What one can buy with vouchers is very much part of the debate. The
primary focus of vouchers is on the education for young people who are
of an age at which education is deemed to be compulsory. But much
debate has also been on the introduction of vouchers in tertiary
education.
Anyway, before I start guiding the debate too much, let's see what kind
of views are out there, what kind of sites do have relevant background
information, etc. Feel invited to reply if you have any contributions
to this debate.
Deborah
I would be happy to debate further on this issue
This is one reason why educational vouchers are introduced as vouchers,
rather than as financial grants. Vouchers can only be used for specific
purposes, which is to prevent that the funding is used by parents for
other purposes.
Whether families choose to use the vouchers to have their kids attend a
big school or a small school is up to the respective family to decide.
They may well choose a small school in the belief that is better (in
their view), yet the majority of kids go to another school. Vouchers
put this decision in the hands of the family, where it rightfully
belongs!
"Fair" seems to mean that everyone goes to the State monopoly school.
Such a condition means that the status quo is locked in. And why is
this "fair"? People are not equal (the same) in their interests or
abilities. School policies are designed by academics. The goals they
advance and the incentives they offer are foreign to many normal kids.
Training a mechanically or artistically inclined child for an academic
career using a transcript as an incentive is like teaching a cat to
swim, using carrots as a reward.
Why is the State (government, generally) in the education business at
all? Why schools and not bakeries, restaurants, or shoe stores? The
education business is not a natural monopoly, and there are no
economies of scale at the delivery end of the education business. The
"public goods" argument implies subsidy and regulation, at most, not
State operation of an industry.
I recommend Chubb and Moe __Politics, Markets, and America's Schools__,
and the recent Brookings study __Vouchers and the Provision of Public
Services__.
All that said, I prefer a policy I call "Parent Performance
Contracting" over school vouchers, since school vouchers are too
respectful of existing institutions. Let your Legislature mandate that
school districts --must-- hire parents, on personal service contracts,
to provide for their children's education. Make payment contingent on
performance at or above age-level expectations on standardized tests of
reading vocabulary, reading comprehension (any language) and Math. Make
payment equal to some fraction 1/2 < a/b < 1 of the district's
regular-ed per-pupil budget. Parents could then homeschool, hire
tutors, pool resources with other parents and hire a teacher,
supplement the stipend and send their kids to independent schools, or
decline the contract and send their kids to the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's
schools (the "public" schools). Maximum range of options, performance
and financial accountability, and minimal threat to the independence of
private schools.
MK. Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez, ["Organization and
Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical findings", pg. 16,
"Comparative Education", Vol. 36 #1, Feb 2000]. "Furthermore, the
regression results indicate that countries where private education is
more widespread perform significantly better than countries where it is
more limited. The result showing the private sector to be more
efficient is similar to those found in other contexts with individual
data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987; Jiminez, et. al, 1991).
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that
reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education".
>
Joshua Angrist, "Randomized Trials and Quasi-Experiments in Education
Research",___NBER Reporter___, summer, 2003.
http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer03/angrist.html
>
>
"...It is almost certainly more damaging for children to be in school
than to out of it. Children whose days are spent herding animals rather
than sitting in a clasroom at least develop skills of problem solving
and independence while the supposedly luckier ones in school are
stunted in their mental, physical, and emotional development by being
rendered pasive, and by having to spend hours each day in a crowded
classroom under the control of an adult who punishes them for any
normal level of activity such as moving or speaking. (DfID, 2000, pp
12, 13)" Quoted in Clive Harber, "Schooling as Violence",p. 10,
__Educatioinal Review__V. 54, #1.
>
"Violence at school is a prevalent problem. According to a national
survey of school proncipals (National Center for Educational
Statistics, 1998), over 200,000 serious fights or physical attacks
occurred in public schools during the 1996-1997 school year. Serious
violent crimes occurred in approximately 12% of middle schools and 13%
of high schools. Student surveys (Kann et al, 1995) indicate even
higher rates of aggressive behavior. Approximately 16.2% of high school
students nationwide reported involvement in a physical fight at school
during a 30-day period, and 11.8% reported carrying a weapon on school
property (Kann et al, 1995)."
