Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!esco
From: esco@ssc-vax.UUCP (Michael Esco)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: corporal punishment in schools (
Message-ID: <177@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 21:56:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.177
Posted: Thu Sep  5 21:56:37 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Sep-85 00:36:13 EDT
References: <11254@rochester.UUCP> <7800424@inmet.UUCP> <722@cybvax0.UUCP>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 35

> In article <7800424@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes:
> > I suggest, though, a compromise, I'm not sure who invented it, but I got
> > it from Milton Friedman.  If we absolutely MUST tax people to pay for
> > schooling (I doubt this, but if the votes are there....) then perhaps we
> > should get the government out of the education-delivery system and
> > instead issue vouchers, cashable at schools which graduate students
> > capable of passing some standardized tests.
> 
> This system sounds too good to be true-- and is, once you consider the
> economics from the school's point of view.  To maximize profits, a school
> that depends solely on vouchers will try to:
> 1)  Select only students who can be taught with the minimum expenditure.
> 2)  Spend as little on subjects that aren't tested as possible.
> 3)  Teach as little about a subject as is necessary to get students to pass
>     the tests.  (This would probably also discourage teaching understanding,
>     since it is more difficult to test for understanding rather than rote.)
> 
> The fact is that privitizing education shows one major possible benefit:
> economy.  It has many possible problems: overall decrease in quality of
> education, social stratification, and neglect of the costly to educate.
> 
> Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

A couple of years back, Reason magazine did a story on the one state currently
using the voucher system (Vermont or New Hampshire, I believe). For decades
the state had been giving out vouchers allowing parents to send their
children to the public or private school of their choice, in or out of
the state. Not only did that state have one of the cheapest educational
systems in the country, but one of the highest scoring on national achievement
tests. 

As far as I'm concerned, the arguments that the voucher system won't fly,
won't fly themselves.

						Michael Esco