Sunday, November 28, 2004
Vouchers: Response
Over at Vision Circle a few questions were asked about vouchers.
Yes that is what already happens, school budgets are determined by the number of students in them. NYC perfect example, thousands upon thousand kids go to private schools, the public system doesn't get money from those kids. But the rich parents still pay the same taxes, so the money goes to upstate schools which are better and keep more people in them. (This unfairness has always existed and is not a voucher related issue)
The quality of school is driven primarily by its teachers. There is no incentive for unionized public teachers to perform. If the union starts to lose jobs because of reduced teachers needs they will improve performance and flexibility. For example in NYC parents can't raise money to pay for a part time music teacher because the unions would not allow you to pay someone else to work in the school as a teacher. Also it is the good students that make teaching bearable teachers will work to keep good students in.
The post office is much better now, It didn't have overnight service until fed ex existed.
At the end of the day for the rural students the advantage of vouchers is that it destroys teachers unions, thus giving parents choice and control of their children's educations. There is no reason why vouchers can't be used to pay for qualified home schooling.
I ask you one question, why do you think teacher unions fight against pay for performance bonus ? Do you know of any so called profession that would do that ?
---> Now lets see if I can get trackback to work. I didn't comment at vision circle because I don't have the patience to register to post a reply.
Over at Vision Circle a few questions were asked about vouchers.
"One, does public school funding get cut for those students who remain in public schools? If so, is that a "fair" outcome?"
Yes that is what already happens, school budgets are determined by the number of students in them. NYC perfect example, thousands upon thousand kids go to private schools, the public system doesn't get money from those kids. But the rich parents still pay the same taxes, so the money goes to upstate schools which are better and keep more people in them. (This unfairness has always existed and is not a voucher related issue)
"Two for those who stay, now what? People who say that it will force the government schools to improve are either fooling themselves or are straight out lying."
The quality of school is driven primarily by its teachers. There is no incentive for unionized public teachers to perform. If the union starts to lose jobs because of reduced teachers needs they will improve performance and flexibility. For example in NYC parents can't raise money to pay for a part time music teacher because the unions would not allow you to pay someone else to work in the school as a teacher. Also it is the good students that make teaching bearable teachers will work to keep good students in.
How often does a big government entity actually improve when competition is introduced? Exhibit A is the post office.
The post office is much better now, It didn't have overnight service until fed ex existed.
Three, let's assume that the competition model works, and competition comes about. What about the rural areas where the less dense population means that there is less of a chance for other opportunities to be created?
At the end of the day for the rural students the advantage of vouchers is that it destroys teachers unions, thus giving parents choice and control of their children's educations. There is no reason why vouchers can't be used to pay for qualified home schooling.
I ask you one question, why do you think teacher unions fight against pay for performance bonus ? Do you know of any so called profession that would do that ?
---> Now lets see if I can get trackback to work. I didn't comment at vision circle because I don't have the patience to register to post a reply.
Comments:
Post a Comment
