Conference back40::soapbox

    re: .747
    
    If you think about it, education *is* a social program. 
    It has not been a priority in this country for nearly 15 years
    (and I do blame Reagan for this).  A uneducated populace is
    much more easily controlled than an educated one.  People 
    with means can afford to have their children educated in
    private schools.  They can afford to send them to the best
    colleges.  People without means are dependent on what the
    government funds.  
    
    Mary-Michael

    The federal government should not be funding schools, IMO.
    
    We spend more and more money on education and get less and less.  I
    think we are up to $5000 per student per year, currently.  To be
    honest, I think we are getting ripped off big time.
    
    Cut fed funding, send block grants to the states to spend as they like
    on education.
    
    
    -steve

> send block grants to the states to spend as they like on education.

To quote Slick, "NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO."

KEEP the money in the states to begin with and to hell with this sending
it to Washington so that they can deign to give a portion back crap.

    >If you think about it, education *is* a social program.
    >It has not been a priority in this country for nearly 15 years
    >(and I do blame Reagan for this).
    
     I hate to be the one to clue you in but "for nearly 15 years" is both
    superfluous and misleading. The decline in educational achievement
    predates Reagan and is correlated more closely with the lack of
    parental oversight than funding. Besides, Reagan was only president for
    roughly half the time in question with fully a quarter of that time
    subject to the politics of obstruction, premature campaigning and
    political grandstanding oif the democratic congress, not that I expect 
    that to interrupt your comfy little diatribe. 

    re: .757
    
    Regan was president for 8 year, Bush for 4.  That's 12. Pretty
    close to nearly 15 if you count in Clinton's time as well, in which 
    he also has done nothing remarkable.  My particular remarks were
    directed towards funding, not achievement.  If you want my take on
    it, achievement went down the toilet when we decided to emphasize
    sports instead of education in the curricula.  
    
    Mary-Michael

    >Regan was president for 8 year,
    
     Regan was never president. He was, what, treasury secretary?
    
    >Bush for 4.  That's 12. Pretty close to nearly 15 if you count in 
    >Clinton's time as well
    
     But you give Reagan all the blame. How, um, conveeeeenient!
    
     This is not the place to discuss educational issues in America, but
    needless to say, blaming our educational woes on Reagan is remarkably
    simplistic (although one might consider such an argument to be proof
    positive of the levels to which our educational system has slipped.)
    Ok, ok, that's not really necessary. Still, looking at the big picture
    is a grand place to start. Mebbe I'll start something in a more
    appropriate place.

    re: .3
    
    I agree (and have used this same reasoning in past notes), but you have
    to start somewhere.
    
    It's more likely that we can push for the block grants, then follow up
    with less money being taken from the states in taxes as the block
    grants disappear over a predetermined time frame.
    
    
    -steve

    re: .6
    
    Tsk, tsk.  Tossing educational slurs at your opponent is hardly
    the way to win an argument, not to mention the fact that it
    predisposes me to listen slightly less attentively to the
    remainder of your message.
    
    Regardless of whom you would like to paste the blame on,
    we have a problem.  The problem is uneducated people.  People
    who believe the world is in their television set.  People
    who haven't cracked a book since their last teacher told them
    to.  People whose entire literary library can be found in 
    your average checkout line.  People who have absolutely no
    idea how to think, how to reason or how to analyze.  People
    who can't read and are too embarrassed to tell anyone.  An
    uneducated populace is Silly Putty (tm) in the hands of an unscrupulous
    government.  What do we do?  How do we get people to get excited
    about learning?   How do we get them to turn off the tv and talk?
    Do you agree that it's sad that more children know the names of
    famous sports stars than famous scientists?  That many of their
    "heros" display only physical and not mental prowess?  How do
    you balance the importance of mental and physical gymnastics
    in learning?  
    
    And how do we pay for it?  Should we pull back from government
    funding?  Fund schools only at the local level?  This makes it
    difficult for children who may need to switch schools mid-year,
    since texts and curricula are not standardized for the country.
    It may also mean that the religious flavor of a community may
    influence the school system and direct it's use in a secular
    manner.  Should we allow this?  
    
    What needs to be done?
    
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    

Ban assault entertainment?

:^)

    There certainly has been movement away from public education
    in the last 25 years.  To me this is all part of the growing
    disparity between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'.  The rich
    are getting richer and the poor poorer.  The middle class is
    being split right down the middle in each direction.  And schools
    are a primary bridge between the two groups.

    I see the issue centering on the question of what the government's
    responsibility is.  (I accept as given that the government has
    a responsibility to provide an education).  Does this mean
    to actually provide the education directly (run the schools) or
    to just pay for it.  We seem to be asking this question about
    a great many areas of government.

    Its easy for the government to reduce the funding that just
    pays for it.  Pretty soon we all would be supplementing what the
    government gives us, and the poor would be left to their own
    devices, unable to get even the beginning of an education.

    If the government is required to directly provide the education,
    it gets a LOT harder for it to slack off on what it offers.
    And it's a lot harder for the elite to supplement the schools
    with a little extra money they'ld like to use to increase the quality
    of what their own kids get.

    The only way to ensure a decent education for everyone is for
    the government to directly provide it and for all of us to work
    with the public schools to make sure they offer quality for
    the dollars they spend.
    bob

    
      I think there has to be some form of government involvement,
     particularly at the local level.  I like the open enrollment
     experiment here in Mass.
    
      At the University level, I think there is a need for the
     quasi-state higher education.
    
      As to the Feds, they have little business in this.  Education
     is not traditionally a federal function.  They run the service
     academies - makes sense.  I suppose they should enforce federal
     law, as in civil rights, for example.  Perhaps they can fund a
     few research projects with strategic importance.
    
      But, basically, I'm glad we don't have "an education president".
    
      bb

Serious reply here:

	Education begins at the home - particularly with the parents.  I believe it is
imperitive that the parents get involved in their children's education.  They have to
check to make sure that the child has done the homework.  They have to find out what 
the children are learning and what they are having trouble with.  This is where 
education truly begins.

	Government at the federal level should have next to no involvement.  The only
thing that the fed should do is establish some sort of standards for grade levels.
State government has more responsibility in also establishing standards.  I also think
that the state could provide some of the funding.  However, the level of government
that should be most involved is the local government.  The local government should 
provide most of the funding.

	No matter how much money we throw at the education problem, it will not be 
solved without the family getting involved.

ME

    People who complain about the public schools but refuse to get involved
    with what is being taught to children IMO are like people who bitch 
    about the government but don't vote.  You are the problem!
    
    Volunteer to help in the schools, work with a youth group, such as
    scouting which does demand a fair amount of commitment from both kids
    and parents.  there are kids who don't have a parental unit who GAS about
    what Jill or John is doing in scouting and could use a mentor.  I have
    two kids in my troop who could use you, and my co-leader has several
    cubsouts in the same position.  There are kids in the school system who
    are running into the same problem.  With the exceptions of pedophiles,
    child abusers, and serial killers, I can't think of a person who
    doesn't have some skill they can use to help kids who are otherwise
    becoming roadkill in the school system.  
    
    don't have kids?  all the more reason to volunteer.  As things stand in
    the US those snotty nosed, functionally illeterate crumb-grabbers will
    someday be funding your retirement, wiping your butt, and performing
    other health, and welfare activities for you.  As an enlightened
    selfish person, I find it to be in MY best interest to make a
    difference in these kids lives.  
    
    1 or two teachers who have 25+ kids for 6 hours/day cannot hope to
    have the influence that people on a one-on-one basis can have, and you
    can make a difference.  Shools need tutore, mentors, special career,
    and science volunteers, library aids, ... the list is endless.  
    
    The big difference between public schools and private school is the
    level of involvement by parents, not the quality in teachers,
    facilities, or the cost involved.  
    
    meg

    >Regardless of whom you would like to paste the blame on,
    >we have a problem.
    
     Agreed.
    
    >And how do we pay for it?  Should we pull back from government
    >funding?  Fund schools only at the local level? 
    
     The basic, day to day funding should be from mostly local sources. In
    order to prevent pockets of poverty from preventing equal access to
    education, some part of the funding for the day to day or perhaps
    infrastructure should come from a higher level, perhaps the state
    level. The federal level should be concerned with funding special
    programs for the very brightest and most needy students, ie, a very
    limited role. So on average, the yearly funding would break down
    something like this: 70% from local sources, 25% from the state and 5%
    from the federal government (on average.)
    
    >What needs to be done?
    
     One of the main problems is the indifference of parents to their
    childrens' education. Parents expect their childrens' educational needs
    to be taken care of for them by the state; this is not a responsible
    position to be taking. Parents ought to be encouraged to donate their
    time (when possible) to help the teachers and all parents ought to be
    aware of what their children are learning and how they are progressing
    at all times. This most especially concerns homework. So many kids just
    don't do their homework and their parents are oblivious; then when
    their kids get Cs and Ds, they don't know why. Parents need to take an
    active role in the education of their children.
    
     Furthermore, there needs to be significant housecleaning in the
    teaching profession. Tenure ought not be insulation from the rigors of
    having to perform. The administration needs to be gutted; that's where
    much of the bloat is. When budgets are pared down to reflect the
    ability of the populace to pay for education, the administration
    remains untouched or a token secretary gets the axe while teachers bear
    the brunt of the downsizing. This is merely political maneuvering
    designed to keep the pressure on for more money.
    
     I support the concept of school vouchers. Public education has all of
    the negative attributes of any monopoly. Bloat, lack of incentive to
    provide the best and most efficient education, top heaviness,
    stagnancy. Fundamentally we need to reform the system, the system
    having failed.

    .13 Well said Meg! There are a few things we agree on. Very few.:)

    .13
    
    Akshully I agree as well!  Great Note!

    
    
    
         What about parent(s) that can't read or write? What about the
         staggering problem of teen pregnancy,......where you have kids
         having kids,......marginally literate,...no concept of what's
         required/needed to be a parent.
    
         I ride the subway to work,.........I watch kids at 7:30 am 
         eating Milky Way's,...Butterfingers and "washing it" down
         with Mountain Dew,...or Orange Crush! Nice way to start the
         morning.
    
         On the subway,...I listen to the conversations of some of these
         kids and their vernacular makes me cringe. For me,..it's part
         of the urban experience. However,...I'm sure you see similar
         problems where you live.
    
         If we're going to fix the problem of education in America, let's
         begin by stabilizing our families. The benchmark for stability
         imo,...is EMPLOYMENT. The urban unemployment figures are still
         extroadinarily high,....some "pockets" exceed 40%!! Folks
         wanna work,....but everyone is not phi betta kappa. We need
         low end manufacturing jobs. I understand profit,...I'm aware
         of "responsibility to shareholders",........so I guess I'll
         have to continue watching Nike make sneakers overseas for $3.00
         a pair,....sell 'em here for $100.00 a pair......and watch kids
         kill for them! It dosen't make sense,....it's immoral and it's
         not fair.
    
    
         Ed

>     I support the concept of school vouchers. Public education has all of
>    the negative attributes of any monopoly. Bloat, lack of incentive to
>    provide the best and most efficient education, top heaviness,
>    stagnancy. Fundamentally we need to reform the system, the system
>    having failed.

	I can go along with the idea of school vouchers.  This would help 
level the playing field for the poorest people when it comes to education.

ME

    
    That's why I always look for the made in the USA labe, Ed.  I agree
    with a lot of your note although I don't see government as the
    solution (not saying that you do, you didn't say).
    
    
    Mike

>         If we're going to fix the problem of education in America, let's
>         begin by stabilizing our families. The benchmark for stability
>         imo,...is EMPLOYMENT.

	I agree with the first statement.  However, I have a problem with the 
second.  The Great Depression put unemployment levels at incredibly high numbers.
Does this mean that there was a very unstable period in our history?  Was our
education system in as much trouble as it is today?

ME

    
    
      .20
    
       I'm defining  "family stability" as a household with two parents
       or one parent that's working. The households of The Great 
       Depression didn't experience the number of out of wedlocks births
       nor were the family and social issues as dynamic as they are today.
    
    
      Ed

>	I can go along with the idea of school vouchers.  This would help 
>level the playing field for the poorest people when it comes to education.

    You've lost me on this one.  School Vouchers do the opposite of
    'level the playing field'.

    You mean 'lets give everyone a voucher for $3k and let them buy
    the best education their money can buy?'

    Vouchers are only good for the well off, who will supplement the
    rest and buy a private education.

    The poorest people need fairly funded public education, not vouchers.

    
    
    
    
       You know somethin',...I don't know where answers are,  I really
       don't. I don't know if the answers are with government,.....
       industry,....you,...me,...Jesus,....I don't where they are.
    
       However,...there's one thing that I do know. Lack of education
       breeds "serious ignorance",......ignorance breeds hate and fear,
       .....ignorance enables your emotions to out weigh your judgement,
       ...........ignorance "paves the way" for demagogues.
    
       Let's face it,...this nation is headed into "unchartered waters"
       .....what's out there??? Your guess is as good as mine.
    
    
       Ed

    Ed's touched upon a very important point which IMO is central to the
    regression in educational achievement experienced in the US. The loss
    of the two parent intact family as the standard has had a devastating
    effect on the ability of our children to get educated. Single parent
    families on the whole simply cannot compete with two parent families
    for stability and parental oversight/involvement. And since single
    parent families have becoming increasingly more common, their effects on
    education have been felt- in spades. It's simply not as good to have
    no parental supervision when the kids come home from school. When one
    parent has to do everything by his/herself, there is simply less energy
    left at the end of the day to deal with homework and such things. And
    that is a price that the children also pay.
    
     But we're not going to solve the problem of broken families. People
    have to solve it for themselves. The lack of discipline that has
    manifested itself in society as broken/single parent families, the loss
    of a solid work ethic, etc is something that people are going to have
    to solve for themselves. The government can't write a law to make
    people be responsible.
    
     

    > Vouchers are only good for the well off, who will supplement the rest
    > and buy a private education.
    >
    > The poorest people need fairly funded public education, not vouchers.
    
    What do you mean by 'fairly funded'?  
    
    Do you know that school costs have gone up and up and up while
    educational quality has declined for more than twenty years?
    
    There exist undeniable problems with entrenched school district
    administration bureacracies and teachers unions preventing any
    innovation in the structure of what public schools can deliver.
    
    Many of us see vouchers as a way for parents to vote with their feet;
    putting their kids into schools that spend their money effectively,
    introducing market disciplines into the delivery of education.  No,
    they aren't perfect.  But the well-off opt out of public education
    already.  Allowing the present morass of entrenched bureacracy to
    continue is accepting further decline.  The best idea on the table for
    educational reform is vouchers.  If you have a better idea to deal with
    the stated problems, lets hear it.
    
    DougO

     >You've lost me on this one.  School Vouchers do the opposite of
     >'level the playing field'.
    
     I disagree. School vouchers allow parents to choose where to send
    their kids to school. It's such a powerful concept it scares the hell
    out of the educational oligarchy because it forces them to do something
    they haven't ever had to do: perform. The only schools that will
    survive are those that attract enough of an enrollment to justify their
    continued existence. They can only do that by providing an acceptable
    education. This is such a novel concept, this is so far away from the
    current situation that the union is scrambling to keep it from
    happening. Can you imagine if every teacher, every administrator felt
    as though their job, their livelihood was dependent upon performing to
    the best of their ability? They can- and that's why they are so
    adamantly opposed. They simply employ the trite class warfare fig leaf
    which plays so well to the uncritical liberal bastions of poverty- it's
    nauseating they way they have people fooled. It's in their parocial
    interest to convince people that vouchers are about the haves vs
    have-nots; after all, if vouchers are implemented some of them will
    have to work to keep from joining the ranks of the have-nots, a truly
    terrifying prospect for people unused to the rigors of competition that
    is provided by an open market.
    
    >The poorest people need fairly funded public education, not vouchers
    
     What's that mean? Where does it end? Are the already strapped american
    taxpayers just supposed to continue paying ever more and getting ever
    less? When do we get to hold the educators responsible? Your commentary
    sounds suspiciously like our educational needs can be solved merely by
    throwing more money at the problem. They can't.

>    What do you mean by 'fairly funded'?  

    Funding mechanisms so that schools in the poorest communities
    can still provide a decent education to the kids attending them.
    
>    Do you know that school costs have gone up and up and up while
>    educational quality has declined for more than twenty years?

    Do you have data to back this up?  I know that many people have
    this 'feeling', but that does not make it correct.

    The government is paying for a lot more 'special ed' than in the
    past.  This cost has risen dramatically.  But not 'normal education'.
    
    How can you show that 'educational quality' has declined?  And do
    you blame this on the school or on society in general?

>    There exist undeniable problems with entrenched school district
>    administration bureacracies and teachers unions preventing any
>    innovation in the structure of what public schools can deliver.

    Such as.....
    
>    Many of us see vouchers as a way for parents to vote with their feet;
>    putting their kids into schools that spend their money effectively,
>    introducing market disciplines into the delivery of education.

    Right...many of us want to leave the poor behind and have govenment
    help us pay for private education.  This is greed, pure and simple.

>    No, they aren't perfect.  But the well-off opt out of public education
>    already.  

    Right...and if THEY can do it, you want to also.  You deserve it.
    'You deserve the best today'.  'Have it your way'.

>    If you have a better idea to deal with the stated problems, lets hear it.

    Parent involvement

    >Funding mechanisms so that schools in the poorest communities
    >can still provide a decent education to the kids attending them.
    
     Such as? And while you're at it, please explain why vouchers cannot
    perform at this level?
    
    >Do you have data to back this up?  I know that many people have
    >this 'feeling', but that does not make it correct.
    
     Do your own homework; look in your own town/city budget. Look at the
    standardized test scores. What does that data tell you?
    
    >The government is paying for a lot more 'special ed' than in the
    >past.
    
     Yep- more "good intentions" that are unrealistic and incredibly
    costly. (From a parent of a "special needs" student, so can the ready
    made elitist argument.)
    
    >How can you show that 'educational quality' has declined?
    
     Standardized test scores, high schools graduates that are functionally
    illiterate, an undereducated workforce, need I go on?
    
    >And do you blame this on the school or on society in general?
    
     Both are involved.
    
    >    If you have a better idea to deal with the stated problems, lets
    >hear it.
    
    >>    Parent involvement
    
     That's part of the solution, but in and of itself it can only be a
    partial solution.
                       

    Perhaps someone can explain how their 'voucher' system would work.

    A voucher for how much?  Do you have a way to guarantee an
    education for the amount of the voucher?  Do public
    schools still exist as an alternative?  How are they funded?

    The only voucher systems I've read about are just big
    tax breaks for the well off.  That sounds like what you're after.

    .28
    
    I have to agree "parent involvement" is the answer or "parent-like"
    involvement.  Discipline and accountability for our children.  This
    *is* the key to change.
    
    And Mr. Ralston pay attention because this applies to our conversation
    regarding authority.
    
    Discipline and Accountability only comes through GOOD authority and an
    attitude of submission to GOOD authority.
    
    Nancy

.4

Oh my goodness, the earth will crack.  I find myself
agreeing with LEVESQUE!  Though only in part.

>>The decline in educational achievement predates Reagan and
is correlated more closely with the lack of parental oversight
than funding.<<

Mark, you're right it does predate Reagan, try the Nixon years.
    
**  DIATRIBE ALERT **
    
.23 is right.  I don't know what the answers are either, but
for starters:

        We have a society that worships people like OJ and makes fun
        of "book worms" and "egg heads".

        We have had 20 plus years of cartoons who style the scientist
        as evil.

     	We have a school system that turns a blind eye to sexual
        harassment of girls in the classroom, corridors and playgrounds
        from preschool upward.

        We have teachers who are flying high on their own power ego
        trips.

        We have lessons that are duller than watching paint drying.

        We have a couple of conservative nuts in Texas who make sure
        that school books contain only what they say is right and
        blackmail the publishers to comply.

        We have school buildings with serious indoor air pollution
        problems that cause slow brain and immune system damage from
        offgassing of chemicals.

     	We have a school system that only rewards winners.  It's
        not as important to master the subject as to come out on top.

        We have families where both parents HAVE to work, one
        and sometimes two jobs each.

        We have employers who make it difficult for people to get out
        of work in time to attend parent teacher conferences.

        We have parents who don't have time to bring up their children.
        And that's not always their choice.

        We have parents who won't or can't listen to their children.

        We have children who see their future as something too
        big and overpowering for them to master.
                                              
     	We have children who feel defeated before they have even tried
        living life.

        We have children who would rather escape reality than face it.
        And I for one do not blame them.


As parents, I think it's up to us to shout STOP.  The problem is what to 
you shout STOP at first. And how many of us will still be standing afterward.
                          

    
    Right here in Massachusetts, any student in any public school can
    "open enroll" in any participating community's public schools.  The
    sole cost to the parents, no matter what their economic status, is
    the transport.  The schools may not pick-and-choose : they are
    either open, or not.  For example, Acton-Boxborough (a good school),
    is open, and many students/parents opt out of Dracut/Maynard/Billerica/
    Chelmsford, etc to go there - over one hundred this year.  The town of
    origin MUST PAY by state law (this is a Weldism).  Now just toss in
    private/parochial, and you'd have vouchers, in one of the forms
    proposed.
    
      bb

>    ... Now just toss in
>    private/parochial, and you'd have vouchers, in one of the forms
>    proposed.


A simple question:

Under this plan, including the private/parochial thang, my tax dollars
would go to pay for someone else's kid to go to Catholic/Baptist/Jewish
schools?

Thanks,

TTom

    
    
    As long as they get an education, what do you care Tom?
    
    
    Mike

    
    Your tax dollars would be as today.  The schools would be selected
    by the parents.  Any school electing to be "open", would have to
    accept the going rate and take all comers, so a parochial school
    going "open" could not restrict itself to a religious denomination.
    But yes, a church could run a school.  So could a profit-making
    corporation.
    
    Surprise  !  Boston Public Schools are MORE expensive than fancy
    private academies.  The private schools salivate at the prospect
    of vouchers.
    
      bb

>    As long as they get an education, what do you care Tom?

I have nothing against a_education. However, I find it somewhat ironic
that we hear a lot about people being responsible and all but when it
comes to children, everyone wants me to give them some of my money to
help them out. They want tax deductions, they want public funding of
their children's education and now they seem to want me to fund the
teaching of religion to their children.

Now, to the issue, I aint no Constitutional scholar but taking money from
me and handing it to the Catholic Church, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or
whoever seems to be against any idea of separation of church and state.
As I understand it, the real test of this breach is whether or not money
is directly given to a church or religious group. In this scheme, there's
no disguising the direct contribution.

Certainly, the parochial schools will continue the teaching of their
religion or is there some secret rule that says if'n my kids go to your
school on a voucher you don't teach 'em your religion?

Now, since I have to pay one way or the other, I don't have a problem
with private schools, but are we talking about regulations,
certifications, etc.? And what's to keep Falwell, et. al., from just
going into the business to further his agenda?

TTom

    the privte schools may salivate at the money at first, but......  with
    government money comes government regulations.  That percieved cash
    cow's tit looks great until you get strung out on it and start
    depending on that money to run your day-to-day expenses.  Were I in a
    private school and it even talked about accepting vouchers, I would
    pull my child from it and find one that didn't.  
    
    As has been said earlier, private schools can do more for and with less
    because of parental involvement.  Giving people vouchers will not get
    them any more involved in their child's education, and will only dilute
    the schools that had that involvement.  
    
    Now, out of classism, as my kids are public school students.  The
    schools do their damndest, but the fact that they have as many kids
    (and the number is growing thanks to the boomers who discovered their
    biological clocks) as they do and cannot discriminate as to who they
    take on, (unlike private schools who aren't on the government's udders)
    have a lot of square pegs they try to fit into round holes.  About the
    only thing I can suggest is getting involved and making sure, your
    child is getting the best education you can get for him or her.  An
    involved parent is important to get a child into the programs he or she
    needs.  
    
    contrary to some beliefs gifted children are as much disadbvvantaged in
    a mainstream classroom as exceptional children.  They are square pegs. 
    there are programs available in the schools, but you need to find otu
    about them, not always an easy task.  
    
    getting ivolved with your child often benefits another child as well,
    and there are a lot out there who need more support from an interested
    adult.  Getting involved if  you don't have kids is even better, as you
    are likely to have more energy and time than those of us who already
    have more than one child, and are already trying to make a difference.  
    
    meg

> And what's to keep Falwell, et. al., from just
> going into the business to further his agenda?

Nothing, I suppose, but while I share your concern, just for the
sake of argument, if he could actually provide a better education
for kids which people would willingly spend their vouchers on, does
it really matter all that much?

The point is for the kids to get the best education possible for the money.
Those that can't provide it won't attract students/vouchers and will fail.
Those that can provide it will do the opposite and prosper.

    
    There ARE problems.  Open enrollment has been seen as an opertunity
    by the better public schools in the Boston area, as a threat by the
    lesser institutions.  Since there are limits to parental ability to
    transport kids, and only public schools are involved, you have a
    limited selection.  Rural areas, like where ARMSTRONG lives, it isn't
    much use.  In Boston, there has long been an opportunity under METCO
    for urban kids to attend at least some suburban schools.  But
    all-in-all, open enrollment has been a net success and is in no danger
    although the teachers' unions hate it.
    
    If you extended it to private institutions, there would have to be
    oversight by the Commonwealth.  Accredidation (sp ?) at a minimum.
    And yes, there is a first amendment question, never yet answered.
    
    By the way, if you can play good basketball, you can go to Central
    Catholic, etc today, whether you are Catholic or not.  Numerous
    Boston black innercity Protestant kids get to do this if skilled.
    
      bb

    I fail to see the difference between taxes paying for public education
    or private education (up to the alloted voucher amount- anything above
    that the parent pays for)- even a religious (gasp!) school.
    
    If it is the parent's choice, then it seems infinitely more fair than
    the current system.  Either way, you pay the same taxes.
    
    
    -steve

    Another time I agree with Meg.  Only Christian schools willing to
    compromise their ethics will take government vouchers.  I know the
    school my children go to will not.
    
    Nancy

>                            -< One simple plan... >-
    
>    Right here in Massachusetts, any student in any public school can
>    "open enroll" in any participating community's public schools.  The
>    sole cost to the parents, no matter what their economic status, is
>    the transport.  The schools may not pick-and-choose : they are
>    either open, or not.  

    Ah...Mass School Choice.  We have school choice only because
    Billy Bulger cant pass the constitutional convention to get funding
    for catholic schools.  So he'll get as close to it as possible.

    Most schools view this as an evil system and don't participate.

    Many of the kids in this plan were attending the 'choice' school
    already at their parents expense.  Now the tax payers pay.

    Families in the program were asked why they chose to attend a different
    school than the one in their town.  The most common reason?  SPORTS.

    This plan is almost exclusively white, middle class kids.  It is really
    reverse METCO, so some white kids in Springfield can attend Longmeadow.
    It takes a huge amount of money from poor communities so that a small
    number of kids get 'choice'.  A few well off schools like Manchester
    have raped their neighboring towns like Glouchester.

    This law is obscene.  But its a step closer to public funding for
    Catholic Schools.
    bob

    the State of colorado is expeimenting with "Charter Schools" where a
    perivate group runs a public school.  One of the more notable incidents
    so far, has been a school which wanted to  violate state law by wanting
    to fire any teacher who wouldn't sign a form stating they wouldn't have
    sex out of wedlock.  The same group has been trying to get CC biology
    books, that emphasize "creation science."
    
    I fail to see where either of these options is improving education.
    
    meg

>    the State of colorado is expeimenting with "Charter Schools" where a
>    perivate group runs a public school.  

    Billy Bulger got this into our 'Ed Reform' plan also.
    State Sponsored private schools, funded at the expense of the
    local towns.  We've got one out near us.  Every kids who goes there
    zaps $5K from the kid's town's school budget.  So 4 or 5 kids attend
    from your town ($25K) and you have to fire a teacher.

    This is a great plan.

    And you should read the educational philosophies of these schools.
    What we dont need in education are a lot of new strange ideas.  There
    are already a LOT of good, sound proposals to change schools.  The
    strongest force against change are the parents (not the teachers).

    But its another step even closer to funding Catholic Schools.
    bob

    >Under this plan, including the private/parochial thang, my tax dollars
    >would go to pay for someone else's kid to go to Catholic/Baptist/Jewish
    >schools?
    
     Yup. Is this is a problem? Islamic, too. In fact, no denominations
    would be discriminated against; the sole criterion would be whether
    their educational program were accredited. No discrimination means no
    Constitutional issue.

    >However, I find it somewhat ironic
    >that we hear a lot about people being responsible and all but when it
    >comes to children, everyone wants me to give them some of my money to
    >help them out.
    
     It's in _everyone's_ best interest that everybody else's children are
    well educated. Or do you prefer to have to support them via welfare,
    etc, and do you enjoy it when stupid people vote for stupid things?
    Think about it- the less educated the populace, the more it costs for
    social programs and the fewer people there are to fund the gummint when
    you retire. That sits ok with you?
    
    >Now, to the issue, I aint no Constitutional scholar but taking money
    >from me and handing it to the Catholic Church, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson
    >or whoever seems to be against any idea of separation of church and state.
    
     What does the amendment say? "There shall be a complete separation
    between the Church and the State"? Nope. It says that congress will
    make no law to establish or promote an official state religion (para).
    Which means that as long as the law does not discriminate on basis of
    religion, as long as it treats all denominations identically, then
    there is no Constitutional issue.

