Stones Cry Out

School vouchers are still socialism, you know.

If you really believed in competitive free markets for education, you'd be calling for the total dismantling of the public education system and you'd recognize vouchers for what they are: a government subsidy designed to prevent competition.

So, why all the misdirection? Don't you believe the votes will be there if you tell them what you really want to do?

Heh heh... prevent competition? Did you read the post?

I'm on the record as saying that I'd rather have my own money to spend on my kids' education. Not a bit of misdirection on my part; just assumption on yours. I'd rather it not pass through the hands of bureaucrats who do nothing but siphon some off of it first, but if this is required to be the first step in that direction, I'll take it.

You make it sound sinister that I would dare want to improve our chlidrens' education in a way that has proven itself, both in higher education and in K-12 where it has been tried. It may still be a form of socialism, but it's far, far less than what we have now.

And I'm not calling for the dismantling of the state-run school; only that it compete in the marketplace. It's gotten fat and lazy being the only game in town, except for the rich. (I thought liberals were supposed to have a corner on the "compassion for the poor" market. Not in education, it seems.)

The Milwaukee voucher plan is pretty miserable, and (as s9 points out) hardly establishes a free market in education.

The fact that it has nonetheless managed to produce improvements is a damning indictment of conventional public education.

Doug Payton writes: ...but if this is required to be the first step in that direction, I'll take it.

So, you're in favor of socialism, but only when it serves your purposes. Nice take, there Vladimir.

And how exactly is it necessary to adopt a voucher system before we dismantle the public education system and switch to an all privately funded system? I'd really like to see your explanation for that.

Doug Payton quips: I thought liberals were supposed to have a corner on the "compassion for the poor" market. Not in education, it seems.

You keep confusing me with liberals. How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not a liberal before you take the freaking hint? I am not a liberal.

And don't hand me any of this baloney about vouchers making public schools "compete" with private ones. They don't. They can't. It's impossible. The whole point of vouchers is to transfer away from state deliver of service to a state payer for services. It's still your money going through bureaucrats.

If you want to break the teachers unions in the public schools, then just come out and agitate for laws against labor unions. What's the matter? Wildcat got your tongue?

And, lastly, no— I don't read articles in OpinionJournal.Com because they've lost all credibility with me. All of it. They are a completely unreliable source of factual information.

Where to begin. First of all, thank you (again) for reminding me of why I had stopped responding to you in the past. I think other readers of this thread will understand my reasoning shortly.

Let's start with the sourcing issue.

I don't read articles in OpinionJournal.Com because they've lost all credibility with me. All of it. They are a completely unreliable source of factual information.

Pick and choose your sources, but not your facts. There are other places to find out how well the Milwaukee voucher system is working. Investors Business Daily:

Studies show these programs boost achievement, often significantly. One such study of Milwaukee's school choice program found that 64% who participated graduated from high school — compared with just 37% overall in public schools.


And wherever school choice is tried — whether through vouchers or charter schools — public schools also get better, as a landmark study by Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby two years ago discovered. Yes, competition works.

Since the pioneering Milwaukee program began in 1990, the MPCP has grown from serving 337 students at seven schools to 14,751 at 126 schools. A 2004 report by national graduation-rate expert Jay Greene, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Public Policy, shows MPCP students graduate high school at a substantially higher rate than MPS students and at a substantially lower per-pupil cost. Harvard University economist Caroline Hoxby has found academic achievement gains among MPS students that she attributes to the competition schools face from the choice program.

When Milwaukee's voucher program began, opponents prophesied disaster for the district. But it seems in fact to be doing better, according to a report last year from the American Education Reform Council. Though 12,900 students used vouchers last year (the program is capped at 15 percent of district enrollment) total enrollment increased 5.7 percent from 1990 to 2003. Test results improved. The dropout rate _ the official dropout rate, that is _ fell from 16 percent to 9 percent. And real spending per student, adjusted for inflation, rose from $8,520 to $11,772.


