http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9308137 I'm kind of amazed to see that, once again, you 'mericans are putting these concepts to the test in reality. Maybe one day they'll find their way to Europe - don't think they'd work round here though, for example. Simply because there isn't any private competition that's worth mentioning and there's really not all that much of a point in changing public schools (there might be in the ghetto areas but there aren't enough of those around, yet). Anyway, evenflow agree's, right?
Well, that's pretty much the problem with the idea here, too, and why vouchers tend to be very small test programs, rather than wide spread reforms. Flow and storm will tell you that private schools will simply emerge from nowhere the moment a voucher program starts, but I doubt that very much. If schools were so easy to establish and run, there would already be low cost privates in operation (and it has to be low cost, because the vouchers aren't going to be paying prep school tuition).
Sorry, but I think a lot of the kids misbehave and or don't give a shit, so of course they won't meet the standards. Any bets the kids in Newark (the very definition of a shithole ghetto) act "buck wild" all day, and their parent (yes, singular not plural) was probably the same way?
The big problem with vouchers, to me, is that you can't really put a price on a student. For example - in Oregon, as of about five years or so ago, each school received, from the government, about $3,250 per student. Much lower than many reported "averages" that are inflated by places that could function economically as their own countries - i.e. California, New York, etc. I think a lot of people are under the impression that this goes to pay directly for one's own little angel. Fact is, it isn't. It's paying for support staff, staples, rewiring the auditorium, etc., etc. And when it comes to costs like people, losing, say, ten students means that you're losing $32,500. That probably means you're losing a teacher. One who would teach far more than those ten students. And it would probably mean overcrowding in all the classes taught by other teachers in the same subject. See, vouchers even on a small scale have a demonstratable negative effect to those who choose to not partake. In other words, this isn't a situation of eliminating negatives in a system, it's just about forcing the other side to have them, which I find to be hilariously ironic. What I think a lot of people don't realize is that the sort of detrimental effect that I detailed above can lead to some rather unintended consequences. Those who remain in public schools would get a worse education (even worse than what voucher advocates already claim!), and that leads to more dropouts, more wage slaves, and more of those bums that the mid-to-upper class are so terrified of. It essentially feeds new folks into the welfare system, which, much to the chagrin of Libertaria-dwellers everywhere, is going nowhere.
I really don't see why private schools should be funded with taxpayer money Want public? You got public (good thing in western Europe, not such a good thing in the US). Want private Bible thumper school? You pay for it. 'course I also understand the argument that people without children pay for public schools too, but IMHO that's the price for an educated workforce. The 'argument' against public schools by the 'libertarians' here is among the most stupid they have. It's not in anybody's interest to have an uneducated mass of stupid grunts and an educated elite these days. Worked in the 18th century, doesn't work in a globalized world.
I am not convinced the use of school vouchers is the answer. But I know the current system is not the answer. I am glad to see various places trying various things, even if they don't work, because something has to be done. It is a well-known principle in problem-solving that if you don't see what is going on in a system, you change one variable and see what happens. If vouchers were actually tested on a large scale, they almost certainly would not produce the desired results. But that doesn't mean that such a test would not give useful information. How many social structures were successful the first time they were tried? The initial alliance among the American colonies did not produce the USA. The second attempt, with the Articles of Confederation, was better but not sufficient. The third attempt, with the Constitution, was even better, but still not just right. The ensuing decades have shown the shortcomings of the system defined in the Constitution. But when you try something, you have a chance to progress. When you don't try anything, you can't get anywhere. "You can't steer a car that isn't moving."
Or maybe they'ed loose the "Vice Principle, Public Relations" I've seen in a couple of news articles. I don't know about other states but Alabama's education system is very top heavy. Maybe putting in a little more competition would help that. However, I do have one reservation with vouchers. My friend Vera's parents are both Gymnasium (sp?) teachers in Germany and from my understanding Germany has a kind of voucher system. Parochial Schools (don't know about pure private) get around 92% of the cost of a student. I like that idea. My problem with giving the full amount is that special ed students require more money than your 'average' student. These are also the students that will most likely be left in public schools as they wouldn't meet the admissions requirements of selective schools. By giving only partial, parents still have more choice over their childrens education and public schools aren't just swamped with 'expensive' students that they can't afford.