    >Most schools view this as an evil system and don't participate.
    
     Most schools are mediocre on a good day; why would they want to have
    to compete with the good ones?
    
    >Many of the kids in this plan were attending the 'choice' school
    >already at their parents expense.  Now the tax payers pay.
    
     Clue: the parents are taxpayers.
    
    >This plan is almost exclusively white, middle class kids.
    
     Data to support this assertion? That's not what I read in the Globe.
    Their articles on individual students (one of which was about a black
    boy from (Roxbury?) certainly didn't support this contention.
    
    >But its a step closer to public funding for Catholic Schools.
    
     What is this, a mantra? Talk about bigotry.

    >So 4 or 5 kids attend from your town ($25K) and you have to fire a teacher.
    
     Man. Talk about fast and loose with the truth. It's one thing to be
    opinionated, but it's nice to at least have SOME basis in reality.
    
    
    >But its another step even closer to funding Catholic Schools.
    
     Here it is AGAIN. At least your agenda is easy to read...

>    >So 4 or 5 kids attend from your town ($25K) and you have to fire a teacher
>    
>     Man. Talk about fast and loose with the truth. It's one thing to be
>    opinionated, but it's nice to at least have SOME basis in reality.

    If our school lost 25K, it would mean firing a teacher.
    Teachers salaries are most of the budget.  I guess we could fire
    our Principal or our one secretary for the whole school.  Or our only
    Janitor?  I assume these are the bloated overhead you refer to?

    The school costs are not reduced by these kids leaving, but the
    budget is reduced by $5K per kid.

    In School Choice, the 'choice school' can control how many of each
    grade kids it will recieve, so it can carefully fill small classes.
    This way it costs the school almost nothing.  But they still get
    their $5K from the kid's home district.

    I'm still wondering about how this Tuition Voucher system would
    work.  Every explaination I read just smacks of a great tax
    break for the well off, at the expense of the poor.  If you want
    to send your kids to private school, fine!  You can do that today.
    Just dont expect the money for it to come out of public education.
    bob

	What is wrong with funding Catholic schools, or Islamic schools, or Jewish
schools, or a school for witches (heard about this in CA when vouchers were up for a
vote) as long as there is no discrimination.

ME

     Sounds like your town oughtta make its school a choice school, eh?
    Then it could fill its classrooms with students from other schools at
    practically no cost, and an additional $5k a pop into the budget...
    
     If you don't want to make public schools attractive for my children to
    attend; fine. Just let me deduct the tuition to send them to a school
    where they can get an actual education from my property tax bill. Why
    should I have to pay for schooling twice, just because you oppose
    making public schools a decent place to get an education?

>    >Most schools view this as an evil system and don't participate.
>    
>     Most schools are mediocre on a good day; why would they want to have
>    to compete with the good ones?

The Schools face the competition of School Choice automatically.
If a kid in your town attends another school through school choice,
your town pays.  What the school committee in each town can decide
is whether they want to open their school up to allow kids to
attend through school choice.  The teachers and principal have no control
over this.

Most school committees do support public education, and so are opposed
to this new law because it is in general detrimental to public education.
Opening themselves to school choice would often help their own budgets,
at the expense of their neighbors.  I find this abhorant.

Perhaps we should pass a law that says that kids should be able to
eat any any house in the neighborhood.  If your kids choose to eat
at your neighbor's house, your neighbor will send you a bill, and
you cannot deny your kid that meal as long as your neighbor allows it.
    

    >Perhaps we should pass a law that says that kids should be able to
    >eat any any house in the neighborhood. 
    
     Sounds like the kids in your neighborhood are the offspring of
    Godzilla.
    
    >Opening themselves to school choice would often help their own budgets,
    >at the expense of their neighbors.  I find this abhorant.
    
     So taxpayers should continue to subsidize substandard education?!!!
    
     Imagine if ALL school were by law required to be open. Then there
    would be true competition, and enough room for everyone to attend a
    school of their choice. And maybe teachers would have to actually work
    for a living, instead of relying on the teachers union to keep them
    employed (or, at least on the picket line.)
    
    >If a kid in your town attends another school through school choice,
    >your town pays
    
     All the more reason to improve the education your town provides so
    other people want to come to your town for an education.

>     Sounds like your town oughtta make its school a choice school, eh?
>    Then it could fill its classrooms with students from other schools at
>    practically no cost, and an additional $5k a pop into the budget...
>    
>     If you don't want to make public schools attractive for my children to
>    attend; fine. Just let me deduct the tuition to send them to a school
>    where they can get an actual education from my property tax bill. Why
>    should I have to pay for schooling twice, just because you oppose
>    making public schools a decent place to get an education?

I find so much greed in both these statements, I'm not sure where to start.

You are right, our school would do real well with school choice.
It's having a worse problem right now.  People are moving to town to
attend our school.  The kid population is soaring.  The builders like
the fact that they get to build new houses, but the taxes from the house
rarely cover the costs of the extra students.  Funding schools is a very
messy business.

I do want to make schools a better place.  Making it a better place for
your own kids helps all the kids who attend.  If you dont want to help
improve the schools and want to send your kids elsewhere, Fine.  Just
dont expect the public schools to pay for it.

>    >Perhaps we should pass a law that says that kids should be able to
>    >eat any any house in the neighborhood. 
>    
>     Sounds like the kids in your neighborhood are the offspring of
>    Godzilla.

    What'sa matter?  Afraid of the competition?  Maybe your family
    should learn to cook?  Or maybe serve Pizza every night to keep
    the kids at home.

    A good part of this analogy is that one of your kids may choose to eat
    at your neighbor's house who is a millionaire and offers a 7 course
    meal every night.  You cant afford that kind of food at your house.
    But you still have to pay his bill, leaving little left for the
    rest of your kids.

    Under School Choice, in almost every case, kids opted out of their
    town school to attend the wealthier school nearby.  In almost every
    case, money is the difference between good schools and bad schools.
    If you want to attend that school, move to that town.  Its simple.
    If you want to attend a private school, get a scholarship or pay
    for it.  If you want to improve your town's school, be involved.

    
    Well, Bob, I sure hope greed works, since that's the idea.  There
    can never be any competition in any industry without greed.  That's
    the fuel for the engine, a powerplant that drives all the world's
    most excellent systems.
    
    I believe in the customer, not the employer or employee, and could
    care less what is "good for public (or private) education".  My
    question is, "What do parents/students prefer ?"  There just isn't
    any doubt about the general popularity of the very limited scheme
    the Democrats and Republicans of Massachusetts compromised on.  Sure,
    these customers change schools for strange reasons : sports and other
    extracurricular programs, social climbing, kids with special problems
    discipline in particular, higher college admission rates or SAT scores.
    
    I wish schools ran TV ads, competing like beer.  There isn't any basis
    for calling this a transfer-wealth scheme, and you know that was not
    Bulger's or Weld's intent.
    
    Why should every town have a high school ?  Boxboro doesn't - they farm
    the whole thing to Acton for a price.  So does Ashford, Connecticutt.
    
    Nancy is quite right that some schools might opt to be "closed" - they
    can do this under the plan, and keep local character, or high admission
    standards, or denominational restrictions.  But then they get no
    voucher income.
    
    Let me tell you what would happen IMMEDIATELY if high school education
    were opened to vouchers :  both Boston University and Northeastern
    would enter the high school education market on a competitive basis.
    Some public schools would go right out of business.  Others, like
    Acton-Box and Concord-Carlisle, would do just fine.
    
    Suppose out where you live, all the industrious "ants" live in
    Manchester, all the profligate "grasshoppers" in East Longmeadow.
    Now what SHOULD be the desired outcome from the Commonwealth's point
    of view ?  I'd contend, close the schools in East Longmeadow and bus
    all the students to Manchester is the desired outcome.  Why not ?
    
      bb

>    Well, Bob, I sure hope greed works, since that's the idea.  There
>    can never be any competition in any industry without greed.  That's
>    the fuel for the engine, a powerplant that drives all the world's
>    most excellent systems.

    I love competition, but only when there can be winners and losers.
    I want every kid to have the opportunity for a good education, not
    some kids offered a spectacular education and some offered a
    terrible one.

    I dont see us using competition for things that are really important.
    We dont contract out the army or navy.

>    Why should every town have a high school ?  Boxboro doesn't - they farm
>    the whole thing to Acton for a price.  So does Ashford, Connecticutt.

    I thought Acton-Boxboro was a regional school?  That means they both
    have a high school...the same one.  Sharing resources makes a lot
    of sense.

    There are cases where a town may tuition its kids to a school that is not
    run by the town.  they are rare, and usually due to unusual circumstances.

>    Suppose out where you live, all the industrious "ants" live in
>    Manchester, all the profligate "grasshoppers" in East Longmeadow.

    There are lots of reasons why wealth is not evenly distributed across
    the state, mostly historical.  But its not because everyone in town
    is industrious or lazy.  The distribution is very self-perpetuating.
    An opportunity for a quality education is one of the best ways that
    people can move out of poverty, move out of their poor town.  I still
    dont see any alternatives except a strong public education system.

    >I do want to make schools a better place.
    
     Then why do you oppose measures which would force the schools to
    improve or close? You insist on preserving the status quo, in which
    nonperformers are given a local monopoly, thereby depriving their
    students of the education that the local taxpayers are really paying
    for. And my opposition to this is termed greed? Please.
    
    >Just dont expect the public schools to pay for it.
    
     Clue: public schools don't pay for anything. Taxpayers do. And
    taxpayers are free to stand up and demand that their money is better
    spent.

    >What'sa matter?  Afraid of the competition? 
    
     No, afraid of kids that can eat houses. Talk about gastro-intestinal
    problems...
    
    >Maybe your family should learn to cook? 
    
     Hee hee. Ah, the hazards of noting from ignorance. Boxers have eaten
    what I've cooked; I'll let them be the ones to clue you in. :-)
    
    >Or maybe serve Pizza every night to keep the kids at home.
    
     Actually, under your system I'd have to get a bigger kitchen table.
    
     The biggest preoblem I have with you is that you are so incredibly
    deeply rooted in continuing the tried and failed systems of the past.
    What scares you so much about reform? Why is changing the rules
    such a difficult prospect for you to accept? You have people in your
    family whose livelihoods depend on more of the same, or are you just
    not an adaptable fellow?

    >I want every kid to have the opportunity for a good education, not
    >some kids offered a spectacular education and some offered a
    >terrible one.
    
     But that is precisely what you are supporting! You are insistent that
    the lousy school not be penalized, that children who live in a crummy
    school district be forced to suffer. "Why, if they want a better
    education, they should move to a more affluent community!" That's not
    an option for everybody, nor is paying twice for schooling. Your
    purported populist viewpoint harms the very people it ostensibly is
    trying to help, all because of a combination of support for a stone age
    system and anti-Catholic bigotry.
    
    >I dont see us using competition for things that are really important.
    
     Education is not important?!!!
    
    >An opportunity for a quality education is one of the best ways that
    >people can move out of poverty, move out of their poor town. 
    
     Yet you oppose measures which open up educational opportunities for
    the poor town students. Sounds to me like you like the classes where
    they are...

>     The biggest preoblem I have with you is that you are so incredibly
>    deeply rooted in continuing the tried and failed systems of the past.

    I'm all for changing the rules, but not toward a system
    that rewards the 'haves' at the expense of the 'have nots'.
    I see education as a great 'equal opportunity' for everyone
    and you see it as a way for your kids to ensure their success.

    
    
    RE: .41  That's a heck of an assumption, Nancy.  
    
    
    Mike

    I dont view schools as just a business that is run by the
    town and can just as easily be contracted out.  For families
    with kids in school, the school is the center of the universe.
    I have many friends who send their kids to private school,
    and their kids miss out on a lot of the 'life' in the town.
    They have few friends in town because their 'life' is elsewhere.

    Imagine that wealth WERE equally distrubuted across the state.
    There would still be some towns that valued education and voted
    a higher tax levy to fund it.  I would not support a system
    that encourages people to move to the lower tax towns to
    avoid paying the taxes yet allows some people to send their kids
    to the higher tax schools to get a better education.

    I live in the Corning-Painted Post school district in New York. This
    is one of the better school districts in the area. They will take any
    student, even from Pennsylvania for free. Supposedly the state aid
    per student makes this possible. The average cost per student is $4200
    per year.
    
    I send my children to All Saints Academy. Next year with the tuition 
    increase it will cost me $1690 for 3 children. I am saving the
    taxpayers of New York $10,910 a year by doing this. My property tax
    is $2252 per year. The portion of this that is school tax is almost
    enough to cover the tuition to All Saints Academy. If the State offered
    a mere $1000 voucher for private school it could save $3200 for each 
    child that enrolled in private school. 
    
         The children at All Saints get a better education and at a
    fraction of the cost. Catholic Schools all over the country are
    providing a superior education. Would you support a voucher for 50%
    of your current cost for a public education? Someone already said the
    bad schools and tenured bad teachers are terrified of this prospect.
         
         Personally it doesn't matter to me. My family will make the
    sacrifices necessary to make sure my children are well educated, but
    wouldn't it make sense to give every child an opportunity to go to
    a better school?
    
                                 Steve J.
    

>    I send my children to All Saints Academy. Next year with the tuition 
>    increase it will cost me $1690 for 3 children. I am saving the
>    taxpayers of New York $10,910 a year by doing this. 

    How are you saving the taxpayers any money?  Would they be paying more
    if you sent your kids to the local school?  Their 'cost per pupil'
    would go down slightly if you did that.  Nothing more.

    Since you are not saving them any money by sending your kids
    to private school, why should you get any money back?
    bob

re: .-1

Excuse me? If the cost of educating his kids in the public school would
be $4200 apiece, and the school system doesn't need to expend it on
his kids because they go to a private school, so the school system
gets to use it for other purposes and on other kids, and he's paying
for the private school out of his own pocket while his taxes contribute
only to the public school he doesn't use, how can you fail to see the
benefits to the public school?

The average cost per pupil may be $4200, but that doesn't mean the incremental
cost per pupil is $4200.  Putting one more student in an existing classroom
doesn't add anything to the teacher's salary, cost to heat the building, etc.

True enough, but putting one less pupil in a classroom likely makes
a teacher's job somewhat easier. I can't think of many teachers who
wouldn't opt for smaller class sizes. 

 re .62



 I wonder if Nancy is suggesting that with gubmit money, along will come more
 gubmit regulation of Christian schools.  There are moves, so I've heard,
 of the gubmit wanting Christian schools to teach other religions and eliminate
 the daily chapel periods.



 Jim

>True enough, but putting one less pupil in a classroom likely makes
>a teacher's job somewhat easier. I can't think of many teachers who
>wouldn't opt for smaller class sizes. 

So just how much is the town saving by removing the kid from the classroom?

Under School Choice, I would support a system that allowed a kid to
go to another school and the sending town only paid the incremental
savings of that transfer.  Or perhaps the average of the
incremental savings of the sending town and the incremental cost
to the recieving town.

Too many people take the average cost per pupil and say 'That is my money'.

I'ld like to spend my share of the defense budget as I see fit.

    
    
    RE: .69  I understand, Jim.  But her assumtion that (all) the schools 
    would compromise their ethics is a pretty harsh statement.  I don't think
    that will happen.  It may in some cases, but I think something can be
    worked out so as this is not necessary.
    
    
    Mike

>Too many people take the average cost per pupil and say 'That is my money'.

I don't think anyone here has said that. However, as far as the contribution
to the school taxes from their own tax bill is concerned, that most
certainly is "their money" (not that anyone's raised that point.)

    
    I don't want any Federal involvement, even funding.  As with highway
    funds the Feds have a habit of coercing states by threatening to take
    away funding unless they do what the Feds want.
    
    I'm also concerned we might get an education czar or president that
    will do for education what McNamara did for us in Vietnam. 
    
    al
    
    
    
     
    
    

From a way back .46:

>     It's in _everyone's_ best interest that everybody else's children are
>    well educated. Or do you prefer to have to support them via welfare,
>    etc, and do you enjoy it when stupid people vote for stupid things?
>    Think about it- the less educated the populace, the more it costs for
>    social programs and the fewer people there are to fund the gummint when
>    you retire. That sits ok with you?

Don't really understand the stupid/stupid comment but all you're saying 
is that I should be forced to give tax dollars to prevent something I'm 
already funding with forced tax dollars.

I have no agenda anti-education but your reasoning strongly supports the 
liberal big government notion where I get to fund all your good ideas.

>     What does the amendment say? "There shall be a complete separation
>    between the Church and the State"? Nope. It says that congress will
>    make no law to establish or promote an official state religion (para).
>    Which means that as long as the law does not discriminate on basis of
>    religion, as long as it treats all denominations identically, then
>    there is no Constitutional issue.

Like I said, the courts have used the test of whether direct 
contributions are made from the state to a church. Your above definition 
now begs for a government imposed definition of what a church or religion 
is. Somehow I doubt if'n I set up the White Man's Church for Satan, the 
state will let parents give me vouchers to promote this religion, 
certification notwithstanding.

And then we'll have a government office of licensing and registring 
churches to make sure they teach their approved religion correctly.

Anyway you slice and dice it, my/your/our tax dollars will end up going 
to teaching specific religions.

I agree with -.1.

TTom

    >They have few friends in town because their 'life' is elsewhere.
    
     I thought we were talking about education, not social life. You wanna
    discuss social life, start another topic.
    
    >Imagine that wealth WERE equally distrubuted across the state.
    >There would still be some towns that valued education and voted
    >a higher tax levy to fund it.  I would not support a system
    >that encourages people to move to the lower tax towns to
    >avoid paying the taxes yet allows some people to send their kids
    >to the higher tax schools to get a better education.
    
     Wrongo! If it were a straight voucher system, people would be
    encouraged to go to the higher levy towns because their vouchers would
    be bigger, allowing for less (no?) out of pocket expenses, regardless
    of the school chosen. 

    >all you're saying
    >is that I should be forced to give tax dollars to prevent something I'm
    >already funding with forced tax dollars.
    
     In what way?
    
    >I have no agenda anti-education but your reasoning strongly supports
    >the liberal big government notion where I get to fund all your good ideas.
    
     Nonsense; it is the antithesis of "liberal big government." Instead of
    a bloated educational bureaucracy, schools compete for students. It's
    much more efficient and the quality is vastly improved. And it costs
    less. This is related to "liberal big government"? How?
    
    >Your above definition
    >now begs for a government imposed definition of what a church or
    >religion is.
    
     That's nothing new; this already exists.
    
    >Anyway you slice and dice it, my/your/our tax dollars will end up going
    >to teaching specific religions.
    
     Irrelevant. "Your" tax dollars don't go to teaching any specific
    religions at the expense of any other; ie, all are treated equally.
    This passes the Constitutional test. You don't like it? Don't send your
    kids to those schools. That's the beauty- you get to choose.

>     Wrongo! If it were a straight voucher system, people would be
>    encouraged to go to the higher levy towns because their vouchers would
>    be bigger, allowing for less (no?) out of pocket expenses, regardless
>    of the school chosen. 

    My comments were regarding school choice, not some voucher system
    that has yet to be described, although it sure gets mentioned a lot.

     Well, you were the one hypothesizing about equal wealth distribution,
    after all...

	I think the fear of school vouchers comes more from a substantial loss
of power than from a concern for the welfare of students.  If the cost of one
student is $xxxx.xx per year, then does it matter where that money comes from. 
The cost does not change, just because the government does not directly write
the check.  What will change is the manner in which educational institutions
compete for that money.  Vouchers are still income redistribution   If all
parents are provided with vouchers of equal amounts, where is the distinction
between rich and poor?  Those who are generally labeled as the "haves", have
always(and still will) sent their kids to private schools.  Should we call out
the National Guard(militia?) to force these kids back to public school.  They
pay property taxes.  Aren't they actually saving the public schools money by not
sending their kids there.  

	Until I realized the protests against the new congress' change in the
funding logistics of school lunches were about power and not the kids, I could
not understand the furor.  Now I realize it is not the money stupid, it's the
power that goes with it.
	
	For me and mine I will strive to get them the best I can in education. 
If I have to enroll them in private school to do so I will.   I pay for public
education. My son will probably never go because the sorry condition of today's
public schools, is not likely to change. 

Mikey 

	  

    
    Well, of course, we are hypothesizing vouchers or semi-vouchers.
    They do not currently exist.
    
    Bob raises a valid point.  I can buy a shack in Maynard and send my
    kids to Sudbury where the gynecologists live.  Since they paid for
    the educational exclusivity, this ticks them off.  They thought they
    were buying pseudo-private schools with their mortgages, and we
    change the rules, whipsawing them.
    
    The answer to that is, people make plans all the time based on their
    guesses about the future.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
    It is not a good argument to persist in inoptimal education just
    because others have made evaluations based on its continuance.
    
    The analogy of METCO is a good one (although there, the state did
    subsidize the transport as well).
    
      bb

re: .76

You're still preaching that this is all a wonderful idea and all and that
I should fund it. What's your next agenda? You probably want me to pay
for that as well.

Please, pray tell, what is the claimed existing definition of a religion.

>     Irrelevant. "Your" tax dollars don't go to teaching any specific
>    religions at the expense of any other; ie, all are treated equally.

Wail, down this here way, we got about 90% christian of one form or the
other. They'll get the money, which most Supreme Courts have held they
shouldn't. The Baptists will make a killing and the Hindus will come up
goose eggs baby. Hardly equitable.

But that's not the point. The point is that this puts the government in
the business of teaching religion and you know they aint gonna back away
from this opportunity to expand the influence of the government, if'n the
left has its way, or intrude more into the private lives of citizens,
if'n the right has its way.

And in the meanwhile, the public school system goes down the toilet. And
I get to fund it all.

TTom

>    Bob raises a valid point.  I can buy a shack in Maynard and send my
>    kids to Sudbury where the gynecologists live.  Since they paid for
>    the educational exclusivity, this ticks them off.  They thought they
>    were buying pseudo-private schools with their mortgages, and we
>    change the rules, whipsawing them.

    I'm not sure whether Sudbury voted to allow 'school choice' kids.
    Assuming they did, they would not be 'ticked off'.  They are getting
    students and lots of money from Maynard (in your scenario).

    And assuming that Sudbury voted big bucks for its pseudo-private
    schools and Maynard voted peanuts, its unfair for you to send
    your kids to Sudbury when you're only paying Maynard rates.  It
    may be great for your kids, but its REALLY robbing from the
    kids left in Maynard.
    
    From your note, I take it you think that buying a shack in Maynard
    and sending your kids to Sudbury would be just the cats ass.

    >You're still preaching that this is all a wonderful idea and all and
    >that I should fund it.
    
     You are already paying for an education that the kids aren't getting.
    I can't imagine why you'd be pissed off if you were paid less and got
    more from the educational system. But if you insist on paying more and
    getting less, then side with the teachers' unions and entrenched fat
    cats.
    
    >Please, pray tell, what is the claimed existing definition of a
    >religion.
    
     IRS codes neatly define who is and who is not a religion for tax
    purposes; there's no reason why that same yardstick couldn't be used
    here as well. But you are utterly missing the point; you can start any
    religion you want and base any school on it, but if it isn't attractive
    then you don't get students. So the issue is rather moot. The real
    issue is accreditation such that you qualify for vouchers.
    
    >The Baptists will make a killing and the Hindus will come up
    >goose eggs baby.
    
     And in the places where there are populations of Hindi (Hindus?),
    maybe they'll be able to start a school they could not have otherwise
    due to the existence of vouchers. And don't forget, there will be lots
    of non-secular schools, in which case no religious groups get anything.
    
    

>	I think the fear of school vouchers comes more from a substantial loss
>of power than from a concern for the welfare of students.  If the cost of one
>student is $xxxx.xx per year, then does it matter where that money comes from. 

    Who's Power?  Perhaps you could tell us what you mean.

>Those who are generally labeled as the "haves", have
>always(and still will) sent their kids to private schools.  

    And with vouchers, the cost of their vouchers will be deducted from
    the school budget.  Today it is not.  Vouchers are just a tax break
    for the well off.  They benefit the well off at the expense of the poor.
    I guess the educational advances of the rich will trickle down to the poor.

>For me and mine I will strive to get them the best I can in education. 

    I think we all want the best we can for our kids.  There are a
    lot of kids out there who all deserve a good education and there
    are very few dollars to fund it.  
    
    Since you plan to send your kids to private school, I guess vouchers
    will push some of those dollars your way.  Its a straight GREED deal,
    just like Bill B says.

    Good heavens people!  I spent 3 years at an all-girl private
    Catholic high school and I can assure they didn't force feed
    us pieces of Revelations every day!  What they did do is expect 
    us to work, expect us to respect our teachers and each other,
    turn in our work complete and on time and participate in the
    social as well as the educational side of school.  Now I do 
    not profess to be a practicing Catholic at this stage of the game,
    however, I got an excellent education and got exposed to a wide
    variety of excellent literature by a wonderful nun who wasn't
    afraid to let us read Catcher in the Rye, Catch-22, or any other
    piece of controversial literature and discuss it in class. I
    also participated in 3 wonderful years of competitive oration
    with other schools in Massachusetts and all of New England.  
    And the average class size was 15-20 students.  Unfortunately,
    they, like many other private schools, closed.  We had Jewish
    students in our school who attended our religion classes and
    offered their viewpoints.  Religion was compulsory, but I
    honestly don't believe anyone ever suffered any from listening
    to someone elses' viewpoint.  I do not recall them having to
    attend any services.  I don't see anything wrong with Christians
    being exposed to the Jewish faith, or the Hindu faith or any
    of the pagan faiths for that matter. If the faith in your home is
    strong, your children will bring home questions, and you can
    answer them.  As long as no one is made to feel inferior due to
    their religious background, the teaching of a little tolerance 
    and respect can't hurt anyone.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    
    RE: competitive oration
    
    We had lots of that at the Catholic High School I went
    to too... :-)
    
    -b

>    Good heavens people!  I spent 3 years at an all-girl private
>    Catholic high school and I can assure they didn't force feed
>    us pieces of Revelations every day!

Apparently they didn't even teach you the name of the book.

    re: .87
    
    If you can't figure out the name of the book you didn't
    learn very much either......
    
    

uh, Mary-Michael

Revelation aint in that there Catholic Bible.

I know I'm already paying for other the education of other people's kids.
Where did I say that was fine by me? And where has it been demonstrated
that the voucher system will cost me less?

Wail, I'm gonna get me some of them IRS codes stuff and start me one of
those certified religions. I wanna be ready when this windfall gets ready
to happen. 

And speaking of possibilities of abuse, what if some kid signs up for my
school, hypothetically, of course, and decides 2 weeks into it that he
don't like it and transfers. Can I keep his money anyway? Or do I have to
write Falwell or whoever a check?

And I'm glad one of the outcomes of this "system" will be the building of
religious schools. I'm happy for them. I'm glad I'll be forced to fund
it.

Now, on the issue of private, not parachial, schools, I think we might be
on to something if'n we all agree that this voucher system will be the
beginning of the end to public education. 

TTom

>   <<< Note 404.85 by SMURF::MSCANLON "alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether" >>>
>
>    Good heavens people!  

    I think Catholic and other private schools are great, often
    providing a superior education to what the public schools offer
    and cheaper, subsidized by the church and/or a variety of other
    fund raising activities and endowments.

    I just dont think that money currently being spent on public
    education should be channeled toward these private institutions.

>    I just dont think that money currently being spent on public
>    education should be channeled toward these private institutions.

Which seems to be the gist of the voucher proposal.

Maybe we can pay Falwell to take out the garbage, too. The current system
could use a_overhaul. And I bet the Pope could run a real good bus
system, too.

TTom

    The whole idea behind a voucher system is that the PARENTS CHOOSE what
    schools their children go to. Parents make decisions for their
    children. Anyone can start a school if they want to but if no parents 
    choose it won't do them any good.
    
    Has anyone ever heard of someone attending a Catholic University on
    a government grant?
    
    Our higher education system is the best in the world because of
    competition and choice. If we did the same with primary and secondary
    education maybe we could move up from 14th.
    
                             Steve J.
    
    P.S. I personally believe the government should get out of the
    education business.

    re: .89
    
    Maybe not, but I studied it where I went to school.  
    
    Re: .89 +
    
    Well, why not use what works then?  What *DO* private school
    have that public schools need?
    
    *smaller class sizes;
    *low tolerance for class disruption, late work, laziness, lack of
     respect;
    *high level of parental involvement (sometimes allowing a 
     reduction of tuition for parental involvement);
    *high level of motivation for exceptional students;
    *extra help for struggling students;
    *lots of fund raising to offset the cost of education;
    *no big expensive sports programs;
    *no public transportation;
    *pay for your own books;
    *pay for your own extracurricular activities;
    *parents of children attending school bear direct cost of their
     childrens schooling (as opposed to childless members of a 
     community funding other families children's education).
    *no teacher tenure;
    
    now, what would work?  
    
    Mary-Michael
    

           <<< Note 404.60 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     Yet you oppose measures which open up educational opportunities for
>    the poor town students. Sounds to me like you like the classes where
>    they are...

Vouchers are a scam.

Take the cost of education, divvy it out to everyone with kids and let them 
buy it from the best source. The free market at work.

Sounds great, doesn't it? Who can argue with that? What could possibly be 
fairer? And who says conservatives have no forward-looking ideas!

