Debate:School choice free-for-all

A school choice proposal:

1) Parents could choose any school, public or private, to which their child could attend.

2) If the school chosen is public, it would receive 100% of that child's share of the tax revenue. If private, 90%.

3) Private schools could determine their own entrance requirements. Public, same as before this plan goes into effect. (This way, no child would be without a school.)

4) The government continues to collect taxes and disperse funds for education.

5) The government entity that determines student achievement requirements for each category of students will still have that authority.

6) The government entity that determines the number of student categories and the share of tax revenue assigned to each category will still have that authority.

There are no provisions that determine whether private schools may buy, rent, or build schools.
 * Friendly amendment - some idea (??) different language.
 * There are no provisions that would deny private schools from buying, renting, or building schools.

Provision (2) has the potential of saving taxpayers money.

I am the author of this school choice proposal (it was not copied from anywhere) and i reserve the right to finetune it, considering this to be my first draft.

NB: I have nowhere referred to this as a school voucher plan.

There is certainly no good reason to insist that government gets to decide, against a parent's will, which school their kids have to attend.

-- Rem  Beau  22:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Copied from Debate:Liberal_beliefs/Tom_and_Rem exchange 24, to start "open to all" discussion.  ħ uman  17:34, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Taxes are to pay for PUBLIC school for all children. If you want to send your child to private school, do so.  but you don't get a tax credit for doing it; the private school (which charges tuition) should not get a dime from me with no kids.  People with kids seem to forget that *I* am paying for their school too.  yes, they whine that they have to pay taxes and tuition, but I want and educated society, so I voted to pay for taxes for PUBLIC schools.  if you want to use some other system, you still have to pay the same taxes I do for your neighbor's kid's school -- the one that I pay for.  -- 17:42, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Some quick comments by Human:

1) Geography is a really big deal in this "ideal".

2) No real comment on whether the voucher should be "full boat" or not.

3) This creates real issues of ghettoization of public schools, if everyone who can get out does - leaving behind the "more difficult to educate".

4) Single-payer education, at least at the local level, not sure if I care or not.

5) Final outcome standards are still standard, seems fair to me. The homeschoolers of many stripes might not like it.

6) Not sure what that means - what are "student categories"?

As far as #2, does the private school get 90% of what the public school spends per student, or 90% of what they spend per student?  ħ uman  18:15, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

The only fair way to do it would be for the 90% to mean 90% of the amount of money that would go to that child's public school if they attended a public school. OneForLogic 18:31, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The reason I ask is the vast disparity in costs/spending between some public schools and some private ones. If a student from a poor school district spending, say, $5k/annum per student goes to an elite private school that costs $15k/year, who picks up the remaining 10.5 k?  (Ironically, at this level, such a choice exists already - if a kid from Claremont NH manages to get accepted at a place like Phillips Exeter, PEA will pick up the tab).  ħ uman  19:09, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Also, what would happen to the remaining 10%, if one's child goes to a private school? And where to the taxes of people with no children go? OneForLogic 18:33, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Copied from the Tom and Rem debate page, a summary of objections I had: First of all, why would the rich pay tuition to go to their school, when the state is offering? They won't. They will stop paying tuition. Accordingly, the government will now be almost wholly responsible for paying tuitions of not just the new kids from public schools that the state is sending to Jesus Elementary, but also every previous rich student. That costs more money, a lot more. In fact, it costs close to the total budget for every private school currently operating. Second of all, a huge number of new students will be wanting to go to the private school. That is a lot of demand. The private school controls the supply, which is much less than the demand. Accordingly, they will set their prices much higher. Nominally, this will be to pay for new facilities and chalk and whatever... it is perfectly justifiable. I'm sure that someone may start building new private schools to meet the demand, and in five or ten years prices will begin to drop somewhat. But that's a lot of hurt in the short term, and even in the long term it seems doubtful it will even out. Third of all, the public schools will now have a much much higher number of retarded or slow or disadvantaged children: all the ones that weren't allowed into the private schools. And while it might take $3,000 a year to educate a retarded child under the current system, if the public schools become ghettoized in this way they will have to increase teacher salaries to convince them to work there, and they will probably have to increase security measures, and they will probably have to increase maintenance fees, and teachers will have to spend much more time with each student on average, and so on. So the cost of educating the kids in the public schools will also go up. Rem, if you come to this debate you don't need to respond to this, since you already did (well, after your fashion). This is more for others here, to see how this has been hashed out already.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 18:57, 29 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Godot: // If you want to send your child to private school, do so. but you don't get a tax credit for doing it.


 * Why not?


 * // I voted to pay for taxes for PUBLIC schools.


