A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Why? The next sentence is "But those choices must never come at the expense of what has been -- and must always be -- the great equalizer in our society -- public education."

I don't see why you elipsed through "and inclination" as well. You seem to interpret his statement to mean financial means, but that doesn't hold with his prior sentence, in which he lists alternatives, including home schooling - an alternative that doesn't require much wealth, but does require other means, namely someone who is able to home school. I have a friend who was home schooled for several years by hippy parents who during that time had essentially no income and lived off what they could grow on their small farm.

Or are you suggesting that children who attend public school are a "special interest"?

No I'm suggesting teachers unions are a special interest.

If he doesn't mean financial means, what does he honestly mean? Parochial schools generally require some funds, and often (particularly for scholarships or free tuition) require a religious affiliation (excluding those who don't consider compromising their religious beliefs to be acceptable "means"). Frankly, home schooling with few exceptions requires financial means - the parents having means to become sufficiently educated to be qualified to home school and for at least one of them to be economically unproductive. If financial means shouldn't be the deciding factor in the choices he thinks parents have, is he in favor of vouchers, then? What do vouchers do other than make financial means (more) irrelevant to whether parents (with the inclination - I elipsed it as irrelevant) have the "means" to choose what schooling they believe is best for their children? If freedom of educational choice "must never come at the expense" of public education, how can he be in favor of permitting those with "means" of whatever nature to escape, regardless of their inclination? FWIW, I don't recall that Dean favors vouchers w/in the public system, either (forcing public schools to compete with each other for student funds, but keeping all funds and students in the wonderful, equilizing public system generally).

He reminds me of a number of partners here who vigorously oppose vouchers because public schooling is a great equilizer and people should not be able to opt out to the detriment of the public system, but put their kids in private school.

ed for bad typing

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
He reminds me of a number of partners here who vigorously oppose vouchers because public schooling is a great equilizer and people should not be able to opt out to the detriment of the public system, but put their kids in private school.

Vouchers remove funds from public education, plain and simple. People who live in a district that does not have a voucher plan and who send their kids to private schools actually add money to public education -- they still pay taxes, yet their kids aren't taking up space in a classroom.

I agree that many public education systems in this country suck (and many are excellent, and funding amounts per student aren't necessarily the reason for why systems are either good or bad) and that radical solutions may be required. However, giving them less money to spend to educate kids (which is what vouchers will do) doesn't seem like an idea that makes any sense. Merely shouting "the schools need to learn about competition!" doesn't change that analysis.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Vouchers remove funds from public education, plain and simple. People who live in a district that does not have a voucher plan and who send their kids to private schools actually add money to public education -- they still pay taxes, yet their kids aren't taking up space in a classroom.

I agree that many public education systems in this country suck (and many are excellent, and funding amounts per student aren't necessarily the reason for why systems are either good or bad) and that radical solutions may be required. However, giving them less money to spend to educate kids (which is what vouchers will do) doesn't seem like an idea that makes any sense. Merely shouting "the schools need to learn about competition!" doesn't change that analysis.

Why would this matter if there is any real correlation between the amount of funding and the ability to educate?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
No I'm suggesting teachers unions are a special interest.

Wow. That's a leap I didn't see. Of course, that may be because I went to public schools in an area where the teachers unions were little more than social clubs.

I don't really feel up to the voucher debate right now, so I'm going to leave it at that.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why would this matter if there is any real correlation between the amount of funding and the ability to educate?

I'm NotSpeaking for NotBob, but I think the idea is that even if lots of additional funding may or may not solve the problems of public education, it's hard to believe that the reverse is true, and that draining the system of what money is there would somehow be impact-free.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I'm NotSpeaking for NotBob, but I think the idea is that even if lots of additional funding may or may not solve the problems of public education, it's hard to believe that the reverse is true, and that draining the system of what money is there would somehow be impact-free.

But if there were any real correlation between per student funding and the costs thereof, it shouldn't make a large difference. If it costs $100 dollars to educate 10 students (i.e., $10/student), and 1 student opts out, the school still gets $90 ($10/student).

I realize that this is extremely oversimplified and may still result in a funding deficit, but given the enormous fluff in per student spending, my bet is that there is plenty of room to spare.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But if there were any real correlation between per student funding and the costs thereof, it shouldn't make a large difference. If it costs $100 dollars to educate 10 students (i.e., $10/student), and 1 student opts out, the school still gets $90 ($10/student).

I realize that this is extremely oversimplified and may still result in a funding deficit, but given the enormous fluff in per student spending, my bet is that there is plenty of room to spare.

I would imagine that there are fixed as well as variable costs involved.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I would imagine that there are fixed as well as variable costs involved.

That's taken care of, SS, by the "enormous fluff."

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
That's taken care of, SS, by the "enormous fluff."

I didn't realize it was a term of art. Apologies.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
That's taken care of, SS, by the "enormous fluff."

Exactly. Exhibit A: It costs parochial schools roughly half as much to educate students.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Exactly. Exhibit A: It costs parochial schools roughly half as much to educate students.

Not hard to do when their teachers have taken vows of poverty.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Not hard to do when their teachers have taken vows of poverty.

teachers make a little less, but the real savings are in administrators, and that they don't HAVE to take anyone. That is, there are no special ed classes.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Exactly. Exhibit A: It costs parochial schools roughly half as much to educate students.

Half of what? As non-parochial private schools? Okay, but so what? As public schools? Not according to the data I've seen (which is admittedly at least 10 years out of date since the last time I thought about this).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Half of what? As non-parochial private schools? Okay, but so what? As public schools? Not according to the data I've seen (which is admittedly at least 10 years out of date since the last time I thought about this).

yes, public schools.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
teachers make a little less, but the real savings are in administrators, and that they don't HAVE to take anyone. That is, there are no special ed classes.

Bingo. Plus transportation expenses -- even in the Enlightened North, where there is no court-ordered busing, public schools will give your kid a ride on the Big Yellow Bus of Joy. For most non-public schools, there ain't no such option. For example, everyone had to walk, bike, or get a ride to the Catholic elementary school I attended (Our Lady of Perpetual Motion) as a young Not Bobby. We had bus envy.

Oh, and thanks to Gatti for answering Club on my behalf. My point, as he noted, was that more money may not be a fix, but I kinda doubt that less money will work.