It doesn't take much imagination to see where it leads, though. And it's 
a classic conservative outcome.

Today's wealthy families will continue to send their kids to Groton and
Lawrence, only now they get a little government assistance. It's chump 
change to them, though.

The real winners in this scam are the middle- to upper-middle-class. For 
them, a bunch of second-teir schools spring up (the BU-created ones,
probably) to serve their kids, offering schools that cost $2k - $5K more
than the voucher. The market will drive them to provide a better education
- or at least a better ambiance - for the buck (which will put some
pressure on the prep schools to improve, too). 

And who tends to the kids whose parents can't afford to kick in any money
of their own? You get educational equivalent of slum landlords who manage 
to find a way to eek out a profit while meeting accreditation minimums
(building codes). There'll be some innovation at this level, but it won't
be toward improving education, but toward cutting costs. Since folks at
this level are generally captives of their geography, there will be little
or no competition based on quality. You gotta go where there's a school you
can get to. 

The stratification of society becomes even more pronounced. And the
"culture of poverty" (so named by conservatives), becomes even more acute,
even more separated from any hope of on-ramping into the mainstream. It's 
not a pretty picture.

We need education reform, no question about it. And there may indeed be a 
kernel of a good idea in vouchers. But if you *really* want education 
reform *and* to try to make all members of society the beneficiaries, you 
would set up the system so that, to be eligible for voucher reimbursement, 
the school could not be getting funding from any other source (or no more 
than relatively small percentage of its operating budget - sometimes 
financial contributions are the only way to get parental 
participation and buy-in). The funding would be the same across the 
state (assuming it is state run), not based on town budgets with wealthier 
towns enjoying much greater funding. The bottom of the barrel would at 
least get the same chance as the middle class at a good education.

But that's not what you want, is it Doctah? That would be redistributing 
the wealth - an abhorrent socialist proposition. All this yacking about 
improving education for all by conservative advocates of vouchers is either
a) conveniently ignorant of the market they worship; or b) just a bunch of
BS. 

As for school choice in Massachusetts, it is a bad idea poorly 
executed. And at that, a better idea than Friedman-style vouchers. The 
wealthy communities spend >$5K/student (in the subs) and the poorer 
communities spend <$3K. Of course, the middle-class families with moms who 
tend the house or work part time and who can drive their kids to the other 
community's school take their kids out of the <$3K school and put them 
where the money/quality is, and their hometowm school gets a bill for >$5K. 
(Which is the point that Bob was trying to make with the dinner analogy, 
which you conveniently ignored with a glib reference to your culinary 
skills.)  At least no money is being funneled out of the system and into 
the pockets of those who can hardly feel the difference.

Tom

    
    After reading .95, I'm convinced! :-)
    
    -b

I'd have to check with Glenn to be sure, but that just may qualify
you as being a very luck man indeed.

    
    But not half as lucky as you, my esteemed colleague.
    
    
    

    >The real winners in this scam are the middle- to upper-middle-class.
    
     Well that would be a switch.
    
    >For them, a bunch of second-teir schools spring up (the BU-created ones,
    >probably) to serve their kids, offering schools that cost $2k - $5K
    >more than the voucher.
    
     Doubtful- few can afford that kind of money and those that do already
    send their kids to private schools (since that's what the private
    schools cost WITHOUT the vouchers.)
    
    >The market will drive them to provide a better education
    
     Well, you've caught onto this at least.
    
    >And who tends to the kids whose parents can't afford to kick in any
    >money of their own? You get educational equivalent of slum landlords who
    >manage to find a way to eek out a profit while meeting accreditation 
    >minimums
    
     Hey, that sounds like the current system, only better. At least they'd
    hit the minimums (unlike many of today's public schools.)
    
     I'll tell you what else would happen. They wouldn't be able to
    tolerate the discipline problems any more- they wouldn't be able to
    afford to. I'm sure you find that prospect troubling as well.
    
    >There'll be some innovation at this level, but it won't
    >be toward improving education, but toward cutting costs.
    
     Which would still be an improvement over the current situation.
    
    >The stratification of society becomes even more pronounced. 
    
     Your brethren have already issued their dire chicken littlesque
    predictions for the fall of society because of the "scam" of vouchers.
    Please be original (and neatness and spelling count.)
    
    >But if you *really* want education
    >reform *and* to try to make all members of society the beneficiaries,
    >you would set up the system so that, to be eligible for voucher
    >reimbursement, the school could not be getting funding from any other 
    >source 
    
     Ah, yes, the ever present enforced mediocrity favored by the liberal
    establishment. One must beat back any attempt to improve upon the least
    common denominator. Sheesh. You should be encouraging all schools to
    develop additional sources of funds, not punishing them for doing so.
    
    >But that's not what you want, is it Doctah? That would be
    >redistributing the wealth - an abhorrent socialist proposition.
    
     I'm not opposed to providing equalized access to quality education at
    all. Reread my initial notes wherein I described funding sources.
    
    >All this yacking about improving education for all by conservative 
    >advocates of vouchers is either a) conveniently ignorant of the market 
    >they worship; or b) just a bunch of BS.
    
     Cuz you say so? Riiiiight.
    
    
    

    A lucky snarf.

re .89 ::HAAS

>Revelation aint in that there Catholic Bible.

You lie.  Why do you lie?

/john

According to my DEC-issued AHD, Revelation is called The Apocalypse of St. John
the Apostle in the Douay version.

That doesn't mean it's not in there.

Other Catholic bibles call it "Revelation".

/john

re: .84	

Power as in the power to  make decisions concerning how our tax money is spent.

	I still don't understand how anyone except for those in administration
who dole out the money would not benefit from a voucher program.  If we give
vouchers for the same amount as the schools spend per student within each
district, how does that benefit the rich, and punish the poor?  IT'S THE SAME
AMOUNT OF MONEY!!!  The bruhaha over school lunches is based on the same
principle.  More money is being spent than last year on the program.  Somehow
you have been convinced that is a bad thing!

	Schools would become involved in competition with each other.  Is that a
bad thing?  Parents would have a choice as to whether or not their child would
be subjected to programs like Outcomes Based Education.  

	Are we more concerned with seeing the rich get theirs or our children
receiving a quality education.  Johnny can't read but that's ok did you see what
we did to those evil rich people?  The idea that pols cater exclusively to the
rich is complete ignorance at it's worst.  Power is the ability to buy votes
through class warfare, and social programs.  There are many, many more poor
people in this country than wealthy.  Each person only has one vote!  Have we
become so stupid we cannot realize that catering to the rich only leads a
politician back to the private sector.  

Mikey    

    Mikey,
    
    By refusing the voucher system, I am not saying "screw the rich."  They
    can afford to send their kids wherever they wish, just I could
    depending on what I am willing to sacrifice.  
    
    I find the voucher system to be a potential danger to the private
    school system, far more than to the public schools.  Government money
    has strings attached to it, every bit as much as the first few free
    wiffs of heroin do from a pushers stash.  First it will look great
    until the private school gets hooked on the money, then the strings of
    ADA, chapter training and open enrollment of students will strike.  For
    religious schools this could be a considerable risk.  
    
    meg

Meg:

	You express a very valid concern that somewhat addresses the question
put to me in .84.  Taking distribution of money for education from the hands of
government will go some ways towards eliminating some of the "strings" that are
now attached to local systems by way of the federal government.(BTW why is that
entity alsoconsidered to be the UNITED STATES?  I have always considered you and
I to be the United States not the government!)  

	The present system is so bloated with bureaucracy(sp?), nothing
constructive gets done.  The epitome of naivete' is to believe those that govern
have anyone's best interest at heart, other than their own.  Why do we entrust
something so important as our kids education to them?  

	I really want an answer as to how spending the same amount of money by
way of a different distribution system is hurting the "poor".  It seems fair and
equal treatment under the law does not apply to taxation, and income
re-distribution.

Mikey

    Mikey,
    
    the voucher system as they were going to impliment it here:
    
    You get 3K to spend in a public, private, or homeschool.  the other 2K
    stays within your school district.  (These are approximate figures now
    as the election was in 1992)
    
    Now, the tuition for many schools is higher than that, so the only
    people benifitting are those who can afford to make up the difference. 
    It is a nice chunk of change for those who are already sending their
    kids to private schools and could possibly make the difference for
    someone like me, but it won't effect those in an area who can't make up
    the difference.  what it will do, is pull more kids outof some
    neighborhood schools, (remember competitiveness?)  it will leave those
    with no options even fewer schools for their kids to go to, if they
    live in an area where the middle class students are all pulled.  (I
    live in an area where this could be a reality)   
    
    If the number of students drops in a school below a certain point in this 
    town, they close them.  I have moved once, and thought i was going to 
    have to move a second time to avoid having to have my kid walk an extra 
    mile, as the closure of Garfield when I lived downtown, was not mitigated 
    by adding busing for the 40 kids in the school.  When they talked of 
    closing my current local school 11 years ago, they also did not plan to 
    bus kids to other schools, and it would have added a 1 mile walk for my 
    then 5th grader.  
    
    So, instead of competition making things better, all I see is the 
    schools I deal with bogged down by more beauracracy and unable to
    "compete" and the loss of neighborhood schools, and not coincidentally
    neighborhoods in some areas.  I also see some bureaucrats rubbing their
    hands together waiting for the private schools to take the bait, and
    start them on the same declines that some public schools have seen.  
    
    Better I should be an involved parent at my neighborhood school and
    working to make it more effective for kids, than worry about financing
    its and the private sectors collective homicides.
    
    meg

    <<< Note 404.107 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

>    Now, the tuition for many schools is higher than that, so the only
>    people benifitting are those who can afford to make up the difference. 
    
    	Actually, the tuition for the Catholic schools around here is
    	much LESS than that.  In fact they are less that $2000.  And
    	before anyone suggests that the families get to keep the 
    	difference, the vouchers were good for UP TO a certain amount,
    	but not for more than you spend.  So where homeschoolers spend
    	under $500/child, the local school district would reap a nice
    	windfall!
    
>    It is a nice chunk of change for those who are already sending their
>    kids to private schools and could possibly make the difference for
>    someone like me, but it won't effect those in an area who can't make up
>    the difference.  
    
    	Were there a difference to make up, you might have a point.
    	But let's say that private school was $4000 instead of $2000.
    	Don't you think that being subsidized 75% of that tuition
    	would encourage many, many families to work out a way to
    	come up with the rest?  Sure, some would still be unable to 
    	do it.  But we don't have to worry about them today because
    	the tuition is well under the voucher limits, making this
    	mental exercise a moot point.
    
>    If the number of students drops in a school below a certain point in this 
>    town, they close them.  
    
    	Thus, schools are forced to become more competitive!  Can't you
    	see the beauty of it?  Are you suggesting that you would be
    	content with sending your kids to a mediocre school that only
    	remains populated today because competition is prevented now?

    How about eliminating all taxes that go to education, and allow parents to 
    send their kids to any school they want? This would then make the
    schools provide the kind of education wanted, at a competitive price.
    It would be the grocery store principle. If a certain grocery store
    doesn't provide for my needs, I go somewhere else. If the grocery store
    wants to keep me as a customer they must provide what I, the consumer
    want. The same should be expected of our schools. Vouchers sound good 
    but it only keeps control where it shouldn't be, the government.
    
    ...Tom

    
    
    I presume the problem with that method is that there will always be
    some people who _don't_ put the money they saved on taxes aside to pay
    for tuition.  Then when the bill comes due, they can't afford to send
    their children to school at all.  So the government forces you to pay
    the tuition up front, just like income tax, just like Social Security.
                

    <--- A very logical and astute observation by one heck of a very lucky
    woman. But Jack! Now there's a lucky guy I must say.

>    How about eliminating all taxes that go to education, and allow parents to 
>    send their kids to any school they want? This would then make the
>    schools provide the kind of education wanted, at a competitive price.
>    It would be the grocery store principle. If a certain grocery store
>    doesn't provide for my needs, I go somewhere else. If the grocery store
>    wants to keep me as a customer they must provide what I, the consumer
>    want. The same should be expected of our schools. Vouchers sound good 
>    but it only keeps control where it shouldn't be, the government.

    You clearly dont understand the idea that 'all of society' is helping
    to educate the youth of the nation.

    When education is paid through taxes, that means that everyone contributes,
    local businesses, families, etc.

    I've heard the argument that families should pay for thier own
    education (basically, they had the damn kids, let them be
    responsible for them).  Fortunately most people dont think about
    kids that way.

    Last night's PrimeTime Live had a loing segment on the bloated
    educational bureaucracy which I and others have decried, which some of
    you are defending as you cling to the status quo. Truly nauseating, the
    way that resources are sucked up in administration. One example was a
    $77K grant for exceptional students in which not a single penny ever
    made it to the students. The entire grant was sucked up by executive
    salaries, benefits, administrative costs, etc with only $5K even being
    used to teach the teachers of these students. A grotesque perversion of
    what's supposed to go on. Other examples include contracts awarded to
    vendors which charge lots more than what any of us could buy the same
    materials for at retail, school superintendents which spend millions on
    "consultants" (aka friends), junkets, etc. It's a joke, and the bigger
    the school system, the more impossible it is to discover who is
    responsible for any given thing. 
    
     The status quo is a GROSS example of waste and fraud. The whole time
    you guys whine about the "rich" and how the middle class might actually
    benefit from vouchers, these parasites continue to suck the lifeblood
    out of the educational system unchecked, harming all. Only through true
    reform will this change, and you people are so dead set against
    actually changing anything that matters that you are part of the
    problem. Quit the FUD and get on with it. 

    
    >Note 404.112 by DPE1::ARMSTRONG 
    
    >I've heard the argument that families should pay for thier own
    >education (basically, they had the damn kids, let them be
    >responsible for them).  Fortunately most people dont think about
    >kids that way.
    
    I realize the point you're making, and I know we've gone over this
    particular subject a million times before, and I understand the bit
    about the educated populace, but dammit, the general sentiment
    expressed in that paragraph really frosts my butt.
    
    Even if we remove education from the equation, my opinion remains that
    if one cannot afford to support children, one should not have any.
    
    That would be too responsible, tho, and we can't have that in today's
    society.
    
    Sorry for the rathole.
                          
                                             

    re: .112
    
    I don't disagree that all of society should help in the educational
    process. However, I get awful tired of hearing, "You have no kids
    in the system, why should we listen to you?" every time I go to
    a school board meeting.  You really shouldn't just get my money
    and not my opinion and/or help.
    
    Also, I'm in favor of use taxes as well.  Personally I think that
    people without children currently in the system (including the
    elderly) should pay a lower tax rate than people with children
    in the system.  You are still contributing to education, however,
    the people with the most to gain are contributing more.  Thus
    when you have a good school in town and people move into your
    town to use it, they pay the higher tax rate for the service.
    I think the rate should also be tiered to how may children you
    have in the system at one time, up to a maximum level.  People
    should also be able to lower their tax bill by providing hours
    of voluteer work (ie, a unit = so many hours and so many units
    lowers your bill by X dollars up to X amount).  This way you 
    have an impetus for people to provide aid to the town in the one 
    form it needs - workers, and it provides people with a way to 
    pay their debt in a form other than money - time. 
    
    Mary-Michael
      
    
    

>    Even if we remove education from the equation, my opinion remains that
>    if one cannot afford to support children, one should not have any.

What would you do if a woman who couldn't afford children were pregnant?

    
    Well, while I'm all for a voucher system, count me out of any
    system in which singles and DINKS get yet another subsidy from
    the tax system.  These people don't carry their share of the load
    now, what with the marriage penalty, and they squawk about helping
    their country educate the next generation.  Gimme a break.
    
      bb

  <<< Note 404.115 by SMURF::MSCANLON "alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether" >>>

Some good ideas there, MM. Help to offset some of the tax incentives we 
already give for *having* children. 

    re: .117
    
    Well, I'm sorry but I'm real tired of elderly people losing
    their homes or being unable to pass them on to their children
    as they desire because a bunch of peole want the "school of
    dreams" and everyone with a school age kid then moves into
    the town to take advantage of it.  Honestly is there anything
    wrong with not having more children than you can easily afford
    to raise?  This isn't the 1800s anymore, the infant mortality
    rate is down and you don't need ten kids to help run the farm.
    Reality today is limited job opportunities, limited resources
    and high taxes.  I agree that quality education is a priority.
    I don't agree that quality education has to include myriad sports
    programs and taxpayer funded extracurricular activities.  We've
    grown into the idea that throwing money at problems fixes them.
    It doesn't.  However, community involvement can provide playgrounds,
    playing fields, umpires and refereees, business and career days,
    story time, panel discussions, volunteer staffed day camps, etc.
    if you simply fire the people up and give them a way and a reason
    to help.  What we really need is for employers to realize that
    in the scheme of things, helping that next generation IS most
    important, and getting the few flexible hours to tell that story,
    see that recital or cheer that baseball player is really what it's
    all about.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    
    Gerald:
    
    (1)  Don't get pregnant in the first place
    (2)	 Adoption
    (3)  Abortion
    (4)  Win the lottery 8^)
    
    

    
    
    The voucher system will only benefit the rich and drag down public 
    schools further. That's its design. Destroy the public schools more
    and make them a more undesirable choice so that there will be more 
    support for public funding of private schools.
    
    I certainly don't want to pay for someone's child private education.
    
    I believe the government is wrong promoting more
    childern with tax breaks also. While I would not tax DINKS less
    I would not give breaks to people with childern. (Why if you
    use a system more and burden it more do you get a break?) 
    
    I believe we all benifit from an educated society. So we should
    all contribute to public schools. Want more for your own? Pay for
    it.

>    (1)  Don't get pregnant in the first place

Too late, in my scenario.

>    (2)  Adoption

She doesn't want to.

>    (3)  Abortion

She doesn't want to.

>    (4)  Win the lottery 8^)
    
Unlikely.

What should happen in this case?

    re: .122
    
    Then, in my scenario, she gets herself employed, and she enrolls 
    in the town's volunteer program.  There, she gets daycare for her child,
    counselling and/or jobs skills training, a seminar on birth control
    (including abstinance) and it's proper use, and free birth control
    or NFP training after the baby's birth.  If the father has agreed to
    help her raise this child, then he goes too.  Then, her spare time is
    spent in volunteer work helping those less fortunate than herself
    and helping to pay for the child she insisted on having.  The father
    also spends half his time with the child and provides 50% of the
    child's direct expenses.  He also does volunteer work to make up the cost 
    to the town.  A good dose of hard responsibility should prevent a 
    second such occurance.
    
    Mary-Michael

    >I presume the problem with that method is that there will always be
    >some people who _don't_ put the money they saved on taxes aside to
    >pay for tuition.  Then when the bill comes due, they can't afford to
    >send their children to school at all.  So the government forces you to
    >pay the tuition up front, just like income tax, just like Social
    >Security.
    
    This is one of the main problems with our society today. It works in
    favor of government control over everyone's lives. Because some won't
    be responsible or won't do what the so-called society wants, all now need
    to be forced to pay. Politicians and bureaucrats love this because it
    keeps them in control. All taxes take from the producer, puts the money
    in hands of the none producer and supports those who refuse to take
    responsibility for their own lives and the lives of their families.
    
    ...Tom 

>    Well, I'm sorry but I'm real tired of elderly people losing
>    their homes or being unable to pass them on to their children
>    as they desire because a bunch of peole want the "school of
>    dreams" and everyone with a school age kid then moves into
>    the town to take advantage of it.  

In our town (and I assume across Massachusetts) the elderly can
easily quality for an abatement if they cannot pay their taxes.
They do not need to lose their homes.

If they want to pass their home on to their children, cant they
just sell it for $1?

If you think any communities are getting 'the school of their dreams'
then you are pretty out of touch with reality.

>    Honestly is there anything
>    wrong with not having more children than you can easily afford
>    to raise?  

Yep, we've gone through this before.  Lets have 3 cheers for all
those high income couples with no kids who are enriching all our
lives giving fancy dinner parties, buying boats and second homes
and fancy electronics.

And I'm sure they are ALL volunteering at the local playground.
bob

    re: .125
    
    So what? People aren't *obligated* to have children.  Are you
    jealous because they make different choices than you do? Because
    they have different priorities?  They choose to spend their income
    on one thing, you choose to spend it on your children.  They 
    shouldn't get to keep less of their income because you think
    they've got nothing better to do with it.
    
    Mary-Michae

Well, I happen to agree with Mary-Michael that those without kids
shouldn't have to bear the same portion of the financial burden
as those with kids who are using the system. When my kids were
growing up, I didn't make any bones about supporting the schools.
Now that I've done that, it's someone else's responsibility to
take the brunt of that, since they're the primary beneficiaries
through their kids. Let's not get into the "the community benefits
and society benefits" rathole, here. The fact remains that while
all should contribute, some (the users) should likely contribute
a bit more.

    >The voucher system will only benefit the rich and drag down public
    >schools further. That's its design. Destroy the public schools more
    >and make them a more undesirable choice so that there will be more
    >support for public funding of private schools.
    
     No, the design is to eliminate the ability of public schools to draw
    ever increasing amounts of money with little regard to the ability of
    the people to pay since they are not accountable for how money is
    spent, they have no incentive whatsoever to be efficient, and they
    promote and permit entrenched bureaucracy which keeps "educators"
    pushing papers instead of teaching classes. These problems do not exist
    in private schools because such wretched excesses cannot be afforded
    because the school administrators are actually held accountable.
    
     there's really nothing wrong with publicly owned schools being run
    like a business, despite the "I ain't payin' for no rich kids' private
    eddication" bugaboos.

    I agree.

    
    .122, .123
    
    Mary-Michael's solution works for me.  
    
    But Gerald, what's this "she doesn't want to" crapola?  I don't want to
    work, I don't want to pay taxes, I don't want to obey the speed limit. 
    But as a _responsible_ member of this society, I don't always GET to do 
    what I want.  Why isn't she expected to be responsible also?
    
    What's YOUR solution?

    Along with the requirement to provide more money for education (for
    parents of school aged children) ought to come the ability to have 
    more control over where it goes. Would you support a system wherein
    only the people with school aged children got to vote on school-type
    articles or got a "super vote" which was appropriately weighted to
    reflect their greater burden?

I don't have a solution.  I was wondering if you're advocating forcing pregnant
women to have abortions or give up their children for adoption.

    re: .131
    
    I would support the "super-vote" concept for school related issues.
    Generally speaking, the number of people in a town who are not directly
    connected to the school system would probably out-weigh
    by far the number of people who are.  Giving these people a
    "super-vote" would probably promote a more even distribution of
    votes on school issues, while preventing a clear majority which
    could dominate either side of the issue.  
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    In our town, about 20% of the voters have kids in school.
    Havn't calculated it, but a larger percentage have
    kids, grandkids, other relatives in the school.

    And a very large percent are either in the above or
    went to the school themselves.

Caint let this pass:

>             <<< Note 404.101 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>              -< OK, maybe you didn't lie and are just ignorant. >-
>
>re .89 ::HAAS
>
>>Revelation aint in that there Catholic Bible.
>
>You lie.  Why do you lie?
>
>/john

As .102 indicates, 

>According to my DEC-issued AHD, Revelation is called The Apocalypse of St. John
>the Apostle in the Douay version.

There was no intention to lie and you're accusation is not accurate.

I got no problem with the ignorance part but I'm not taking that lying
lying down.

You can apologize or we can pursue this matter further.

TTom

        <<< Note 404.127 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Let's not get into the "the community benefits
>and society benefits" rathole, here. 
    
    	Why not?  That's what it is all about?  Wothout a well-educated
    	population, we'll regress to a third world nation.

          <<< Note 404.131 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    Would you support a system wherein
>    only the people with school aged children got to vote on school-type
>    articles or got a "super vote" which was appropriately weighted to
>    reflect their greater burden?
    
    	I effect, we have a super-vote process in place -- not by design,
    	but in place nonetheless.
    
    	For instance, those who have a pressing concern about a particular
    	issue will manage to ensure that they vote -- and to ensure that
    	as many like-minded people vote -- thus making their vote a
    	super-vote when the rest of voter participation is generally low,
    	which is most of the time.
    
    	And to answer your question, no I don't support such a system,
    	either as it stands now or as it was most likely envisioned when 
    	you wrote the question.

    

>    Would you support a system wherein
>    only the people with school aged children got to vote on school-type
>    articles or got a "super vote" which was appropriately weighted to
>    reflect their greater burden?

I certainly wouldn't support a system in which only students' parents
get to vote on school issues. You take some of my money, you damn well
better give me a chance to have a say at some level. I'll tell you what
I'd favor regarding school issues/votes/taxation. A "point system".
For each $100 of school tax you pay, you get a local "voting point".
When you get to the polls, you can use the total number of voting
points you have on each issue or for each elected position. You have
20 points - you spend 20 points on each choice. If your
school taxes are elevated because you have 14 kids, all the better
for you. You pay more in taxes, you have more points, your vote is
weighted properly. You pay less in taxes, you have fewer points, and
your vote is also weighted properly. You pay no taxes, you stay home
and be happy with what you get.

>>Let's not get into the "the community benefits
>>and society benefits" rathole, here. 
>    
>>    	Why not?  That's what it is all about?  Wothout a well-educated
>>    	population, we'll regress to a third world nation.

I wanted to avoid the rathole because I think we all agree on that, Joe.
I made the statement in order to circumvent someone coming up with the
"It's to everybody's benefit to have a well educated society" argument.
Since I know and agree with that, I didn't want to have to counter it.
I'm not claiming that to be in error.

    >It's to everybody's benefit to have a well educated society
    
    What does a well educated society mean?? Right now a good education is
    what government says it is. I'll be willing to bet that there are few
    government types that know anything about education. Most people are in
    agreement that government is not doing a very good job at education, just 
    at spending our money. The problem being that societal standards are
    dictated to society and society follows along.
    
    ...Tom 

    	You have a point there, Tom.
    
    	I guess the point of vouchers is to let the public, not the
    	government, decide what constitutes a good education, by allowing
    	us to select the school that embodies our respective view of
    	"good education", as opposed to the current system that forces
    	us into limited choices.

>    What does a well educated society mean?? Right now a good education is
>    what government says it is.

Not really. It's what the job market says it is. Unfortunately, it's much
more difficult to translate that back to the schools than it is to measure
the schools by the government's yardstick.

Whether the government says so or not, graduating (dys)funtional illiterates
from high school is not the mark of a good education.

>
>You can apologize or we can pursue this matter further.
>

Well, since you admitted to ignorance, I suppose I should admit to being
rude and apologize for it.

But I'd suggest that if you're going to note in Soapbox, you should be
aware that certain retorts (such as "You lie.  Why do you lie?") are
standard Soapbox fare.

/john

    Fresh meat.

    >I guess the point of vouchers is to let the public, not the
    >government, decide what constitutes a good education, by allowing 
    >us to select the school that embodies our respective view of "good 
    >education", as opposed to the current system that forces
    >us into limited choices.
    
    It is true that vouchers is better than we have know. But, it takes the
    taxes, gives it to the government who takes their cut for doing
    nothing, and then allows this same government to decide how much the
    voucher is worth. Just let me decide if I want to put the money into
    the public school system in the first place. I won't because it is a
    bad system at the moment. Let me not pay the tax in the first place and
    I'll guarantee that my children will get an education that will make
    them very successful in life.
    
    >whether the government says so or not, graduating (dys)funtional 
    >illiterates from high school is not the mark of a good education.
    
    True, very true. The present system is doing just that. (he steps up to
    the microphone, hands waving high in the air and says "ITS TIME FOR A
    CHANGE". I probably could get elected President with an original line
    like that.)
    
    ...Tom

           <<< Note 404.99 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    >For them, a bunch of second-tier schools spring up (the BU-created ones,
>    >probably) to serve their kids, offering schools that cost $2k - $5K
>    >more than the voucher.
>    
>     Doubtful- few can afford that kind of money and those that do already
>    send their kids to private schools (since that's what the private
>    schools cost WITHOUT the vouchers.)
  
Sorry, Doctah, but the only private schools with pricetags in that range are 
religious - which in these parts anyway usually means Catholic. Other private 
schools cost considerably more.  

Nothing wrong with Catholic schools. They're not all good, but they at
least provide a disciplined environment. Still, for many not of that faith,
the fact that the church runs the school and manages mix a little preaching
in with the 3 Rs is enough to make them stick it out in the public system.
And it is the middle class that attend those schools. With vouchers to
subsidize the cost of education, a number of secular private schools would
materialize to capitalize on it. Without that voucher they can't make a
profit - or else public schools would already be getting plenty of
competition. 

> >And who tends to the kids whose parents can't afford to kick in any
> >money of their own? You get educational equivalent of slum landlords who
> >manage to find a way to eke out a profit while meeting accreditation 
> >minimums
    
>     Hey, that sounds like the current system, only better. At least they'd
>    hit the minimums (unlike many of today's public schools.)

So set minimums and enforce them. What's your point?
  
>    I'll tell you what else would happen. They wouldn't be able to
>    tolerate the discipline problems any more- they wouldn't be able to
>    afford to. I'm sure you find that prospect troubling as well.
 
How do you figure? Is there some reason public schools should tolerate 
discipline problems?
  
>    >There'll be some innovation at this level, but it won't
>    >be toward improving education, but toward cutting costs.
  
>Which would still be an improvement over the current situation.
  
That's easy for you to say, you kid won't be going there.
  