 * Okay, but if you believe in Democracy (i don't) you win some and you lose some, right? Anyhow, i don't know why you would be against parents having the choice where their kids go to school.


 * I am completely baffled why anybody would be against fair choice when such a thing is possible.


 * // ... but I want and educated society ...


 * As do i, and govt collecting taxes (something govts are good at) for it are fine with me as well. We agree that govt should do that for educating local kids, but where is it written that the schools and teachers have to work directly for the govt?


 * Is the objective to get the best possible education for kids given the constraints of taxpayer funding, or is it something else?


 * -- Rem  Beau  00:52, 30 September 2008 (EDT)


 * One: // The only fair way to do it would be for the 90% to mean 90% of the amount of money that would go to that child's public school if they attended a public school.


 * Absolutely. That's what i meant.


 * I hope everybody sees that would immediately save money, but i suppose some would object to the idea of schools making a profit.


 * -- Rem  Beau  00:52, 30 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Human: // $5k/annum per student goes to an elite private school that costs $15k/year, who picks up the remaining 10.5 k?


 * Anybody that wants to, but definitely NOT the govt if the cost exceeds the funding share.


 * h1) Geography is already a big deal. Kids from PA can't go to school in Utah, under ANY system. The only exception would be if rich parents want to fly their kids out of state every day, but taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for that school. Just schools in the local area, as it is now.


 * h2) "Full boat" -- what?


 * h3) "Ghettoization" -- why would that happen? No school would want that money share? Suddenly greedy Capitalists are turning down money?


 * h4) "Single-payer education" -- isn't that what we have now?


 * h5) "Final outcome standards are still standard, seems fair to me. The homeschoolers of many stripes might not like it."


 * -- I thought homeschoolers had to pass muster too.


 * h6) "student categories" -- I'm guessing that there might be 4 categories: retarded, special-ed, gifted, and the rest. And it's reasonable to assume that some categories cost more than others, hence their share of the revenue would amount to more.


 * Are you beginning to see how allowing free choice in schools might not be harmful?


 * -- Rem  Beau  00:52, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Tom: // [the rich] will stop paying tuition.

How would they get out of that? Haven't they paid their share of taxes (which is likely more than average)?

// ... That costs more money, a lot more.

No it doesn't, and it will likely cost less. What is it you don't understand about the funding scheme i've proposed?

// ... all the ones that weren't allowed into the private schools.

Not true. See my response to (h3) above.

// ... the cost of educating the kids in the public schools will also go up.

Is it your belief that competiton pushes prices up?

// (well, after your fashion)

I'm a fashionable guy. Ask anybody.

-- Rem  Beau  00:52, 30 September 2008 (EDT)


 * How would they get out of that? Haven't they paid their share of taxes (which is likely more than average)?


 * "Tuition" is an amount of money paid by private school attendees for the service. It is separate from taxes which support public schools.  Do you really not understand this, or were you just being deliberately difficult?


 * No it doesn't, and it will likely cost less. What is it you don't understand about the funding scheme i've proposed?


 * This is amazing. I make a reasoned argument, and his counter is "no it doesn't."  And then he asks me what it is I don't understand!


 * Private schools will be in immense demand. Demand increases prices dramatically.  Prices will come down, but very slowly because of the front-heavy investment scheme of building schools - five years at a minimum for a drop, with ten years before all the immense demand-driven original increase from those first five years will be eliminated.  Please let me know if you need me to explain supply and demand again.


 * Because taxes will not only be paying for the schooling of public school students, but now also every private school student, this represents a very large increase in cost. Add onto this the immense increase in the funding of those private schools, which (as detailed above) are going to increase their prices dramatically.  Add onto this increased cost within public schools as they develop a preponderance of slow and special needs kids who can't get into the private schools.  All in all, it is laughably absurd to think that "free market competition" will be sufficient to bring costs down.


 * Not true. See my response to (h3) above.


 * Yeah, it's the same argument you made before. Somehow, you always missed my reply, to wit: if private schools would so inevitably open up and admit slow and special-needs kids, eliminating their standards, then why haven't they already done so!?  Those dollars are there to be grabbed right now, yet those foolish communist private schools aren't doing it!


 * I am perfectly willing to grant that your logic works in Libertarian World, since it makes some weird kind of sense theoretically. But practically, in the real world, all evidence contradicts what seems so obvious to you.


 * Is it your belief that competiton pushes prices up?


 * Ah, yes. A pithy phrase, Rem-style: characterize my argument into an oversimplified absurdity, then be sarcastic.


 * As I laboriously explained, competition is not a magic wand. As the slow and special needs kids accumulate in the public schools and are ghettoized there, the public schools must more and more spend money on them.  Educating a slow kid may cost $5,000 a year when they are spread out, but when they become concentrated and a school becomes the "bad school," teachers must be paid more to work there and materials are used more quickly because of the behavior-problem kids who can't get into the good schools and so on.  In the end, it costs $10,000 to educate each slow kid instead.