Two years ago, Andrekopoulos wrote to U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige, "I think you will find Milwaukee Public Schools an especially interesting urban school district because our highly competitive market for school enrollment has made us very eager to give parents and children information and options in the neighborhoods where they live."

You've staked out no position at all on this in all of your comments, and in fact seem to be attacking any stand on the matter. It looks like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. First, you seem to equate socialism to Russian-style communism, and also seem to not have a high opinion of it.

So, you're in favor of socialism, but only when it serves your purposes. Nice take, there Vladimir.

You additionally lump in my step away from pure educational socialism in that statement. Further, you drip disdain for the other end of the spectrum.

If you really believed in competitive free markets for education, you'd be calling for the total dismantling of the public education system and you'd recognize vouchers for what they are: a government subsidy designed to prevent competition.
...
If you want to break the teachers unions in the public schools, then just come out and agitate for laws against labor unions.

Thus, with all your vagueness (and assigning a motive to me that I haven't expressed), you can stand back and throw darts at every point in the spectrum. You don't accept the "liberal" label? Fine. But have the courage to state your case instead of argueing against every possible opinion I may (or may not) present. As I've noted before, you have no intention of entering into a rational debate; you just want to argue. But I have only myself to blame in this case. I took the bait. Again. And I wind up having to clarify waters that you've muddied for the fun of it. Such is my penance.

Your line about my being in favor of my flavor of socialism is entirely disengenuous, especially if you read my linked essay. For some reason, you can't (or, more likely, won't) understand how vouchers are a step away from the pure socialism we have with regards to schooling. Your own words:

The whole point of vouchers is to transfer away from state deliver of service...

The sole deliverer of that service, by the way.

to a state payer for services.

And one in which they pay for your choice of deliverer. I'm sure you understand the distinction, in spite of your feigning ignorance.

Both you and Kent seem to think that vouchers don't open up the education market. I don't really see how you can possibly say that. When you go from having 1 choice (i.e. no choice) to have 2 choices, that's twice the market you had before. Part of what I quoted from the Heartland Institute further points this out.

Since the pioneering Milwaukee program began in 1990, the MPCP has grown from serving 337 students at seven schools to 14,751 at 126 schools.

And how exactly is it necessary to adopt a voucher system before we dismantle the public education system and switch to an all privately funded system?

Won't happen in this political atmosphere. The whole reason John Fund wrote his op-ed was because of the incredible resistance this is receiving in Milwaukee despite its successes. The demagogery would be an order of magnitude worse should someone suggest full privatization. Which, again, is odd considering how well private colleges and universities serve us. And of course, even though we have a thriving privately-funded higher education system, we still have publicly-funded ones still doing very well. It's never been an either/or proposition. But facts and history haven't ever been obstacles to a good rant from the school-monopoly crowd.

So, Mr. S9, please understand that if, in the future, I ignore your comments, it's because I understand your game a bit better. I don't enjoy having to clarify your redefining of you, of me, or of the words you use.

I am not really wanting to wage in on this whole thing, but I do have a question for those, like Doug, who'd do away with public education altogether. ("I'm on the record as saying that I'd rather have my own money to spend on my kids' education." -Am I reading you aright?)

It just raises a question for me: If we did eliminate public funding for schooling, what would happen to those families who could not or would choose not to educate their children? And what would happen to society in which we were educating ourselves less and less?

No, you must have missed this line from my rather lengthy response:

And of course, even though we have a thriving privately-funded higher education system, we still have publicly-funded ones still doing very well. It's never been an either/or proposition.

The less that has to pass through government's hands, the more freedom I have to choose. That's the ideal, but I know that not everyone could afford college. I'm all for keeping public educational institutions paid for in part by tax dollars. I'm not suggesting the abolition of public education in K-12. I'm pointing out that competition works and improves even the publicly-funded schools.