  
>    Your brethren have already issued their dire chicken littlesque
>    predictions for the fall of society because of the "scam" of vouchers.
>    Please be original (and neatness and spelling count.)

....and your idea is the paragon of original thought? It's not a new idea.
And the reasons it would be bad for society are the same now as when it was
first suggested. No need for originality. Being right is good enough. 
  
>    >But if you *really* want education
>    >reform *and* to try to make all members of society the beneficiaries,
>    >you would set up the system so that, to be eligible for voucher
>    >reimbursement, the school could not be getting funding from any other 
>    >source 
>    
>     Ah, yes, the ever present enforced mediocrity favored by the liberal
>    establishment. One must beat back any attempt to improve upon the least
>    common denominator. Sheesh. You should be encouraging all schools to
>    develop additional sources of funds, not punishing them for doing so.
  
Ah! So you admit that to some extent the more money you put into it the
better the education you'll get out of it? And the voucher system ensures
that the higher you are on the socio-economic ladder the better school you
can send your kids to. If you're born poor, tough nubbies. I appreciate
your candor. 

My suggestion only "enforces mediocrity" if you set the level of funding
too low. But if you're right that public education is one big sucking
machine pulling tax dollars out of your pocket and putting it into the
pockets of useless administrators, then there should be plenty of
entrepreneurial educators who can take the same per-student spending and
raise the quality of education considerably while making a reasonable buck,
no? What are you afraid of? That your whining about public school systems
as a den of incompetence and waste would be proven to be false? If you
don't implement vouchers the way I suggested, what's to prevent you and
other self-serving voters from voting to cut vouchers even more. After all,
what's it to you? 

>    >All this yacking about improving education for all by conservative 
>    >advocates of vouchers is either a) conveniently ignorant of the market 
>    >they worship; or b) just a bunch of BS.
>    
>     Cuz you say so? Riiiiight.
 
Sorry, I didn't see any argument against my predictions. Only some off-hand
reference to chicken little and a glib "it would still be better." Cuz you
say so, right? 

Re: 113

>Only through true
>    reform will this change, and you people are so dead set against
>    actually changing anything that matters that you are part of the
>    problem. Quit the FUD and get on with it. 

Nice try, Doctah, but we *all* recognize the need for reform. It's a red
herring to suggest otherwise. We just see your concept of reform for what
it is. 

    >Still, for many not of that faith, the fact that the church runs the 
    >school and manages mix a little preaching in with the 3 Rs is enough 
    >to make them stick it out in the public system.
    
     I went to what you would likely consider to be a Catholic high school,
    but there was very little if any "preaching" per se. There was
    "Christian Values" which essentially explored questions of morality,
    etc, but it wasn't catechism. Thus there was no problem with students
    of varying religions attending my school (though admittedly there was
    at the time a pretty uniform population of male Christians attending
    the school.) The point being that the primary purpose of the school was
    not to proselytize, but to provide a high standard of education, and
    that there were as many non-Catholics attending the school as
    Catholics.
    
    >With vouchers to subsidize the cost of education, a number of secular 
    >private schools would materialize to capitalize on it.
    
     Of course, which is exactly what I've been saying. Not to mention the
    public schools that decided to get their acts together instead of
    rolling over and playing dead. But I disagree with your use of the word
    subsidize; that misses the point. The issue is not subsidation; the
    issue is paying for education. 
    
    >Without that voucher they can't make a profit - or else public schools 
    >would already be getting plenty of competition.
    
     Without the freedom of parents to choose to send their children to
    school without out of pocket expenditures above and beyond the taxes
    they already pay for that very purpose, these schools cannot exist to
    provide competition- no sher <manure>lock. That's what we've been
    saying right along.
    
    >So set minimums and enforce them. What's your point?
    
     The current educational bureaucracy, which is supposed to be doing
    that, isn't and won't so long as they don't have to. And you aim to
    ensure that they won't, by tying yourself to the current system. Was
    that really so cryptic?
    
    >How do you figure? Is there some reason public schools should tolerate
    >discipline problems?
    
     The fact is that they DO tolerate discipline problems. The discipline
    problems need to be removed from the classroom. That's one major
    advantage that private schools have over public schools. Public schools
    are stuck with whomever exists; private schools can force you to
    behave. We ought to provide our public schools with that sort of
    leverage (regardless of the voucher issue.)
    
    >And the reasons it would be bad for society are the same now as when it
    >was first suggested.
    
     No, but the dire predictions about the falling acorns remain the same.
    
    >No need for originality. Being right is good enough.
    
     Well, then try being right for a change!
    
    >Ah! So you admit that to some extent the more money you put into it the
    >better the education you'll get out of it?
    
     With caveats galore, of course. There exists an amount of money below
    which you can't effectively educate students. No kidding. The amount we
    spend now is way, way above that. We spend far more per student than
    countries around the globe that are kicking our cellective butts
    scholastically, so the issue clearly isn't just about money.
    
    >And the voucher system ensures that the higher you are on the 
    >socio-economic ladder the better school you can send your kids to.
    
     No, the current system ensures that. The voucher system brings better
    schooling availability to far more than enjoy it now, while also
    improving the educational floor. No system is going to improve the
    poverty stricken's education to compete with that of millionaires. But
    the voucher system narrows the gap, and pushes more people closer to
    the top.
    
    >My suggestion only "enforces mediocrity" if you set the level of
    >funding too low.
    
     Nonsense. Medicority is enforced by the current system, which
    demonstrably squanders considerable resources and prevents the
    resources from percolating down to the students. Comparing what we pay
    for education to that which is paid around the world in countries which
    provide a better education to their students shows that we aren't
    underfunding the schools currently.
    
    >What are you afraid of?
    
     Fear has nothing to do with it. Why should we tie the hands of private
    schools to force them to compete on an uneven footing with public
    schools? What have public schools done to prove they deserve a big
    advantage in funding? I say level the playing field; that has nothing
    to do at all with fear. What a slimey accusation.
    
    >Nice try, Doctah, but we *all* recognize the need for reform. 
    
     Then why the opposition to it? You want to put a pretty facade on the
    same broken system and declare it fixed. That's all.
    
    

<    No system is going to improve the
<    poverty stricken's education to compete with that of millionaires. But
<    the voucher system narrows the gap, and pushes more people closer to
<    the top.

    Vouchers will only widen the gap, pusing money currently spent
    by public schools out to private schools attended by the well off.
    The gap in quality between publc and private will become huge.
    You're right that vouchers will push more people closer to the
    top...and they'll be stepping on others to get there.

    You seem to rail on about bloated beaurocracies and the immense
    amount of money being wasted by public education.  I doubt you have
    all that much experience with public education.  I certainly
    agree that its possible to find bad examples, and its clearly
    possible for trashy news shows to put it out on the air.  But
    that does not mean its all that common.

    Our schools here are all run on a shoe string.  They suffer from a lack
    of management, not too much.  They would benefit from more coordination,
    but the towns just wont pay for it.  They rarely can buy any new
    equipment and spend almost nothing on supplies.  We have sports teams,
    but we also have large user fees for each sport.  We have booster
    clubs to raise money to lower the cost of the sport programs.  The
    kids are constantly selling raffle tickets for one thing or another
    (like a local car dealer will give the school a break on a new car,
    and the kids will sell raffle tickets).

    The 'cost per pupil' is about $3500...and that includes the cost
    of special needs kids that often cost over $30K each.  We have some
    private school and home school kids who still get special services
    from the town.  The private schools certainly wont provide any special
    services.  Some kids need medical care during the day...we have to
    have a registered nurse on staff to administer it.  (like catheterization).

    Vouchers still just sounds like greed to me.  You like vouchers cause
    it will help you pay for the private school you want to send your kids to.
    All the rest of it is just window dressing.
    bob

    >Vouchers will only widen the gap
    
     Ok, so here I say, "No, it won't" and you respond with "yes, it will,"
    and meanwhile we continue to pour money down the drain and get
    uneducated kids.
    
    >pusing money currently spent by public schools out to private 
    >schools attended by the well off.
    
     You still don't get it, one must assume deliberately so. Obstinacy
    isn't going to solve the problem, Bob.
    
    >The gap in quality between publc and private will become huge.
    
     No it won't, otherwise the public will cease to exist. Do you really
    think all these teachers are just going to lay down and watch their
    jobs go away without fighting back? that's a stronger indictment of the
    public schools than even I'm prepared to make. What will happen is that
    there will be a new balance between public and private schools; there
    will be more private or at least privately run schools and fewer
    publicly run schools because that's what people want. People are sick
    and tired of substandard schooling, and that's what you get from the
    majority of public schools. monopolies don't encourage improvement.
    Granting public education a monopoly is self-defeating.
    
    >Our schools here are all run on a shoe string.  They suffer from a
    >lack of management, not too much. 
    
     I didn't say public schools are well managed; I said they are too top
    heavy with administration. Most of the administration is devoted to BS
    paperwork that provides no added value; it simply exists to "justify"
    its continued existence and a continuing flow of funds.
    
     As a parent of a child who was labeled learning disabled, I am well
    aware of the numbers of people who exist for highly specialized job
    functions that do very little actual work and add little if any value
    to the system. I also know how much money is devoted to these special
    needs kids, much of which is unjustifiable, and which takes away from
    the maintream with little hope of seeing anything resembling a return
    on investment.
    
    >They rarely can buy any new equipment and spend almost nothing on supplies. 
    
     Not because they don't have the money. But because the money is used
    for "other things" like administrative salaries and benefits, junkets
    and endless new curricula.
    
    >We have sports teams, but we also have large user fees for each sport. 
    
     Good. I think sports teams are important. You develop the skills you
    need to succeed in business, particularly given the evolving world
    market. If you can't work as a team you are doomed.
    
    >The 'cost per pupil' is about $3500...and that includes the cost
    >of special needs kids that often cost over $30K each. 
    
     Which is absurd, of course. We have to redefine the expectations for
    special needs kids to prevent them from dominating budget
    considerations. It's unreasonable to spend such a large proportion of
    our budgets on such a small proportion of the student population,
    particularly given the fact that the net overall benefit to the
    students in question is frequently immeasurable. Hardhearted? No-
    realistic. We don't have the resources to pay for the high level of
    services required by mainstreaming. It's really that simple. There's
    one student in our district whose services cost on the order of $100k
    per year. Meanwhile the whole class has to share dilapidated books that
    are of nearly archaelogical significance in age.
    
    >Vouchers still just sounds like greed to me. 
    
     That's all they'll ever sound like to you because you refuse to
    confront the situation for what it is and are so heavily invested in
    the status quo.

          <<< Note 404.147 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

You outta be a pol, Doctah. Slick II. Hard to imagine more non-answers to 
pointed questions, except on the campaign trail.

I say: 
>Still, for many not of that faith, the fact that the church runs the 
    >school and manages mix a little preaching in with the 3 Rs is enough 
    >to make them stick it out in the public system.

And you respond:    
>...there was no problem with students of varying religions attending my school
    (which is "what you would call a Catholic school" - interesting choice of 
words, there).

What does that have to do with the price of tea? Do you disagree that a lot of 
people who could afford an extra $2K don't feel that the advantages of a 
Catholic-school education outweigh the negatives (real or imagined)?

I say:
    >With vouchers to subsidize the cost of education, a number of secular 
    >private schools would materialize to capitalize on it.

And you say:    
>     Of course, which is exactly what I've been saying.... But I disagree 
>with your use of the word subsidize; that misses the point. The issue is not 
>subsidation; the issue is paying for education. 
 
Excuse me? I suggest that vouchers would create an uplift market for middle 
class families who can afford to kick in an extra couple grand to give their kids 
a higher-class education, and you object to the term "subsidize?" What is it 
then? Are you suggesting that most of the middle class can't afford that kind of 
uplift price tag? Where do you think those Catholic schools get their students 
from, the Vanderbilts?

I say:   
    >Without that voucher they can't make a profit - or else public schools 
    >would already be getting plenty of competition.

And you respond:    
>     Without the freedom of parents to choose to send their children to
>    school without out of pocket expenditures above and beyond the taxes
>    they already pay for that very purpose, these schools cannot exist to
>    provide competition- no sher <manure>lock. That's what we've been
>    saying right along.
 
So you decide to just ignore that there would be an uplift market. Classic 
political dodge.

I say:  
    >So set minimums and enforce them. What's your point?

And you respond:    
>     The current educational bureaucracy, which is supposed to be doing
>    that, isn't and won't so long as they don't have to. 

Gee, I thought they work for us. In fact, several states have established 
minimums. There's no laws I'm aware of to stop them. If your school district is 
ignoring standards, work to make them change. I doesn't take the destruction of 
the current system to do that, and pretending that it does is disingenuous. Same 
with handling of disciplinary problems. True, public schools have to TRY to 
work with every student that walks through their doors, but they have every 
legal authority to boot out disruptive students - and do. How would a voucher 
system absolve society of the obligation to try? You guys on the right love to 
pin the "whining" verb on liberals, but it's clear we hardly have a monopoly on 
it. Pols of all stripes are particularly well skilled at it.
    
I say:
>Ah! So you admit that to some extent the more money you put into it the
    >better the education you'll get out of it?

You say:    
>     With caveats galore, of course. There exists an amount of money below
>    which you can't effectively educate students. No kidding. The amount we
>    spend now is way, way above that. We spend far more per student than
>    countries around the globe that are kicking our collective butts
>    scholastically, so the issue clearly isn't just about money.
 
With a wave of the hand that would make Newt proud, you brush aside any 
suggestion of complexity to the problem of education, any possibility of 
stratification of the system based on income. And you do it with a classic pol's 
diversion: a vague and unsubstantiated allusion to some statistics. Can you back 
up that claim? How much are teachers paid in those systems relative to 
comparable professions?  How does their expense structure compare? If what 
you say has any real stats to back it up, I'd bet it's purely a percentage of GNP 
on education, which leaves miles of room for difference in economic/cultural 
systems. Besides, are any of these market-based, voucher-type systems that 
you're arguing for? Or are they just public school systems?   

I say:
    >And the voucher system ensures that the higher you are on the 
    >socio-economic ladder the better school you can send your kids to.

And you respond:    
>     No, the current system ensures that. The voucher system brings better
>    schooling availability to far more than enjoy it now, while also
>    improving the educational floor. No system is going to improve the
>    poverty stricken's education to compete with that of millionaires. But
>    the voucher system narrows the gap, and pushes more people closer to
>    the top.

Once again, you ignore the stratifying effect of an open voucher system. We 
don't have a sliding scale of education systems based on income. We have 
basically two levels: prep school and public school, with church-subsidized 
schools offering a middle ground in some cases for some people. 

I say:
    >My suggestion only "enforces mediocrity" if you set the level of
    >funding too low.

And you respond (incredibly):    
>     Nonsense. Medicority is enforced by the current system, which
>    demonstrably squanders considerable resources and prevents the
>    resources from percolating down to the students. Comparing what we pay
>    for education to that which is paid around the world in countries which
>    provide a better education to their students shows that we aren't
>    underfunding the schools currently.
  
I gotta give it to you, Doctah, of all the artful dodging you've been doing, this 
one takes the prize.

Back a ways in this string, I said lets determine some base level of funding that 
would ensure a quality education and let the market compete at delivering 
within that boundary. You come back with your old republican retort about 
enforced mediocrity, even though you keep arguing we're already spending 
more than enough money. I return your volley by pointing out that your favorite 
chicken little prediction is only possible if you underfund it. To which you 
respond with " Medicority is enforced by the current system..." Huh? Are you 
confused or are you intentionally trying to confuse the issue? 
 
I say (referring to my suggestion that we let the market see what it can come up 
with given the same revenue stream, since you claim there is so much waste):
    >What are you afraid of?

And you respond:    
>     Fear has nothing to do with it. Why should we tie the hands of private
>    schools to force them to compete on an uneven footing with public
>    schools? What have public schools done to prove they deserve a big
>    advantage in funding? I say level the playing field; that has nothing
>    to do at all with fear. What a slimey accusation.

Which is of course pure nonsense, pure dance, pure slippery wriggling from the 
question. And then have the gall to suggest that my prod was "slimey."
 
And, finally, I say:   
    >Nice try, Doctah, but we *all* recognize the need for reform. 

To which you respond:    
>     Then why the opposition to it? You want to put a pretty facade on the
>    same broken system and declare it fixed. That's all.
  
Incredible. I suggest an approach to education reform every bit as revolutionary 
as the conservative's beloved Friedmanesque voucher system, except I make 
sure that at least the middle class stays interested in the quality of education for 
all by not subsidizing our escape from the "untouchables." And you say it's 
window dressing!  
    
I also couldn't help but notice how you avoided my question: "What's to prevent 
you from cutting voucher funding." Given the tenor of our times, it's hardly 
inconceivable that the repubs on the hill would target this as a place to cut 
spending and portray vouchers as a kind of welfare.

<--------

I apologize for not cleaning up my wraps. I should apologize for going on 
so long, but I won't. :')

    >Hard to imagine more non-answers to
    >pointed questions, except on the campaign trail.
     
     Nah, you could simply look in your own notes.
                                                            
     I say something and you run right back to the same old platitudes. I'm
    getting off the I said you said but I said no you said merry go round.
    
     On the issue of stratification I think you're wrong. People don't pay
    twice for education because they have nothing better to do with the
    money, they do it because the level of public education is so putrid
    that they feel compelled. I disagree with your assumption that the
    whole middle class is suddenly going to find the couple grand a year
    per student to send their kids to private schools; those that can do
    that now already do (mostly to parochial schools.) I think that if
    parents had the choice, they'd prefer to get a good education for no
    additional out of pocket outlays and save the money you think their
    going to spend on prep schools for college. They don't have that choice
    now, and you seek to deny them that choice.
    
     Do I think that some people who could afford to send their kids to a
    "Catholic" school refrain from doing so purely on theological 
    grounds or on principle? Probably. Is it "a lot" or not? I don't know
    and I don't see it as being especially germane. The point is that with
    potential sources of cash flow, other schools will crop up that cater
    to the needs of these parents. And it is speculation to assume that
    these other schools would charge more than the Catholic schools do
    (which remains less than virtually any of the amounts provided in the
    various voucher proposals.)
    
     As far as the enforcement of minimums goes, it's not happening. Look
    at the students being put out with a dipploma that can't read, can't
    write and don't understand how to balance a checkbook and tell me that
    the status quo is good enough. What are we supposed to do? We can't
    fire them- you said so. We have to put up with mediocrity because
    publicly run schools must be preserved at all cost, regardless of how
    they perform.
    
    >With a wave of the hand that would make Newt proud, you brush aside any
    >suggestion of complexity to the problem of education, 
    
     That's a bald faced lie, and it really pisses me off that you would
    just out and out make up something like this. I have very strong
    feelings about the importance of education, I believe this country is
    failing the children and itself, and I've never, ever claimed that we
    could just implement vouchers and the problems would miraculously
    evaporate. Conference policy prevents me from truly expressing my
    feelings about this vile lie. Sometimes I hate being a moderator.
    
     You went back to the "stratifying effect" of an open voucher system
    time and time again, with nothing but your supposition to support it,
    yet you speak of it as if it is an immutable truth. On that we
    disagree, but I suppose that, as dire predictions of the educational
    equivalent of class warfare are your only weapon, you've got to get
    everything you can from it...

	Why is there a prevailing opinion that a government can allocate
resources more efficiently than an individual?  What is wrong with taking all
the money we now spend on education and send an amount equal to the per student
average as a voucher to the students parent(s).  Thereby each parent will have
the equivalent of what is spent on their children now by the guvmint.   

	IF IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY BEING SPENT NOW WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
So what if some rich kids can go to high priced preparatory schools?  They
already do.  Or are you convinced they should not be treated equal to everyone
else.  If the vouchers are going to evry student, regardless of economic
circumstance, then is that not "equal".  If not who do you know that has the
wisdom to determine when a family makes "too much" money?

Mikey

     re: funding
    
     In .94 you offered in the voucher system provisions to prevent schools
    from getting any other funding sources, and I complained. Here's why:
    the voucher plans all have one thing in common, they don't divide the
    annual school budget by the number of kids and issue a voucher for the
    $5k per student. They offer perhaps 60% of that as a voucher amount.
    Where does that extra 40% go? Why into the public schools, of course.
    So it's completely disingenuous to suggest that your solution of
    preventing the private schools from funding sources for additional
    funds somehow levels the playing field unless you are willing to give
    back the built in public school economic advantange. Are you ready to
    stand up to the plate?
    
     You are simply trying to place privately run schools at enough of a
    handicap where the public schools can continue to operate inefficiently
    and remain viable. So much for your claims of "let the market compete
    at delivering within that boundary."
    

    >IF IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY BEING SPENT NOW WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
    
    The bureaucratic educators would lose control and the need for their
    position would vanish. 
    
    Don't you think that we should let them spend our money? After all, they
    Know better, what is good for your children, than we do, RIGHT?!??!
    
    ...Tom

RE: 404.154 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

> In .94 you offered in the voucher system provisions to prevent schools
> from getting any other funding sources, and I complained. Here's why:
> the voucher plans all have one thing in common, they don't divide the
> annual school budget by the number of kids and issue a voucher for the
> $5k per student. They offer perhaps 60% of that as a voucher amount.

That's correct,  and the public schools will end up poorer rather than
richer.  Children are not identical.  The problem with most of the voucher
systems I've looked at is that the public schools will get stuck.

Why?

Start in year 1.  Same kids go to private schools as year 0,  roughly 10%. 
EVERY DOLLAR PAID ON A VOUCHER MUST COME OUT OF FUNDING FOR THE PUBLIC 
SCHOOLS.  Taxes must increase,  or quality must decrease.

Years 2+.  Each year,  some kids leave.  Which kids?  Not the special needs:  
they wouldn't be welcome on a voucher and a little more.  Not a trouble
maker or the unmotivated.  The private schools don't want these as well, 
A kid turns into a problem in private school will be dumped back on the 
public schools.  The private schools don't need to accept them,  and the
public schools must by law.  The key point here is the marginal cost of 
education of the group that's leaving isn't equal to the average cost,  or
even 60% of the average cost.  It's quite a bit less:  probably closer to
40%.  So each year,  the decline of the public school gets worse,  or taxes 
will need to increase to halt the decline.

What's the endpoint?

1) More money will be spent on education.  Taxes will increase,  and most
   parents will end up paying tuition as well.
2) The kids that can't leave public slums..  I mean schools are stuck.
   Regardless if it's because the parents can't afford it,  or the kid has
   physical and/or other problems,  or what ever.

The nice thing about this endpoint is that the majority of the children
will get a better education.  The drawback is that a significant minority
will not get a fair education.

We could get to this endpoint faster and cheaper by changing the current 
system to remove the requirement to educate everyone.  Decide to NOT
educate the 10% of problem kids that use up nearly half of all educational
resources.  In simple terms,  throw these children away.

Vouchers are not magic.


> You are simply trying to place privately run schools at enough of a
> handicap where the public schools can continue to operate inefficiently
> and remain viable. So much for your claims of "let the market compete
> at delivering within that boundary."

Sad,  sad,  sad.  You have it backwards,   Doctah.  The public schools in 
a voucher system are grossly handicapped by being required to educate any 
and every student,  regardless of how big of a problem they are.  


Phil
    

          <<< Note 404.152 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

    > On the issue of stratification I think you're wrong. 

And I think I'm right. And I think the market gives virtually infinite 
examples to prove my point. Name a single consumable that doesn't have 
tremendous range of quality/cost to appeal to the range of incomes in the 
marketplace. Why on earth would education be any different? And I find 
relegating the lower 25% of our population to the educational equivalent of 
a sh*tbox unacceptable. You say that's chicken littlesque; I say it's all 
to real. Shall we agree to disagree?
    
>  grounds or on principle? Probably. Is it "a lot" or not? I don't know
>    and I don't see it as being especially germane. 

It is absolutely central. If all the people who would be willing to shell 
out another couple grand to better their child's education are already in 
Catholic (or similar) schools, then you win. I think you're way off. We 
disagree again.
    
>  That's a bald faced lie, and it really pisses me off that you would
    just out and out make up something like this...

Sorry to have pissed you off, Doctah. I wasn't making up a "lie." I was
characterizing what I see as your refusal to argue my assertion that a
voucher system would have a stratifying effect. You just say I'm wrong,
that I'm making up a class warfare scenario. You dismiss it out of hand,
then return to a vouchers-my-way or you're-part-of-the-problem-
obstructionist argument. Or at least that's how it seems to me. 

Clearly this debate is accomplishing nothing but to raise your temperature, 
so maybe we should drop it...

          <<< Note 404.154 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>   In .94 you offered in the voucher system provisions to prevent schools
>    from getting any other funding sources, and I complained. Here's why:
>    the voucher plans all have one thing in common, they don't divide the
>    annual school budget by the number of kids and issue a voucher for the
>    $5k per student. They offer perhaps 60% of that as a voucher amount.
>    Where does that extra 40% go? Why into the public schools, of course.
>    So it's completely disingenuous to suggest that your solution of
>    preventing the private schools from funding sources for additional
>    funds somehow levels the playing field unless you are willing to give
>    back the built in public school economic advantange. Are you ready to
>    stand up to the plate?
 
Well, this reveals at least part of the misunderstanding. I was suggesting 
that we take the TOTAL cost-per-student, as the last noter suggested, and 
say: "Ok, if you guys in the private sector think you can do better with 
the same money, go for it! But you can't take that money and bump up the 
price a bit to keep out the riff-raff. If you're going to play at this 
game, you'll have to play by the same rules."

Now that may be naive, opening up education to all kinds of turmoil. You 
also may find that there aren't as many takers as you think. But assuming 
the market can produce superior schools for equal or less money, then why 
not give 60% vouchers and let them the other 40% any way they want. Of 
course, that way, if you're anteing up the other 40%, you're still 
double-paying, but at least the schools have to beat public schools at 
their own spending level. And, according to you, must of us middle-classers 
couldn't afford to kick in much more than our voucher, so what difference 
does it make? 

    The issue to me is whether the country is well served by
    a strong, majority attended public school system, or whether
    it would be better to have a MUCH larger proportion of the
    population attending private schools and a small proportion
    in private school.

    And perhaps the answer revolves around what you think is 'fair'.

    Our school has a relationship with an elementary school in
    Mexico, and every year our 6th grade spends some time staying
    with Mexican families, attending their school and then they come
    up and stay with families in our town.

    The school is a private school.

    In Mexico the middle and upper classes ALL attend private schools.
    Only the poor are in the public schools.  These schools are a disaster.
    Many have dirt floors, no supplies, and accomplish no education.

    But no one really cares, since they dont send their kids there.

RE: 154

	The only means of making a voucher system work would ultimately lie in
scrapping "public" schools altogether.  Otherwise the bloated bureaucracy that
sucks up the majority of our education $ now would still exist.  I'm not
convinced there is any other way to handle this.  The longer we wait the more
illiterate adults are produced from our "educational" system.  

	Actually, the more illiterates we produce the more people we are going
to have who are "disadvantaged".  The more disadvantaged the more who need
guvmint assistance.  From what I understand those on guvmint assistance genrally
tend to vote for thos on the left more than the right.  Keeping the status quo
as far as education would genrally tend to promote liberalism.  No wonder those
on the left are not in favor of vouchers!!

:-}}} Mikey  

    Boy, I've seen some real attempts to keep the status quo and paint any
    change as a mean-spirited, bigotted, help-the-rich, etc, etc diatribes,
    but the replies in this note really take the cake.
    
    There is little doubt or argument that teh public eductation ystem in
    this country doesn't work and hasn't for decades.  The answer to  this
    seems to be well keep it the same, don't introduce com[petition and,
    heaven forbit, don't let parochial schools enter the mix.
    
    I see all sorts of ridiculous arguments that if we approve vouchers
    then the good kids will leave and the bad kids will be left.  Well,
    let's not keep producing bad kids.  Why not figure out why you have bad
    kids and address that % and stop wasting money and the time of other
    students.  The same applies to the weak attemp on special ed kids.  No
    one ever said that they would be included or excluded.  The simple
    truth is that their situation wouldn't change.  Unless, of course, the
    school of choice has no other similar students and it would be cost
    prohibitive to include them.  The solution would be rather simple.
    
    Since the current system doesn't work, let each parent keep their money
    and send their kid where they wanted to.  If it's a current public
    school, great - if not, great.  Parents are making decisions for their
    kids and taking some interest.  If the public school system goes out of
    business, and it's beauracracy and let's-keep-incompetent-teachers
    unions go out of business, then maybe we'll get some improvement.
    
    All of the hand-wringing to the contrary, I have never seen a better
    plan other than to throw more money at a failed system.  Gee, why does
    that seem stupid, but then I gues those folks are the end product of
    our public education sytem.
    

> Well, let's not keep producing bad kids.

While I agree in principle with most of what you wrote, I wait with bated
breath for your explanation as to how the above is to be accomplished.

The status quo may be the problem, but its the problem the country is
comfortable with. Kinda a 'know they enemy' thing.

As bad as the status quo might be, fear of the unknown will make the unknown
the greater of two evils.

Doug.

RE: 404.161 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> Boy, I've seen some real attempts to keep the status quo and paint any
> change as a mean-spirited, bigotted, help-the-rich, etc, etc diatribes,
> but the replies in this note really take the cake.

Broad brush you got there,  Mr Rocush,  rent an aircraft hanger to store it
in?


> I see all sorts of ridiculous arguments that if we approve vouchers
> then the good kids will leave and the bad kids will be left.  