 * But please, feel free to respond with another hilariously oversimplified comment devoid of contact with reality or any vestiges of practicality.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 05:19, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Competition

 * >> Is it your belief that competiton pushes prices up?


 * // Ah, yes. A pithy phrase, Rem-style: characterize my argument into an oversimplified absurdity, then be sarcastic.


 * No sarcasm intended -- i like sarcasm, and it'll be obvious when i use it, but this is just a straight question.


 * // As I laboriously explained, competition is not a magic wand.


 * You laboriously AVOID answering my question. I never said, implied, or believed that competition is a magic wand. I don't believe in magic, but i do believe in competition, and i'm trying to ascertain whether you do -- because if you don't, then the argument centers there, NOT on school systems, and it would be senseless to discuss it at that higher level.


 * So let's try it again, and i promise it isn't sarcastic, but a serious question -- is it your belief that competiton pushes prices up?


 * -- Rem  Beau  04:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 * It can, yes, you idiot. Especially in the case you are arguing for.  Increased demand with static supply = increased price.  People can't build new schools to "compete" in a year, it takes five to ten to do that.   ħ uman  04:15, 1 October 2008 (EDT)


 * You laboriously AVOID answering my question. I never said, implied, or believed that competition is a magic wand. I don't believe in magic, but i do believe in competition, and i'm trying to ascertain whether you do -- because if you don't, then the argument centers there, NOT on school systems, and it would be senseless to discuss it at that higher level.


 * Wow, hey, it's almost like I wrote a couple of full paragraphs explaining how a free-market scenario (somewhat more accurate than "competition" as a label) can increase prices! I wonder if my browser can copy and paste?


 * Private schools will be in immense demand. Demand increases prices dramatically. Prices will come down, but very slowly because of the front-heavy investment scheme of building schools - five years at a minimum for a drop, with ten years before all the immense demand-driven original increase from those first five years will be eliminated. Please let me know if you need me to explain supply and demand again.
 * Because taxes will not only be paying for the schooling of public school students, but now also every private school student, this represents a very large increase in cost. Add onto this the immense increase in the funding of those private schools, which (as detailed above) are going to increase their prices dramatically. Add onto this increased cost within public schools as they develop a preponderance of slow and special needs kids who can't get into the private schools. All in all, it is laughably absurd to think that "free market competition" will be sufficient to bring costs down.


 * It can! Awesome!  So maybe read that or something?  I guess reading the text might be helpful in a discussion.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 04:47, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

article one
Mr. Ribrellbot replied to my comment concerning geography being an issue:

"Geography is already a big deal. Kids from PA can't go to school in Utah, under ANY system. The only exception would be if rich parents want to fly their kids out of state every day, but taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for that school. Just schools in the local area, as it is now."

Actually, of course they can. Your comment about daily flying is a bit silly, but I'm sure you simply forgot about boarding schools. For instance, PEA has students from all over the world, and from many different economic backgrounds (it helps that have a billion-odd dollar endowment). I believe that if the student can't afford it, they will even discreetly buy them the ties they must wear to class.

The real issue is that kids who don't live in dense urban areas usually only have one or perhaps two schools within practical distances. Your comment about daily flights could also be rephrased as "if parents want to drive their kids an hour (or whatever) each way twice a day to attend the school of their choice".

By the way, you might want to research the Boston school system - they have a couple of "exam" schools, that only kids who meet the requirements can attend.  ħ uman  19:46, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Appendix: real numbers
I'd like this section to be reserved for real cost figures for various school departments around the US and the world, so we can dip into them for reality checks.

Here are a couple off the top of my head (if you really want I'll dig up cites):

Oyster River School District (NH USA) (well off, fairly suburban-esque, serves three towns) spends about $10,000 per year per student. It's a bit less in the elementary school and more in the high school. Teachers get paid about $55-60k or so.

Claremont, a poor town in the western part of NH USA, struggles to come up with, as I recall, in the vicinity of $5-6k per year per student.

Phillips Exeter Academy (an elite private school in NH USA) devotes an average of $63,500 annually to each of its students, an amount well above the 2007-8 annual tuition of $37,500. (from wikipedia)

I also understand that the tuition to local Catholic-run schools is often very affordable, but this might not reflect the "cost per student", since like PEA, they might be subsidizing the cost from the their "endowments" also. If I can get some local numbers I'll post them.

