that of the students parents, how about (and vouchers would not really be needed here) allowing any child to attend any PUBLIC school within say 30 miles of the school he/she would attend based on residence. I suspect those who have by passing local school issues and have built excellent schools will scream at the idea of intercity students coming to their lovely schools, but here we have the best of both worlds. Free choice of a good school, the money kept in the public sphere and no need to augue about supporting via vouchers an religious school with tax dollars.

OhioG - That doesn't do you much good if you live in DC. The only real alternative is to allow parents to place their kids in alternative schools near enough to get to. Often, these schools already exist - but are available only to the rich.

I think that’s the real argument. Al Gore grew up in DC - he NEVER attended a public school (not to pick on him, just as an example). DC spends more money per student than any other school system in the nation (a little known fact). Yet, they are awful. Awful buildings, awful administration, and awful classes. Why shouldn't the money that people are taxed to provide for an education follow the child?

One of the arguments above is that it would be hard to maintain the schools if people defect (to paraphrase). My answer is - what do you need to maintain empty schools for? If many people defect - fire your worst teachers and administrators and consolidate. There will still be people too lazy to move their children. It’s sad but true. Maybe they will benefit from a consolidated school system. It’s hard to know really.

The answer to the standards question is, standards. Have a standard curriculum and/or test. Accredit them like you would a University. It is not MORE complicated than the Post Office. The PO needs to maintain a worldwide network. Alternative schools already exist. AND, if you have a problem with one you can take you child and money elsewhere.

Vouchers is about not denying the underprivileged access to superior education.

Rico, as soon as I saw the word "ubiquitously" I knew who wrote the post. Kudos...

I have friends whose daughters attend an award-winning school in a very nice part of a an affluent city. And they are not learning to spell, or any grammar. Every parent I have ever talked to about their childrens' education has had the same story, for the past twenty years or so.

The friend whose daughters I mention knows a woman who moved there from Russia. When she returned, after her son spent two years in this same award-winning school,he had to be kept out of school and privately tutored before he could fit in with his class, he had fallen so far behind.

I have hired people from what we think of as Third World countries, who have recieved better educations in small mountain village schools than the Americans who work next to them. They speak a second language, they know mathematical formulae, they know more about our country and government than the high school graduates I have hired, they have a much better grasp of history and world affairs, and they have also studied the classics.

I think it's obvoius that our public schools simply cannot compete, and rely on government dollars to stay in business. Sure, parents would have to be more involved than many are now, and would have to know if their children were ahead of, or behind, children from other schools. But they would have the ability to change schools if they were not happy.

The complaint that private schools could pick and choose their students is a favorite of the anti-choice crowd. But in a very short time, the market would see a need for schools FOR those who were not accepted, and would fill that void.

It comes down to: If public schools want tax dollars, they have to produce an educational product that will compete with the private schools. That is to say, educate.

Almiranta, I share your frustration. The question is what to do about it. I very much appreciate the fact that public schools are laden with all kinds of issues that impede progress. The NCLB act, I think, is a significant step in the right direction. However, it is my contention that if a private school alternative is offered on the public dole, then it seems to me that we, the public, have the right to require of those private schools the same standards as are applied to public schools. And you're right -- "the complaint that private schools could pick and choose their students is a favorite of the anti-choice crowd." I hope I made that point clear in my initial post. But that doesn't necessarily make it wrong, either. In other words, if the only reason private schools are doing better than public ones is attributable exclusively to the fact that they are able to siphon off the best and brightest students, then considering the entire situation as a whole, no progress has been made. I'm not saying that IS the case, but IF it is, then that's true.

That may be as clear as mud. So let me try to say it in a different way: if one follows the progress of a student population at a given level of achievement through either a public or a private school curriculum, what evidence is available that a private school curriculum is superior? That's really the bottom line, isn't it?

Your statement to the effect of, "If public schools want tax dollars, they have to produce an educational product that will compete with the private schools. That is to say, educate." implies that private schools are better, after taking into account that they are dealing with what is essentially the cream of the crop. My question is, how do you know? Moreover, my contention is that if private schools want tax dollars, they have to produce an educational product that will compete with the public schools, and with equal accountability (if not equal requirements, which is another question entirely).