"Research on victims of violence at school suggests that repeated
victimization has detrimental effects on a child's emotional and social
development (Batsche & Knoff, 1995; Hoover, Oliver, & Thomson, 1993;
Olweus, 1993). Victims exhibit higher levels of anxiety and depression,
and lower self-esteem than non-victims (eg., Besag, 1989; Gilmartin,
1987; Greenbaum, 1987; Olweus, 1993). [Karen Brockenbrough, Dewey G.
Cornell, Ann B. Loper, "Aggressive Attitudes Among Victims of Violence
at School", __Education and the Treatment of Children__, V. 25, #3,
Aug., 2002]
>
"Results showed that the over-representation of Black males that has
been cited consistently in the literature begins at the elementary
school level and continues through high school. Black females also were
suspended at a much higher rate than White or Hispanic females at all
three school levels." [Linda M. Raffaele Mendez, Howard M. Knoff;
__Education and the Treatment of Children__, V. 26, #1, Feb. 2003.
>
[Roland Meighan, "Home-based Education Effectiveness Research and
Some of its Implications",Educational Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995.]
"The issue of social skills. One edition of Home School Researcher,
Volume 8, Number 3, contains two research reports on the issue of
social skills. The first finding of the study by Larry Shyers (1992)
was that home-schooled students received significantly lower problem
behavior scores than schooled children. His next finding was that
home-schooled children are socially well adjusted, but schooled
children are
not so well adjusted. Shyers concludes that we are asking the wrong
question when we ask about the social adjustment of home-schooled
children. The real question is why is the social; adjustment of
schooled children of such poor quality?"
>
"The second study, by Thomas Smedley (1992), used different test
instruments but comes to the same conclusion, that home-educated
children are more mature and better socialized than those attending
school." ...p. 277
>
"12. So-called 'school phobia' is actually more likely to be a sign
of mental health, whereas school dependancy is a largely unrecognized
mental health problem"....p.281[Roland Meighan, "Home-based Education
Effectiveness Research and Some of its Implications",Educational
Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995.
>
"I'm sorry I have so much rage, but you put it in me." --Dylan Klebold
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
>
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky comment
on school. Please read this.)
http://www.educationevolving.org/pdf/Adolescence.pdf
http://www.educationevolving.org/clevel.asp?alevel=a2&blevel=b1
http://www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
http://www.worldbank.org/research/journals/wbro/obsfeb97/educate.htm
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/pdfs/economics%20of%20compulsion.pdf
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/
http://www.thegantelope.com/archives/cat_school_choice.html
http://www.policyreview.org/APR02/andrews.html
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=289
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/research/privateschools.html
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers.html
http://www.libertyindia.org/pdfs/tooley_education.pdf
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/
>
Here are some questions that will prompt us to think beyond vouchers.
Why should families without kids pay tax to fund the school habits of
other families? Also, vouchers still determine which type of activities
are funded, which implies government bureaucrats determining the
academic curriculum to a large extent. Apart from the curriculum, it
also implies setting standards for entry into certain professions.
Currently one cannot set up a practice as doctor or lawyer without
having certain degrees. One of the biggest closed-shops is the
education system itself.
Another area that must be looked at is the way universities,
specifically scientific research, is linked to the military-industrial
complex. Personally, I believe that too many people focus on relatively
easy and straitforward parts of the reform package (like vouchers),
without seeing the entire picture. Splitting up the military is just as
urgent, if not more urgent, than educational reform.
As far as I know, families who homeschool don't get funding from
government. Should they also get vouchers, so they can spend the money
on computers, tutors, courses and educational resources?