Anyone, feel free to add hard numbers from anywhere.  ħ uman  19:55, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Boarding, Boston, and numbers
Boarding schools would, even in the worst case scenario, hardly impact a local school system. Typically it is the well-to-do that send their kids to school in far-flung places, and any school district could decide whether a student's funding share could be spent outside that district. Other's may care -- i don't. I could make a case either way, probably. Just details, hardly important.

// The real issue is that kids who don't live in dense urban areas usually only have one or perhaps two schools within practical distances.

Here's where a free market system comes thru. Private schools want your business? They'll set up shop anywhere they think they can make a buck. So maybe towns have only one or two public schools -- allow private schools to compete for funding, you'll see more schools.

Where would business opportunities be most likely to pan out? Where the existing schools are failing badly, naturally. And in that instance, what POSSIBLE logical reason would there be to keep them out? ''' Remember the goal -- best education for kids. '''

// Boston school systems ...

Boston Latin is likely one of those exam schools, and some movers and shakers were educated there. How they are chartered and funded, i don't know.

// real numbers

$10k a year for each student? You can bet there would be a renaissance in education if private schools were allowed to vie for students at $9k a pop.

PEA will just have to muddle on without the benefit of small-town funding, altho a decent case could be made that they shouldn't be exempted. Here's one:

You're rich, have two kids, big house and big acreage, a paddock maybe -- i gotta believe your tax bill is VERY big. Well, if i were a town, i'd say, "Welcome -- bring your bucks here, stay awhile, and i'll let you send your kids wherever you want, and the same funding portion toward education every kid here is entitled to, applies to your kids as well".

But it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other if i'm overruled by the majority on this one.

-- Rem  Beau  03:38, 1 October 2008 (EDT)


 * "Boston Latin is likely one of those exam schools, and some movers and shakers were educated there. How they are chartered and funded, i don't know." So why do you think you can opine on the issue of schools when "... How they are chartered and funded, i don't know...." ???  Also, the people who coem to NH and don't mind paying the high property taxes, are usually escpaing much higher income taxes in other states.  PS, most of your last comment (this section) is, um, incoherent, in terms of addressing the topic at hand - your points for "freedom of schooling", or whatever you called it.  ħ uman  04:18, 1 October 2008 (EDT)


 * "Where would business opportunities be most likely to pan out? Where the existing schools are failing badly, naturally."  I don't know what planet you live on (planet libertarian, but no kiddie libts allowed?), but where public education is worst is in poor towns and poor inner city neighborhoods.  Places where "venture capitalists" (which your scheme depends on) are least likely to "venture".  Do the world a favor, and get a fricking clue, RR, about something... anything...  ħ uman  04:22, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 * You fool, human, don't you know that inner-city Harlem and urban D.C., the areas with some of the worst schools, are also hotbeds for wealthy industrialist speculators?! One industrialist just announced that he was taking advantage of some of the amazing economic opportunities found in extremely poor ghettos in Ireland as a way to produce cheap food and garments!--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 04:50, 1 October 2008 (EDT)


 * Tom -- Clever and funny ... exactly my kind of humor.


 * I have not ditched this debate, honest. I'm just waiting for inspiration. Ull be Bock!


 * -- Rem  Beau  23:31, 6 October 2008 (EDT)


 * Interestingly enough, in 2010 PEA is going to make its admissions policy completely needs blind, and starting in 2009 any accepted student whose family income is under $75k gets a free education. I think I got the dates the right way around, this was in the wikipedia article.  ħ uman  16:36, 1 October 2008 (EDT)


 * // So why do you think you can opine on the issue of schools when "... How they are chartered and funded, i don't know...." ???


 * That's silly, to think i have to know EVERYTHING about every kind of school in order to hold the opinion that govt shouldn't have a monopoly on education -- that folks should be able to choose a school for their kids.


 * // Also, the people who coem to NH and don't mind paying the high property taxes, are usually escpaing much higher income taxes in other states.


 * What's your point? Wouldn't that be rational behavior? Isn't this Rational Wiki?


 * // where public education is worst is in poor towns and poor inner city neighborhoods.


 * And you're suggesting i don't know that poor inner city neighborhoods do a terrible job educating kids? C'mon.


 * Forget the ad hom approach; instead tell me what you have against allowing those inner city parents to choose the schools they want for their kids.


 * Who said anything about venture capitalists? Not me? A bunch of concerned parents may actually invite educators to start up a school to compete with the public school, that hardly categorizes those educators as venture capitalists.


 * Is it mostly a bias against school diversity, the profit motive, parental choice, or breaking the hold of unions -- what is your problem with it?


 * Or could it be that the idea of parental choice appeals to you, but you believe free market schools couldn't compete with govt schools? What is your main complaint?


 * I can't believe you think the current system is the best.


 * -- Rem  Beau  09:03, 15 October 2008 (EDT)