Marginal cost is standard economics:  I suggest that perhaps a course or
two in entry level economic theory would get you to understand it.


> Well, let's not keep producing bad kids.  

Not that simple.  Let me bring up an example that I'm personally aware of.
A second grader,  couldn't recognize all the letters,  and had a real bad 
attitude to boot.  She was kicked out of a religious private school after
first grade.  (The private school otherwise has a very good reputation,  BTW).  
Public school system _must_ accept her,  by law,  and _must_,  by law,  
provide tutors and such to get her on track.  Her second grade year cost the 
taxpayers about $20,000!  After a year,  she is reading well above grade 
level,  and hasn't gotten sent to the principal's office for over a month.  
Maybe the taxpayers should send the parents a bill?  Or the private school?  
Or was this just a waste?  And why would a for-profit or for-break-even
religious school accept a kid like this for any tuition less than $20,000?  

Bad kids?  I don't think that's a good way of looking at it.  There are
kids with problems:  some are small,  some are large.


> The same applies to the weak attemp on special ed kids.  No one ever said 
> that they would be included or excluded.  The simple truth is that their 
> situation wouldn't change.  Unless, of course, the school of choice has 
> no other similar students and it would be cost prohibitive to include them.  
> The solution would be rather simple.

Ok, simple,  yes.  It costs money to include them.  Very simple.  "It's
cost prohibitive".

    
Phil

    Re: 164
    
    Economics, at best, is an inexact science.  But since you think you
    know all there is to know about economics, please enlighten me.  Please
    explain why a good school will lose students because vouchers are
    introduced.  Oh, just bad schools will lose students.  Well, what makes
    them bad schools.  In Chicago, it's not a lack of money.  More money is
    spent on Chicago schools than most suburban schools.  Perhaps it has to
    do with other factors that parents beleive is beyond their control.
    
    A recent article in one of the Chicago papers highlighted the
    graduating class of an inner-city school that takes all applicants.  It
    happened to be a Catholic school and majority of the students were not
    Catholic.  The interviews with the graduatinf seniors were all pretty
    much the same.  What made them successful was the discipline, high
    expectations and dedication of the nuns.  They cared about the students
    and not the almighty paycheck so demanded by the teachers unions.
    
    Maybe a school that focuses on the responsibility of a school to
    prepare students academically and insist on excellence is what's
    required.
    
    As far as your example obout the second grader, what was the parents
    role in this.  What did they do, if anything?  Also, I never said that
    these students shouldn't be taken care of.  They have special needs and
    should be handled accordingly.  Please don't cloud the issue with
    exceptions.  There are exceptions to everything, so bringing up an
    exception proves nothing.
    

RE: 404.165 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> Please explain why a good school will lose students because vouchers are
> introduced.  

I don't know everything about economics,  but I do understand competitive
advantage.  The good public schools are at a competitive disadvantage to
the slightly better and much cheaper private schools that DON'T HAVE TO
ACCEPT ALL STUDENTS.  That's why they will be cheaper. Now,  if your goal
is to destroy public education for some ideological or religious reason, 
public funding of private schools is just the ticket to that end.  What is
your goal,  anyway?

I'm not going to argue inner city schools,  I have no experience in or
around them. I am going to argue suburban schools,  and not the bad ones, 
the better ones.  At least around here,  private schools of all types don't
take all applicants,  and expel their mistakes and problems.

Maybe Merrimack NH is an exception,  but somehow I doubt it.

It was interesting to watch a local school choice plan (set up by the
former LIBERAL school board) go down before the voters at last year's
school district meeting.  The past year has changed my views on
education a lot.


Phil

>    There is little doubt or argument that teh public eductation ystem in
>    this country doesn't work and hasn't for decades.  

    Any data to back this up?

    I see huge numbers of kids getting a great education in public
    school.

    By 'not working', do you mean there are SOME kids who dont get
    a good education?

    Lotta trashing of public education, generally be people who have
    very little experience.
    bob

    U.S. is 14th in the world.
    This is unacceptable to me.
    
                                   Steve J.

    Re: 166
    
    I don't get it.  Why do you think that holding students to an absolute
    level of performance is bad?  You castigate private schools because
    they expel their "mistakes".  Maybe they have standards that they are
    unwilling to compromise.  Also maybe they spend their time on education
    and not politically correct subjects and expect their students to work
    and achieve.
    
    Instead of saying that private schools are bad because they demand
    excellence and the public schools don't, maybe you should look at why
    public schools have the problems they do.  Since no one has bothered
    with this, other than to ask for more money, and point their fingers in
    every direction but themselves, this may be the heart of the problem. 
    Perhaps we can learn form the standards of private schools and let kids
    and parents know that education is not "free".  It comes with
    responsibilities for both the parent and student.  If either or both
    aren't interested, then why are we trying to force both parties to do
    something they aren't interested in or willing to do.
    
    Maybe, just maybe, if we start having enforceable standards of behavior
    and achievement for all students, youmight just raise the overall level
    of students.
    
    You keep making the same point that you can't change the status quo
    other than by working with a failed system.  ALos, I base my contention
    on the failure of the system on standardized test scores, graduation
    rates, basic skills and the attempts to re-interpret SAT and ACT scores
    to make them look better.  If these aren't proof that the system is a
    failure, then I guess everything must just be fine.
    

RE: 404.169 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> I don't get it.  

I noticed.  It's simple.  You can't have it all.  You can't try to educate
everyone _and_ throw away underachievers.  Which do you want to do?  If
it's throw away underachievers,  be honest about it.

Private schools are not "bad" for not dealing with problem kids.  That's
not their charter.  BTW,  there are other kinds of private schools that 
accept _only_ problem kids with a specific problem.  Cost is about $30,000 
a year.  A voucher wouldn't go very far,  right?


> Maybe, just maybe, if we start having enforceable standards of behavior
> and achievement for all students, you might just raise the overall level
> of students.

Throwing away the bottom xx% will usually raise the overall level. 

I'm asking you to be honest about what you are proposing.


> You keep making the same point that you can't change the status quo
> other than by working with a failed system.  

I don't think I have ever made this point.  

Want an alternative better than a voucher system?

We could adopt something like the German public school system.  There are 
multiple tracks of schools.  If you fail out of the top level,  you go to 
a lower level.  Only the top level has the opportunity to go on to college.
Everyone else has the opportunity to learn a trade.  Fail to learn plumbing?  
Always need for ditch diggers.  

A German system tries to educate everyone,  but also allows kids to fail,  
and gives the kids that fail a reasonable alternative.  The top track can 
focus on high quality college preparation.  The lower tracks can focus on 
trades.


Phil

    Re: 170
    
    I never said anything about throwing away underachievers.  Please don't
    put words in my mouth.  There are a lot of kids who are underachievers
    but are not a detriment to the schools.  Just because someone can't
    keep up doesn't mean that you abandon them.  I never said that, nor do
    I support that.  I also don't support moving kids through the system if
    they are not ready.  There are kids who don't belong in school and
    should not be there.
    
    What we have now is a system that is constantly working to the lowest
    common denominator to try and get everyone.  Until you get to
    illiteracy you will not get low enough to include everyone.
    
    I do support the system you indicate is used in Germany.  That is
    essentially the system I would like to see put in place.  The only
    difference is that I think you should have a choice as to which school
    your child attends and having to double pay does not seem appropriate. 
    If you can find a way around that, I think we would be in total
    agreement.
    

RE: 404.171 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> I do support the system you indicate is used in Germany.  That is
> essentially the system I would like to see put in place.  The only
> difference is that I think you should have a choice as to which school
> your child attends and having to double pay does not seem appropriate. 
> If you can find a way around that, I think we would be in total
> agreement.

Once again,  you can't have it all.  A German style system works because
it's the kid's achievements that place them into a given level of school.

Let the parents pick the school,  and you don't have a German style public
school system anymore.

Which do you want,  a strongly tracked system determined by the achievements
of the children,  or a untracked system determined by parental choice of 
schools?  The two systems are NOT the same.  They are not even close.

    
Phil

    I don't see why it's impossible to combine both systems.  Although the
    underlying function would be the same, parental choice would have no
    effect on how the system operates, other than to possibly improve it.
    
    Follow along.  If I think that my child may not be getting the best
    instruction, and therefore, is being put in a track other than what I
    think is best, then why can't I move him/her?  If I find that a
    different school yields the same results then perhaps there is a
    different problem that needs to be addressed.
    
    I still do not see how offering a choice can be detrimental.  Also, you
    only focus on the nuts and bolts of the system.  What if the school my
    child is assigned to is less than appropriate, for whatever reason.  I
    believe that by giving a choice it would encourage all schools to
    maintain the highest standards since they now have competition within
    the same framework.
    
    I think you system will have less success of ever being implemented,
    even though I think its approrpriate.
    

RE: 404.173 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> I don't see why it's impossible to combine both systems.  

Short answer,  a consistent standard.

Longer answer.  One of the reasons why the German system works is that it
is the children's academic achievement and _only_ their academic achievement
that gets them into the higher tracked schools.  To stay on the higher
track,   children must be motivated.  If daddy can just sign his brat up 
for a higher school,  the motivation is gone.  His brat doesn't have to 
learn or behave.  


> If I think that my child may not be getting the best instruction, and 
> therefore, is being put in a track other than what I think is best, then 
> why can't I move him/her?  

Again,  to keep the motivation factor,  only reductions in track or shifts
to different schools at the same track could be allowed.  If a kid is just 
barely making the precollege track,  perhaps the parent might decide to 
bump the child down to the trade track.  To allow the reverse breaks the 
system.

You want standards?  You must follow the standards,  or they are
meaningless.


> I think you system will have less success of ever being implemented,
> even though I think its appropriate.

What?    


Phil

ZZ    You want standards?  You must follow the standards,  or they are
ZZ    meaningless.
    
    Exactly what I've been trying to tell the quota kings and quota queens
    for years!
    
    -Jack

    Re: 174
    
    I may not be making myself very clear here.  I agree that, assuming
    your proposal is implemented, you can not arbitrarily move your child
    to a higher track if they do not meet the standards.  The standards
    would never change.  I do think that you should have the ability to
    move your child to a different school, regardless of which track they
    are on, if you believe that the school is not performing.
    
    The school district my kids went to was an excellent district, but the
    schools did differ quite a bit.  Each school had differences that made
    a difference in how students performed.  As just one example, one
    school had a very in depth foreign language program that went far
    beyond the requirements of the course.  This was due to the language
    department going far beyond the basics and really putting together a
    great program.  I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to move my
    child to that school to take advantage of that enthusiasm.  The basics
    remained the same but the results were quite different.
    
    This is why I believe choice can very very positive since if you want
    to really do the best for your kids, you can.
    
    My comment about your program ever being adopted is based on the fact
    that I can not conceive of those opposed to any change ever adopting
    such a straight-forward and simple program.  They would raise more
    screams about "tracking" children than can be believed.
    

>    The school district my kids went to was an excellent district, but the
>    schools did differ quite a bit.  Each school had differences that made
>    a difference in how students performed.  

We have not yet discussed this form of choice, and to me, it sounds great.
This is giving kids some level of choice within a school system.
Support for this form of choice is often used to justify Massachusetts
state wide school choice, which makes no sense.

We have this form of choice today to the extent that you can choose
between 'normal' high school and a local vocational school.  In our district,
you can choose between the regional vocational school and other local
vocational schools that offer programs not offered locally, such as agriculture.

But giving you the choice to move to a 'poor' town that pays little
in taxes toward its schools and sending your kid to the rich school
in the next town at taxpayer expense is not the same as chosing
among schools that your taxes are paying for.

RE: 404.176 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> My comment about your program ever being adopted is based on the fact
> that I can not conceive of those opposed to any change ever adopting
> such a straight-forward and simple program.  They would raise more
> screams about "tracking" children than can be believed.

Wrong screams.  To have standards means that there can be no easy way to
end-run the standards.  This would mean that the USA would need a national
public educational system,  at least as far as setting the standard.

No local control?  Political no way.


Also,  unfunded mandates are very unpopular.  A national standard educational 
system is an unfunded mandate unless it is mostly funded from national
taxes.

Doing this as an unfunded mandate?  No way.

A national school tax?  Political no no.


Phil

    Re: 178
    
    I don't think the standards would be the issue.  I believe that the
    issue would be around who gets put into each track.  You see the
    arguments already in all sorts of arenas.
    
    What would happen if your system had a higher proportion of one group
    than another.  For example, what if more boys were in the college track
    than girls or some other protected class?  You know what would happen
    to your standards and the entire system would collapse into an
    unmanageable maze of antidiscrimination requirements.
    
    I still think it's one of the best proposals I've heard of so far, but
    I really don't think it will make it through the politically correct
    crowd.
    
    This why I favor school choice because it is easier to get this concept
    accepted.  It can cause the type of changes throughout the system that
    might ultimately lead to your system.
    
    Either way I really hope that something gets done soon.
    

RE: 404.179 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> This why I favor school choice because it is easier to get this concept
> accepted.  It can cause the type of changes throughout the system that
> might ultimately lead to your system.

"School choice" aka a voucher system will lead to an English style system
at best:  a great education for the upper class and a not-so-great education 
for the lower classes.  At best.


Phil

 <<< Note 404.180 by BOXORN::HAYS "I think we are toast. Remember the jam?" >>>

>"School choice" aka a voucher system will lead to an English style system
>at best:  a great education for the upper class and a not-so-great education 
>for the lower classes.  At best.

I beg to differ. We have an English-style system now, only our not-so-great 
education is even worse than their not-so-great education.

What vouchers will do is create a uniquely American system in which: the 
upper classes have, as always, a great education; the middle class gets a 
range of educations from not-so-great to very good, depending on the luck 
of location or just where they are within that broad spectrum we call 
middle class; the lower class gets, as usual, garbage; and the community 
(or what's left of it) basically disappears. This latter effect, by the 
way, I'm not all that certain is bad. It may be inevitable in any case.

Quick! Look up! The sky is falling! (Just wanted to save you the trouble, 
Doctah.;-))

    I really don't accept your contention that a choice program will make
    the situation worse.  You claim that the rich will get a great
    education.  So what, they do already and the choice program won't
    change that.
    
    What choice will do is give the overwhelming number of middle class and
    lower class folks an opportunity to escape a system that has been
    unresponsive for decades.  This is, what I believe, is what scares the
    "system".  People may be able to find an alternative to the status quo
    and the entrenched folks will have to change or die.  either would be
    great.
    

    People seem to think that making it so that the middle class could get
    a better education is a bad thing if the lower class doesn't get an
    equally good education, so instead we insist that the middle class get
    just as poor an education as the lower class. I posit that the voucher
    system would improve the education affforded the middle class. And you
    claim that the lower class wouldn't get as good an education. Perhaps,
    but at the point we could deal with that (smaller) problem IFF your
    dire predictions even turn out to be true. I happen to think that won't
    happen, but even if it does it's still a smaller problem than the
    current one.

          <<< Note 404.183 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    People seem to think that making it so that the middle class could get
>    a better education is a bad thing if the lower class doesn't get an
>    equally good education, so instead we insist that the middle class get
>    just as poor an education as the lower class. 

Now that's not fair, Doctah. You don't *really* think that oppose-
vouchers =  for-status-quo, do you? Some may, but not all. I know. I'm 
one who wants to change the status quo.

>     I posit that the voucher
>    system would improve the education affforded the middle class. And you
>    claim that the lower class wouldn't get as good an education. Perhaps,
>    but at the point we could deal with that (smaller) problem IFF your
>    dire predictions even turn out to be true. I happen to think that won't
>    happen, but even if it does it's still a smaller problem than the
>    current one.

Smaller to you, maybe. Given very recent history (November), what makes 
you think we will deal with the problem? If we don't have any vested 
interest in *those* schools anymore, why should we have to bail them out? 
I mean, wouldn't that be yet another handout to the whining, freeloading, 
deadweights who continue to drag down our great free-enterprise republic?

Now I'm sure you honestly believe that a voucher system wouldn't ghetto-
ize education even more than it is already, and if it did, that society would 
make a genuine effort to improve the lot of those unfortunate enough to be 
captives of these ghettos. For the life of me, though, I can't see any historic 
precedent or market analog to support it. 

IMESHO, vouchers are a way to avoid the problems of education, rather 
than fix them. To cash out instead of hanging in and fighting. You see, as 
long as the great middle class is part of a struggle, it's called
*fighting*. As soon as the poor are left to battle alone, perhaps with an
occasional contribution from us limolibs, it's called whining. And its
just too easy to dismiss whining. 

>    I posit that the voucher
>    system would improve the education affforded the middle class. And you
>    claim that the lower class wouldn't get as good an education. Perhaps,
>    but at the point we could deal with that (smaller) problem IFF your
>    dire predictions even turn out to be true. 

    At least we're all finally on the same page.
    A voucher system would allow typical Digits to be able
    to act more like the rich and abandon the rest of society
    to their own devices.

    At least we're not still beating the old drum claiming that
    vouchers will improve education for everyone.
    bob

    RE: 184
    
    You really do miss the point.  If the system gets the crap kicked out
    of it because of vouchers and they are left with significantly fewer
    students, which I'm not sure will happen, then they need to change or
    die.
    
    Even the poor will have the opportunity to send their kids to other
    schools if the voucher system really allows choice.  In order to do
    that the voucher has to be enough to cover the cost of educating
    regardless of school.  Right now the average Chicago school gets over
    $5K per student.  the best suburban parochial school, that has a great
    program charges less than $5K.  If the parents get out what is put in
    then they can send their kid wherever they want.
    
    Your argument is hollow based on the assumption that the poor are
    helpless victims that have no choices and we can't institute an
    effective program that is fair fro all.
    

                      <<< Note 404.186 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>
                        -< Your assumption is flawed. >-

>    Your argument is hollow based on the assumption that the poor are
>    helpless victims that have no choices and we can't institute an
>    effective program that is fair fro all.

No. Your understanding is wrong. My argument is based on the belief that if 
you make education a free-market commodity, the result will be the same as 
it has been for every other commodity, and that any "correction" to that 
process that is asked for will be seen as a "government intrusion" once 
such a system is established. As one of the more outspoken (to avoid 
JMARTIN's favorite term) critics of government and its intrusions, you 
should see the validity of that assumption.    

    But it's not the same as any other commodity. It's more like phone
    service. Now explain to me what a monumental failure that has been,
    will you?

          <<< Note 404.188 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

> It's more like phone
    service. 

It is???? How?

    Universal scope. everybody must be provided with access. Not quite the
    same as the market for cars, for example. But it still differs even
    from phone service in that phone service is neither compulsory nor
    affordable by all. But everyone must have access.

          <<< Note 404.190 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>Universal scope. everybody must be provided with access. Not quite the
>    same as the market for cars, for example. But it still differs even
>    from phone service in that phone service is neither compulsory nor
>    affordable by all. But everyone must have access.

That's a pretty thin thread of commonality, Doctah. The differences are far 
greater and more compelling. Although the technology is complex, the 
function of  phone service is exceedingly simple. To most users, the 
addition of competition didn't improve the service - there isn't much to 
improve on. All it did was introduce a choice in billing agencies which, 
theoretically anyways, keeps pressure on pricing. There is virtually no 
discrete difference between competing services. Obviously, that is not the 
case with education under a voucher system, else why bother?

There is no perfectly analogous system, but maybe I can come up with a 
hypothetical one to make my point, if I have the time...

    Re: 187
    
    The basic place to begin is that nothing in life is 100% perfect nor
    equitable.  My position is to institute a process whereby the existing
    system will be forced to change due to outside pressures.  It will
    never change from the inside no matter how much money is pumped into
    it.
    
    There have been several attempts over the years and each one ended up
    no better then the previous and the system keeps getting worse.
    
    Will a voucher system leave some at one end of the spectrum out of
    participating?  That may be the case.  I can't say, but I tryly doubt
    that anyone who cares about their kids' education will not find a way
    to get their kids into the best possible school, if education is
    important to them.
    
    By you saying that no one can have a voucher because not everyone will
    take advantage of it is nonsense.  You may claim that people will be
    unable to take advantage, but that is a conclusion that I am certainly
    not willing to accept.  the voucher may have to be structured
    differently than what is being discussed today, but it can work for the
    OVERWHELMING majority of people.  If you want to penalize all people
    because you can't figure out a way to get everyone, well I have news
    for you.  A lot people don't care.  Stop penalizing those that do with
    those that don't.
    
    Your constant reference to "the few" weakens your entire argument.
    

>    My position is to institute a process whereby the existing
>    system will be forced to change due to outside pressures.  It will
>    never change from the inside no matter how much money is pumped into
>    it.

    Schools are under constant pressure to improve, everyday.
    Anyone who spends time in schools knows this.  The pressure
    is from active parents who work to improve their schools.
    When you are unhappy with your childs education, you start with
    the teacher and work your way up the chain.  When enough parents
    complain, teachers will be fired (or their life will be made
    so miserable they change or leave).  I've seen this occur.
    I've seen school principals leave due to parental pressure.

    When schools stop changing, its only because parents stop caring.
    bob

RE: 404.192 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> There have been several attempts over the years and each one ended up
> no better then the previous and the system keeps getting worse.

Vouchers would make the system worse.  They are an attempt to remove current 
standards from education.  We need to make and follow a consistant national
standard for education.


> If you want to penalize all people because you can't figure out a way to 
> get everyone, well I have news for you.  A lot people don't care.  Stop 
> penalizing those that do with those that don't.

A lot of people do care.  We need a system that rewards students for their
achievements,  not for how much their parents are willing to spend.  


Phil

    re. 193
    
       Parental pressure does work. After 22 years of teaching my father-in
    law quit for just that reason. Some parents complained that their son
    should not have failed his class. My father in law stated that he had
    not done well enough to pass. They went to the principal who instructed
    my father-in-law to give this failing student a passing grade. This
    is why my father-in-law is now an electrician. He saw the failings from
    inside the system that he, as a dedicated teacher, was powerless to do
    anything about. Tenured teachers don't have to be innovative they just
    have to show up. The system is severely broken. It does not matter if
    you agree that vouchers are the answer or not as long as we agree 
    that things have to improve.
    
    100 replies ago I asked about the U.S. college education which is the
    argueably the best in the world. It is the best because you can chose
    any college you want.
    
    
                              Steve J.

>    The system is severely broken. It does not matter if
>    you agree that vouchers are the answer or not as long as we agree 
>    that things have to improve.

    Yep, I'll agree schools should containtly improve.  And that they
    need improvement.

    the villain in your story is clearly the principal, not the parents
    or the system, except to the extent it allowed this to occur.  Schools
    are only as good as the principal, and all the other parents in that
    school should have come to that teachers aid and opposed the principal.
    In Mass, the principal is now hired by the Superintendent, not the
    school committee.  This has relieved a lot of the earlier
    'political appointments' that got 'local, good old boys' hired
    as principal.

    Although tenure no longer exists in Massachusetts, it is still hard
    to fire a teacher after they have taught for a few years.  The principal
    has to decide quickly whether the teacher will work out.
    
>    100 replies ago I asked about the U.S. college education which is the
>    argueably the best in the world. It is the best because you can chose
>    any college you want.

    Our US college system is rapidly becoming far too expensive for
    most people.  It may be good, but I'm not sure how anyone will
    afford it.

    The example of the teacher who quit because he was forced to pass a
    failing student is a prime example of the failings of the present
    system.  The response that the rest of the parents should have come to
    the aid of this teacher is ridiculous.  First of all, they probably
    were unaware and those that did are basically powerless to do anything
    about it.  If this isn't a prime example of why vouchers would work, I
    don't know what is.
    
    In this situation the parents that were upset by the administrations
    actions could have had a very direct impact on the school and the
    system by saying they no longer wanted to send their kids there.  They
    could ahve moved their kids to different school and this would have
    gotten immediate attention since the system would lose the money.  This
    is exactly why vouchers and choice will make the system better for all.
    
    Also, my daughter has been a teacher for over 4 years and has been told
    that she is unable to fail any students.  This is based on two rather
    stupid reasons.  The first is that it would "psycologically damaging"
    for a student to "fail" a class and the second is that the state
    formaula pays on the basis of student s progressing.  If this isn't
    hogwash and shows the abuses and failings of our system then I must be
    missing something.
    
    You can say to work to change the system, but history shows that the
    system never changes until it has to.  Vouchers will provide the
    motivation to an entrenched beauracracy to change or die.  I still no
    reasons to believe the vouchers will have a negative impact.
    

RE: 404.197 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> Vouchers will provide the motivation to an entrenched beauracracy to 
> change or die.  

Vouchers will kill public schools.  

Someone mentioned the example of the phone system in the US.  Suppose we
left AT&T with the legal requirement to provide service to everyone at a
standard rate,  but allowed other companies to provide any services at any
rate that they wanted to.  What would have happened?

AT&T was charging a lot more than cost for long distance and was using
this to subsidize local services,  especially in rural areas.  Open this up, 
as we did,  and MCI,  Sprint and such would force this price down to near 
cost.  AT&T then had to raise rates for local service.  The local service 
in the cities now provides the funds to subsidize local services in rural 
areas.  If we deregulated local service,  then there would be a strong 
incentive for city dwellers to switch and save.  Once they did,  then rates 
in the rural areas would skyrocket.  The end point would look something like 
this:  the only services that AT&T (and/or baby Bells) would be providing 
would be in the highest price and cost areas.  Everyone else would be with 
an unregulated carrier.  AT&T (and/or baby Bells) would become a tiny part
of the telecommunications marketplace.

If your intent is to kill public schools,  vouchers are a good idea.  Is
that your intent?


If you deregulate,  you better deregulate everyone.  Leaving regulations on
one part of the market will kill that part of the market. 


The same sort of thing would happen under vouchers as usually proposed.
The public school system would be reduced to a minority of mostly problem 
kids,  disabled kids and poor kids.  Everyone else could do better on a 60% 
voucher and a few extra tuition dollars.  Regardless of how good the local 
public schools were.


Phil

My niece has spent the last two years in "protective" care of one type 
or another. A confused teenager with possible chemical imbalances to
contribute to her problems, has not participated in any real educational
activity in two years, yet she continues to receive passing grades from the
school system which has jurisdiction over her, but she does not attend any 
classes.

She will get her degree, whether she has earned it or not, whether she wants
it or not, because once she graduates (or becomes a certain age), the states 
responsibility for her education ends.

The "system" continues to treat the mothers objections as a mere irritant.

Wonderful system they have in that bastion of education, Massachusetts.

Doug.

    Re: 198
    
    Why do you keep insisting that people will remove their children from a
    public school system that does a good job?  You start from the aspect
    that as soon as vouchers are approved that people will leave the public
    system in droves.  If that is the case, and it does indeed happen, what
    does that say about our public system?
    
    I believe that teh sytem will not allow itself to go out of business. 
    What it will do is change and implement the type of programs,
    discipline, expectations, etc that exist in private schools.  this will
    lead to a n overall improvement in the total educational system.
    
    OBTW, one of your complaints is that private schools only take the best
    and this would leave the worst students in the public system.  My
    experience has been that, at least the local Catholic schools, will
    take just about any student regardless of academic qualifications. 
    They will; however, keep their same standards and make every effort to
    raise that student's performance.  If it doesn't then the student is
    let go.  this same approach should be taken in the public schools a s
    well.  this will let both student and parent know that their are
    consequences to your actions.
    
    Please consider the overwhelming positive beneits that can accrue.  I
    think that given a chance, you will see that there are clear benefits
    to competition.
    

RE: 404.201 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> If that is the case, and it does indeed happen, what does that say about 
> our public system?

That economics works.  

    
> OBTW, one of your complaints is that private schools only take the best
> and this would leave the worst students in the public system.  My
> experience has been that, at least the local Catholic schools, will
> take just about any student regardless of academic qualifications. 
> They will; however, keep their same standards and make every effort to
> raise that student's performance.  If it doesn't then the student is
> let go.  this same approach should be taken in the public schools a s
> well.  

Private schools are not charities.  They can not afford to make "every 
effort" to raise a student's performance.  The most profitable way to deal 
with a student falling even a little behind is to send him elsewhere.  

The public school system is required by law to accept any and every
student.  If you don't like this,  then change the law.  

Notice that a standards based system ("German model") would only accept "any 
and every" student at the lowest track.  Notice again,  that the student in
such a system is in control over what kind of education he gets.


Phil

    >The most profitable way to deal with a student falling even a little 
    >behind is to send him elsewhere.
    
    This is bull. The most profitable way for a school to deal with a student 
    falling even a little behind is to show the consumer and the
    competition that they are capable of helping the student succeed. If
    this student does indeed succeed, along with a few others, parents will
    be beating down the doors of this school.
    
    Your view is typical of shortsightedness.
    
    ...Tom

    Re: 202
    
    Economics has nothing to do with it.  Education and a strong
    educational environament does.  There are people who can affort to send
    their kids to private school now and don't.  The reason si is that they
    are satisfied, or don't care, about the quality of education that their
    kid gets.
    
    Also, your point about schools not working with underachievers is pure
    clap trap.  i know enough about the private and especially the Catholic
    schools to know that your statement is totally incorrect.  If you
    believe it, then you need to find out before you start casting
    aspersions on a system you are not familiar with.  they will take them,
    work with them to get improvement and only release them when the efoort
    is not there, not just the grades.
    
    And yes, the laws should be changed to make sure that students that
    don't care are kept out of both institutions.
    

