Brett Magill wrote:...
> Herman Rubin wrote:
>
> >time and resources. Even the "ordinary" students should
> >get much more, but this would make the curriculum too
> >difficult for a fair-sized portion of the students; this
> >seems to be the case already. At least 20% of the students
> >should enter college in their early teens with the equivalent
> >of the current "honors" high school program.
>
MK Discussion deleted...
>
> >The easiest way to get this started is to disestablish the
> >public schools, and to make alternatives affordable. Also,
> >requiring teachers to understand subject matter as determined
> >by subject matter scholars, not educatists, who would not be
> >required or expected to pass the majority of the current
> >teachers or applicants.
>
> I am not sure why you believe the solution is dissolution of the public
> school system. Do you really think that non-public alternatives would
> really do better under the same conditions?
>
MK. What we call the "public school system" is a policy which
restricts the range of each parent's options for the use of the
taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy to schools operated by State
(government, generally) employees. This policy generates a
self-interested class of subsidy recipients, which is more interested
in self-protection than in education. Receipt of a government paycheck
does not make people better informed, more intelligent, more capable
or more compassionate. Rather, guns attract thugs. The education
industry is not a natural monopoly, and beyond a very low level there
are no economies of scale at the delivery end of the education
business as it currently operates. Education only marginally qualifies
as a "public good" as economists use the term, and the public goods
argument implies subsidy and regulation, at most, not State operation.
>
> The fact is, our public schools struggle in part as a *result* of school
> choice--not school choice via vouchers, rather school choice as a result
> of parents with the financial resources sending their children to
> private schools or moving to those public school districts that are more
> successful (and more expensive). This is pervasive. This is the market
> system of education at work. The failure of public schools is partially
> a result of the disinvestment of parents with means in public
> education. Of course, everyone cannot move away from schools they do
> not like or send their children to private schools. This is not only
> because of lack of resources on the part of the family (though this is
> certainly important) but also lack of capacity on the part of the schools.
>
MK. a) School vouchers would provide the means for poor parents to
send their children to independent schools. b) The only barrier to
expansion of independent school capacity is the subsidized State
school monopoly. Where school vouchers provide the means, the
independent school sector grows. In Hong Kong and Ireland, 90% of
students take taxpayer subsidies to independent schools. In the
Netherlands, almost 70%. In Belgium, over 60%. In Singapore, 40%.
>
> Part of the success of private schools and even public schools in
> wealthy schools districts is their exclusionary nature. One of the most
> consistent relationships in education is that between parents education
> and academic success of children. To the degree that parents are poor
> and undereducated in high proportions, schools will perform poorly.
> There is nothing intrinsic to private or charter schools that suggests
> they should have greater success than public schools. They serve a
> different population. Where public school alternatives do not serve a
> different population, e.g. where charter schools have operated alongside
> large public school districts and serve the same students, they have no
> greater success.
>
MK. That the independent school population is self-selected is
obvious. That this accounts for the difference in performance is
conjecture. Unlikely conjecture, given the general failure of State
operation of industries in other sectors, and the superior performance
of countries which subsidize a parent's choice of school. Consider
what the above conjecture implies: these successfully concerned
parents, who send their children to independent schools, are
systematically deluded. They paid tuition, money which they could have
spent on a microscope, magazine subscriptions, a chemistry set, etc.,
on an unnecessary school (remember, it's not the school but the family
which maes the difference).
>
MK. Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez, ["Organization and
Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical findings", pg. 16,
"Comparative Education", Vol. 36 #1, Feb 2000]. "Furthermore, the
regression results indicate that countries where private education is
more widespread perform significantly better than countries where it
is more limited. The result showing the private sector to be more
efficient is similar to those found in other contexts with individual
data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987; Jiminez, et. al, 1991).
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that
reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education".
>
> Further, will vouchers automagically solve the teacher standards problem
> that you point out? No, of course not. This is not an issue for the
> schools. Instead, this is a problem for the system of higher education
> that certifies teachers. School vouchers will not change what teachers
> know. Private, charter, and public schools districts that serve
> families with education and money will naturally attract better
> qualified teachers. However, vouchers will not change the unequal
> distribution of this scarce resource (qualified teachers) and some
> schools will continue to be exclusionary and attract these teachers.
>
MK. Public sector teacher unions are the major lobbyists for teacher
credential requirements. School vouchers would most definitely reduce
their power to restrict the teacher market.
>
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d3c6eacf-066c-441e-bde8-d553afd846f8
http://www.educationnext.org/2001sp/57.html
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/educat/study_credentialing.pdf
http://www.abell.org/publications/pub_library.asp
>
> Some schools will succeed, some will fail and this success or failure
> can be predicted with considerable accuracy by the educational and
> economic characteristics of the families served by the school.
>
MK. Parent SES is a large factor. Institutional autonomy is the next
largest. According to the 1991 Brookings study by Chubb and Moe.
>
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky
comment on school. Please read this.)
http://www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/index.html
http://www.educationpolicy.org
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=289
http://www.libertyindia.org/pdfs/tooley_education.pdf
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11606 (School Reform News
on Sweden's school voucher policy)
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
