Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
John Markley
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 months ago
in Libertarian Democraphobia on Will Wilkinson
After reading the comments here, I'm once again struck by how frequently attacks on libertarianism (especially though not exclusively those made by liberals) seem to incorporate some variant of "haha you're a loser/nerd/virgin." Then again, given the similarities in their reasoning ability, emotional maturity, and moral development, the fondness of so many American liberals for the sort of insults tossed around by 8th grade bullies seems quite appropriate.
2 replies
uknowbetter
Who needs enemies when you got friends like Will?
If that doesn't make you anti-social, I don't know what does.
If that doesn't make you anti-social, I don't know what does.
4 months ago
in Barriers to Effective Schooling on Will Wilkinson
Paul G. Brown,
Generally, the idea of vouchers is to give people more choice in which school their child attends, not provide them with the option to voluntarily donate more to the government schools, on top of what they already pay in taxes, in order to (hopefully) improve them while continuing to protect them from meaningful competition. If a restaurant in my town is unsanitary, being allowed to bring in a cleaning crew at my own expense is not the same thing as being able to take my money and spend it dining elsewhere.
This is a basic distinction. Someone who chooses to characterize support for vouchers as "boo yarr suxx0r5 we get to fire teecherz!" is the last person to be in any sort of position to chastise someone else for their supposed failure to offer "a serious response to the issue."
Generally, the idea of vouchers is to give people more choice in which school their child attends, not provide them with the option to voluntarily donate more to the government schools, on top of what they already pay in taxes, in order to (hopefully) improve them while continuing to protect them from meaningful competition. If a restaurant in my town is unsanitary, being allowed to bring in a cleaning crew at my own expense is not the same thing as being able to take my money and spend it dining elsewhere.
This is a basic distinction. Someone who chooses to characterize support for vouchers as "boo yarr suxx0r5 we get to fire teecherz!" is the last person to be in any sort of position to chastise someone else for their supposed failure to offer "a serious response to the issue."
2 replies
Paul G. Brown
How do "vouchers" create more "choice" than the current system does? Think about this from an economic perspective. Vouchers can't mean there will be any more schools of the same quality. Under a voucher system, the state will provide each parent with a check out of tax revenue. The idea is that parents then choose the school at which they spend that check.
Yet as with any endeavour, there are economies of scale in schools. Given that the voucher stipend is fixed per parent, and given that there are the same number of parents with or without a voucher system, all other things being equal, why would there be any more schools to choose from? If you want more schools, then you need to concede that these new smaller schools will all be worse choices--from a bang-for-buck point of view--than the original system provided. (Assuming the existing system is moderately efficient - but then, there's no reason to believe the replacement would bring any improvement. )
To put it another way, I don't see how changing the mechanism by which money moves from tax revenues to teacher's salaries can, by itself, create choice. This has always bothered me about "vouchers". It's seems just as likely that we would arrive at a false choice. By analogy, a dozen brands of gasoline or laundry soap, all the products of identical industrial processes.
OK. No fewer schools then. Perhaps more choice because existing schools try to differentiate in other ways. Different schools trying to attract students by emphasizing different programs. Art & Music, or Math & Science, or Sport, etc.
And what I am pointing out is that 'the system' is responding in precisely this way. It's evolutionary change; tentative and highly conservative. But it is responding. Public schools are specializing in the manner I described. Magnet schools, open school programs, athletics programs. Parents have access to more information about schools, and aren't (at least in my school district) compelled to make zone based choices. This seems to me to be improving school choice while at the same time getting the same bang-for-buck out of taxpayer dollars.
And no, John. Bringing in your own cleaning crew is not the same as simply choosing to eat somewhere else. But schools aren't restaurants.
Granted, the education system is not adapting fast enough. I've chosen my daughter's school (in part) because the state stipend is the same everywhere, but at least there I get to pool my money with other parents who've choosen what we wish to emphasize in our kid's education.
Yet as with any endeavour, there are economies of scale in schools. Given that the voucher stipend is fixed per parent, and given that there are the same number of parents with or without a voucher system, all other things being equal, why would there be any more schools to choose from? If you want more schools, then you need to concede that these new smaller schools will all be worse choices--from a bang-for-buck point of view--than the original system provided. (Assuming the existing system is moderately efficient - but then, there's no reason to believe the replacement would bring any improvement. )
To put it another way, I don't see how changing the mechanism by which money moves from tax revenues to teacher's salaries can, by itself, create choice. This has always bothered me about "vouchers". It's seems just as likely that we would arrive at a false choice. By analogy, a dozen brands of gasoline or laundry soap, all the products of identical industrial processes.
OK. No fewer schools then. Perhaps more choice because existing schools try to differentiate in other ways. Different schools trying to attract students by emphasizing different programs. Art & Music, or Math & Science, or Sport, etc.
And what I am pointing out is that 'the system' is responding in precisely this way. It's evolutionary change; tentative and highly conservative. But it is responding. Public schools are specializing in the manner I described. Magnet schools, open school programs, athletics programs. Parents have access to more information about schools, and aren't (at least in my school district) compelled to make zone based choices. This seems to me to be improving school choice while at the same time getting the same bang-for-buck out of taxpayer dollars.
And no, John. Bringing in your own cleaning crew is not the same as simply choosing to eat somewhere else. But schools aren't restaurants.
Granted, the education system is not adapting fast enough. I've chosen my daughter's school (in part) because the state stipend is the same everywhere, but at least there I get to pool my money with other parents who've choosen what we wish to emphasize in our kid's education.
alphie
You can't deny that the Republicans' hatred of teachers' unions is a driving factor behind the push for vouchers, John.
haha you're a loser/nerd/virgin.
I seem to recall that the Rick Santelli rant was about losers, that the Obama cabinet has Stephen Chu (Nobel prize callibre nerd) and that virginity was a good thing.
Clearly I need to clear my in-tray more often than I do ....