RE: 404.204 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> Economics has nothing to do with it.  

Economics has everything to do with it.  After all,  private schools are
profit earning businesses.  


> Also, your point about schools not working with underachievers is pure
> clap trap.  

I mentioned an example,  remember?  It would be pretty rough to be a failure 
for life after first grade,  unless daddy has enough money to buy tutors and 
other help.  

I admit that I overstated the issue.  Schools for rich kids will charge a
premium price,  and will almost never kick a kid out for just being a lazy
rich punk:  after all,  that's a big part of their market,  and they are
paid for the problems.  Schools for middle class kids could probably charge 
a middle price,  and some help for some underacheivers would probably come 
with the deal.  Schools for poor kids could charge only a little more than 
the voucher,  and would probably provide extra help only on a extra cost 
basis.  No extra money,  toss the kid in the trash.


Phil

    
    Well, actually - MOST private schools are NOT for-profit, although
    a few are.  Most, including parochials and many of the top prep
    schools here in the northeast, are non-profits.  I bet most of the
    protestant denominational schools in the south are non-profit also,
    although I don't know this.
    
    There are VERY few profit-making colleges/universities, although
    they exist.
    
      bb

    >Actually, mostly not.
    
     True, but we can't allow the facts to get in the way of a good
    argument, can we?

    I'm still trying to understand what the future would
    be for a 'mostly private' educational system that would result
    from vouchers.

    The closest I can come to is 'housing'.  The rich live is mansions,
    the middle class in nice homes with lawns and some privacy,
    and the poor in 'public housing'.

    Do you believe this is NOT what would happen?
    Do you believe this is better than what we have now?

    So far, our country has taken the stand that education is so
    important that its cost is collectively shared by everyone.
    This is not true of things like housing.  So the source
    of revenue supporting them is different.  But privatizing
    education will create educational gettos just like we
    have for public housing today.

    .208
    
    Yes, but we'll all be dead by the time it really hurts the country very
    much, sho why should we care?

    Dick:
    
    Unions, mushminded elitist intellectuals, special needs counselors for
    the most part, and administrators in general are 98% of the problem. 
    Get rid of these and we won't have to privatize the public school
    system. 
    
    Secondly, set standards and stick with them...even if it offends
    sensitive parents and emotionally hurts the student.  I had my knocks
    as a youth...wasn't very good in math...but you get over it.  You
    really do!!
    
    -Jack

RE: 404.206 by GAAS::BRAUCHER

> Well, actually - MOST private schools are NOT for-profit, although
> a few are.  

I don't think the legal tax status of schools matters much to the economics of 
education.  Care to explain how it would change matters?


Phil

    Jack:
    
    Unions...		You'd prefer things the way it was before unions?
    			Good thing you have a professional job instead of
    			being a common idiot-stick driver or sewing-
    			machine operator or...
    
    mushminded elitist intellectuals...
    			Well, there we might agree.  But not all
    			intellectuals are mushminded - or elitist.  Some of
    			them do valuable things, such as invent computers.
    
    special needs counselors...
    			So the majority of special-needs kids, which class
    			includes retarded, gifted, learning-disabled,
    			economically disadvantaged, and more, should just
    			be pitched into mainstream classes so they can
    			waste the time of the "normal" ones?
    
    I'm glad my kids never had to go to a school that you designed.

    Well Dick, let's just say I have no love for teachers unions.  Keep in
    mind that I do respect teachers...and I respect their rights.  I
    disrespect the NEA wholeheartedly.  They are evil!
    
    Teaching is a profession.  It seems there should be a way for teachers
    and municipalities to work out their own differences without being
    forced to join a union.  I find their tactics debased and reprehensible
    to an honorable profession.
    
    -Jack

    .213
    
    > Teaching is a profession.  It seems there should be a way for teachers
    > and municipalities to work out their own differences
    
    Municipalities, my dear boy, are made up of us, the people.  We refuse
    to vote taxes sufficient to pay for good schools, just the same as we
    refuse to vote taxes for other things, and then we piss and moan when
    we get what we paid for.  As a nation, we are reprehensible in the
    short-sightedness of our self-serving greed.

    >We refuse to vote taxes sufficient to pay for good schools,
    
     Nonsense. We don't vote for taxes sufficient to pay for good schools
    AND a bloated educational bureaucracy AND graft and corruption AND
    sinecures and awarding contracts to political allies at inflated
    prices. So guess what gets left out.

RE: 404.215 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

> Nonsense. We don't vote for taxes sufficient to pay for good schools
> AND a bloated educational bureaucracy AND graft and corruption AND
> sinecures and awarding contracts to political allies at inflated
> prices. So guess what gets left out.

Ever been to a school board meeting?


Phil

>     Nonsense. We don't vote for taxes sufficient to pay for good schools
>    AND a bloated educational bureaucracy AND graft and corruption AND
>    sinecures and awarding contracts to political allies at inflated
>    prices. So guess what gets left out.

    Ever really studied a school budget?  Schools are run on
    a shoe string.  Most schools look at the spending (even today)
    at DEC and shake their heads in wonder.

    Ever count the number of people paid for in the "shoe string" school
    budget that never teach a class? I'm not talking about custodians and
    lunch ladies, either. I'm talking about administrators and
    "specialists" with more free time in a day than I have in a week,
    people who can't come up with a satisfactory answer to the question
    "but what do you do?"

RE: 404.218 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

> Ever count the number of people paid for in the "shoe string" school
> budget that never teach a class? 

Ok,  have you?  


Phil

    I've already related my experiences in that regard.

You watch Prime Time Live.

    Which is not the source of my personal experiences in that regard.
    Having a LD classified kid did afford me the opportunity to witness
    waste in the system firsthand, on the other hand.

    
    Shoestring, hah !  If you want to see a school run on a shoestring,
    go look at a parochial school, or for that matter a ritzy private
    school (say, Concord Academy).  Salaries are HALF the public schools'.
    
    And the tuition per pupil is far below what public education costs
    per pupil.  In terms of academic accomplishment, there is absolutely
    no correlation, in the US or abroad, with expenditures.  Some of the
    worst city public schools are also the most expensive.
    
    The standard rebuttal, of course, is that public schools take all,
    including those going under duress, so accomplishment can't be
    compared.  There's something to that, but then again, education
    under duress is a curious concept to begin with.  Really, many
    public schools are just older-kids-public-daycare.  Nothing is taught,
    but the kids are incarcerated while both parents work.
    
      bb

>    Ever count the number of people paid for in the "shoe string" school
>    budget that never teach a class? I'm not talking about custodians and
>    lunch ladies, either. I'm talking about administrators and
>    "specialists" with more free time in a day than I have in a week,
>    people who can't come up with a satisfactory answer to the question
>    "but what do you do?"

    There are no such people in any of our elementary schools or
    our high school around here....

    I'm not saying there is no one who is less than a 'stellar worker'.
    Same is true for DEC or any work environment.

    Shared among the 5 schools, there is a person who's job is 'curriculum
    coordination'.  this person is often cited as 'overhead'.  But
    she works long hours improving the curriculum of the schools,
    helping teachers improve what they teach, running workshops
    on new ways to teach math, science, etc., bringing in new science
    kits shared among all the schools, getting the kindergarten teachers
    all certified with the new regulations for early childhood education,
    and making sure that all the elementary schools are getting their
    kids ready for the same high school...that when the kids leave 6th
    grade they are all prepared to become one big 7th grade class.

    I'm sure you would prefer she got canned....Hey, just overhead.
    Actually, she does teach, just demonstation classes of the new
    techniques.  but she's not a 'classroom teacher'.

    Is this the type of person you mean?

    I looked in my high school yearbook for the first time in 6 years and I
    can tell you I have never seen a greater collection of hacks in all my
    life.  Home Economics Supervisor...I mean give me a break.
    
    -Jack

>    In terms of academic accomplishment, there is absolutely
>    no correlation, in the US or abroad, with expenditures.  

    This is the biggest crock of all.

    Compare similar schools...like suburban schools around Boston.
    Those that spend the most provide the best education.

    There is a very direct correlation, with some exceptions.  But
    those exceptions dont mean there is NO correlation.

    Yep, the Boston schools are an exception.  They have special problems
    and you prove nothing by continuing to throw them up as your example.
    bob

                     <<< Note 404.223 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
                           -< Little correlation... >-
    
>    Shoestring, hah !  If you want to see a school run on a shoestring,
>    go look at a parochial school, or for that matter a ritzy private
>    school (say, Concord Academy).  Salaries are HALF the public schools'.
>    
>    And the tuition per pupil is far below what public education costs
>    per pupil.  In terms of academic accomplishment, there is absolutely
>    no correlation, in the US or abroad, with expenditures.  Some of the
>    worst city public schools are also the most expensive.

I don't know where you got your info, but it doesn't jibe with my 
experience. 

I don't know what they charge at Concord Acadamy, but I do know what it 
costs to send a kid to Applewild School, in Fitchburg: a little over
$10k/year for 7th grade. Now, our spending/pupil in Lancaster is $3500. At
least it was the last time I looked. It may have gone up since then, given
the number of kids who have school-choiced into Harvard (the town, silly)
at $5000 a pop. Kinda the *reverse* of what you're saying.

    
    re, .211 - Phil, it's not the "tax status".  Non-profit private
             organizations have "trustees", not "stockholders", who
             get nothing material from the success, and lose nothing
             from the failure, of the enterprise.  They are publicly
             traded entities with anonymous owners, but interest
             organizations formed and run by people who take salaries
             and perquisites, but cannot "get rich" like capitalists.
    
               In economics, the current "theory" on private nonprofits
             is that they "go for growth".  Highly successful institutions
             continually expand either their current offerings, or go out
             into new areas.  There is no such thing as a "losing
             proposition" for M.I.T., as there would be for Digital.
    
               I know quite a bit about a few local private and parochial
             schools - all have scholarship programs of one sort or
             another, some based on need, some on merit, some on sports.
             Since tuition does not cover all their costs, they need to
             solicit donations in some competitive way.  From this comes
             their motivation for excellent reputation.  People and
             organizations who give away money, do so to institutions
             they admire.
    
      bb

    
    Tom - never heard of Applewild - is this a boarding or day school ?
    If boarding, of course, that will dominate the equation.  It is why
    reform schools are the most expensive of all.
    
    On the earlier point by Bob Armstrong - yes, if you take two towns,
    say Reading and Woburn, next to each other, with Reading having maybe
    double (?) the property values of Woburn, you'll find higher costs,
    and higher performance, in the Reading public schools.  And that is
    a pattern.  But does that mean that if you artificially matched the
    spending, the Woburn performance would rise to match Reading's ?  No,
    it doesn't.  If you take regional cases in which towns with much
    higher incomes are combined in a regional high school (as happens in
    Willimantic, Ct), you find the performance is higher among the students
    from the richer town - EVEN THOUGH THE SCHOOL IS THE SAME.
    
      And across wider boundaries, expenditures do not map in this way at
    all.  Why do you suppose Korean kids are two years ahead of ours in
    mathematics ?  That they SPEND more (hint : nope).
    
      bb

                     <<< Note 404.229 by 30513::BRAUCHER >>>
                      -< We need some recent numbers... >-

    
>    Tom - never heard of Applewild - is this a boarding or day school ?
>    If boarding, of course, that will dominate the equation.  It is why
>    reform schools are the most expensive of all.

Nope, bb, just a regular day school. And, obviously, not nearly as well 
known as Concord. :')

Yeah, kids from "better" towns, from college-educated parents, tend to 
value education more, hense (on average) do better. But the question isn't 
how well the rich kids do compared to the poor kids in the same regional 
school system, but how well the poor kids do there compared to poor-only 
schools. 

    >Shared among the 5 schools, there is a person who's job is 'curriculum 
    >coordination'.  
    
     Perhaps your school district has already streamlined and become
    efficient; from your description it sure sounds it. Let me assure you
    that such is not the case on a widespread basis. Some of these
    districts have more coordinators, facilitators, assistants,
    supervisors, district this, associate that than you can shake a stick
    at. And none of them can give you a one sentence job description that
    doesn't get abstract and full of extraneous verbiage. I don't think
    that we are getting our money's worth out of administration and
    educational bureaucrats. YMMV. I also don't think that the schools make
    as effective use of volunteers as they could. there are lots of
    concerned parents who offer their time only to be told there's nothing
    for them to do while also being told that thge teachers are overworked
    and can't keep up with their workload. Something doesn't fit, here.

    
    Well, $10k is very high - there are university tuitions (not
    counting room-board) that are well below that.  No doubt there
    are other very expensive institutions.  Obviously not parochial.
    Some time ago, we were quoted tuition around $2K there.
    
    There are many problems here.  One of them is that debates about
    how to do schooling often mask fundamental disagreements about
    how to run society.  Some rich people deliberately send their
    children to public schools, even though the money means nothing,
    to "show how the other half lives".  My sister, who is a law
    professor in Cinncinnatti (and whose husband also works), sends
    both of her kids to private school because of fear for their safety
    in the public school there, after some killings.  I don't blame her.
    
    I would like to say that I see no hypocracy in Sliq sending Chelsea
    to private school while opposing any government support for private
    education (and even trying to sneak through a teacher's union bill
    which allowed states to outlaw them, which failed).  This just means
    he WISHES the world were a certain way, but in a practical situation
    recognizes that it isn't.  Same thing for Newt giving public TV $2000
    while opposing federal funding.
    
      bb

                     <<< Note 404.232 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
                         -< Well, very complicated... >-

    
>    Well, $10k is very high - there are university tuitions (not

I couldn't agree more!

> Obviously not parochial.
>    Some time ago, we were quoted tuition around $2K there.

They've had to get by without nuns, I'm afraid.
    
>    I would like to say that I see no hypocracy in Sliq sending Chelsea
>    to private school while opposing any government support for private
>    education (and even trying to sneak through a teacher's union bill
>    which allowed states to outlaw them, which failed).  This just means
>    he WISHES the world were a certain way, but in a practical situation
>    recognizes that it isn't.  

I agree that BC's not being hypocritical, but for apparently different 
reasons. I don't think it would matter if the local school surpassed any 
private schools in academics, he'd be irresponsible toward both his 
daughter and toward the public system if he sent Chelsea there. The burden 
of security would be overwhelming. I thought it was a remarkably sensible 
move for one who it seems is so intensely motivated by politics.

>Same thing for Newt giving public TV $2000
>    while opposing federal funding.

I figure Newt's contribution to public TV is either: a) a purely political 
set-up to counter the heat he knew he'd get for pulling the plug on CPB; or
b) that he recognizes the clear superiority of public broadcasting to
anything that the market creates while not understanding why it works that
way. 

Tom

<    If you take regional cases in which towns with much
<    higher incomes are combined in a regional high school (as happens in
<    Willimantic, Ct), you find the performance is higher among the students
<    from the richer town - EVEN THOUGH THE SCHOOL IS THE SAME.

    Out here there are regional high schools with a large building
    for multiple towns.  At the elementary level, there are individual
    schools in each town.  In some regions the elementary towns are
    not regionalized and in some towns they have only recently
    regionalized (the state encourages regionalization by offering $$$).

    The local elementary schools largely reflect the town they
    are in.  The richer towns with college educated parents generally
    have better schools and their kids do better in the regional high
    schools.  Some of these kids come from private elementary schools
    to the regional high school.  Most have had experiences like
    lots of visits to a Science Museum and computers in their home
    and travel over the summer.  Is it a surprise they do better?
    Do you really think this invalidates the general rule that
    schools that spend more provide a better education?

    
    Well, actually Bob, I'm not sure.  My own perception, no doubt
    clouded by age, is that while college education is excellent in
    America (both public and private), secondary schools have gone
    to seed.  I'm not sure why, and in fact one of my fears about a
    voucher system (although the various proposals are all different),
    is that after much fanfare, it will turn out that our teenagers are
    just dumb, and you can't do anything about it by any change in our
    schools, money or vouchers or not, but only by changing our society.
    
    Suppose you are doing something that costs money to achieve a desired
    end.  Like drilling a well at $30/foot.  You aren't getting water.
    So what do you do ?  Spend more money, drill further ?  Or do you
    change tactics - drill somewhere else or bring water in ?  And does
    it matter how much you've spent so far ?  There's a trap or two here.
    
    I've been doing engineering for 25 years or so, with 4 different
    companies.  What strikes me over all that time is the amount of
    truly good work, money, talent I've seen wasted.  Maybe half.  The
    project never completes, or the market changes, and so on.  In 1987,
    the stock market, in a period of less than a week, saw an utter
    disappearance of over a half trillion bucks.  Disappeared, nobody
    got it.  There is no law of conservation of wealth.  The bitter truth
    about the S&L's is the crooks got only a small fraction of the losses.
    The rest went away.
    
    Sometimes spending money, even in vast quantities, accomplishes
    nothing whatever except its disappearance.  I remain unconvinced
    that more money can cure the anti-intellectualism rampant in the USA.
    For example, I recently read an article about INTENTIONAL dumbing
    down by students in high school.  It is epidemic and open today.
    They don't learn, and are even willing to expend considerable effort
    to make sure they don't.  And it is very much an Americanism.
    
      bb

RE: 404.228 by 30513::BRAUCHER

> Non-profit private organizations have "trustees", not "stockholders", 

The analogy is "Board of directors" vs "Trustees".  Both gain or lose
little with the success or failure of the enterprise.  In both cases,  most
of the day to day control in the hands of "people who take salaries
and perquisites, but cannot 'get rich' like capitalists",  as you state.

There is little effective difference between non-profit and for profit
organizations in the same line of business.  Compare stock and mutual
insurance companies,  for starters.  Or REI and LL Bean.


Phil

    
    Yes, Phil, there would be little difference.  And, for that matter,
    there is no reason to suppose government employees will be more or
    less likely to be understanding of people with financial difficulties
    than either profit or nonprofit private employees.
    
    What is different about non-government schools is twofold : being
    independent, private universities (for example) are much more willing
    to experiment, or to fill market niches, than public universities.
    
    And while you can find timeservers anywhere, they must hide better in
    the private sector, or get rightsized.  In government, they needn't
    worry.  That is, until now.  It might be that some real threats of
    the slash is all the schools and teachers really need.
    
      bb

    If you really want to know how the current system works, and all it
    needs is more funding, then just look at the Chicago school system.
    
    For years everyone complained that they needed more money and local
    control of the schools.  they had all sorts of arguments about
    establishing local school boards, etc.  After all was said and done the
    State provided several $million to the system and what did they do? 
    Added 5000 non-teaching positions.  They also have an office of 220
    assistant principals.  None of these folks are located in a school,
    they all just sit, desk after desk, in the central administration
    building.
    
    This is why the private system will ahve a better and more cost
    effective role because they are all individual schools.  they do not
    have the beauracracy and funnel all of there income to teaching with a
    minimal overhead cost.
    
    This allows them, assuming some of the funds that go to a failed
    system, are re-directed to the private system, to produce excellent
    students.
    
    I think the discussions needs to get above the name-calling and abusing
    of the poor and determine what needs to be done to create a better end
    product.  the current system has no incentive to change.
    

RE: 404.238 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> If you really want to know how the current system works, 

in Chicago,  then 

> just look at the Chicago school system.

which doesn't have much to do with Merrimack,  New Hampshire.  


> I think the discussions needs to get above the name-calling and abusing
> of the poor and determine what needs to be done to create a better end
> product.  the current system has no incentive to change.

First,  we had better start by agreeing that education is as complex as
people are:  simple solutions (like vouchers,  for example) are very 
unlikely to greatly improve matters.

Second,  we had better agree that kids are different.  If we don't allow 
for differences,  we will fail to provide a good education for the majority
of the students.  Try to make every kid to learn the same material at the 
same rate,  and you will flunk a third and boor a third.

Third,  we had better remember that the world has changed,  is changing, 
and will change more in the future.  We shouldn't set the school year to 
allow the kids to hoe cornfields,  for one example:  very few kids do that 
anymore.


Phil

    >you will flunk a third and boor a third.
    
     bore. /hth
    
    >allow the kids to hoe cornfields
    
     You don't hoe cornfields. Tomatoes, beans, etc, yeah, but not corn.

RE: 404.240 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

Bore.  Thanks.


>  You don't hoe cornfields. Tomatoes, beans, etc, yeah, but not corn.

What?  Why not?


Phil

    Probably because it grows to a state where weeds won't be an issue
    pretty quickly. I've hoed miles of beans, and young tomatoes, and young
    cukes, but I never had to hoe corn. (I spent three years on a farm
    learning the value of an education. ;-)

    Re: 239
    
    I don't know why you keep insisting that the existing system does
    little to truly educate the vast majority of students.  There is no
    incentive for anyone to really look at significant changes unless they
    can get all sorts of additional funding and create a new beauracracy.
    
    Competition will certainly cause the established system to change and
    become more effective and efficient.  The grammar school that I went
    to, decades ago, seemed to be able to address all of the needs for the
    various types of students in the class.  The nuns were able to provide
    individual attention to those who needed it to make sure that, as best
    as possible, they learned and kept up.  Those who were advanced were
    provided additional learning opportunities.  This was all done by one
    nun in a class of 52 students.
    
    Please don't ell me that private schools don't care except for the top
    students and are incapable of meeting the needs of all students.  They
    can and do it better at lower cost.
    
    Stop creating unsupportable artificial fictions to prevent a program
    that can be fantastic because of some remotely possible affect.  Also,
    why do you think that is your cataclysmic results occur that the system
    can't be changed?  do you think that the NEA and teacher's unions won't
    be all over this with a microscope trying to point out it's failures.

    I support vouchers because I think it would force bad schools to get
    better. I don't care if the public school system disappears all
    together. 
    
    The one thing that will improve education for every student is parental
    involvement. Parents need to at a minimum read their child's homework.
    If parents make children realize that education is important by showing
    true interest in their children and their studies all schools would be
    better off. Amazingly I've found helping my children do their homework,
    I end up teaching them loads of things not even in the lesson plan. 
    Parents are the key to better education. Giving parents school choice
    helps give them the control over their own children.
    
    As far as poor children getting a bad education with vouchers, I don't
    consider myself poor, but the government does. I qualify for food
    stamps and WIC, neither of which I accept. My "poor" children go to
    parochial school and are better for it.
    
                                  Steve J.

RE: 404.244 by NCMAIL::JAMESS

Amazing.  You will not take food stamps,  but you want parochial school
"stamps" (vouchers).


Phil

    And Steve J,
    
    what do you think the "private" schools that accpt the governments milk
    will be called shortly?  I think the word "public" comes to mind
    quickly.  
    
    Why are foodstamps, medicare, medicaid and such socialistic and school
    vouchers not?
    
    meg

    re. -.2 
    
        I support vouchers because it will improve ducation for all
    children. I have not decided if passed whether I would take the
    voucher or not.
    
    re. -.1
    
        School vouchers are socialistic, so are public schools. Public
    schools are bad because even involved parents have little say over
    how the schools are run. Putting the dollars schools receive under
    control of parents greatly increases parental clout with school 
    administrators. I would support vouchers for public school only. It
    would improve on the status quo.
    
                                   Steve J.

    Steve J,
    
    I don't know about your state, but here we have elected school boards,
    and you do have a choice of people to vote for to have significant
    impact in what your schools do for instruction.  Involved parents have
    a heck of a lot of input, from the PTO level on up to the Board.  
    
    Unfortunately most people don't bother to get informed on their
    candidates ahead of time, let alone vote.
    
    Getting state/federal money in private schools will eventually lead to
    state/federal controls on the private schools that except this "milk"
    as well.
    
    meg

    re -.2
    
       I bet my impact voting on school board members is nothing compared
    to the impact I have voicing my opinion to my children's teacher in 
    parochial school. 
    
       We have a principal for an administrator. We tell him or the
    teachers what we want. We don't have to vote on a school board who is
    going to try to do what is right for the district of 6000 students. We
    only have to worry about what my kid in his class of 15 students are
    doing. 
    
                                  Steve J.

                     <<< Note 404.250 by NCMAIL::JAMESS >>>

>       I bet my impact voting on school board members is nothing compared
>    to the impact I have voicing my opinion to my children's teacher in 
>    parochial school. 

Try this:

Go to your parochial school principle and demand that your children's 
teacher stop talking about God. You'll find that freedom cuts both ways.

    	Why would he want to do that?
    
    	There is more to life than being a trouble maker.

    
>>    	There is more to life than being a trouble maker.

	??   since when?

    re. last few
    
        I wouldn't do that. One of the main reasons the school is better is
    that God hasn't been expelled.
    
                                      Steve J.

>>        I wouldn't do that. One of the main reasons the school is better is
>>    that God hasn't been expelled.

	why would he be?  i hear he's a wiz with a petri dish and
	he always gets extra points for creativity.

    Getting back to the subject, if you don't want public schools why do 
    insist on taking public money ( vouchers)?  If the public is giving the
    money for schools whom will decide how the money is divided? 
    
      I personally don't think making retired people on fixed incomes
    support private schools ia a good idea.  A lot of them could use their
    vouchers to feed themselves and not worry about being taxed into the
    street.
    
    Dennis 

    > I personally don't think making retired people on fixed incomes
    >support private schools ia a good idea.  A lot of them could use their
    >vouchers to feed themselves and not worry about being taxed into
    >the street.
    
     Yeah, but they don't mind suckling at the social security teat, do
    they? If they don't want to pay for educating the people who are paying
    for their social security, let them give up any claim to it.

    I didn't say they don't want to pay for education, I said they
    shouldn't have to pay for private education. Vouchers will make all
    education private.
    
    Dennis

     Your claim was that vouchers would be the difference that "taxed them
    into the street." Since vouchers cost towns less per student than
    public schools, this argument is false.

>     Your claim was that vouchers would be the difference that "taxed them
>    into the street." Since vouchers cost towns less per student than
>    public schools, this argument is false.

    Ah...a new red herring here.  Are you really making the claim that
    vouchers will lower the cost of education?  Or just implying it?

    There are expensive kids and inexpensive kids.  You average
    them all together and create the 'cost per student'.  But you dont
    lower the cost of educating everyone by offering anyone the change
    to opt out in exchange for a voucher slightly less than the average
    cost per student.

    Vouchers will raise the cost of education by letting a select group
    of kids attend private school at tax payers expense.

    Of course, perhaps you also advocate that society is NOT obligated
    to educate everyone and that special needs kids should be educated
    at their parent's expense.  Or not educated at all.
    bob

    re -.1
    
        I will make that claim. Vouchers will lower the cost of education.
    Competition will cause schools to be fiscally responsible while
    improving education through parental choice. Most parochial schools
    cost less than half per student what public schools cost.
    
                               Steve J.

    I find it quite interesting that the only 'voucher supporters'
    in this discussion are ALL sending their kids to parochial schools.

    Perhaps you could discuss the basics of the parochial school
    budget so we could all see how this magic is done.  We run
    our schools on a VERY tight budget.  A good view of a 'typical'
    public school budget is the 'foundation budget' that the state
    uses to estimate what it costs to educate kids in public schools.
    A school sends in its figures for number of kids per grade
    and the state calculates an 'expected' budget.  Schools can use this
    to see how they're doing.  Some of the 'assumptions' that the state
    makes are way off...for example, I think they expect less than 10%
    of the kids to be in special Ed....and it is often closer to 20%
    recieving some kind of services....from very little to major.
    In our district, the number of 'out of district' placements is MUCH
    higher than the state expects.  These average about 25K per kid,
    and they are required by law.  Unless you change the law, arguing
    about them is meaningless.  And none of these kids are in parochial school.

    If you provide a parochial school budget, I'll type in our school
    budget and we can compare them.....
    Bob

     Bob makes a valid point here. If vouchers are only implemented on a
    trial basis, that is, only offered to a small number of students, then
    there is little if any savings to the town and his fears of educating a
    few select students (those whose parents care) in a superior
    institution with taxpayer assistance are realized. The reason for this
    is that there is no corresponding credit of $5000 when a student takes
    the voucher for $3000. The public school system isn't about to make any
    reduction in spending, simply because there is one (or a few) students
    less to educate.
    
     The only way that vouchers constitute a savings for the town is when
    all students are availed of vouchers, and a sufficient number of
    alternative institutions exist to provide for competition with the
    local public schools. There is a bit of "chicken and egg" here. If
    there are (say) 10,000 students in the local public school system, and
    there is one 1,000 student private school available, what happens when
    you introduce vouchers into the equation? Now more families can afford
    the $3,000 tuition (ie all of them), including the 1000 families who've
    been sending their kids there right along. Now there is a supply and
    demand situation. Clearly all 11000 kids are not going to go to the
    private school. Even if the private school increases its capacity by
    50%, there is still a huge shortfall in the number of alternative seats
    needed.
    
     What is the private school likely to do? Well, they have a larger
    demand for seats than they have seats, so they are likely to increase
    tuition both due to supply and demand and in order to increase their
    capacity. So maybe they are at $4000 per student. Still less than the
    public school, but now it's more than the voucher. If they didn't have
    admission requirements (entrance exams, etc) then they probably
    introduce them now. Otherwise the increased competition for entry
    raises the bar for new students. End result: the private school
    experience is significantly enhanced.
    
     What has happened at the public school? The class sizes have been
    slightly reduced. Potentially a small savings is afforded on a per
    student basis as a result of fewer books and supplies being needed. It
    is unlikely that the number of teachers is reduced. The administrative
    needs have been reduced, slightly, but the number of administrators is
    unlikely to be reduced.
    