Read the articles and you'll see that, in fact, the public schools got more students when Milwaukee vouchers kicked in. Of the new students coming into the system, more of them chose public than private schools. What changed was that, in order to compete, the public schools unshackled the teachers. Graduation rates went up overall and in public school specifically. This is truly a win-win situation.

Competition in higher education has served us well. Why many think it would be a dismal failure in K-12 is beyond me, other than to hold on to power and social influence.

It isn't so much the public funding of education that annoys me, but rather that a government entity (or even multiple layers of government entities) have such a hands-on approach to it. The Federal government doesn't build its own B2 bombers in its own set of factories, they subcontract that out.

Close the government schools and give the funds to the parents to spend on the school of their, uh, choice.

eLarson writes: Close the government schools and give the funds to the parents to spend on the school of their, uh, choice.

Fine. Let's disband the armed services and divvy up the defense budget in vouchers to citizens to pay for private security services. When you're willing to talk about doing that— and, don't mistake me, I am willing to talk about doing that— then I'll be happy to take seriously your argument for dismantling the public education system on the grounds that the government shouldn't be in the business of delivering services, just paying for contractors to deliver them instead.

Doug Payton writes: The less that has to pass through government's hands, the more freedom I have to choose. That's the ideal...

Jeez. That's not an ideal. That's mush. A statement about your ideal would be "Ideally, zero education dollars would pass through government hands, giving me optimal freedom to choose what to do with my education dollars."

Instead, you're trotting out a line of total bogosity about how the public K-12 schools have no competition from private schools. Really? There are no private schools in America? That will come as a huge surprise to my next-door neighbors, who have been paying well into the five figures per year to send their two kids to one of the dozens of private schools here in San Francisco.

Doug, you don't have private schools in Georgia? Man, I knew the South was backward, but I didn't think it was that bad. Wow!

Doug Payton writes: The sole deliverer of that service, by the way.

As if there are no private schools already operating in overlapping service areas with public K-12 schools. Doug, you should know better than to try to run smack like this.

Doug Payton continues: And one in which they pay for your choice of deliverer. I'm sure you understand the distinction, in spite of your feigning ignorance.

It's a distinction without a difference. When the government writes you a voucher, it always comes with strings attached. The strings on school vouchers are either tied to the parents, i.e. you can only use them at "qualifying" schools under specific economic conditions, or they are tied to the schools, i.e. you can only accept them for redemption if you meet certain qualifications.

Most proponents of school vouchers won't admit it, but the kind of vouchers they want are the sort that can be redeemed by parents equivalently at both public K-12 schools and at any private school, parochial or not, totally unregulated by any standards except what the market will bear. That doesn't put the public schools into competition with private schools— it puts public schools, which are strictly regulated by government standards for admission, practice and qualification, into competition with a protected adversary. The private schools can charge tuition and fees above and beyond what the vouchers will cover, but the public K-12 schools can't charge tuition, because the law requires children to attend school and for the state to provide it without charge to all children.

You say you don't want to do away with public K-12 education, but you want to eviscerate the budget for it to pay for vouchers, and every dollar that goes into a voucher that isn't redeemed at a public school is one that evaporates from the strapped budgets of existing public schools without doing much at all to reduce the costs of operating a public school. Meanwhile, the dollars from vouchers flow into private schools, allowing them to raise their tuitions without increasing the out of pocket costs from their consumers. That's a subsidy, and subsidies distort the marketplace by encouraging waste and fraud.

Far from creating competition in the market for private schools, school vouchers damage the free market for private education. This is simple economics. It shouldn't be so tough to understand, which is why I suspect you're not being candid about the subject. I think you understand all this perfectly well.

Doug Payton writes: Won't happen in this political atmosphere.

Not if you come out and say what you really want done in explicit terms. On the other hand, if you lie and dissemble about what you're doing, hoping the rubes will think they're getting something for nothing when you're really walking off with everything of value in their meager possession, then you just might get that over in this political atmosphere.