problem there is that in places like the UK, state schools simply aren't good enough. we may have far more students passing with higher grades than 10 years ago, but then you also needed significantly higher than 45% to get an 'A' (example taken from one type of business studies GCSE) back then - which is why theres an increasing demand for "international" GCSEs which have far more stringent pass rates, and are hence more highly valued. add into this our 'inclusive' education (where special needs kids are flung into the mainstream) and local governments overriding child exclusions (little timmy needs an education! i'm sure attacking the other children with a craft knife was just him reaching out! ), and private educations the best route for many of the less well-off - especially after decades of destroying grammars. blairs britain is quite the study in why state education isn't necessarily a good thing - why improve when you can just lower the bar? the stats say the same thing either way - and why selection provides advantages for all sectors of society.
It always makes me laugh when education standards are applauded because targets have been met, and it's conveniently forgotten that the goalposts were shifted in order for it to happen. But things aren't rosy on the education front. 'Bout time the politicians admit the problem that the public know about already, and work towards correcting it.
"education, education, education" is new labours very own "labour isn't working", and admitting that is something they won't do. the tories are scared shitless about saying it, as labour will just wave some stats in their faces and accuse them of pissing on pupils achievements. fixing the education systems a vote loser for both parties, so they'll just trundle along with the current broken system. immigrants are already being increasingly favoured for low- to mid-level jobs, and i can see that trend continuing to the point we'll have record employment and unemployment, the former achieved by non-nationals. labours education policies are really stating to set in stone the haves and have-nots, and reversing decades of increasing social equality.
Most school systems are trying lots of different things, and many are building successful new paradigms. I don't think it is smart, however, to just randomly try any idea. First, some thought needs to go toward what that idea implies. See Kyle's post for an example. I have one child in public school, and a second who will start next year. Both, along with my third, have attended a highly rated (and expensive ) private preschool. I have been very impressed with my daughter's school. It appears to have just as much commitment and resources as did the private pre-school, and quite a bit more than some of the private schools my friends have selected. I notice similar disparities between it (situated in a large urban school district) and the suburban schools I'm familiar with. I recognize, this is all anecdotal, but I'm not convinced there is a crisis in public education. I think poor performing students are likely a symptom of something else, exernal to the schools. But the schools are easy to beat down and blame, especially when there is a somewhat large political contingent interested in eliminating public education.
The problem with trying things in the education system is that you pretty much fuck up the guinea pigs irrevocably if it doesn't work. I'm having strong reservations against experiments in this field. But then, education is probably where I'm the most conservative anyway as I had a quite conservative schoold education. Looking at what comes out of the schools these days compared to only 10, 15 years ago is honestly quite scary. That touchy-feely stuff doesn't work IMHO. There is a tried and proven system with curriculae and stuff that has worked for quite a long time. Just implement it and dear god, let's see what other countries do better and learn. Austria has the advantage of a very small poor population so the problems in the school system aren't so obvious. Yet I did some research in a school in a poorer part of the city last week and what I saw was quite shocking. There's a definite ghettoization going on here too. Stuff needs to be addressed before it's too late and the system goes down the drain like in parts of the US, UK, Germany and France. The public school system is so imprinted on the public conscience here that private schools have almost no chance even tho they have the same rights and all.
That, of course, depends on what you try. If you attempt things that seem like they could work, there is no reason to suppose that the results will be even worse than what is happening now. Especially as the present system is not exactly a success everywhere. There are school districts where it works quite well, districts where it is pretty mediocre, and districts where it is a complete disaster. Your statement could apply just as much, then, to failing to attempt to modify the present system.
Daughter's age group is one of the most experimented on in the history of the UK system - first to undergo Sats at 7 (actually, daughter was barely 6 and a half, but that's a different argument), first to have to take AS levels, and to what end? None, except to show what happens when you pile on the pressure to jump through hoops rather than actually learn anything. It's one of the reasons we wound up going private - at least we got her out of the Sats at 14 and into a school where they were more interested in developing the whole girl. With, surprise, surprise, the outcome that the only schools in Colchester that perform better at GCSE are the two grammar schools.