     The bottom line? Implementing vouchers actually inscreases costs
    between the time they are implemented and the steady state unless
    vigorous cost controls for the public schools are also undertaken.
    Since we have already seen that vigorous cost controls for public
    schools don't happen, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that
    Bob's fears are realized during the transitional period. Costs go up,
    and a few students get a vastly better education, while most students
    are stuck in the public school.
    
     The vision of vouchers reducing costs and providing a much improved
    education for the masses are not a pipe dream, however. Far from it. In
    the steady state, that is exactly what happens. It's the transition
    period that is the problem. You need to have other places for the
    students to go to have the market pressure to force the public schools
    to perform and to realize a savings in the amount spent in the public
    schools. The infrastructure involved is huge. Obviously, a public
    school that is closed can easily be converted to a private school, but
    so long as there are students attending the public schools they will
    stay open. And people will attend public schools so long as there is no
    place else to go.
    
     This is the hardest problem to solve. Bringing about the transition,
    without breaking the taxpayers' backs.

    >I find it quite interesting that the only 'voucher supporters'
    >in this discussion are ALL sending their kids to parochial schools.
    
     Wrong. My daughter will be going to school at Nottingham West
    elementary school, in Hudson, NH in the fall.
     

>          <<< Note 404.263 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     What is the private school likely to do? Well, they have a larger
>    demand for seats than they have seats, so they are likely to increase
>    tuition both due to supply and demand and in order to increase their
>    capacity. 

    I certainly agree with this.  Not sure why increasing capacity
    should automatically cause tuition increase, but increased demand
    would strongly lower their desire for a lot of fundraising.

>    So maybe they are at $4000 per student. Still less than the
>    public school, but now it's more than the voucher. 

    But not less than the cost of public school to educate those same
    kids...just less than the AVERAGE of all kids in the public school.

>    If they didn't have
>    admission requirements (entrance exams, etc) then they probably
>    introduce them now. Otherwise the increased competition for entry
>    raises the bar for new students. End result: the private school
>    experience is significantly enhanced.

    Yep, for the select few who get to attend.  siphoning off the
    cream has always been a goal of private enterprise.

>     The bottom line? Implementing vouchers actually inscreases costs
>    between the time they are implemented and the steady state unless
>    vigorous cost controls for the public schools are also undertaken.
>    Since we have already seen that vigorous cost controls for public
>    schools don't happen, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that
>    Bob's fears are realized during the transitional period. Costs go up,
>    and a few students get a vastly better education, while most students
>    are stuck in the public school.

    Cost controls dont happen?  When schools lose kids to charter schools,
    the school spending is lowered by the charter school tuition. Sounds
    like a cost control to me.  There is a bill in the state legislature
    now for the state to pay 1/2 the charter school cost for this year only.
    (sort of an unfunded mandate issue...the state created these schools).
    When towns refuse to over-ride prop 2 1/2 and the population in the
    town is increasing, the schools have to make due.  Like larger class sizes,
    no art or music, little or no gym (although its required by law), etc. etc.
    this all sounds like cost controls to me.

    bob

RE: 404.263 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

> Bob makes a valid point here. If vouchers are only implemented on a
> trial basis, that is, only offered to a small number of students, then
> there is little if any savings to the town and his fears of educating a
> few select students (those whose parents care) in a superior
> institution with taxpayer assistance are realized. The reason for this
> is that there is no corresponding credit of $5000 when a student takes
> the voucher for $3000. The public school system isn't about to make any
> reduction in spending, simply because there is one (or a few) students
> less to educate.

It's worse than than.  $3,000 each will go to the students already in private 
schools without a single reduction in the number of students and (and
thereby cost) to the town.  In your example,  that's $3,000,000 that must
come from somewhere.


> {The private schools} they are likely to increase tuition both due to 
> supply and demand and in order to increase their capacity. 

Private schools are also likely to increase tuition to maintain the "filter 
factor".  If parents must pay,  then parents are much more likely to care.


> What has happened at the public school?  The class sizes have been
> slightly reduced. 

Before the student population is even slightly reduced,  three million 
dollars has been removed from the budget.  Only way to make this kind of
reduction in a school budget is to layoff people.  Most of the people are
teachers.  Class sizes must increase.  A few students get a better 
education,  while most students are stuck in the public school with
declining budgets.

I'll discuss the steady state later.


Phil

>          <<< Note 404.264 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     Wrong. My daughter will be going to school at Nottingham West
>    elementary school, in Hudson, NH in the fall.
     
    I stand corrected.  Somehow I got the impression otherwise.
    Hope you are actively involved in the school.  Joining School Committee?
    These schools need parents who care about education.
    bob

RE: 404.261 by NCMAIL::JAMESS

> Most parochial schools cost less than half per student what public 
> schools cost.

Including how many special needs kids?  Or do those just get told to go to
the public school?


Phil

    re-.1
    
        I don't have specific figures, but I recall an article in Reader's
    Digest serveral years ago that stated parochial schools generally 
    take the same kids as public school with almost no kids being denied
    enrollment. The article also stated that with significantly fewer
    dollars the parochial schools had higher standardized test scores and
    a much higher graduation rate. 
         I don't know what percentage of children are "special needs"
    children. I would wager if all the "special needs" children in the
    public school were placed in parochial school, at least half would no
    longer be "special needs" kids.
    
                               Steve J.

RE: 404.263 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

> The vision of vouchers reducing costs and providing a much improved
> education for the masses are not a pipe dream, however. Far from it. In
> the steady state, that is exactly what happens. 

Exactly why do you think that "that is exactly what happens"?  Ever look at
some of the world's examples of "voucher" systems?  They are hardly raging
success stories.

I'll agree that quality will increase for the kids going out of public
school under a voucher system.  Partly because of competition,  but mostly 
because total funding (taxes plus tuition) will increase.  Schools under a 
voucher system will find it much easier to compete on quality than cost.  
If cheap is your goal,  it would be better and faster to change laws that 
currently require schools accept all special needs and all disruptive kids.

Notice that this is NOT quality for everyone.  The distribution will change.  
Public schools can't compete,  as they must accept any and every student,  
and will become dumping grounds for the poor,  special needs and assorted 
other high cost problems.   Regardless of how well they are operated.


Phil

    Special needs students, particularly given the "mainstreaming" push,
    consume a disporportionately large amount of resources. Take it from
    the parent of a former special needs student. We need to reassess what
    we are trying to do and how many resources we are willing to devote to
    achieve that end. Laws definitely need to be rewritten in order to fix
    some of the problems foisted upon our schools by unfunded mandates in
    this area.

    
    Not to mention the new scam going around of getting your kids
    into "special" categories, because of the preferential treatment.
    
    Shady doctors are being found who, for a price, will certify that
    your kid has a learning disability.
    
      bb

    Just to clarify a few points.  I have no children in the public school
    system and vouchers don't mean squat to me personally.  My youngest
    will graduate from college next year so whether vouchers get passed or
    not will not affect me or my children.  Please try not to use a
    "politically correct" broad brush when you no longer have a valid
    comment to make to support your position.
    
    As far the claims that the private schools take just the cream, it
    probably is true in some cases.  The fact of the matter is is that they
    are already doing that.  Parochial schools do not have much of a
    barrier to attendance and pretty much base acceptance, and continued
    enrollment, on behavior.  Now if your point is that rotten punks that
    terroize teachers, students, neighborhoods and destroy property should
    be allowed into any school, public or private, then you have more
    serious problem then just discussing the pros and cons of vouchers.
    
    As was said in a previous note.  Private schools would find that many
    of the so called "special needs" kids don't have special needs.  the
    number would drop dramatically as these kids were dealt with as
    students and not in a special category.
    
    Lastly, the initial phase would leave spending basically the same as
    the voucher amount would be deducted from the amount going tot he
    school district.  So if a student gets $3000 and the school normally
    got $5000, then the school only gets $2000.  Over time the budgets
    would be reduced.
    

RE: 404.271 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

Yes,  and that's one of the mixed up parts of this debate.

Let us note it again:  the average cost of education for a child is NOT
equal to the cost of education of an average child.  Confusion over this
point has been used to push the idea of vouchers.

You want to about halve the cost of education and slightly improve quality 
for ~80% of the students?  Cut off _all_ funding for special needs students.  
Can't meet the standards:  you are out of school for good.

Too extreme?  Well,  yes.  On the other hand,  a lot of money is spent on
special needs kids with often very little return.  


Phil

     Another major issue which needs to be broached is behavior/discipline
    in the classroom. One of my wife's friends is a teacher at Tyngsboro
    high, and the things that go on there amaze me. We need to address
    discipline problems with a minimal disruption to the class. Currently
    the behavioral problems are either not addressed at all or are dealt
    with in a way that cannot help but cause a huge disruption to the
    class. Apparently there is no mechanism for removing disruptive
    students from the class. This is absurd. Whatever happened to the role
    of assistant principal as a disciplinarian? It seems to have become
    pass�. 
    
     I personally think that chronically disruptive students ought to be
    removed from the classroom on a more permanent basis, perhaps to a
    reform school. Unfortunately, such things are very expensive. Perhaps
    there is a way to make the problem students defray the cost of their
    retraining.

RE: 404.275 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

> I personally think that chronically disruptive students ought to be 
> removed from the classroom on a more permanent basis, perhaps to a 
> reform school. Unfortunately, such things are very expensive. 

Do you want cheap schools or better schools?


Phil

    Both, preferably.

>    Parochial schools do not have much of a
>    barrier to attendance and pretty much base acceptance, and continued
>    enrollment, on behavior.  

    A good example of 'special needs' might be 'dyslexia', an often severe
    impediment to reading.  Some kids can be taught through special techniques
    to read despite the problem.  Some can't.  I assume these kids
    would pretty quickly be booted out of parochial schools for lack
    of performance?

    Another 'special needs' issue that many kids seem to have is
    Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity.  These are kids
    who are REAL hyperactive.  It is somewhat treatable with drugs,
    but the kids still need special attention.

    There are MANY other forms of special needs, including deafness,
    blindness, kids with handicaps, etc. etc.  How many of these
    kids are in parochial school at $2000 each?
    
>    As was said in a previous note.  Private schools would find that many
>    of the so called "special needs" kids don't have special needs.  the
>    number would drop dramatically as these kids were dealt with as
>    students and not in a special category.

    Dream on.  The number would only drop as they failed and were sent
    back to public school.

RE: 404.277 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

> Both, preferably.

Then send the disruptive kids home with a note:

"Your child has disrupted the classroom for the third time.  He is thereby
expelled from public schools.  If you have lots of money,  send him to a
private reform school.  If not,  we suggest he take up drug dealing,  
plasma sales  and/or theft.

                      Sincerely,

                      The Public School"

    
    Well, Phil, as a matter of fact, in Massachusetts, principals are
    required by law to kick out (for the term) those found with weapons
    or drugs in school.  Passed last year, I think - a Weldism.
    
      bb

RE: 404.280 by GAAS::BRAUCHER

> Well, Phil, as a matter of fact, in Massachusetts, principals are
> required by law to kick out (for the term) those found with weapons
> or drugs in school.  

Not the same as "disruptive" children.  


Phil 

    Re: 278
    
    Why do you keep raising ludicrous points.  My oldest daughter had a
    real problem with school, and although she worked very hard did not get
    very good grades.  we asked that she be tested for dyslexia and were
    told everything was just fine.  If there was a problem the teacher
    would have noticed.  we were not allowed to get the school to test her.
    
    Thinking that it was a good school district, they must be right.  so we
    accepted their answer.  She struggled through the rest of grade school
    and high school.
    
    Once she went to college, and majored in education, did she find out
    that she truly did have dyslexia.
    
    Thank you public school system.
    
    You make stupid claims about how a private school would ahndle a
    situation without having a clue about reality.  Please explain what
    your real agenda is in opposing school choice.  You have not been able
    to enter one claim that is based on fact, and those that were pure
    opinion have been effectively rebutted.
    
    Maybe if you give your real reason, that can be addressed.
    

RE: 404.282 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> Please explain what your real agenda is in opposing school choice.  

1)  What kind of school choice?  My problem is in the hidden intents and
side effects of the proposals I've looked at.  Like the Massachusetts plan, 
for example.

2)  I'd rather see an achievement and standards based system than a parental
wealth based system.  What's your real agenda against standards,  anyway?


Phil

    
    My agenda is simple :
    
      "The customer is always right."
    
    So, we provide all kinds of choices, and let parents/students decide
    what to do.  I think you phase things in - the open enrollment,
    particularly for public high schools, is a good first step.
    
    The model is our university system, which works.  The example of
    what not to do is our current secondary system, which doesn't.
    
      bb

RE: 404.284 by GAAS::BRAUCHER

> So, we provide all kinds of choices, and let parents/students decide
> what to do.  I think you phase things in - the open enrollment,
> particularly for public high schools, is a good first step.

Ok,  we start with open enrollment in public high schools.  Let's take an
example of two towns,  we will call them Richtown and Poortown.  Richtown
has nice schools.  Very nice schools.  Very very very nice schools.  Better,  
as Richtown spends $10,000 per student.  Poortown has not good schools.  No 
wonder,  as Poortown spends $3200 per student.  A parent in Poortown would 
like to send his kid to Richtown's high school.  How does it work?

  Poortown's school system pays the $10,000 per student average cost of
Richtown.  Let's see,  if just a third of the parents in Poortown decide 
to do this,  then Poortown's schools will have no money and two thirds of
the students...  This is the Massachusetts model.  See why I don't like it?


Phil

>    Why do you keep raising ludicrous points.

    Such as?  Sorry to hear about your undiagnosed dyslexia.  I can
    hardly believe that you took the school's word that all was fine.
    I'ld get a private test done if the school refused.  there are
    free public advocates that will help you deal with your school
    if you think they are not providing services you deserve.

    I'm the last person to say public schools are perfect.  But just
    because you had a bad experience, we should get rid of them completely?

    The private schools here do not have special services for dyslexia.
    If your child requires special services, they recommend you stay in
    public school.

>    You make stupid claims about how a private school would ahndle a
>    situation without having a clue about reality.  

    I'm listening!

>    Please explain what your real agenda is in opposing school choice.

    Gee...I thought it was pretty obvious.  I'm in favor of a strong
    public school system.  I think that all kids should have access to a
    public school system that provides a quality education.

    the alternatives discussed here all work against that...school choice,
    vouchers...all enhance the education of a small number of kids
    usually at great sacrifice to the education of the majority of kids.
    bob

    re Bob
    
       So we make the vouchers such that any school that wants to take
    vouchers has to take any kid with a voucher. If you want to be
    selective about your students, no vouchers. 
    
                               Steve J.

Who is going to pay the vouchers?  Local government?  That is who pays for
schools now.  See Poortown/Richtown.


Phil

>       So we make the vouchers such that any school that wants to take
>    vouchers has to take any kid with a voucher. If you want to be
>    selective about your students, no vouchers. 

    Okay....an improvement.  This is more like Mass School Choice now.
    (not exactly).

    But would the school be required to provide its education for the
    cost of the voucher?  Say the voucher is for $1000?  Would the
    school (private or public) be required to take any student,
    no input requirements, for their 'standard rate' (and allow vouchers).

    Perhaps catholic schools take anyone today, regardless of requirements?
    We have a little girl in our school who has Spina Bifada (sp?)...
    needs an aide plus full cathederization several times per day, very
    specialized medical requirements.  She walks on crutches, needs assistance
    on and off the bus, in playground, in and out of desk.  After an operation
    she is in a wheel chair, full body cast.  What services might a catholic
    school provide?  Would they have a registered nurse on staff?

    We have some kids who (for whatever reason) are not even speaking
    in kindergarden or 1st grade.  They get special language and other
    help.  these are troubled kids.  and we're in the country.

    Under Mass School Choice, a school can choose if it wants to be
    open as a 'Choice School' or not.  If it chooses to allow
    'choice students', it cannot have entrance requirements.  So
    special needs kids can 'choose' to go there.  I'm not sure how
    the money flows but I suspect they cannot charge more than their
    'normal, per student' rate.  this is one reason so few schools
    have opened up for choice.  The advantage to the school is they can
    fill seats and make a lot of money.  The disadvantage is they may
    get stuck with kids who cost a lot of money.

    Another example...there is an excellent school for the blind
    near us (Clark).  So families with blind kids move to this area
    and send their kids there, at town expense.  Its the law...town pays.
    Families spread the word...come live in XXX town, where we have
    a nice community of blind kids for your kids to have as special
    friends, we all can go to the school together, its great.  And
    it all comes right out of that town's school budget.

And I thought the states had governments.  Silly me.

    So far I have seen a lot of notes about the problems of how to
    implement a voucher system, but very little about teh value of the
    voucher system.  You can shout till you're blue in the face about some
    perceived problem with implementation, but you can not defend the
    present system.
    
    Vouchers will force the system to change, without having to spend money
    or time on it.  Once the admin sees it's going to die it will change or
    it will die.  Both good options.
    
    Your Richtown/Poortown example is flawed.  The voucher sytem says you
    get $X to send your kid where you want.  If it costs more than $X you
    pay the difference.  So Poortown only pays $X and the kid pays the
    rest.  But the kid gets to chose which school he wants to attend based
    on his needs.
    
    Also, the issue around truly special needs will require some
    investigation.  this is because not all public schools can offer the
    same services and kids need to go where the service is offered.
    
    So far there has been no valid reason presented for keeping the current
    system in place.
    

>    Your Richtown/Poortown example is flawed.  

    Where is the flaw?  You discuss 'the voucher system' but you point
    out no flaw

>    The voucher sytem says you
>    get $X to send your kid where you want.  If it costs more than $X you
>    pay the difference.  So Poortown only pays $X and the kid pays the
>    rest.  But the kid gets to chose which school he wants to attend based
>    on his needs.

    I think this is about the 10th time this has been 'explained'.  But
    it points out no 'flaw' in the Rich/Poor town example.

    The above is what we have now...with X=0.  You can send your kids
    anywhere you want.  You pay the difference.
    
>    Also, the issue around truly special needs will require some
>    investigation.  this is because not all public schools can offer the
>    same services and kids need to go where the service is offered.

    And when public schools cant offer the services, the kid DOES go where the
    services are offered.  And it comes right out of the school budget.
    Its included right in there with the 'normal operatin expenses', subject
    to town meeting approval, Prop 2.5, and whatever other spending caps
    you want to put in place.  And if you dont vote enough money for the
    schools, it comes right out of the money that would have been spent
    on the regular kids.

    Its a big incentive for schools to try of offer special ed services
    themselves.

>    So far there has been no valid reason presented for keeping the current
>    system in place.

    Valid seems to be a matter of opinion.  Many Valid reasons presented.    

RE: 404.292 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> Your Richtown/Poortown example is flawed.  The voucher sytem says you
> get $X to send your kid where you want.  If it costs more than $X you
> pay the difference.  So Poortown only pays $X and the kid pays the
> rest.  But the kid gets to chose which school he wants to attend based
> on his needs.

Failure to read,  I see.  Goes with failure to spell,  like "sytem" for
example,  and the failure to do math.  What school did you go to?


Richtown/Poortown example is flawed as a voucher example.  Right.

If you bothered to read it you might notice that it is a school choice 
example.  Of course,  if that's too much bother I'll say it in CAPS:

RICHTOWN/POORTOWN IS A SCHOOL CHOICE EXAMPLE,  NOT A VOUCHER EXAMPLE.


> So far there has been no valid reason presented for keeping the current
> system in place.

School choice (as implemented in Mass) will bankrupt poor school districts.

Vouchers would improve quality for perhaps half of the students,  at the
cost of decreasing quality for the other half _and_ increased total cost.


Phil

Ok,  vouchers.  Let's take the example of our two towns,  we call them 
Richtown and Poortown.  Richtown has nice schools.  Very nice schools.  Very 
very very nice schools.  Better,  as Richtown spends $10,000 per student.  
Poortown has not good schools.  No wonder,  as Poortown spends $3200 per 
student.  How would vouchers paid by the school districts work?

We could set the amount of the voucher at 60% of the average cost of
education.  Assuming equal populations,  that means a voucher would be
worth $3960.  This would break Poortown,  just like school choice.

We could set the amount of the voucher at 60% of the average cost of the
district.  That means Richtown's voucher would be worth $6000 and
Poortown's voucher would be worth $1920.  If a Richtown parent wanted to
send his kid to Applepie "traditional" private school (charging say $6000 
per student,  and why would they charge less?) he would pay nothing,  and 
if a Poortown parent wanted to send his kid to to Applepie "traditional" 
private school he would pay $4080.  Yep, sounds fair,  right?  Hey,  babies,  
better pick the right parents.

We also could look at a State or Federal funded voucher.

We could set the amount of the voucher at 60% of the average cost of
education.  Assuming equal populations,  that means a voucher would be
worth $3960.  Poortown's public school system would be able to increase
spending and cut local taxes,  probably by more than the increase in the
broad based taxes needed to fund this.  Richtown,  on the other hand,  would
probably have a higher tax burden and/or spend less on public schools.  
This works "better" in the sense of less unequal,  but cherry picking would
still be a concern.


Phil

    
    Better yet, why not consider Milwaukee, which is operating with real
    vouchers under a federal waiver signed by Clinton.  Milwaukee does not
    have a normal racial mix, being more white than average.  It spends
    between 5500-6000 dollars per student.  Under the waiver, any parent
    can opt out and receive instead a $3000 voucher good at any SECULAR
    private school (religious schools are excluded) which the state of
    Michigan accredits.  In the first year, 1450 students opted out, 4
    schools were closed, staff was rightsized, the tax rate went down,
    the public schools abandoned the "track" system in favor of one-level-
    fits-all, performance levels improved slightly (less than proponents
    claimed it would, more than the teachers' unions predicted), and when
    questioned, parents in BOTH public and voucher schools were very
    heavily in favor of continuing the system.
    
      But then, the system is new and experimental, and this year may be
    different.
    
      bb

    Re .295:
    
    > . . . if a Poortown parent wanted to send his kid to to Applepie
    > "traditional"  private school he would pay $4080.  Yep, sounds fair, 
    > right?
    
    Fair?  Fair compared to what?  Without vouchers, a Poortown parent
    would have to spend $6000 to send their kid to the Applepie school. 
    Even if the decrease from $6000 to $4080 is not enough to enable the
    parent to send the student to a different school, the student can
    benefit because the competitive pressures will push all schools into
    improving.
    
    Fair?  Maybe not.  But still better than the current system.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                                                

    Now you've really got me confused.
    
    If I follow your Rich/Poor scenario, I can see no problem with where a
    kid goes to school.
    
    If a poor kid goes to the rich school he brings the 60% of a lowere
    figure to his new school.  If the rich kid goes to the poor school he
    brings 60% of his higher figure with him.  the poor school loses
    nothing in either situation and gains in the second example.
    
    What you miss is the need to address why the poor school is poor and
    what they need to do to raise it's level.  If money and students moving
    is what's needed to get the system working, then so much the better.
    
    You still keep focusing on a potential problem and refuse to
    acknowledge that  a system can work very well, even if it may have some
    short term repercusions.  Well please tell me what has ever led to
    improvement without some pain?

the role of government in

snarfs!!

>                      <<< Note 404.298 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>
>                         -< You still miss the point. >-
>
>    Now you've really got me confused.

    I think the point has to do with the extent that people who live
    in poor neighborhoods should be penalized with poor schools.

    They live in poor quality houses and eat poor quality food.
    They may have had a poor education themselves.  they dont make
    much money (or they may be on welfare).

    I believe one role of government is to provide them the opportunity
    for a good education.

    I think you believe that is their responsibility.  And if they have
    no way to afford a decent school....tough luck.

    If I thought that vouchers or school choice or other 'competitive market'
    driven mechanisms would improve their opportunities for education,
    I would support them.  So far, every change discussed improves the lot
    of the already well off at the expense of the less well off.

    Re: 301
    
    I believe you have a predisposition to think that anything that can
    benefit the middle class and above will penalize the poorer class.  I
    personally don't believe in a zero-sum game.
    
    I think that if the system improves, all people benefit.  Now does that
    mean that all will share equally.  No, I think that the studentsa that
    attend the poor schools will benefit much more than those attending
    middle or better schools.  This being that those already in good
    schools aren't going to go anywhere.  they are satisfied with where
    they are at.  The vast majority of those who will take advantage of
    choice programs and vouchers will be those that you so vociferously
    claim will suffer.
    
    To use your example, no one in Richtown will transfer to Poortown
    because of vouchers or choice.  A lot of students in Poortown will
    transfer to Richtown.  The people who care will jump a the chance to
    improve their kids.If they don't care, well......
    
    Let's face it.  The government policies and teacher's unions have
    created thie cesspool we call public education today and trying to get
    a cancerous growth to eliminate itself is faulty thinking.
    

    Your two statements are quite at odds with eachother....

>    I think that if the system improves, all people benefit.

    I recall Reagan calling this 'trickle down'....which for many
    translated to 'urinated on'.

>    Now does that mean that all will share equally.  No, I think that
>    the studentsa that attend the poor schools will benefit much more
>    than those attending middle or better schools.  

    I assume you mean those that attend poor schools that then leave
    to go elsewhere?  By 'not share equally', perhaps you mean that for
    some it will get better and for some it will get worse?

>    The vast majority of those who will take advantage of
>    choice programs and vouchers will be those that you so vociferously
>    claim will suffer.

    Nope.....those who do not/can not 'take advantage' of the programs
    are the ones I say will suffer.
    
>    To use your example, no one in Richtown will transfer to Poortown
>    because of vouchers or choice.  A lot of students in Poortown will
>    transfer to Richtown.  The people who care will jump a the chance to
>    improve their kids.If they don't care, well......
    
    Yep, those who do not have the extra $$$ to add to the voucher
    will be left in their old 'public school'.  And that school will be
    seriously hurt by the loss of money and good students who have gone
    elsewhere.  It's not a question of 'If they dont care'.  Those with
    the resources to 'take advantage' of the program will do so.  And
    you're happy leaving the rest to rot.

    I dont think we misunderstand eachother at all.  I think we just
    have different goals for public education.

RE: 404.302 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> To use your example, no one in Richtown will transfer to Poortown
> because of vouchers or choice.  A lot of students in Poortown will
> transfer to Richtown.  

A lot is,  at most,  one third.  Once the first third has left,  there no 
money left for Poortown schools.  None.  Zip.  Turn out the lights.  Can't
"use school choice",  as there is no money to fund it.  

DO THE MATH!  It's a cure for faulty thinking!


> I think that if the system improves, all people benefit.  

Exactly how do the two thirds of Poortown's students benefit from not
getting an education of any sort?


Phil

    .302
    
    > no one in Richtown will transfer to Poortown
    > because of vouchers or choice.
    
    Wrong.  Indianapolis instituted a system of "magnet" schools, situated
    in Poortown districts, and surprise surprise, many Richtown students
    transferred in to get the better education.

RE: 404.305 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot"

> no one in Richtown will transfer to Poortown because of vouchers or 
> choice.

> Wrong.  Indianapolis instituted a system of "magnet" schools, 

Magnet schools are not the same as vouchers or general choice.  Magnet 
schools have higher funding (after accounting for special needs),  they
have standards,  and they have admissions requirements.  The reason why 
"Richtown" students go to magnet schools is that magnet schools provide 
a better education.


Phil

    
    Wait.  Wait.  You lost me somewhere.  Why is it that if 1/3 of
    Poortown's students transfer out to Richtown, there's no money left in
    Poortown?

>    <<< Note 404.307 by POWDML::LAUER "Little Chamber of Deadly Weapons" >>>
    
>    Wait.  Wait.  You lost me somewhere.  Why is it that if 1/3 of
>    Poortown's students transfer out to Richtown, there's no money left in
>    Poortown?

    This was from the original Rich/Poortown example.  In that example,
    rich town spent 3X poor town on its schools, and if you write
    the school choice law such that rich town gets to bill poortown
    for the transfered students at its full tuition rate, there would
    be no money left after 1/3 transfer.

    It was originally written this way in Mass....the law has been changed
    several times to cap the tuition a town can charge and to subsidize
    a town that loses many students.  Under the original law, some
    towns in Massachusetts were wiped out (and who could blame parents
    in poor towns for sending their kids to the rich schools in the
    next town).  The rich towns were wallowing in new income...gave
    out big raises to all town employees, put new roofs on town buildings,
    installed new high efficiency water heaters, etc. etc.  It was
    quite a chore to spend all that new loot.

    
    Ah, thank you.  My head was beginning to spin.

    
>>    Ah, thank you.  My head was beginning to spin.

	now here's another coincidence.  i had split pea soup for
	lunch.

RE: 404.298 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> If I follow your Rich/Poor scenario, I can see no problem with where a
> kid goes to school.

Which scenario?

A) School choice,  Massachusetts style,  bankrupts poor school districts.  By
design.  Is not this a problem?

B) School vouchers,  even amount regardless of school district and paid by
school district,  also bankrupts poor school districts.  By design.  Is not 
this a problem?

C) School vouchers,  even percentage and paid by school district,  will make
it somewhat easier for kids of rich parents in poor districts to bail out of 
crummy schools.  Increase in average quality of education,  at an increase
in cost and an increase in range of quality of education.  The increase in
range of quality might be rather large,  and I think that's the problem
with this scenario.

D) School vouchers,  paid by federal government,  would even out school
funding.  Increase in average quality of education,  at an increase
in cost,  and would reduce the range of quality of education.  Main
problem would be increasing a national tax to fund it.


Phil

    Re: 303, 304, 311 et al
    
    Let's see, you say that if we have the audacity to let people actually
    chose what school their kids will go to, then a bunch of kids will be
    left in "crummy" schools, if I got the quote right.  Well, how the hell
    do you think those schools got crummy in the first place.  It was a
    combination of an entrenched beauracracy in the school system, teacher
    unions that don't give a damn about students, and a society that has
    been beaten into believing that people are not responsible for their
    own actions.
    
    I never said anything about implementing a plan like you describe for
    Mass.  I would find it difficult to ever agree with anything Mass. did. 
    I have consistently talked about a voucher system where a flat amount
    is given to anyone to attend whatever school they want.  this certainly
    eliminates all of your concerns about Poortown being banckrupt.  As a
    matter of fact they would be better off the more students that leave
    their school.  As you like to say, do the math.  If a school gets $4000
    per student and gives a $2500 voucher then the district ends up with an
    extra $1500 with no student to teach.
    
    You keep raising all sorts of hypothetical situations that make a
    voucher bad, but have no facts that show vouchers create any of the
    situations you claim.  If you want to keep using the Mass. example,
    please do so, but it has nothing to do with vouchers,as are presently
    being discussed.  Also, remember that Mass. has sent Ted Kennedy to the
    Senate for decades.  That pretty much covers that issue.
    

<    As you like to say, do the math.  If a school gets $4000
<    per student and gives a $2500 voucher then the district ends up with an
<    extra $1500 with no student to teach.

    Although they dont have the student to teach, the school expenses
    dont go down by the $2500 they no longer have.  It is clearly
    NOT in the schools advantage.

    Your sentiment (and others around here) is 'stop whining, fix the schools'.
    But your real agenda is to get rid of the schools altogether.
    bob
    

>    Let's see, you say that if we have the audacity to let people actually
>    chose what school their kids will go to, then a bunch of kids will be
>    left in "crummy" schools, if I got the quote right.  

    Not quite....people will pull their kids out of schools for a lot
    of reasons.  Perhaps they like the prestige of private school.  Perhaps
    they want their kids in Catholic school but cant afford it.  Perhaps
    they want a school with a better football program.  So they may pull
    their kids out of good schools.  And pulling their kids and removing
    part of the school budget with them will hurt those schools and hurt
    the education of the kids left in those schools.
    bob

    
    So let's chain the kids to the desks so they can't get away ?
    
    If people do not want their kids attending the school in the town
    they live in, you think they should have to move ?
    
      bb

    >Your sentiment (and others around here) is 'stop whining, fix the
    >schools'. But your real agenda is to get rid of the schools altogether.
    
     Your sentiment is that you can fix the schools, but your real agenda
    is to keep education at the lowest level possible while draining the
    maximum amount of money from the taxpayers.
    
     Tit for tat. Real constructive, isn't it?
    

    > So let's chain the kids to the desks so they can't get away ?
     
     That's the plan. If he could outlaw private schools, he would, under
    the guise of robin-hooding education.
    
    >If people do not want their kids attending the school in the town
    >they live in, you think they should have to move ?
    
     That's been his consistent stand; if you don't like the schools where
    you live, suffer or move. And if you can't afford to move...

          <<< Note 404.317 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>
             -< quit whining and open your wallet for our vacuum >-

The Doctah seems to be losing his grip on both stethoscope and scalpel
lately... 

RE: 404.312 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> Well, how the hell do you think those schools got crummy in the first 
> place.  It was a combination of an entrenched beauracracy in the school 
> system, teacher unions that don't give a damn about students, and a 
> society that has been beaten into believing that people are not 
> responsible for their own actions.

There are a bunch of reasons why some schools got crummy:  for one,  the
fall in real teacher pay during the 1960's and 1970's.  Of course,  that's
"liberal" of me to think that pay would have anything to do with the
decline in education quality during those years.

Another reason is the mandate to educate everyone.  This is expensive. 
Education for the special cases was partly paid for by cutting education 
for the average.


> I never said anything about implementing a plan like you describe for
> Mass.  

You talked about school choice,  and that what the Mass. plan was.


> As you like to say, do the math.  If a school gets $4000 per student and 
> gives a $2500 voucher then the district ends up with an extra $1500 with 
> no student to teach.

You keep making an assumption that every child is exactly the same.  Marginal 
cost is NOT equal to average cost.  Which child is more likely to leave on
a voucher:  the kid that needs a lot of extra cost special help or the 
"average" student?


Phil

    >There are a bunch of reasons why some schools got crummy:  for one, 
    >the fall in real teacher pay during the 1960's and 1970's. 
    
     There's been a fall in everyone's real pay in the last 30 or so years.
    Does this mean we've regressed everywhere? I don't think so. This, IMO,
    is a small (but real) contributor to the problem.
    
    >Another reason is the mandate to educate everyone.  This is expensive.
    
     This is a far more expansive problem. We've got trouble makers who not
    only don't want to learn, but also want to prevent others from
    learning. We've got mentally defective kids, who wildly
    disproportionate shares of resources expended on them, without even the
    faintest glimmer of hope that this constitutes an investment as opposed
    to a feel good program. These are big, expensive problems. Legislation
    needs to be undone. Legislation needs to be done. But change must occur
    or are children won't be able to support us in our old age. How's that
    for a parochial interest?

.320 - What is that drug that surgeons take to steady their hands?
	Whatever it is, me thinks the Doctah's found his supply. ;')

    Do you in your wildest imagination think that if we leave the current
    system in place we will get any progress whatsoever?   I certainly
    don't.  I have been around long enough to have seen every feel-good
    program implemented that cost more money and delivered worse education
    and environments.
    
    As any program is likely to do initially, I believe that vouchers will
    cause some dislocations and temporary problems.  These will be very
    specific, very isolated and basically short term.  I say short term
    because the exceptions will rise very rapidly and be used as a way
    pillory the entire program.  If they can't be solved then I will
    certainly support a return to the current system of downward spiraling
    education.
    
    I doubt that once such a program is implemented and the overwhelming
    benefits obtained, no one except the admin and the unions will want to
    see a return.
    

I am so sick of this class warfare.  We can't do this, or that cause it will
leave all those poor children together.  "Rich" kids will not have to go to
school with poor children.  Leaving all those poor kids together is going to
bring about the ruin of this country.  Whine Whine Whine.  

  Many people, given the opportunity will live off assistance from the
government.  It does not matter to them they could live much better if they got
a job.  If they had a job they might have to work!  So much easier to let the
guvmint give them what they need.   The projects usually always make a good
market for their tax free products sold on the street corner.

Give people vouchers!  Either that or close public schools entirely, stop
collecting the taxes that pay for same, and let those that can educate their
kids.  Those who are so concerned about the (poor, underprivileged, less
fortunate, take your pick) could then pool  their own funds to provide for these
poor people from cradle to grave!  If a taxpayer decides to help out then he/she
should get a direct 100% tax deduction for same.  If not that should be their
right as well.  Many who support the noble cause of helping "the poor", would
not be so compassionate if it were their money they were spending.

>    If people do not want their kids attending the school in the town
>    they live in, you think they should have to move ?

    No, I think Private education is a great alternative.  I have no
    wish to get rid of it.  And there's always educating them yourself
    at home.  Lots of people do that.

    But if you want to send your kids to a good school, possibly supported
    by high taxes and active parents, Yep, I think you should move to that
    community.  I dont think you should just be able to send your kids
    there at the expense of your own community.
    bob

RE: 404.322 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> Do you in your wildest imagination think that if we leave the current
> system in place we will get any progress whatsoever?   

Yes,  I think it's possible to make progress with public schools:  look at
the public schools of countries we compete with.  Even if we change our 
current educational system,  I don't think vouchers are the best idea to 
try.


Phil

    
    
    Phil,
    
     What's your take on year-round schooling?
    

RE: 404.326 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas"

> What's your take on year-round schooling?

A longer school year is part of the advantage other country's public
schools have over the USA's public schools.  


Phil

    You keep getting back to the same point.  Basically, let's spend
    $billions more to see if we can fixed an inherently flawed system.
    
    I think a more direct and effective system would be to institute
    vouchers which would cost a hell of a lot less and make a more dramatic
    impact on the system.  As I said previously there would probably be
    some very short term issues and problems that would need to be
    addressed.  I believe these would be truly minor, affect a miniscule
    number of students and raise the overall effectiveness of schools. 
    Also, a side benefit would be to identify the types of schools and
    programs that parents really want to see their kids in.
    
    I think this is the real rub.  Those who oppose vouchers, I think, are
    really afraid that they will see parents put their kids in private and
    parochial schools that concentrate on teaching and not
    multiculturalism, liberal gibberish, amoral environments and outcome
    based education.  this is the real agenda of voucher opponents, IMNSHO.
    

RE: 404.328 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> You keep getting back to the same point.  Basically, let's spend $billions 
> more to see if we can fixed an inherently flawed system.

Why is it that US public school system is "inherently flawed" relative to 
the competition:  such as the Japanese,  French and German public school
systems?


Phil

>    I think this is the real rub.  Those who oppose vouchers, I think, are
>    really afraid that they will see parents put their kids in private and
>    parochial schools that concentrate on teaching and not
>    multiculturalism, liberal gibberish, amoral environments and outcome
>    based education.  this is the real agenda of voucher opponents, IMNSHO.

    You mean that although this has never been stated, you think it is
    some sort of underlying goal?  That I want YOUR kids exposed to all
    this stuff rather than real education?  You're kidding, right?

    I think that the opposition to vouchers has been pretty clear.
    If you want a strong public school system, you oppose vouchers,
    since they remove more money from the school than the incremental
    savings of not teaching the student.

>    I think a more direct and effective system would be to institute
>    vouchers which would cost a hell of a lot less and make a more dramatic
>    impact on the system.  

    I have seen no proof vouchers would cost less.  They WOULD have a dramatic
    impact on the system, moving it in the direction of Mexico where the
    upper class get a good education and the poor get sh*t like they do
    in every other way.

    A real question about vouchers....how much should the voucher be worth?
    How do you justify that number?

    I hear people talking about 'Its MY money, I should be able to spend
    it as I want'.

    In our town, the total budget it almost 3 million dollars.  About 1.7
    million of that is raised in local taxes.  Our grammar school budget
    is about 900K, so the grammar school is about 30% of the budget.
    I pay about 3K in taxes....So perhaps I should get a voucher for
    about a thousand dollars toward 'private, elementary school education'?

    The high school budget (grades 7-9) is about 435K, so perhaps I should
    get a voucher for about 500 dollars toward private high school (and
    not 'per kids' but for as many kids as I have?)

    Should your voucher be a function of what you pay in local taxes?
    How much should it be for?  what justification do you use?
    bob

    
    Hey, Bob - were you anywhere near this tornado thingy ?
    
      bb

>    Hey, Bob - were you anywhere near this tornado thingy ?

    Great Barrington is another hour west of me.
    We had pretty good thunder/lightning but nothing like that.

    The weather guys our here were almost gleeful last night about
    the strange stuff they got to see on their radar.  Except with the
    deaths, they had to hold it down.  But they had two tornados on the
    screen at the same time.
    bob

    Interesting figures reported on the editorial page of today's
    Wall Street Journal.  Author Denis P. Doyle, citing 1990 census
    data, says "teachers, public and private, are much more likely
    than the public at large to choose private schools (17.1% to 13.1%)."
    
    And in "troubled urban areas" the disparity is much greater.  Boston
    is typical, where 48.9 percent of teachers send their kids to private
    schools, while only 28.9 percent of all families do so.
    
    Guess private schooling is good enough for teachers' kids, but not
    "right" for the rest of us, eh?
    
    -Jerry
    

    
    Who are you calling the hypocrite?  Couldn't parse your note.

>    Guess private schooling is good enough for teachers' kids, but not
>    "right" for the rest of us, eh?

    Who says private schools are not 'right' for anyone?
    By all means....send your kids there.  Not sure exactly
    what your point is.

    Big difference between being 'opposed to private schools' (I'm not)
    and just not wanting your kids sent there at other tax payer's expense.

    I actually would not mind you being allowed a break on the amount of
    your local taxes that go toward education when you send you kids
    to private school.  The amount is so small it would only be symbolic.

    Do you have some fair plan to propose?

         <<< Note 404.333 by ASDG::HORTON "Paving the Info Highway" >>>

>    Guess private schooling is good enough for teachers' kids, but not
>    "right" for the rest of us, eh?
 
	Quite a stretch of illogic there. If the teachers are sending their
	kids to private schools AND paying for it, then they have made the
	same choice that anyone else can make.

Jim    

    
      Do you own a PC ?  Does it have a Digital logo on it ?  bb
    

    That would be a p&k if mamaDEC gave us a PC for nothing but we decided
    to buy a different one anyway. As it stands, your analogy falls quite
    short of the mark.

    .338
    
    > if mamaDEC gave us a PC for nothing but we decided
    > to buy a different one anyway.
    
    If indeed mamaDEC *GAVE* me a PC free, no strings, I'd sell it and
    invest the money in a better machine.

    <-----
    
    Like a Mac ! ! !
    
    :-)
    Dan

    .340
    
    Not "like" a Mac, sonnyboy.  *EXACTLY* a Mac.

                     <<< Note 404.337 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>      Do you own a PC ?  Does it have a Digital logo on it ?  bb
 
	Actually, yes. I bought one of the "Christmas Specials" a couple
	of years ago. My next machine may ver well be from some other
	manufacturer, not because I'm unhappy with my little 333c, but
	because I will shop price performance, ease of purchase, warranty,	
	etc.


Jim   

    >    Interesting figures reported on the editorial page of today's
    >    Wall Street Journal.  Author Denis P. Doyle, citing 1990 census
    >    data, says "teachers, public and private, are much more likely
    >    than the public at large to choose private schools
    
     It seems that as educators, they recognize the value of a good
    education and are sanguine enough to further realize that their end
    product compares poorly against that of the private sector.

Heard on the news today about a man in Pittsburg whose son was doing poorly in
school.  He took time off work every day during the kids study hall period(s). 
During  that time he took the kid out of school, and tutored him.  The kid at
the end of the term had a high 'B' average.  Now the man is in court for taking
his kid out of school.  Apparently the powers that be were more concerned by
being shown up by a parent.  I admire this man's dedication to his child.  It's
pathetic this school system had allowed this child to fail, and then lashed out
at the parent for doing something about it!.

:-( 
Mikey

    
    
    
    And the government's right, huh Mr. Bill?

    Oh, leave Mr. Bill alone.  He's a good sheep.  Someone in here has to
    be the mouthpiece of the feds, right?  8^)

    
    <--------
    
    
    But he's got to get past the drooling stage first!!

    
      Why, the sight of drooling liberals makes my day !
    
      bb

Just yesterday, a friend told me about his daughter's trouble in school. Seems
she (12 yrs old) is not good in math, and my friend wants to tutor her in some
pre-algebra before she hits class next year. The school refused to allow him
access to the book they used, because they "like to introduce all students
equally, and in their (the school's) own way".

He went out and got a different, but similar book.

    Bruce, this smells like outcome based education...driving achievers
    down and spreading misery equally.  Tell your friend good job!
    
    -Jack

    Actually, it sounds like efficiency.  One approach (and one lesson
    plan) for everyone, as opposed to umpty-zillion different ways of
    addressing the same material, customized for each of the 150+ students
    per teacher.

That would be fine if all children learned the same way -- a Weldian fantasy.

    I'm sure they don't.  But it's not clear to me how many teachers are
    trained to handle a multiplicity of learning styles, or how many are
    encouraged to handle them.

    
     It's like the army, isn't it ?  bb
    

    
    	The only thing the teacher can really do is to get a feel for
    	the learning rate of the class, as a whole.  If that means that
    	[s]he goes as slow as the slowest learner, then that might be
    	the way to do it.  Ideally, [s]he tries to meet the class in the
    	middle ... go as fast as the average learner, and the ones that
    	are slower will have to ask for extra help.  The fast learners
    	always suffer [like me when I took math in school ... I picked
    	that stuff up really quick, and everybody hated me 8^)], since
    	they get bored waiting for everyone else to "catch up".
    
    	If you're really motivated, you can go ahead in the textbook and
    	start teaching yourself future chapters.  However, by doing this
    	you're guaranteeing that you'll be REALLY bored since you'll be
    	miles ahead of the rest of the class.
    

    My very favorite math class was in third grade.  Every two weeks or so,
    we were given a "contract" listing the exercises we needed to do within
    that period.  The answer book was on a table; if you were ready to
    grade exercises from a particular page, you would go up to the table
    and announce the page.  Anyone else who was done with that page would
    go up; you'd exchange papers and mark which answers were incorrect. 
    This left the teacher free to go around to students who needed help,
    and to supervise the grading table.  If you finished the contract
    early, you got to do some kind of quiet activity (like homework for
    another class).
    
    Of course, the teacher has to be able to keep track of multiple
    activities at the same time; some people just aren't good at that,
    especially when you have to do it for five hours straight or so.

    
    re: .354
    
    > It's like the army, isn't it ?  bb
    
    Nope...
    
    Ever hear of a "Road Guard"???
    
    In boot camp, they usually took the two fattest guys and made them road
    guards... They wore the bright orange vests and were at the front of
    each company... When the company neared a road, those two had to run
    forward and stop all traffic while the company crossed the road. Then
    they had to catch up to the front of same company to get ready for the
    next crossing...
    
     Invariably, those two lost the most weight and turned out fairly well
    physically...
    
      Hmmmm... maybe the schools should be more like the (old) Army!!
    

Grade school edges toward a uniform look

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pupils at Helen Hunt Elementary School would be the first in a mainstream
public school in Colorado Springs to wear uniforms under a proposal aimed
at promoting spirit and learning.

The idea, which still faces scrutiny by Hunt parents and the school board,
mirrors a national trend. Several public schools have gone to uniforms as a
way to discourage fights, to promote a sense of community and to save
parents money.

At Hunt, violence is not the problem, but principal Maggie Lopez thinks
uniforms would encourage academic teamwork among pupils, improving conduct
and achievement. "It would help the children to focus on more positive
things," she said.

Lopez favors casual attire for her 325 pupils -- perhaps T-shirts during
the warm months and sweatshirts in the winter, each bearing a picture of a
wolf, the Hunt mascot. Parents would provide pants or shorts for the
youngsters.

Pupils would be consulted before a uniform is picked. "If they have a say
so in the process, then they will be more willing to wear them," Lopez
said.

Although parents seem to be supportive, Lopez plans a formal survey. Then
the plan would have to be approved by the Colorado Springs School District
11 administration and its board. Even if the idea survives, parents would
not have to go along: Colorado law prohibits school districts from
requiring students to wear uniforms.

This year, the Community Prep School adopted a T-shirt uniform when it
opened its doors in August. The D-11 charter school adopted a strict dress
code by which students and parents agreed to abide.

Helen Hunt, on Moreno Avenue a few blocks west of Prospect Lake, would buy
the uniforms, which would be introduced next fall. Lopez estimates that
$12,000 would be needed; the money would be raised through events and
outside contributions.

Uniforms are common at some parochial and private schools. Public schools
picked up on uniforms a few years ago, in part to curb violence.
Nationally, several children have been killed during the past decade for
expensive sporting gear such as jackets and tennis shoes. And such clothing
as sagging jeans, flannel shirts and some baseball hats can be symbolic of
gang involvement.

The Long Beach, Calif., school system started requiring uniforms for 70,000
pupils in kindergarten through eighth grade in fall 1994. Spokesman Dick
Van Der Laan said that during the first year, there were 32 percent fewer
suspensions and 51 percent fewer fights -- improvements he attributes to
uniforms.

Oakland, Calif., schools put a similar requirement in place last fall.

Not everyone favors uniforms. Carole Kennedy, president-elect of the
National Association of Elementary School Principals, says uniforms aren't
as crucial to good behavior as such factors as "poverty and how it impacts
learning and involvement of parents in school."

Les Firkins, who has two children attending Helen Hunt, is for the idea.
"There'd be no discrepancies about what kids could and couldn't wear. That
way, they can't get in trouble."

And, Firkins said, his wallet would benefit. He said he spends roughly $500
annually to clothe each of his four children. "I wouldn't mind spending
less for a uniform," he said.

Kenneth Farnberg, a fourth-grader at Helen Hunt, would enjoy dressing like
his classmates. "We'll be like a football team," he said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gazette Telegraph news services contributed to this report.

From a not-very-related mailing list:

... in the state of Idaho, as of last year, all a parent has to do is
sign a paper saying they are taking responsibility for the child's
education.  There is no requirement that the curriculum be approved nor is
there any proof of competency required.  If you want your child back in
school you simply enroll them again in whatever grade you want them in.  You
can also enroll them part-time.  So, some parents want to teach the "basics"
and enroll their children in school for electives.  Some want the school to
teach the basics and not electives.  Students are also eligible for all
extra-curriculuar activites, so a home schooled child (or unschooled child)
can be on the basketball team or yearbook staff.  In our town, one parent
wanted to home school her kids but didn't want them to miss out on the
social aspects of being with other kids at school.  So she sends them to
school for recess every day!  There are all kinds of unforeseen problems
with this new law, and also unforeseen benefits.  For example, some parents
I know were unhappy with a particular teacher.  Complained to no avail.
Pulled their kids out of that class only and are homeschooling that subject.

    
    Idaho is one of a handful of states that's made it very easy for people
    to home school.

Idaho is right next to Montana, isn't it?

    Maybe in these large, mostly rural states there's a tradition of
    home schooling we easterners don't have -- I suspect that something
    like this may be part of the picture. 
    
    Does it make a lot of sense to put a 6-year old into a two hour per day
    bus commute to get to first grade?  That sort of concern might be a
    part of it.

I haven't any problem with home schooling. I'm all for it, in fact, along
with private schooling and several other educational alternatives.

But I believe that if you choose home schooling as the approach to educating
your child, that's the path that you follow.

From what Gerald quoted, the pick-and-choose nature of the regulations
set forth in Idaho are ludicrous. Send your kid in for recess? Enable
home schooled kids to participate in sports and the yearbook staff?
Allow them to get "only electives" at school?

Gimme a break! That's no sort of concern for remoteness of one's location
or the difficulties of a long bus ride for a small child. That's "let me
exploit the system the way I want to".

Home schoolers should crap or get off the pot.

  Z  Gimme a break! That's no sort of concern for remoteness of one's
  Z  location
  Z  or the difficulties of a long bus ride for a small child. That's "let
  Z  me exploit the system the way I want to".
    
    I disagree with this.  I believe that the parent, who have absolutely
    no say in whether or not they should have to pay for the school system
    should be entitled to its use.  For example, I believe that a
    homeschooled kid should have full access to the library or any other
    services the school offers.  
    
    -Jack

	Jack, I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree with part of what
you say. They should have access to the library, things like that. But recess,
and things of that nature would be laughable.

Where I went to school, the public libraries were vastly superior to the
school libraries.  The only reason to use the school library was convenience
when I was at school.

    No, they should have access to the school libraries and only the school
    libraries.  They have a far better chance of having been purged of
    subversive and immoral reading materials.  You know the books I am
    talking about.  
    
    Seriously, I'm with L.J. on this one.  In, or out.  You want access to 
    the school and activities?  Become part of the student body.  
    
    Brian

    Glen, well yes, I think the recess idea is absurd.  I also believe if a
    homeschooled kid wants to participate in sports, they must be tested
    for academic proficiency.  The school shouldn't just take moms word for
    it.  Regular students have to make the grade in order to participate.
    
    -Jack

	Errr....no, Jack, they should not participate in sports. You see,
sports teams are tied directly to each individual school. If a student from
central high wanted to play on the east high team, she/he could not. So why
would they allow one who does not belong to any school be allowed to play? 

    Well, I see that point now.  By the way you screwed up yet another
    snarf!

    What's wrong with sending the homeschooler to recess ?  Or sports teams ?  
    Why enforce an artificial all or none home schooling ?  As long as the 
    family is paying taxes towards public schooling, then where's the beef ?  

>>    What's wrong with sending the homeschooler to recess ? Or sports teams ?  
>>    Why enforce an artificial all or none home schooling ? As long as the 
>>    family is paying taxes towards public schooling, then where's the beef ?  
    
    You have a point regarding the taxes.
    
    However, I wonder how easy it would be for a child, who did not go to
    the school, to be accepted by the other children in the participation
    of the aforementioned items. My guess is that it would be pretty tough
    and could cause unnecessary stress on the home-schooled child's part.
    

    RE: .372

>    My guess is that it would be pretty tough
>    and could cause unnecessary stress on the home-schooled child's part.

    In which case the parents could find a different activity for their
    child.  The only way that I would oppose home-schoolers from being
    allowed to (partially) participate is if they received a school voucher
    of some form (i.e., payment for not sending their kids to public
    school).

    -- Dave

    You mean those radicals in Idaho think the parents know enough to
    control all aspects of their child's education.
    
                            Steve J. ;'}

1990: Lawrence School system warned that serious problems have 
      been found in an audit and that accreditation is in jeopardy.

1992: Lawrence School system begins getting an extra 10M/yr due to 
      new formulas that determine state aid to schools.

1996: Lawrence School committee and various department heads reported 
      to have nice new laptops. Many dept heads respond that they 
      didn't even want them but were told they had to take them.
      Superintendent Scully defends new laptops as well as long 
      list of other questionable purchases.

1997: Lawrence Schools, despite getting extra 10M over the past 4 
      years, stripped of acceditation for many of the same reasons 
      reported in 1990.

Discuss.

    The Globe claims Lawrence got $200 million in the last 3 years from the
    state. that's alotta laptops.

              <<< Note 17.22172 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

    TTWA:
    
     Lawrence High School has lost its accreditation. The superintendant,
    who has "tenure for life", was put on notice 10 years ago that this was
    a possibility. During this time, school spending has skyrocketed. This
    year, the budget is $72 million for only 11,000 kids- a whopping $6545
    per child. And when asked why the roof leaks and why the ventiliation
    system is inadequate, Scully (the supe) cries poverty. 98% of the
    school budget comes from the state- Lawrence is contributing less than
    $2 million. What the?
    
    In the last three years, the state has given Lawrence $200 million to
    educate its kids. Where did all the money go?
    

	This HS is a perfect example of how not to do things. Throwing money at
the situation does not help. Spending money wisely does. Not saying the school
couldn't have used more money..... but it appears from the reports they did not
spend it wisely. Hopefully more detail will come out. Like for every expense
they added, what was the reason behind it?


Glen

>    The Globe claims Lawrence got $200 million in the last 3 years from the
>    state. that's alotta laptops.

They were prolly Digital laptops.

The state is threatening to take over the Lawrence school system.

It's about time.

Doug.

	Like when they did with chelsea? I thought they did a great job there.

    The state did not take over Chelsea's school system.

    
    I know BU was running it for a while.
    

No accreditation -- <yawn>

Souhegan High School in Amherst NH has never been accredited. Has never
even *applied for accreditation* in fact. Why? One would have to just
wonder.  perhaps they're too busy working on feelings and
self-perception, since it's a wonderland for the outcome-based education
pushers. Perhaps accreditation would impose too many rules for this
playground.

Art
(who pays for this social engineering mecca)

I heard from a Hollis resident that Amherst was thinking of sending some 
kids back to Milford due to lack of space. Any truth to that rumor?

Doug.

| <<< Note 404.403 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

| The state did not take over Chelsea's school system.

	I didn't state the school system.... although when i reread it i see
where one might think that was what I meant.... sorry

 Well, what the heck did you mean?

    Nevermind!!!  Glen said he was sorry and this is the first time I've
    ever heard this!  Let's relish this reply!!!!

    
    I haven't seen it - I guess I need to ketchup.
    

   <<< Note 404.408 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day" >>>


> Well, what the heck did you mean?

Had me wondering as well....

I see Deb mustard up the courage to reply.  That's nothing to poupon.

    Dijon know that Glen never said sorry before?

    .413  I hope you reveal your sauces.

 
  Hot Dog...we're on a roll now!

  Aw, send Glen flowers - pick a lily

  bb

You can worcestershired that this punfest can't last much longer.

    Glen needs pickle money.  Can any one lend him dill dough?

    Filthaaaa!

| <<< Note 404.408 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day" >>>




| Well, what the heck did you mean?


	They took over the city.....

	Colon.... too funny!

    I don't think that's quite accurate.
    
    I believe they put the city into receivership and a court appointed
    receiver took over the city finances for a while.

>   <<< Note 404.421 by BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/" >>>
>
>	Colon.... too funny!

{ahem}

and wouldn't that be the same kind of thing they do to the school system in
Lawrence?

  :

They replaced every single school building in Chelsea, and I believe the state
paid for it all.  I don't know how the schools were actually run in that
time.

    To .406 re Souhegan and MASH
    Might be true. I believe that Souhegan is at or over capacity. It has
    become a major attraction for people looking to buy homes who have
    hs-age children. These people are -no surprise- attracted by the
    school's excellent performance on SAT's (relative to state and other
    area schools), feedback from colleges on the performance of their
    graduates, and feedback from their graduates on the degree to which
    Souhegan prepared them for college. Makes me wonder how much that
    school has increased Amherst property values.
    
    I think I also heard that the district was considering offering a
    voucher-like device to encourage some of the students to go someplace
    else. Though I'm not sure where they would go.

See how well the MASH program was working?